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]
*******************************************************