Talk:Six Sigma/Archive 3

message: Jobs program for management consultants.
I think the article The Six Sigma Revolution should be added to the external links. It provides a good overview of Six Sigma from a well known author. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TucsonTom (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 December 2006  (UTC)
:Looks more like an opportunity for Pyzdek Consulting to advertise.  Before adding your company's link, please read WP:Spam#External_link_spamming and WP:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided.  I notice that the proprietor of Pyzdek's first name is Tom and the company is located in Tuscon.  Coincidentally your user name is User:TucsonTom.  Any relation?  --DanielPenfield 20:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another external link 

message: The article as it is written seems more of a criticism than a definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.72 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2006  (UTC)
:probably written by a motorola employee :o) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.31.222 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More criticism than definition 

message: While I appreciate that most of the subsections are cited, they seem to read like a list of corporate testimonials and not serve any real purpose in the articel. I'm wary of just ripping ½ the articel out, but don't have any ideas how to rework it. Anyone else think this way? 68.39.174.238 23:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Application" section 

message: To my knowledge, one of the application of the six sigma is for Operations Management
:Well you are right. Six sigma can actually be used in all disciplines that entail a process -- Lost(talk) 03:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct me if I'm wrong 

message: I reckon this tool needs to be addressed extensively to include Histogram in six sigma
164.67.226.59unknown
"Unfortunately, there are no means for proving that data belong to any particular distribution. One can only assume normality, based on finding no evidence to the contrary."
While technically correct, this is a bit misleading.  It's very easy to prove data do not belong to a particular distribution, and the assumption of normality only makes sense under some circumstances.  I suggest there be at least a sentence to elaborate, explaining testing normality.
164.67.226.59 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test for Normality 

message: I have added one section of Software for Six Sigma.  Please make comments and review it critically —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.59.220.210 (talk • contribs) .
:Removed the inline external links, this isn't a directory to software company websites. It will suffice to list the names of the software and use internal links where applicable. Femto 13:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software for Six Sigma 

message: Why do I somehow feel bothered by the imagery suggested by the language
:"...A Six Sigma process improvement team charged with getting heart attack patients from the Emergency Department into the cardiac catheterization lab for treatment faster slashed 41 minutes off the hospital's mean time?"
Yes, I know the hospital wasn't being mean to its patients, and I know they were slashing time, not catheters or arteries, but it still seems like an unfortunate choice of words.
It always trips my BS detector when I see things like "slashed 41 minutes." Does anyone believe that they have enough statistical data to measure the mean time with a standard deviation of less than a minute? Are they sure it wasn't 40 or 42? False precision always suggests the involvement of marketeers, not statisticians.
As I finally get to the real point, how do we know that the Six Sigma methodology, as such, deserves any credit for this? How do we know that just as good results might not have been obtained had management had given the same backing to a group of people and told them just to rethink the process using common sense? 
I think this is propaganda, and doesn't belong in the article... unless someone can cite a published research study in a peer-reviewed journal about this hospital, which shows that the claimed results were really attributable to Six Sigma. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See "Application" above. This "quote farm" has irked me in the past and honestly seems totally useless to the articel while occupying the space people would expect be used to explain exactly what this thing (6S) is. Since I now know I'm not the only one who takes issue with this bad formatting, I'm going to remove that section and see if it helps out any. 68.39.174.238 02:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hospital slashers 

message: Could somebody who is knowledgable put a better criticism section? Currently there is nothing, except for what is mentioned under triva. Mathmo Talk 13:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know how much well referenced criticism is available, but I do not like the speed with which criticism has been removed from this article. It seems someone with interest in the methodology is defending it. I can accept that the Dilbert references were removed, but it is very disappointing that it happened without comments and motivation. Mlewan 05:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  Firstly, who's opinion does the dilbert cartoon reflect?  Its not sufficient to say that it indicates that its an opinion that exists within the business community, because that doesn't tell me anything specific of who holds the opinion, or how prevalent it is.  Also, how do we know this indicates that the opinion is prevalent in the business community?  The author of the comic strip may just have a bias against six sigma.  Or, he may just have thought it would make for a funny comic.  The point is, a comic strip cannot be reliably used in this way to infer anything specific about anyone's opinions about six sigma.  I also think it is a notability issue.  The magazine article is worth citing, but the fact that it was referenced in a single dilbert cartoon hardly seems notable.  Should we mention dilbert comics that focus on a given topic in every wikipedia article to which there exists such a comic?
===Remainder of Criticisms section===
As a matter of fact, the Dilbert mention and the Fortune article it refers to are the only things in the section that are sourced. The remainder of this section should be sourced or removed. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: criticisms

message: As a matter of fact, the Dilbert mention and the Fortune article it refers to are the only things in the section that are sourced. The remainder of this section should be sourced or removed. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remainder of Criticisms section

message: The article first defines Six Sigma as "a methodology to reduce defect levels below 3.4 Defects Per (one) Million Opportunities (DPMO)"
and then continues with a portion which I've snipped:
:or put another way, a methodology of controlling a process to the point of plus or minus six sigma (standard deviations) from a centerline (for a total span of twelve sigma). 
The first part is supposed by the cited source, which says "A metric of Six Sigma equates to 3.4 DPMO."
I see two problems with the "put another way" portion. One has to do with the ("goofy") definition of Six Sigma. It is correct to describe Six Sigma as having the goal of reducing defect levels below 3.4 DPMO, because that is the definition that practitioners use. But it is incorrect to talk about it as being connected to an actual value of six sigmas, because 3.4 DPMO corresponds to 4.5σ, as discussed later in the article.
Second, "controlling a process to the point of plus or minus six sigma (standard deviations) from a centerline (for a total span of twelve sigma)" just can't be right. It would imply that a process controlled to three sigmas would be under tighter control than one controlled to six! As the article explains later, "sigma refers to the number of standard deviations between the process mean and the nearest specification limit, rather than the standard deviation of the process." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Or put another way"

message: I'm moving these here. They shouldn't be reinserted without source citations. Without a source, among other things, how do we know how deep or how wide the commitment is? Do these companies, themselves, call themselves "Six Sigma companies" in so many words? Is all of Honeywell (say) using Six Sigma? Or just a department or a pilot project? (Personally, I've certainly run into situations where a vendor or consultant brags that its products or services are used by a long list of big, famous companies, when, on examination, the truth is that one small department in the big, famous company is using it...)
Sources shouldn't be too hard to find, since companies are usually eager to publicize their quality initiatives. I'll be taking a look myself and will put them back if I find sources, but, of course, finding sources is the job of the editor who inserts the material. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced "Six Sigma" companies 

message: Regarding the spam/vandalism from various IPs, adding links to
* treqna.com
* isixsigma.com
* (and recently isixisigma.com, whether it's a deliberate hijack, or a result of simple stupidity, blindly reverting to an older version with a typo, I don't know.)
I think it's safe to assume we're dealing with a single but very persistent person.
* Interesting to note that treqna.com is registered to Kashif Razzaqui, Gurgaon, Haryana, India, same location as several of the IPs below, which surely can't be a conincidence.
IP ranges involved:
:*59.144.188.0 - 59.144.192.255 : BTNL Delhi - location: Delhi, India
:*61.246.11.0 - 61.246.11.255 : BTNL Delhi - location: Delhi, India
:*61.246.65.0 - 61.246.65.255 : BTNL Delhi - location: Delhi, India
:*61.246.80.0 - 61.246.80.255 : BTNL Delhi - location: Delhi, India
:*125.23.21.0 - 125.23.21.255 : Bharti Televentures Ltd. - ABTS - location: Delhi, India
:*125.23.54.0 - 125.23.54.255 : Bharti Televentures Ltd. - ABTS - location: Gurgaon, Haryana, India
:*125.23.61.0 - 125.23.61.255 : Bharti Televentures Ltd. - ABTS - location: Gurgaon, Haryana, India
:*125.23.84.0 - 125.23.84.255 : Bharti Televentures Ltd. - ABTS - location: Delhi, India
:*203.109.64.0 - 203.109.127.255 : Iqara Telecom India Pvt Ltd - location: Gurgaon, Haryana, India
:*219.91.128.0 - 219.91.255.255 : Iqara Telecom India Pvt Ltd - location: Surat, Gujarat, India
:*122.160.0.0 - 122.175.255.255 : BHARTI INFOTEL LTD., Delhi, India
Their relevant edits:
* (diff)  
* (diff)  
* (diff)  
* (diff)  
* (diff)  
: "There are 4 links in all. GE, Motorola, Treqna and isixsigma, so idiot called Femto keeps reversing this!!":
:* (diff)  
:* (diff)  
* (diff)  
* (diff)  
* (diff)  
* (diff)  
* (diff)   location: Denver, Colorado, US. Perhaps unrelated, not the usual pattern. Seems to be a shared access node of Qwest Corporation.
* (diff)  
* (diff)  
* (diff)  
: "Adding one website, I found useful." - sneak it in as innocent passer-by, nice try:
:* (diff)  
* (diff)  
: "I think this site should be on, its a tome of information, I don't give a fuck about the stupid discussion going on abt external links..." - first sign of open disregard of consensus process:
:* (diff)  
* (diff)  
: A series of "screw the debate its one sided" reverts, leading to 3 days semi-protection. Blindly overwriting any subsequent edits, a behavior that will be continued in later attacks:
:* (diff)  
:* (diff)   
:* (diff)   
:* (diff)   
:* (diff)  
:* (diff)  
:* (diff)  
:* (diff)  
:* (diff)  
:* (diff)  
* (diff)  
* (diff)  
: "The battle continues - femto fu":
:* (diff)  
* (diff)  
* (diff)  
* (diff)  
: "Havent you heard of dynamic IPs or TOR - retard who thinks he owns this page will get owned." - An open threat for edit warring with proxies, which I took seriously enough in order to protect the page again for a week.
:* (diff)  
* (diff)  
* (diff)  
* (diff)  
Unlike our friend from India, I'm still open to consensus on including these links, however I fail to see how they meet WP:EL, and it remains my personal opinion that this article doesn't need any external link section at all.
This has been going on long enough. One option, aside from letting abusive spammer IPs have their way, would be to blacklist treqna.com, though I don't think it would be appropriate yet for isixsigma.com. The edits come from dynamic IPs, individual blocks are not a feasible option. Since this activity is persistent and long-term, and apparently limited to this article, I'm feeling justified to semi-protect for a longer period, say 9 months. If anyone wants to review, be my guest. Femto 20:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: The "Roles required for implementation" section says there are 5 roles, yet lists 6.  I considered simply changing the "5" to 6, but then that number may disagree with the referenced book.  Does anyone know if the book defines 5 roles or 6?
:: Dunno about the book, my guess is that greenbelts are not required. Writing as a greenbelt that is certainly my experience. Greglocock 10:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, the problem is that the roles are not standardized in terms specifically of what roles are necessary at any given organization or what definition they all use.  I mean there are the five fundamental basic ones you'll find nearly everywhere but maybe called different things;  CEO/Deployment Champion, Champion, Master Black Belt, Black Belt, & Greenbelt.  (Experts are sometimes the same thing as the Black Belt or the Master Black Belt or the Champion, just depends.)  It is going to depend on what your organization looks like and what they *choose* to implement.  (A major reason for the wonky results and mixed results of six sigma is really bad stupid decisions about how to deploy it by company executives that just don't get it -- i.e. they want to take the diet pill not do any exercise eat bacon burgers every day and still lose 100lbs in three months.)  Different six sigma deployment companies, for lack of a better way to define them, will have their own recommendations and standards that they advise their client company to adopt, but there is no one STANDARD definition of what roles are required.   I could give my own experience and opinion, but they'd be just that, opinion.  If you can find a way to phrase this section to indicate that there are different make-ups and here are the definitions of the various roles, instead of here are the roles one has to have.... Because honestly, a lot of organizations are also implementing a Yellow Belt role that, when I was getting certified, was thought of as a joke.   On a side note, as a Black Belt, I have to say that greenbelts are critical, but that's my own opinion.  --LaylahM 21:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roles required for implementation 

message: === Incredibly shitty article ===
This article is drek. It reads like a brochure for Six Sigma. It's vague, full of corporate jargon and completely unhelpful at explaining just what the hell Six Sigma IS to a layman who's not already familiar with it or with things similar to it. I started looking at how I could improve it but gave up in disgust after realising the article in its current form is NOT salvageable. Jesus Christ, this entry makes me feel embarassed as a USER of Wikipedia, let alone at someone who writes for it.
=== Utterly worthless ===
I could not agree more.  No sane human could read this mishmash of gibberish and come out with any idea of what Six Sigma is actually about (beyond vague handwaving about "eliminating defects", which are barely even defined), or how it works, or what the alleged benefits of it are, or how well it actually works.  While ambiguous, vapid, shady nonsense may be exactly what Six Sigma is about, the article itself need not reflect that.
=== This Article Sucks ===
I think I'm dumber after reading it.  This article immediately screams that it's selling Six Sigma.  Anyone ever work on a proposal for a government contract?  You know, the basic stuff, like  working resumes?  It sounds a lot like that: says a lot that sounds impressive, but doesn't  actually say or do anything.  Maybe that's not a good analogy if you've never worked on one.
:Ye, but I think many of these concerns could be answered by expanding the "criticisms" section.  After all, many substantive criticisms of Six Sigma (as opposed to criticisms of this article on that topic) involve claims that it is little more than a marketing ploy that lacks substantive benefits.  Although expanding the "criticism" section should only be the first step...the rest of the article probably should be cleaned up at some point too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.225.141.201 (talk • contribs).
::::I agree with previous posts, it needs a rewrite.  Expanding the cirticism is going to just slant the article or make it more confusing, because the primary thing the criticism would be about hasn't been explained well.  At a minimum a big overhaul.--LaylahM 21:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After trying to read the article, I have _less_ of an idea what Six Sigma is supposed to be than before I came here. It does sound like a quasi-religious cult of some sort. I wouldn't be surprised if it possesses several of the attributes that the French government considers indicative of a dangerous cult. The article itself is worse than worthless. I think it should be rewritten completely, but for that we need someone who actually knows anything about it.  Krum Stanoev 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the Article and Topic 

message: I think I'm dumber after reading it.  This article immediately screams that it's selling Six Sigma.  Anyone ever work on a proposal for a government contract?  You know, the basic stuff, like  working resumes?  It sounds a lot like that: says a lot that sounds impressive, but doesn't  actually say or do anything.  Maybe that's not a good analogy if you've never worked on one.
:Ye, but I think many of these concerns could be answered by expanding the "criticisms" section.  After all, many substantive criticisms of Six Sigma (as opposed to criticisms of this article on that topic) involve claims that it is little more than a marketing ploy that lacks substantive benefits.  Although expanding the "criticism" section should only be the first step...the rest of the article probably should be cleaned up at some point too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.225.141.201 (talk • contribs).
::::I agree with previous posts, it needs a rewrite.  Expanding the cirticism is going to just slant the article or make it more confusing, because the primary thing the criticism would be about hasn't been explained well.  At a minimum a big overhaul.--LaylahM 21:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article Sucks 

message: I'm a medical research and development person and reading this out of curiosity. This 6-sigma movement seems to have the traits of a religion. I agree with the stark criticism above. There is so little meat. All the acronyms like DMAIC, DMADV, etc. are just words. The whole idea of measuring outcomes of interventions is so obvious to medical professionals and all these empty words made around it don't seem to do anything. The key questions are: How much variance is good enough (those numbers 6, 4.5, 1.5, whatever are irrelevant)? Are your variance measurements valid predictors of target outcomes (e.g. customer satisfaction, bottom line, not the same thing)? How do you measure those target outcomes? How do you reconcile divergent target outcomes (e.g., customer satisfaction vs. bottom line). How do you change the process? These are just the naive questions. This article answers none of them despite all the words that it makes. Gschadow 21:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After trying to read the article, I have _less_ of an idea what Six Sigma is supposed to be than before I came here. It does sound like a quasi-religious cult of some sort. I wouldn't be surprised if it possesses several of the attributes that the French government considers indicative of a dangerous cult. The article itself is worse than worthless. I think it should be rewritten completely, but for that we need someone who actually knows anything about it.  Krum Stanoev 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Religion? 

message: I would like to respectfully propose the addition of a link to the University of Michigan College of Engineering's Six Sigma Black Belt page, [http://cpd.engin.umich.edu/website/proedinfo.htm?id=22&itemid=57.  This is a new website, to be up next week, with links to numerous six sigma programs including transactional-focused six sigma, (not described on the current Wikipedia page), short descriptions of the techniques used, and bios of well-known researchers. I am an affiliate of the College of Engineering here at U of M. (Jessicahullman 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Far as I see, the main purpose of this site is to sell educational courses. I also see no immediate content that would warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic article. Femto 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put, should be omitted.  DanielPenfield 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Michigan link 

message: in the section on Quality approaches and models there are no internal wiki links even though there are lots of pages that could be linked to for example Process Mapping- can we add some of these? Shanzu 17:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Wiki Links 

message: While one academic is pushing these two bandwagons in the same direction, in the hope they'll collide and produce some useful offspring, is there any sign that this is a significant trend rather than the usual suspects trying to squeeze a few more dollars out of a dead paradigm? I'm in a mixing metaphors sort of a mood. Greglocock 02:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TRIZ and Six Sigma

message: to integrate the information at http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalCODE=ijssca  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.34 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does it really? Looks like the same old twaddle to me. Greglocock 11:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The front article needs to be improved.... 

message: Ive read this page several times and still have no idea what 'six sigma' is meant to be; the article is just a string of quasi-meaningless management consultancy jargon and fashionable corporate buzzwords. Could someone rewrite the article with all the bullshit removed, in a format suitable for wikipedia rather than an inane powerpoint presenttion.
GordonRoss 14:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT. Dicklyon 15:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Better yet, consider marking the B.S. parts with comments like <CODE></CODE>—that might help others focus on the most problematic sections.  -- DanielPenfield 20:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:SOFIXIT.  Be sure to cite sources for this viewpoint. Dicklyon 17:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is nonsense 

message: As a 25 year practitioner of the quality sciences, a certified Quality Engineer, Reliability Engineer, and Six-Sigma Black belt I feel I have some experience in this area of discussion. One thing I do know for sure is that I don’t know it all. And with that said, I would like to briefly comment on the article and the process of improving the article.
The article can be improved but for the most part has integrity and worth. Not being an expert on the rules of engagement for Wikipedia I can see some value in the constructive criticism placed within the article for citations and the like and understand that there may be justified reasons for the exclusion of some links. I will not comment on the latter as it has been done ad nauseum.
I do think that the articles length is too short to do justice to a very pervasive and deep subject but that is easily correctable with contributions from practitioners knowledgeable in the art. I hope to see more soon. Perhaps in the future (assuming there will be one) if I am convinced that the Wikipedia project can survive the onslaught of inane and insane argument and bickering I to will contribute to this article.
As to my second and most important point… If there was ever a process that was in need of a six-sigma overhaul it is the Wikipedia process of article editing and improvement. It is by all empirical evidence out-of-control and inefficient to the point where almost 2 years later this subject (article) is still unresolved.
I could offer many obvious suggestions as to how to proceed to improve this editing process but they are most likely already known, so I will not. I will, however, suggest in the strongest terms that all interested in the future of Wikipedia and articles like this one (Six-sigma) to study and fully understand the acronym DMAIC with special attention to the ‘DM’ part for in that lies the solution to all your ills. Respectfully Statman45 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process Out of Control