To Stan From Reigle
Six Sigma – iSixSigma › Forums › Old Forums › General › To Stan From Reigle
- This topic has 40 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 1 month ago by
SSNewby.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 5, 2004 at 10:25 pm #35453
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Stan: The 1.5 Sigma Shift Debate has now been finalized
and set for Monday, July 26, 2004. All of the
arrangements have been made. The debate will begin at
9:00 AM and be located on-campus at Arizona State
University, Ira Fulton School of Engineering. You will find
the room number at the reception desk. You will need to
submit your white paper not later than July 19, 2004 to Mr.
Jeff Goss, Director, Center for Professional Development,
Arizona State University. This will provide sufficient time
for the referees to review your technical white paper and
prepare their cross-examination questions. If you decide
not to participate, then as a courtesy, please let me know
ASAP so the arrangements can be cancelled.0May 5, 2004 at 10:34 pm #99796Could you provide some background/details on this debate? Is it all about 1.5 sigma shift?
0May 5, 2004 at 10:39 pm #99797
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Mike: With all due respect, the debate will be a closed
session. The referees opinions will be published in a
white paper for public consumption. Reigle Stewart0May 5, 2004 at 11:06 pm #99798Is Statman still debating too?? I haven’t seen or heard from him in a long time. Just curious.
0May 5, 2004 at 11:53 pm #99799
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Matt: Yes, Statman is still on the agenda unless I hear
otherwise. Reigle Stewart0May 6, 2004 at 2:17 am #99805I’m anxious to read the results.
0May 6, 2004 at 12:06 pm #99816
Ken FeldmanParticipant@DarthInclude @Darth in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Why the need for a closed debate? Can’t it at least be broadcast over the Internet? It would certainly be of more value if we saw it live and drew our own conclusions rather than rely on a paper and opinions of a panel.
0May 6, 2004 at 2:18 pm #99831Reigle,
You are on.
Assumptions for the white paper –
1) The operations philosophy is to always target critical process parameters. This means we have a statistically based decision process to resume the operation after any disruption.
2) We are using either SPC or a Poka-Yoke at each critical process parameter.
3) We are debating the logic of having the 1.5 shift permanently built into our conversion of attribute data. In other words, we are not debating whether a 1.5 shift can happen instantaneously, bet whether it is rational to assume the shift should be assumed to be permanent.
4) All processes are qualified with MSA and capability studies prior to use.
5) As a secondary issue, we can debate if the parlour tricks you use for justification of the shift have anything to do with anything other than misdirection.
I would like Mario Perez-Wilson, Mike Carnell, Steve Zinkgraf, Bill Ross, and Gary Cone also invited to the debate. All except Mario were employees 3 – 7 at SSA right after you.0May 6, 2004 at 2:44 pm #99834
Mike CarnellParticipant@Mike-CarnellInclude @Mike-Carnell in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Stan,
I am scheduled out of the country for that date but have time to work on changing it. I would like to suggest John Lupienski fill in if I cannot make it.
Regards,
Mike0May 6, 2004 at 4:18 pm #99849
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Stan: The aim of this debate is quite simple and highly
focused. You and Statman adamantly argued that Dr.
Harrys mathematics were theoretically wrong (as
presented in his new book Resolving the Mysteries of Six
Sigma). You stated over and over the shift factor was in
error and had no statistical basis. Dr. Harry has called
you out on this point. He has already made the
aforementioned book available to the referees. At this
point, the referees have not found the errors you say are
there. Dr. Harry has already made his initial oral defense.
The referees rendered an independent opinion previous
published on this site. The referees are now expecting
your mathematical counter arguments to his position (as
given in the book). You will make an oral defense of your
technical white paper, just like making an oral defense of
the written dissertation for a doctoral degree. It is very
simple prove Dr. Harrys mathematics wrong through
mathematics, not your normal qualitative process-based
rhetoric. I will guarantee you that these distinguished
referees will not accept any other form of argument.
Again, let me emphasize your white paper MUST be
focused on countering Dr. Harrys mathematical position
and then present your own mathematically-based
alternative position. Also note that the debate session is
closed. Like Dr. Harry, you will need to stand on your
own two feet without cheer leaders. You will have the
opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Harry about his position,
and he will have the same opportunity to cross-examine
you and your position. Do understand that your
assumptions of Poka-Yoke, SPC, CTQs, and the like
have little to do with the THEORETICAL basis for the shift
factor? This debate is not about operations, its about
the theoretical basis for a 1.5 sigma shift and is grounded
in mathematics, not process tools and practitioner
rehtoric. Reigle Stewart0May 6, 2004 at 4:54 pm #99854Just one point of clarification – Dr. Harry has not called me out – his lap dog Reigle has.
0May 6, 2004 at 4:58 pm #99855You will be missing out on good entertainment.
0May 6, 2004 at 5:15 pm #99858Stan,
Help me understand the point of this “debate”. Is it to prove or reject the theoretical foundation behind 1.5 sigma shift? Are you actually going to attend this debate or is this some kind of a late April fool day joke?
I personally never thought much of this 1.5 sigma shift concept. We keep saying “let the data speak for itself” and then we make some generalization like this for all processes known to mankind. I have always performed the data analysis based on what data I had without going to this long term, short term capability and 1.5 sigma shift unless I had reasons to believe that the data was representing a long term data.
0May 6, 2004 at 5:24 pm #99859
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Stan: Save the rhetoric, you are either in or out. I have
gone to a lot of work to make this event happen. Other
people have expended their time and made personal
commitments to make this event happen. This is not a
casual undertaking. The intent is to prepare a
professional set of documents worthy of full consideration
and subsequent publication. The position papers and
referees opinion papers will represent a milestone in the
progression of Six Sigma. Lets save everyone any further
loss of time and energy … if you are going to do this, then
lets move forward in a professional manner according to
the wishes of the referees. If you are not in compliance
with this or attempt to make a mockery out of it, you will
only embarrass yourself and our profession. Our intent is
to further the general body of knowledge, not sling mud
and opinions.0May 6, 2004 at 5:53 pm #99861Reigle, no rhetoric, I’m in. Pointing out that Dr. Harry has not actually done anything, especially call me out, is not rhetoric, just a statement of fact.
0May 6, 2004 at 6:20 pm #99862
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Stan: Very good. Please submitt your white paper to Mr.
Jeffrey S. Goss, Director, Center for Professional
Development, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering,
Arizona State University, PO Box 874411, Tempe,
Arizona, 85287-4411. The white paper is due to Mr. Goss
NLT July 19, 2004. Thank you. Reigle Stewart.0May 6, 2004 at 6:56 pm #99864Please provide a link (or equivalent) to the referees’ published decision.
0May 6, 2004 at 7:07 pm #99865My question is who selected the referees?? Is there bias in the judging? Why not have a panel of refs selected by all parties included in the debate? You know Reigle, if this doesn’t happen, there won’t be much weight placed on the decisions. At least not from the group I’m with anxiously awaiting the outcome. It will just be dismissed as more Dr. Harry hocus-pocus (not my opinion), but you know that will happen. IMHO.
0May 6, 2004 at 7:57 pm #99866
Ken FeldmanParticipant@DarthInclude @Darth in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Who are these esteemed referees and what are their qualifications? If we are to accept their opinions as gospel, I want to be confident that they are sufficiently qualified to make a judgement. Thanks.
0May 6, 2004 at 8:41 pm #99871
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Darth: There will be two referees. First, Dr. Douglas C.
Montgomery, Professor of Engineering, Ira A. Fulton
School of Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe,
Arizona. As commonly known, Dr. Montgomery is a world-
renowned statistician and engineer. He has published
many books and articles on the subject of mathematical
statistics, quality engineering, design-of-experiments, and
statistical process control methods. Second, Dr. J. Bert
Keats, Professor Emeritus, Engineering, Ira A. Fulton
School of Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe,
Arizona. Dr. Keats is a recognized expert in reliability
engineering and applied statistics and has published
several books on these subjects. Their credential may be
viewed at the following web addresses Dr.
Montgomery — http://www.eas.asu.edu/~masmlab/
montgomery Dr. Keats — http://www.eas.asu.edu/
~masmlab/keats0May 6, 2004 at 8:44 pm #99873
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Darth: Sorry on the web address. For some reason, the
system did not pick up the full address. Dr. Montgomerys
credentials http://www.eas.asu.edu/~masmlab/
montgomery Dr. Keats credentials http://
http://www.eas.asu.edu/~masmlab/keats Reigle Stewart.0May 6, 2004 at 8:48 pm #99874
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.http://www.eas.asu.edu/~masmlab/montgomery is the
address for Dr. Montgomery. Sorry for the posting
problem. Reigle0May 6, 2004 at 8:51 pm #99875
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Darth: If you review the credentials of Dr. Montgomery
and Dr. Keats (from previous post), I do believe you will
find their qualifications more than sufficient. Reigle.0May 6, 2004 at 9:00 pm #99876In the spirit of fairness, I think Stan and Statman should be able to select judges as well. This all feels one sided to me – in my humble opinion.
0May 6, 2004 at 9:03 pm #99877
Ken FeldmanParticipant@DarthInclude @Darth in your post and this person will
be notified via email.No problem, good choice.
0May 6, 2004 at 9:07 pm #99880
Ken FeldmanParticipant@DarthInclude @Darth in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Reigle, since the debate will be at a high tech engineering school, can’t we observe via PictureTalk and/or a bridgeline so we can enjoy the action and not be disruptive.
0May 6, 2004 at 9:29 pm #99882
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Darth: I agree this would be nice. So would a lot of other
things that time and money can enhance. I have already
put in a lot of gratis hours, phone calls, and some
personal bucks in getting it to this point. The terms are
fixed, the dates set, the format established. Now, we will
let it unfold. As you can tell from the referee’s credentials,
they are not the types to tolerate any slight-of-hand or
rehtoric. Presumeably, Stan’s white paper will provide a
mathematical counter to Dr. Harry’s equations to
demonstrate theoretical error. Following this, both parties
will be given an opportunity for oral defense of their
documented positions. This means that the referees can
challenge any portion of their respective documents …
therein expecting clarification and mathematical
justification. Following this, each party may cross-
examine the other. The referees will then call a close to
the debate. Finally, they will issue their opinion. Dr.
Harry’s position has already been made public in the form
of his book. We now await Stan’s white paper. So, the
essence of the debate will be availible to all once the
opinions are issued. Reigle Stewart0May 6, 2004 at 10:14 pm #99885Well, about this “debate” . Riegle and his associates pick the referees. The location is in Arizona where the gang is from. This gives a whole new meaning to “home court advantage”.
Entertainment? Certainty
Value added debate? -?0May 6, 2004 at 11:26 pm #99886Stan,
It seems to me that this is being positioned away from the strength of your argument which is/was the appropriateness, applicability and validity of the use of a 1.5 sigma shift in operations and positioned in the direction of a theoretical back-calculation of the impact of the shift if the shift has occurred. Is the question one of mathematical feasibility or appropriateness in real-world application? I am concerned that the challenge [whichever way it goes] will not answer the real question.
SSNewby0May 6, 2004 at 11:31 pm #99887
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.SSNewby: Please take the time to review the numerous
posts that have been previously made on this subject. In
this way, you can gain a first-hand understanding of the
issue’s scope and depth. I would also suggest you read
the book to get it from the horses mouth. Reigle0May 7, 2004 at 1:53 am #99890Reigle,
I understand you have put in your own time and money. That’s great, and I’m sure Mikel Harry appreciates it. The fact still remains that you have selected people who are tied to Mikel Harry’s new venture through his SSMI company. So therefore, people who will be financially linked to Mikel Harry in the future are doing the judging. That does not appear fair to me, although I’m sure the two judges are of high integrity. Facts are facts.
So how can you fix this situation? Get someone (preferably two) who is impartial to join the panel. Who are you going to get? Why don’t you ask for one judge from each of the other two people who are going to be debating Mikel Harry. This solution only sounds fair and everyone will feel the results of the judging panel are fair and balanced.
R,Terry0May 7, 2004 at 2:09 am #99891I’ve been making this suggestion all day, but Reigle keeps dodging the question. I give up on that guy. He really lives in a “theoretical” world.
0May 7, 2004 at 2:54 am #99892
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Matt: Sorry you feel that way. Reigle Stewart
0May 7, 2004 at 3:04 am #99893
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Terry: Ok, so now you are the gatekeeper of what is “fair.”
Perhaps we should start the whole process all over so
you feel good. I am sure Stan is a big boy, he can handle
himself. These referees are apart of the best staistical
associations and journals in the world … I would believe
they know how to be impartial, don’t you think … or do you
now question their professionalism? Reigle Stewart.0May 7, 2004 at 3:06 am #99894
Reigle StewartParticipant@Reigle-StewartInclude @Reigle-Stewart in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Since I am not a part of the debate and given the debate
has been structured, set in place, and the terms accepted,
there is little need for further discussion. Reigle Stewart0May 7, 2004 at 8:04 am #99901According to you, I guess not. Very closed minded, but I guess that’s what we should have expected.
0May 8, 2004 at 1:46 am #99952
John H.Participant@John-H.Include @John-H. in your post and this person will
be notified via email.SSNewby
Your comment is right on Target! The debate should answer the question of the appropriateness of the 1.5 sigma shift in real world situations. An example moderator question can be found at
https://www.isixsigma.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=19588
John H.0May 8, 2004 at 1:59 am #99953
John H.Participant@John-H.Include @John-H. in your post and this person will
be notified via email.SSNewsby
Sorry!
Correction on the message ID it is ID=39789
John H.0May 8, 2004 at 4:04 am #99954Reigle,
What about Stan’s request that Mario Perez-Wilson, Mike Carnell, Steve Zinkgraf, Bill Ross, and Gary Cone attend the debate. Perhaps these gentlemen should be moderators! From what I have seen/heard, these people have all had a fair amount of experience actually doing some real work in the trenches. I would think that their opinion would be very valuable.0May 8, 2004 at 4:48 am #99955Forget it Jim. Reigle has dodged that since this thread started. This thing is so one sided – but Reigle is the only one who doesn’t see that.
Oh well, Stan and Statman are big boys.0May 8, 2004 at 5:33 pm #99961Agreed. Stan and Statman are well equipped for the debate. Thats the primary reason I did not respond further to Mr. Reigles condescending note back to me telling me to do my homework. Besides, with Mr. Reigle, all roads lead back to the good doctor anyway which is also somewhat annoying after awhile.
0 -
AuthorPosts
The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.