iSixSigma

transactional lean six sigma

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General transactional lean six sigma

Viewing 59 posts - 1 through 59 (of 59 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #37947

    LOA
    Participant

    What is “transactional lean six sigma?”

    0
    #112870

    Ken Feldman
    Participant

    Could be Six Sigma integrated with Lean tools applied in a transaction based organization like a bank as opposed to a manufacturing organization.

    0
    #112876

    Van Loon
    Participant

    If you look at either Six Sigma, or Lean, they tend to be processed-based. In many ways banks, the insurance industry, and research organizations can benefit greatly by either Transactional Six Sigma, or by Transactional Lean Manufacturing.

    0
    #112878

    Mikel
    Member

    It’s jsut a bunch of words from hype masters. Ask the people saying this to you what it means. If it does not come back that it is a way to understand clearly how a process is running and then improving it, they don’t know what they are doing.
    All the hype and all of the extra descriptors are meaningless.

    0
    #112879

    Van Loon
    Participant

    Okay, let’s break this down:
    1) Transactional: A process that is administrative in nature, as opposed to manufacturing.
    2) Lean: A philosophy that attempts to remove waste from a process.
    3) Six Sigma: A problem-solving, analysis and project management methodology to lower process defects.
    Put the three together, and you get a methodology to apply a philosophy to a process.

    0
    #112882

    Rhonda
    Member

    Interesting topic since I think “transitional” applies to the type of project  I am working on.  Are the tools or methodologies different with transitional projects vs. Lean or Six Sigma?
    Curious, Rhonda

    0
    #112884

    Ken Feldman
    Participant

    I know what a transactional project is but what is a “transitional” project?

    0
    #112886

    Mikel
    Member

    Meaningless drivel

    0
    #112887

    Mikel
    Member

    Isn’t a “transitional” project what Bof A assigned to you a few weeks ago?

    0
    #112888

    Ken Feldman
    Participant

    True, but it was combined with a DFSS project, so overall the transitional project was made more successful.
     
    DFSS (designed for satisfactory severance)

    0
    #112889

    Rhonda
    Member

    Darth… I am sorry.  It was a typo.  I meant Transactional. 
    And just fyi.. this is not drivel… I really am serious in understanding the difference in Transactional projects vs. Lean or Six Sigma ones.  Any information you can provide would be very appreciated. 
    Rhonda 

    0
    #112892

    Van Loon
    Participant

    I don’t think it is drivel. However, I think you might not be grasping what we’ve been saying, and that’s okay. Transactional relates to the process. It describes a type of process. Lean is a way of thinking, a philosophy. Six Sigma describes a methodology.
    A “lean” project may involve any number of tools; value stream mapping, 5-S, etc. They are normally designed to identify and eliminate waste from a process. That process can be either manufacturing, or administrative (transactional).
    A “Six Sigma” project uses the DMIAC methodology to identify and eliminate variation from a process. Once again, there are a number of tools (although different from lean) used in the methodology.
    You can apply either lean principles (the philosophy), or Six Sigma methodology to a transactional process. Transactional Lean Six Sigma attempts to incorporate Six Sigma methodology into the Lean philosophy, as it applies to an administrative (transactional) process.
    Is it any clearer?

    0
    #112893

    Ken Feldman
    Participant

    Figured it was a typo.  Stan said it was drivel, not me.  Lean projects primarily deal with waste and speed.  Six sigma focuses on defects and variation.  Of course those are artificial distinctions and a well analyzed project will deal with both regardless of what you call it.  The application to manufacturing vs nonmanufacturing (transactional) is pretty similar yet you have the usual challenges of applying some of the tools in nonmanufacturing.  Nonmanufacturing data is usually discrete so the statistical tools are a little more challenging.  Inventory is rarely an issue in nonmanufacturing yet WIP is a big issue.  More people issues than capital equipment issues in transactional.  My suggestion is not to try and make the differences a big issue.  Apply the tools and methodology as appropriate.

    0
    #112894

    Mikel
    Member

    It is drivel. A process is a process. Transactional only applies where? No place that I know of and I’ve been doing it for > 20 years now. It is just like the folks that want to make a big deal out of the difference between Lean and Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma.
    The truth is that most “transactional” Lean Six Sigma projects(really means non-manufacturing which means the geniuses not in manufacturing figured out it applies to them too) are really just reengineering or at best Lean projects in the beginning. Why? Because you start with the basics and only do complexity when necessary.
    This is not rocket science and “transactional” is nothing special.
    Does anyone know what % of the normal manufacturing process is “transactional”?

    0
    #112895

    Mikel
    Member

    I say …
    oh dern – it doesn’t work in print does it?
    Or was that Dan Quayle and potatoe?
     

    0
    #112896

    Rhonda
    Member

    Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.  Yes, I was misunderstanding your comments.
    I have worked as a BB in the health insurance field the last two years improving what you call transactional processes rather than stated manufacturing ones.  Its nice to know I can call it something now!  You have been very helpful! Since Six Sigma is new to my company/industry – we are trying to borrow and mold as many of the concepts of Six Sigma and Lean into our organization as we can — that are applicable.  It has been a challenge when some of the metrics are intangible.
    Today is the first day I have attempted to participate in any discussion so I apologize if I was slow on the go.  You have been very helpful. Thank you again!
    Rhonda

    0
    #112897

    Van Loon
    Participant

    Here is why I say it is not drivel, and it may be just a matter of perspective. Although I would agree that to a certain extent, trying to compartmentalize the issue might be a simple word game, the question asked was a real question. For someone with no lean, or 6s background, there is a lot of confusing stuff out there. Not everyone who visits a place like this is an “expert”. I can see where the questioner could read that you were calling the question stupid.Also, remember that there are many organizations out there that are completely transactional. As far as your question about the percent of manufacturing operations that are transactional, that varies greatly. I work with organizations who have less than 10% of the workforce in the “carpet” and I have others that have only 10% in the “concrete”. The percentage is irrelevant. As Darth pointed out each type of process has different obstacles. Transactional 6s will be applied far differently than manufacturing.

    0
    #112898

    Ken Feldman
    Participant

    I was OK with some of your last post until I got to the part that said “Transactional 6s will be applied far differently than manufacturing.”
    I am OK with differently but don’t agree with “far”.  It is the perception that it is so different that scares many away.  A process is a process and I don’t let the transactional folks use the excuse of “we don’t make widgets” to weasel out of appropriate applications.

    0
    #112899

    Van Loon
    Participant

    Alright, I will concede to remove the “far”. The point is that you can’t use the same tools the same way for transactional processes, just like you can’t use the same tools for a continuous flow process, as you would for a single part process. One size don’t fit all.
    Yes, perhaps “far” was stretching it a bit far.

    0
    #112901

    Brit
    Participant

    The only difference between a transactional project (six sigma or other) and anything else is just the type of business.  Six Sigma works in any type of business – transactional (banking, call centers, administrative healthcare, etc.), manufacturing, healthcare, distributions, etc.  The DMAIC process is the same, the tools are the same, the project selection is the same.  It doesn’t matter. The term transactional only means the type of business.

    0
    #112904

    Hector Leal
    Participant

    I work at a manufacturing company and I´m a Black Belt. Here we are around 33 black belts and only 7 are focused on the transactional part. Human Resources, Finance and Commercial. So, the percentage is 21%- Don´t know the exact number of projects of every black belt to have a better aproach.
    Regards

    0
    #112906

    Mikel
    Member

    I did not call the question stupid, I called the term stupid.
    As far as your answer to the % question, I will not call you answer stupid either – just completely uninformed. Transactional is not the stuff in the office (or carpet as you said). It is all of the stuff that is not actually transfoming the product and it is about 60% in the BEST manufacturing organizations.

    0
    #112907

    Mikel
    Member

    Which tools do you use differently?

    0
    #112908

    Sigmabb99
    Member

    Rhonda, I did SS in manufacturing, and am now doing it in healthcare insurance.  Would be interested in networking with you, if you’re interested. 
    My E-mail: [email protected]

    0
    #112915

    Van Loon
    Participant

    Stan wrote: I did not call the question stupid, I called the term stupid.
    As far as your answer to the % question, I will not call you answer stupid either – just completely uninformed. Transactional is not the stuff in the office (or carpet as you said). It is all of the stuff that is not actually transfoming the product and it is about 60% in the BEST manufacturing organizations.

    Why do you say I am “completely uninformed”? I’ve worked in and with manufacturing since the ’70s. I’m not sure where you are, but around these parts “carpet” is a term used to describe all non-production activities, not necessarily things in the office. Once again, depending on the size of the organization, and their activities, the percentage swings widely. It does not mean one is “BEST” and one is “WORST”. It just means they are different. Some organizations consider design to be “carpet” and others consider the same activity to be “concrete”. This is “user defined” stuff, and to make the comment “completely uninformed”, in itself is quite telling.

    0
    #112916

    Van Loon
    Participant

    Stan wrote: Which tools do you use differently?

    A number of folks have brought this up. In a way it was a miss-speak. There are a variety of tools used during the various stages of 6s. The tools used will depend on the stage, and the circumstances. A process is a process, however, if all you have is a hammer everything will look like a nail. The tool used need to be appropriate. Different processes will require different tools. For example; it might be easy to use x-bar chart in one instance, and impossible in another. So, I was probably being over-simplistic in my answer, and for that I apologize.
    I try to remember that there are many different levels of understanding here. Some are clueless, and much of the discussion is over their heads. Other are well-versed, experienced and wise. Others are wise-guys.

    0
    #112917

    Mikel
    Member

    Jan,
    I don’t really want to get into a contest with you.
    Go look at the activity in any manufacturing organization – less that half is the actual transformation of servie or product. If you go run projects in the bigger half they are by definition “transactional” and will have the same nuiances as all of the other “transactional” projects.
    The idea that we need to label something Transactional Lean Six Sigma is just coddling the idea that our organization is different – your organization is not different.
    You have customers – understand their needs.
    You have processes – understand how they work and get rid of the stupid stuff and then make value flow – this will require mostly the tools of Lean as responsiveness to your customer’s needs is the nmber 1 CTQ – you may need Six Sigma type tools where variation is in the way of responsiveness – also make sure your technology is appropriate.
    You have strategies – value added growth and efficiency.
    The only places that this is not true is in the unique markets where being first to market is everything. Those markets are few and far between right now. The other exception is privately owned companies that are throwing off enough cash to fund lifestyles.
    All the other stuff is just a bunch of hype.

    0
    #112921

    Van Loon
    Participant

    Okay Stan…I’m not going to argue….because I agree with everything you just posted. In certain ways, I was trying to say about the same thing, but this post of yours said it better than I could have. So perhaps I wasn’t “completely uninformed”, as much as I was failing to get my point across.

    0
    #112975

    Dog Sxxt
    Participant

    In manufacturing your are mainly dealing with material while in transactional/service, you are mainly dealing with information. I always call service operation as information factory.
     
     

    0
    #112977

    Dog Sxxt
    Participant

    I was using DMAIC for lean project,  so can I can call it as Six Sigma type project?
    Off-topic as my usual style. I noticed George Group is using Lean DMAIC in their latest cook book. I hope they don’t patent it and claim theirs since I had used the term in this forum for many many months ago. :-)

    0
    #112978

    Mikel
    Member

    The George Group is just a bunch of hype. I don’t think you can patent hype (but you can trademark it).

    0
    #112984

    Ken Feldman
    Participant

    They are great promotors and as we all know, books are a great marketing tool and right or wrong, establish credibility with the buying public.  The establishment of a catchy tag line is marketing 101.  The proof of whether something is all hype or has substance lies in whether the “product” has staying power and whether the customer sees and achieves value in its use.  Apparently they have captured somebody’s attention since their business is growing quickly and with a pretty sophisticated and knowledgeable client base.

    0
    #112987

    Mikel
    Member

    Sucker – I knew you would go for that one.

    0
    #112989

    Dayton
    Member

    No, transactional project opportunities are not limited to your description.  It is not solely a demarcation by primary business type.  You can and do have many transactional activities in manufacturing businesses.  Certainly you have manufacturing processes to improve but the direct manufacturing portion of the business is supported by many transactional functions, e.g., sales, marketing, finance, supply chain, etc., that are perfect examples of transactional activities and fertile ground for transactional projects.  Some large manufacturing operations have been wrung dry of low hanging fruit through years of cost reduction programs yet their support functions remain excessively burdened with nonessential overhead.  That’s where I believe Six Sigma can play an instrumental role in changing our thinking and our accepted business paradigms.  It’s all about processes – understand them and make them better.
     Vinny

    0
    #112991

    Ken Feldman
    Participant

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.  After the BOA debacle, I have no employer to champion so I figured I might as well start anew with the New Year and all.

    0
    #112996

    Mestre
    Participant

    The differences matter most in a job interview with a service organization who knows little about 6S and Lean. Application approach is slightly different because, in general, folks in manufacturing have had a higher level of exposure to the tools in the past…

    0
    #113105

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Jan,
    To quote Stan “What nonsense.”
    Compartmentalizing things as Transactional, Lean, SS, etc is 100% NVA. It is process improvement period and no compartment owns any tool just like no acronym owns any tools. When you add fuel to this compartmentalization fire you are the one that has just added a level of complexity to a relatively simple issue.
    You apply a tool where ity makes sense to apply it, period. This isn’t that hat thing from De Bono. Got on my red hat so I am doing SS. Oops that is a lean tool need to get the blue hat. That is completely ridiculous. What value was added by even spending a nanosecond trying to figure out what compartment the tool came from?
    It is hype. It isn’t even good hype – it is marketing junk that George as used to breath some life back into a pretty mediocre contribution to business. The worst part is he has the audacity to act arrogant about it. Next time you seem him do his canned junk at a conference and he does the “I’ll derive that formula for you” routine – raise your hand and ask.
    Just my opinion.
    Good luck.

    0
    #113107

    Al
    Participant

    Mike,
    What is the typical Best in Class range for the
    Value Added/Non-Value Added =, metric.
    I would appreciate tour comment on this.
    Best Regards,
    Al

    0
    #113129

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Al,
    I apologize for being a little dense this morning – mostly because it is still morning. I am not sure exactly what you are looking for.
    My interpretation (although it doesn’t feel right) is you are looking for the ratio of something like VA time to NVA time or VA distance to Total distance?
    Regards,
    Mike

    0
    #113130

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Jan,
    I spent a fair amount of time thinking about this last night because I wasn’t satisfied with my response to your post.
    When you truncate tools because you are “transactional” or whatever excuse is being used to dumb-down the tools you cut off options for the Belts and consequently for the organization. During the ASQ Roundtable panel discussion in Ft Lauderdale last October I was on a panel with another person from a “transaction” environment. She made the statement that she would not waste the companies funds training her Belts on Variable gage R&R. That sounds very business like on the surface but you are really stepping over dollars to pick up dimes – and the organization pays the bill on this one. 
    First teaching just R&R is a problem – they need to understand MSA and what the difference is. Now if you only teach Attribute R&R you have just truncated the knowledge of your belts – they not only do not get the variable side but they are also missing linearity, bias, and stability. Granted there is not much in the way of variable data in a typical transaction environment but that does not mean that there should not be at least if there is a CTQ. As long as the transaction world is allowed to muddle along in their attribute fog they will forfit the advantage of increased confidence with smaller samples in their decision making. If you do not understand that strategy and only allow people to use the attribute side they they have lost a lot of tools in terms of hypothesis testing and DOE.
    A Belt needs to understand options and options are a function of tools – not just statistical tools but the tool sets from all sorts of disciplines such as Lean, Activity Based Costing, Change Management, etc. When you build your little compartments you cut of knowledge and options. You are suboptimizing the process for the sake of the compartments which at the end of the day are NVA. Where is the logic in that? What benifit have you brought to the organization?
    One of the most devisive things you can do to a deployment is to set up a lean group and a SS group with different metrics. That creates turf wars and there is never a benefit to an organization with a stupid strategy driven by management tryin to optimize two different bonuses based on what should be common work.
    Just my opinion.
    Good luck.

    0
    #113133

    Al
    Participant

    Mike,
    Thanks for the clarification, and your time.
    During the Measure Phase we developed a  Value Stream Map of the the Process, at the end we determined which activities add value (VA) and which ones are considered non-value add (NVA)
    This way we determined VA/NVA, and used it to analyze the process to increase capacity, reduce process lead time, identify and eliminate hidden costs that do not add value for the customer.
    Somebody from Corporate mention that Best in class companies target that VA/NVA ratio before and after the improvement and that there is a target range for that ratio?
    Best Regards.
     

    0
    #113136

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Al,
    I will give you what we do and it really doesn’t fit with the corporate guys BIC ratio. Obviously BIC is equal to 1. You may want to consider another catagory – NVA but necessary (this depends on the view – it may be a control mechanism for the business but the end customer doesn’t gain benefit). You can actually use red,yellow, green to color code the process map for a pretty good visual in management presentations.
    If we are driving plant capacity issues we tend to use distance. We use the entire distance – bringing material to the line, processing, and moving material to finished goods and shipping. That drives you to look at layout more than using time will. This takes a plantwide perspective because on a project by project basis you will move towards single point optimization. Just as an example – one customer was driving plant capacity. The product was between 8-10 feet in length and was queued up between operation horizontally. We used a huge amount of floor space to queues and the production lines were spread out and caused congestion. We got a lot of room to work and a fast hit on improvement by queueing vertically. If we would have used time only it would never have shown up as an issue.
    If we are addressing OTD or customer responsiveness we use time.
    In both situations you can calculate entitlement – the best you can do with the process you have. For some reason at Motorola we set an arbitrary target of 50% improvement between where we are and entitlement and we still use it to get started. It seems to be a big enough gap that it shakes people up and lets them know that the traditional 10% window dressing effort isn’t the way business is being done any longer. We have never set up the ratios but it would be an easy calculation once you have calculated entitlement.
    There is another site that may have the ratio benchmarks (http://www.Lean.org). I am not sure they are really relevant as much as understanding the gap and driving closure to entitlement.
    I am not sure that has helped very much.
    Regards,
    Mike

    0
    #113149

    Al
    Participant

    Mike,
    Thank you very much for your assistance.
    Great help!
    Regards,
    Al

    0
    #113190

    BeenThereDoneThat
    Participant

    Mike:
    I did raise my hand and ask once. We were at a conference in Toronto. You were at the back of the room while he was pitching his ‘Lean Six Sigma for Service’ book.The reply went through four stages
    – the handwaving was quite amusing during the talk
    – the discussion afterwards was evasive
    – his http://www.profisight.com site does not contain the derivation promised in the book
    – the patent number referred to on P.131 in his book is a game board design filed on May 1, 1984 by W. Hoffman (US patent 519,041). The game consists of a number of pegs that are moved around a series of concentric circles. The point of the game escapes me, but seems poetically ironic.
    – I found that George does have a patent numbered 5,195,041 that states formulae with no derivation.http://www.uspto.gov/ – do a quick search for patents filed before 1976What is the transactional Gage R&R for a typographical error to a patent that does not contain reliable information?Smoke and mirrors!

    0
    #113359

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    BeenThereDoneThat,
    Sorry for the delay in the response. Nice post.
    I remember the conference – I think – there were a couple. I was with John Lupienski who had similar results to yours when he questioned him after the 45 minutes of, in my opinion, pure drivel.
    I notice the offer to derive formulas right there on stage was blown by pretty quickly as well.
    A Patent on a formula – I have never heard of a patent on a formula. It is specifically not allowed under copyright. I think that was the point where I got nauseous. The books do sell whatever that comment means.
    The amount of plain self serving nonsense is increasing in the market – but maybe that is why we are picking up some deployment rework deployments – that doesn’t sound correct. All the jacked up stuff that tries to make this stuff complicated is a waste of time. Most processes are screwed up enough that doing some basics from Six Sigma and some basics from Lean will cause such a quantum leap in the business improvement picture that you don’t need all the extra arm waving (thank you Ray Everhart – for the arm waving saying).
    Regards,
    Mike

    0
    #113360

    Dayton
    Member

    Formulas can’t be patented?    What then of this patent abstract for a strengthened public key protocol?
     
    A cryptosystem utilizes the properties of discrete logs in finite groups, either in a public key message exchange or in a key exchange and generation protocol. If the group selected has subgroups of relatively small order, the message may be exponentiated by a factor of the order of the group to place the message in a subgroup of relatively small order. To inhibit such substitution, the base or generator of the cryptosystem is chosen to be a generator of a subgroup of prime order or a subgroup of an order having a number of relatively small divisors. The message may be exponentiated to each of the relatively small divisors and the result checked for the group identity. If the group identity is found, it indicates a vulnerability to substitution and is rejected.
     
    Wasn’t patent 5,933,504 granted for a whopper of a formula? 
     
    If you take a basic definition of an algorithm as: a step-by-step problem-solving procedure, especially an established, recursive computational procedure for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.
     
    And compare a definition of a formula as: a group of symbols that make a mathematical statement and used as examples the (public domain available) mathematical formulas for trigonometric, hyperbolic, logarithmic, integration, roots of polynomials and/or infinite series formulas in a unique applied state couldn’t you meet the basic criteria of an algorithm?   Hence in certain applications be patentable?  
     
    I’m not a patent attorney but distinguishing between a unique patentable algorithm and that of a uniquely applied mathematical model comprised of public domain access formulas or a uniquely derived formula or series of formulas might get dicey.  I’d say your main concern is demonstration of unique application.
     Vinny

    0
    #113364

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Vinny,
    That was an incredibly long post to get down to the pertinent part of your post – you aren’t a patent attorney.

    0
    #113374

    Dayton
    Member

    No.   You missed the pertinent part of the post.  An applied formula can certainly be patentable.  Just as you probably missed the point made by the presenter regarding the application of his formula.
    Vinny
     

    0
    #113377

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Vinny,
    Lets see Vinny we are back to you standard. I – at least two someone elses missed the point – or so you have decided without hearing the presentation and with both of the other two someone elses asking direct questions and neither getting a satisfactory answer. That was arrived by a vision? telepathy?
    And your law degree is from? or you have patents on how many formulas?

    0
    #113383

    Dayton
    Member

    You made the statement:
     
    A Patent on a formula – I have never heard of a patent on a formula. It is specifically not allowed under copyright. I think that was the point where I got nauseous. The books do sell whatever that comment means.
     
    I offered a qualifier that an applied formula or algorithm could be, under certain circumstances patented.  With the deliberate and multiple use of the action word “applied” to frame contextual usage for you.   I came to that conclusion via research.  You might try it yourself prior to taking things to a personal level.    No, as I stated previously I am not an attorney, but I am a researcher.   Are you a researcher?    Staying within your experience base of Six Sigma deployment might help you sustain credibility.   When you leave your area of expertise and make blanket pronouncements with the same bullish confidence you use in describing the applied Six Sigma body of knowledge you potentially lead others astray.
     Vinny 

    0
    #113388

    Lawrence /ssbb
    Participant

    Is it possible to integrate Lean to Six  Sigma?What would  you call the  outcome?What about Kaizen  and JIT?Thank You.

    0
    #113398

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Lawrence,
    You need to get a copy of “Lean Thinking”. You will find that the idea if a breakthrough strategy integrated into Lean is not new. It is part of the Toyota Production system as is Kaizen. JIT is also part of the system but it is the result of the other steps in the process not the beginning where so many people try to place it.
    Good luck.
     

    0
    #113399

    Lawrence SSGB
    Participant

    Thank you Mike  for your “wrapping-up”.How to obtain a  copy of the  “Lean Thinking”?Is it  available  at  ASQ?Who is  the  author/Publisher?I appreciate your attitude to advice .Regards

    0
    #113400

    MudaSensei
    Participant

    Lean Thinking:
    Author:  James P Womack and Daniel T Jones
    Publisher: Touchstone Books
    You will probably get it on amazon.com
     

    0
    #113401

    Lawrence SSGB
    Participant

    Thank You

    0
    #113416

    John H.
    Participant

    Mike & Vinny
    From my brief readings on the subject of mathematical formulas and patents, it appears that you are both correct. i.e, the mathematical formula itself is not subject to patent protection but its application(ex: algorithm, method, process, system,…) can be.
    Just my opinion and I am not a patent attorney.
    John H.
     
     

    0
    #113420

    BeenThereDoneThat
    Participant

    Mike:
    Yes, you were at the back of the room with John. It was fun to see George react to the questions.As for the rest of everyone, a patent is granded to an invention, method, or apparatus. The ‘formulae’ is part of a method, hence an algorithm can be patented. This patent applies to software.My point in the post was that the elusive derivations are nowhere to be seen in the patent, written to optimize a linear process for manufacturing circuit boards.An example of a formula is:ProcessingTime = InitialProcessingTime + %Rework*ReworkProcessingTimePretty heady stuff!Quotes from the patent make for fun reading.”Unfortunately, decision makers often rely more on intuition than on accurate analysis.”
    “Because of its elegantly simple solution to a very complex problem,…”
    “The accuracy of the program’s simulation is limited by the modeler’s insight and understanding of the process.”He goes on to explain the frequent limitations caused by not having access to the correct data. Perhaps George has the patent on Gage R&R.”To improve the efficiency of manufacturing processes in a factory, an analytical tool simple and easy enough to be used by non-expert programmers is needed for accurately modeling the manufacturing process, identifying the steps or processes which are candidates for improvement, and determining the character and quantity of improvement.” George has the patent on Six Sigma too!Wow!We use the term ‘Patent medicine’ in one context, perhaps we should call this one ‘Patent lean Six Sigma.’

    0
    #113424

    Anonymous
    Guest

    I think you’ll find that it depends in what ‘territory’ the application is made.
    By the way, in 1990, 12% of Motorola’s SPS profits came from licensing its patents. The patents covered both process improvement methods and circuits. Patent works engineers could write a complete patent specification, including claims in about two weeks. Prior to the experiment, it took a patent agent six weeks to draft an application.
    Andy

    0
    #113426

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Further to my previous email, there is an interesting story behind Motorola’s patent works.
    In about 1986, Motorola decided to align itself with a different Japanese manufacturer, as part of the Cherokee project. The ‘divorce’ created some bad feeling so when the previous partner found an interesting pipeline register on the HC11 reticles they promptly patent it and went to see a judge in a small town in South Texas. The judge promptly shut down Motorola’s microprocessor fabs and Macintosh for about three weeks, and everyone had to take extra leave.
    A short time later, members of the same company were arrested on a flight out of San Hose, where they were found to be carrying a briefcase full of IBM secrets.
    Andy

    0
Viewing 59 posts - 1 through 59 (of 59 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.