Evenin' all.
Nothing is wrong IMHO with statisticians making some money - the more the
better. In fact there is much that is right since the value attached to a
result is often related to the amount of money that was spent getting it.
If improving quality were ever to be paid by results, statisticians would
indeed be the richest folk around - and well deserved we would be too.
However in business and industry, this is very difficult to achieve. In
government it is easier I guess - which is why the desirability of, for
example, new computers is related to how much is spent on them rather than
how well the system is designed.
I guess like many on this list, I have many times sweated over complex
models, spent days, weeks or longer coding up and testing the ideas,
chewed over with colleagues whether my model really represented the
problem, whether it was statistically sound and capable of providing the
correct estimate to the correct question, to see the considered answers
given less weight than the 'arguments' of someone with a louder mouth or
more seniority.
On one occasion that I well recall, I had a pretty good model dismissed by
an egotist who considered his own scribblings as better - that removed 90%
of the central data so as to fit the tails among other statistical
disgraces. After a 2 hour technical argument - and I mean argument -
where he changed from a mathematician to a physicist to anything under the
sun when challenged on some aspect, the minutes were completely
unrepresentative. However at least there were some calculations to
challenge - and he was a very clever and numerate person. And of course
it is the minutes that count.
Elsewhere, it is a reflection of the regard for the discipline and
profession that those whose 'expert judgement' is merely guesswork or
worse prejudice are paid much more - if calculated on an hourly basis,
astronomically more.
I can think of one or two high profile legal cases here in the UK where
the Crown Prosecution Service, defence and prosecution legal teams and the
judges have been completely hoodwinked by innumerate and unchallenged
so-called expert opinion. Shame on them but where were the
statisticians?. I wonder how many are employed by the CPS? And if none,
why?
There are also countless occasions where being able to identify an exact
saving on the bottom line overrides all difficult to quantify benefits.
Again, the tick of an accountant's pen can turn profit into loss, all
essentially guesswork. What is the value of the work in progress, what
notional charge should be made for X? Should we use the carcass value of
a business or include goodwill and name? How much for this? How much
for that? etc etc.
Maybe one day these issues will get a proper airing and business and
industry will be knocking at our doors on bended knees, cheque books in
hand - better a roll of readies - for our numerate considerations. Or the
Sun will build a chimney to puff statistical smoke full of sigmas, betas
and kronecker products over Wapping because it has become completely
converted to numeracy ...
But that would of course mean that not only that organ's readers would
have to be able to count and work in high dimensions but so would the
journalists and management. A pig has just crashed into my chimney. So I
dream - as usual. In reality the models are too complex and difficult to
do properly in the timescales that an arbitrary budget allows. So
expediency wins. Why do we bother? I gather our American cousins say
something like - if you are so clever, why are you poor? They have a
point.
Roll on the rich pickings, say I! But it won't occur while we are in the
closet and not talking to the finance directors and managers of business
and industry. So why there are deficiencies in Six Sigma, let's get in on
the act. Or perhaps we should all become finance directors and business
people of course - now there's a thought.
Best wishes
John
PS Apologies to The Sun - I am not meaning to pick on it, it's employees
or it's readership. sed 's/Sun/Mail/g' my.dribble or as you like. But I
did appreciate their humour with the chimney. I wonder whether Pope B
reads this list?
John Logsdon "Try to make things as simple
Quantex Research Ltd, Manchester UK as possible but not simpler"
[log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
+44(0)161 445 4951/G:+44(0)7717758675 www.quantex-research.com
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Isaac Dialsingh wrote:
> What's wrong with statisticians making some money?
> Isaac
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Logsdon" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 2:59 PM
> Subject: Re: "rich pickings indeed for statisticians"
>
>
> > Ray has rather taken things that I wrote rather out of context and also
> > pasted together phrases from different arguments! He must be looking for
> > a Sun readers' award this year. 'Trusting' Six Sigma has nothing to do
> > with political parallels although I would be very happy to debate those on
> > another thread!
> >
> > My point was entirely expedient and I make no apology for this. I am not
> > a Six Sigma trainer or anything like that so I have no axe to grind or
> > other agenda. But if 6S has become a successful marketing operation and
> > has led to improvements in quality, then we have two options:
> >
> > (a) stand on the touchline crying foul, not fair, X is wrong, Y is
> > rubbish, we thought of it first, we can do it better or
> >
> > (b) engage and try to correct and improve the practices, educate the
> > foreman, manager and businessperson and in the end make a better product.
> >
> > I have no doubt which side I am on.
> >
> > It may smell a little but that's life. We can always use some soap and
> > show our shining hands when there is the opportunity. We all know that
> > some of the procedures regularly used in much of statistics makes sweeping
> > assumptions, for example, of independence, of distributional form, of (no)
> > prior knowledge but this goes on all the time. What's so different about
> > industry?
> >
> > Is co-operation so disreputable? Shall we sacrifice industry even further
> > on the high altar of statistical purity? How many jobs in industry are -
> > sorry, were - our principles worth? Surely we owe it as a duty to educate
> > and inform rather than to preach and pray.
> >
> > Why, with shining exceptions, hasn't industry used statistics before? Is
> > that 'its' fault or 'ours'? Is not the very existence of Six Sigma an
> > indictment of statisticians turning their backs on industry, not making
> > the case, not talking to the finance directors, the decision makers, the
> > people who actually run industry?
> >
> > Perhaps the fact that government, agriculture, academia, financial
> > services and more recently bioscience and pharmaceuticals were more
> > willing recruits - with substantial sources of money, let's be frank - to
> > the cause has something to do with it.
> >
> > As statisticians we can shed light on some areas and we should be
> > interested in what facts we can assemble. If industry benefits by
> > application of Six Sigma, who are we to rubbish it? It is time to help.
> > In fact it was time to help years ago.
> >
> > Tut tut - I'm preaching again! How hypocritical of me!
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > John
> >
> > John Logsdon "Try to make things as simple
> > Quantex Research Ltd, Manchester UK as possible but not simpler"
> > [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
> > +44(0)161 445 4951/G:+44(0)7717758675 www.quantex-research.com
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Ray Thomas wrote:
> >
> > > John Logsdon's frankness really gives the game away. "Six Sigma is a
> > > trademarked concept .. marketed (with) business spin at chief
> executives
> > > who then believe that they can drive out uncertainty.. but with the
> belief
> > > come(s) money ...(leading to) rich pickings ..for statisticians."
> > >
> > > The situation John described seems rather parallel to that of Tony Blair
> and
> > > Iraq. A failure to admit deception and unspoken argument that the end
> > > justifies the means. No wonder we don't trust Tony. Why should we
> trust
> > > Six Sigma?
> > >
> > > John does not answer the questions raised. There was no suggestion that
> > > statistics should be used 'only at the foreman level', just that the
> foreman
> > > level is important, and is one where "advanced statistical modelling"
> might
> > > not be appropriate.
> > >
> > > It has been noticeable that a number of those made redundant at Rover
> have
> > > described their former work as involved some kind of repair - indicating
> > > failures of the production line to 'get it right first time' - an
> objective
> > > that underlies the principles of quality control. And I haven't heard
> > > anybody interviewed at Rover talking about quality control.
> > >
> > > The role that statistics might play in improving manufacturing is rather
> > > different from that proffered by Six Sigma. John is right to imply
> that
> > > knowledge of statistics of quality control was strong in the US even in
> the
> > > 1930s. But the Japanese learned more from Deming and Juran than US
> > > managers ever have. The term 'quality control' is rarely used in
> Britain.
> > > Instead there is 'quality management. I suspect that change in
> language
> > > transforms the problem from the shop floor to offices occupied by
> overpaid
> > > executives and statisticians looking for rich pickings. And
> manufacturing
> > > continues to decline.
> > >
> > > Ray Thomas
> > > 35 Passmore, Tinkers Bridge, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
> > > Email: [log in to unmask]
> > > Tel/Fax 01908 679081
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "John Logsdon" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:39 AM
> > > Subject: Re: MG Rover Over
> > >
> > >
> > > Ray's question about Six Sigma is pertinent as many statisticians quite
> > > understandably think it means something completely different. It does
> not
> > > imply that some value is guaranteed to be within +/- 6 or 3 sigma of
> some
> > > mean although there are statements that could be interpreted as such.
> The
> > > famous 3.4 parts per million claim that did a lot to damage 6S in the
> eyes
> > > of many statisticians in it's early days derives from single sided 4.5
> > > sigma where there is an unexplained and unjustified shift of 1.5 sigma
> in
> > > the mean. It is an example of business spin.
> > >
> > > Six Sigma is a trademarked concept that is mainly about good procedures
> > > but also incorporates some good statistical principles. Rather than
> > > working only at the 'foreman' level, it is marketed at the chief
> > > executives . Such
> > > beliefs of course are rather futile from a statistician's point of view
> > > and, when the statistical procedures show
> > > that they work, rewards. However each 6S programme is different to the
> > > next and tailored to the target process or business.
> > >
> > > I think we should not dismiss 6S because of it's tacky birth but should
> > > attempt to improve it. In fact it is my view that 6S is a step in the
> > > right direction towards the use of advanced statistical modelling
> > > procedures in the whole of business and industry. You can start with
> > > Shewart and move through all the industrial work by Yates (the first DoE
> > > example was in 1936) into SPC, Taguchi, Six Sigma. Why not jump to the
> > > inevitable asymptotic solution?
> > >
> > > Here in the UK we have been very backwards compared to the far east and
> > > the US. Technometrics is 45 years old now and shows that in the US, the
> > > ASA and ASQ have been fully engaged. The RSS has had an industrial and
> > > business sections (QIF and BIS) but these have always been seen as the
> > > poor relations to the model development and theoretical sides. In fact
> > > both sides need each other and these days with terabytes of data being
> > > stored but not analysed, there should be rich pickings indeed for
> > > statisticians.
> > >
> > > So I welcome the RSS's involvement in a BS6S standard.
> > >
> > > 'Nuff sed agen!
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > John Logsdon "Try to make things as simple
> > > Quantex Research Ltd, Manchester UK as possible but not simpler"
> > > [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
> > > +44(0)161 445 4951/G:+44(0)7717758675 www.quantex-research.com
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Ray Thomas wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >It really is time for this statistics industry to wake up and insist
> on
> > > > >involvement. The recent proposal for a BS Six Sigma standard is a
> step
> > > > >in
> > > > >the right direction and the RSS will I hope be fully engaged there.
> > > > >(Don't
> > > > >be afraid of Six Sigma - it is only a name and doesn't mean what it
> says
> > > > >on the tin but does contain some good processes). We need to look at
> the
> > > > >way in which sematech pulled the US chip industry back - every chip
> plant
> > > > >in the US must have a statistician and many have a department. Intel
> > > > >alone employs over 100 statisticians.
> > > >
> > > > About twenty years ago American colleagues told me that the US space
> > > > programme used Japanese chips because they were more reliable.
> Evidence
> > > > published at that time confirmed substantially greater reliabily of
> > > > Japanese
> > > > chips. Has Intel now caught up with Japan?
> > > >
> > > > The Japanese organised the world's first international quality control
> > > > conference in about 1969. The underlying message of the conference
> > > > seemed
> > > > to be 'we have transformed ourselves from being makers of shoddy goods
> > > > into
> > > > the manufacturers achieving higher levels of quality of conformance
> than
> > > > have previously been achieved in human history - and this conference
> will
> > > > tell you how we did it'. I don't think that Western observers
> believed
> > > > that message.
> > > >
> > > > There was a lot about statistics in the conference but not so much
> about
> > > > statisticians. The message seemed to be that it is important to have
> the
> > > > relevant knowledge at the *foreman* level where quality control is
> > > > exercised. Does Sigma Six limit itself to statisticians and
> statistical
> > > > departments?
> > > >
> > > > The RSS makes noises about education the public about statistics -
> > > > something
> > > > that it does not seem to be very good at. But has the training of
> shop
> > > > floor workers in quality control methods ever been on its agenda?
> > > >
> > > > Ray Thomas
> > > > 35 Passmore, Tinkers Bridge, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
> > > > Email: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Tel/Fax 01908 679081
> > > >
> > >
> > > ******************************************************
> > > Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> > > message will go only to the sender of this message.
> > > If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> > > 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> > > to [log in to unmask]
> > > *******************************************************
> > >
> >
> > ******************************************************
> > Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> > message will go only to the sender of this message.
> > If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> > 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> > to [log in to unmask]
> > *******************************************************
>
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|