Thanks for being brave enough to make this video on this controversial aspect of '1.5 Sigma Shift, and I am pleased to see that the 'Trolls' have not found it yet. It is an interesting way to explain it...with the 'Bell Curve' drawn it your diagram having a range of 6 Sigma ( 6 Standard deviations total width ) ...Plus and Minus 3 sigma on either side of the mean ( centre ). Then you are adding 1.5 sigma 'room / space for movement ) on each side ....so the centre is then essentially 4.5 sigma from either of the Specification limits. Using the Empirical Rule of Normal Distribution that 4.5 sigma (standard deviations ) from the closest Specification limits is what will give the 99.999660 % ( 999,996.6 per Million ) within the Specification limits and only 0.00034 ( 3.4 per Million ) outside if Specification Limits. This is interesting from a theoretical and historical point of view because it this low defect number ( 3.4 DMPO ) was the number that Motorola chose, but is not necessarily what other companies will choose as a target... and their process will be 'shifting' by other numbers....not 1.5 standard deviations. But your point is well made Paul. Bravo.
Thanks for being brave enough to make this video on this controversial aspect of '1.5 Sigma Shift, and I am pleased to see that the 'Trolls' have not found it yet. It is an interesting way to explain it...with the 'Bell Curve' drawn it your diagram having a range of 6 Sigma ( 6 Standard deviations total width ) ...Plus and Minus 3 sigma on either side of the mean ( centre ). Then you are adding 1.5 sigma 'room / space for movement ) on each side ....so the centre is then essentially 4.5 sigma from either of the Specification limits. Using the Empirical Rule of Normal Distribution that 4.5 sigma (standard deviations ) from the closest Specification limits is what will give the 99.999660 % ( 999,996.6 per Million ) within the Specification limits and only 0.00034 ( 3.4 per Million ) outside if Specification Limits. This is interesting from a theoretical and historical point of view because it this low defect number ( 3.4 DMPO ) was the number that Motorola chose, but is not necessarily what other companies will choose as a target... and their process will be 'shifting' by other numbers....not 1.5 standard deviations. But your point is well made Paul. Bravo.
It is not "controversial ". It was FRAUD.
Six Sigma's creator summed it up when he said: "Six Sigma champions are con men."
Really great job! Congratulations
Utter trash.