To Stan From Reigle

Stan: The aim of this debate is quite simple and highly
focused. You and Statman adamantly argued that Dr.
Harry’s 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. Harry’s 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. Harry’s 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 Stewart

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
referee’s 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.

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.

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/keats

“http://www.eas.asu.edu/~masmlab/montgomery” is the
address for Dr. Montgomery. Sorry for the posting
problem. Reigle

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. Reigle

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.