Six Sigma SpotLight: 

Charles Huber, Executive Director DFSS, Seagate Technology.

Six Sigma SpotLight is a regular feature of the e-Zsigma newsletter, and allows us to introduce one of the global six sigma community's superstars.

Charles (Chip) Huber is Executive Director of Design for Six Sigma with Seagate Technology, and has been leading DFSS as a corporate initiative at Seagate for the last four years. Seagate Technology has been investing in Six Sigma for five years. Design for Six Sigma started four years ago. The Seagate process focuses on four key elements of DFSS, Requirements, Systems Engineering, Statistical Design and Metrics.

In prior assignments, Mr. Huber has managed Senior Operations and Engineering positions for high technology computer and peripheral organizations, which include roles as Sr. Vice President for World Wide Operations for a printer company and General Manager for a recording head company. Additionally, Chip has led engineering and operations for a start up company that developed a high speed color printer for quick print markets.

Mr. Huber earned an MBA from the University of St. Thomas as well as a BSE from Princeton University.

It is with great pleasure that e-Zsigma shines the SpotLight on Charles Huber so that our readers can learn more about how Design for Six Sigma is continuing to shape things to come at Seagate: the world's largest manufacturer of disc drives, magnetic discs and read-write heads, www.seagate.com.

 --------------------------------

1. News: "For our readers that have recently launched Six Sigma programs or participated in Six Sigma training, I was wondering if you could explain, in simple terms, the difference between Six Sigma as it relates to the typical DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control) project methodology and supporting tools, and Define for Six Sigma (DFSS), which seems to be in a separate class or category of its own?"

1. Charles Huber: "The points of commonality between DMAIC and DFSS lie in the tools and methods of Six Sigma. DFSS uses many of the statistical tools, many of the problem-solving tools, so there is a very common language and understanding about quantitative methods between the two approaches. 

In general terms, the part that makes DFSS unique is that DFSS is not a recipe like DMAIC. DFSS, at least as it is practiced here in Seagate, is an approach to the product development process, and we try to build enhanced tools into this process from marketing research and technology research on up through product development. Seagate's deployment of DFSS aimed squarely at the New Product Introduction Process and the drives we would produce. 

Thus new concepts such as statistical design became imbedded as a new phase of our NPI. We also introduced some new tools, which are not found at all in DMAIC, tools for statistical design and design allocations that are unique and specific to DFSS and typically not taught or used by Black Belts in DMAIC applications."

2. News: "I have frequently heard over the years that companies need to be "ready" to do Design for Six Sigma. Often this was qualified by some sort of statement that they needed to be "mature" in their Six Sigma deployment, with some higher level of understanding and appreciation of Six Sigma before attempting to engage in a DFSS strategy. Yet, my research shows that Seagate embarked on DFSS within a year of first launching their Six Sigma program. With this apparently contradictory information, what would you consider to be the prerequisites for embarking on a DFSS program, and what allowed Seagate to launch their DFSS strategy so shortly after launching a Six Sigma strategy?"

2. Charles Huber: "I would agree that there is contradictory evidence. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend that for certain kinds of companies, they should embark on DFSS first. I would look at it more in terms of what are the key drivers for a company's success. 

For example, in Seagate, product introductions happen very often and products do not have a long life cycle; Product "B" will completely replace Product "A" and there is very little sustained production of "A" once Product "B" is available. Product "A" is dead and gone. Someone once said our customers expect us to run the factory like a water spigot, to turn old off and new on with the twist of a wrist. 

Seagate tends to introduce its products at high frequency, Sometimes as often as six months, sometimes on a fifteen month interval. A very high priority for us, and a business priority, was to improve our product development cycle. For other companies, whose products may last longer. or companies whose products don't have the same high degree of change from generation to generation, then DMAIC or the traditional Six Sigma approach may be the best aspect of Six Sigma to tackle first since they will very quickly get into the mode of cost reduction and quality improvement. I think it depends on the nature of the company, in our case, the DFSS methodology that we are now using is very different from what we initially planned. That, in itself, has been a progression - a kind of change in our understanding of what we're doing. 

I don't think there is a straight, clean answer to what you need to do. It's a question of management readiness and an understanding of their underlying business drivers - so they select the DFSS method or the Six Sigma method that provides them the best benefit."

3. News: "With Design for Six Sigma being such a relatively new concept several years ago, how did Seagate develop or aggregate the tools and methods for DFSS as well as the supporting training program that was required for its roll-out across your organization? With that experience, would you have done anything differently today?"

3. Charles Huber: "When we started, we originally acquired our Six Sigma methodology from a consultant, Maurice Berryman. During that acquisition phase, we learned about a thing called DFSS, but we also learned that almost no one really had a canned, (out of the box) training program for DFSS. We wanted to do it (DFSS), but there is no real definition of what "it" was. We talked to some colleagues from one of the leading GE companies and through those dialogues, we learned about a methodology they used. That is what we built our original training and DFSS concepts on. That was the DFSS methodology we launched. 

In the years since then, we've made major changes to our thinking about what DFSS constitutes and today, we have a Seagate flavor that is founded on statistical design, systems engineering, and critical parameter management. We think those are very good, firm underpinnings for DFSS concepts. Each of these elements is interlocked and as we better understand how to deploy them in our process we gain better insight and better results.

If I had only known then what I know now? …Those internal issues that would be common to any initiative, whether you are talking about DFSS, Lean, or any company endeavor. We could have done a lot better job of getting our management to understand the nature of what we were doing. And it's partly our own lack of knowledge - my own lack of knowledge - in that we thought the early program we had was adequate. In hindsight, it was very immature, but with respect to your comment about "is it a change program?"… DFSS is absolutely a change program - particularly for engineers who are used to thinking in fairly directed terms. To convert engineering thinking to consider variation, to design for variation, to indeed, allow for variation in the process so that their designs are robust, is a new way of thinking and it's not going to happen quickly. It is a long-term cultural change, and I would dismiss the idea that DFSS is a breakthrough methodology, it is more like patience and persistence."

4. News: "In the article, "Straight Talk on DFSS", that you co-authored with Robert Launsby, (see http://www.launsby.com), published in the August 2002 issue of ASQ Magazine, (see http://www.asq.org/pub/sixsigma/past/vol1_issue4/dfss.html) it states that over a broad range of companies and markets, only 60% of new products launched are a success. What were some of the key drivers or compelling events as it related to new product launches that inspired Seagate to launch a DFSS strategy, and in your opinion, were those goals or challenges met as a result of DFSS?"

4. Charles Huber: "The 40% failure rate represents the kind of lashes that we all have on our backs from products that didn't perform satisfactorily, either technologically or from a business point of view. Every company has those.

One thing that DFSS tries to do is establish clearer requirements from the customer's wants and needs perspective. Seagate is developing VOC (Voice of the Customer) methods to gather those customer statements into clear requirements that fit into our concept of system engineering.  We use QFD (Quality Function Deployment), (see http://www.isixsigma.com/tt/qfd/), to organize those statements within our engineering system.  We hope that it will be one of the methods that will further enhance our success rate. 

Scroll up to right-hand side of page to continue interview...

Charles Huber, Executive Director, DFSS.
Images courtesy of the Seagate Technology
 Unauthorized use not permitted.

Click on image to go to Seagate website

Continued from left panel...

4. Charles Huber:  With regards to your question, "why did we do it in the first place?", the answer to that is, simply, for competitive advantage. (Computer) disk drives are a very competitive market. The distinguishing characteristics from one hard drive to another are perceptible only at the very technological level, and as a competitive company, we are looking for every edge we can get. It reminds me of the bear in the woods joke: We don't have to outrun the bear… all we have to do is outrun the other hunters who are being chased by the bear… and that's what we're trying to do - outrun the other guys. DFSS, we believe, is a major arrow in our quiver to becoming a better, stronger competitor."

5. News: "With DFSS now entrenched in the development and launch of Seagate products and services, where does DFSS start and where does it end in terms of the product life cycle? What segments of the supply chain and value stream does it encompass?"

5. Charles Huber: "As a leader of this initiative, I don't think I'll ever believe that it is entrenched. As we have gone forward in our learning, we've added new parts to what we consider to be DFSS methods. VOC and QFD are examples of tools that we've developed and introduced to our product planning and strategic marketing over the last year. 

This year, we are introducing an information technology-based requirements management system that probably won't be mature for another year or two. I think DFSS is an ever-green idea. There are new things for us to learn… we try to keep our periscope up looking for good ideas and improvements that make sense to us. 

The scope of DFSS at Seagate starts with a very, very early idea of what strategic marketing thinks is coming up in the four to seven year time frame, and what research thinks is coming in the way of technology. We're trying to get both of those organizations to think about requirements from a systems point of view early on. Both marketing and technology should have a clear line of sight to customers' needs. DFSS goes all the way through the development life cycle and on into manufacturing. 

We're learning to collaborate with lean practitioners in the factory and supply chains teams to try to improve product performance, time to market and quality at launch. Although this effort is embryonic right now. We consciously chose not to engage (in DFSS) with our suppliers early on simply because we knew we weren't mature. 

Secondly, Seagate is quite vertical in that we build critical technology components in house. Supplier engagement just began this year. We have lots more to do and I think by the time we finally engage with our suppliers, we will have invented or added some more features to DFSS that we think will be interesting. 

Finally, DFSS uses knowledge of factory process capability to determine how best to allocate design tolerances and to correctly identify which process need improvement vs. which can be left to perform at current levels of variation. DFSS teaches that improving variation on the wrong processes is a giant waste of energy."

6. News: "Can you share with our readers two or three of what you consider to be the key "tools" unique to DFSS that, when applied correctly, can lead to breakthrough improvements in terms of product reliability, concept to launch cycle time, and profit optimization?"

6. Charles Huber: "I should preface my response by saying that a hard disk drive is a fairly complicated device. It uses many, many fields of physics - everything from magnetism to metallurgy to chemistry to optics, making for a pretty complicated "widget". 

The aspect of DFSS that we think holds great promise is the development of a predictive model that will allow us to simulate a design performance before we build anything, and through this simulation, develop transfer functions for mathematical expressions that reveal the relationship between critical factors. If we do that, we can then find out where the problem areas are early and take appropriate countermeasures. That's a big step forward. 

Secondly, the ability to identify which processes need tighter control on variations leads to more efficient launch results. And third, the product development process becomes more efficient as we capture, distribute and leverage common understanding of how product CTQ's interacting on each new program can be managed for optimized results."

7. News: "What new or existing challenges does Seagate still face that will continue to shape and evolve their DFSS deployment and training strategy? Do you see DFSS at Seagate evolving or changing over the next few years, what will that change look like, and how do you see it being achieved?"

7. Charles Huber: "I think I ought to comment quickly first on the training strategy. In the beginning, we were thinking about training in waves and getting lots of engineers trained so they would know what to do. Once again, hindsight suggests that was probably a mistake. As a result, we are now thinking and developing our material in a much more modular, bite-size, just-in-time training approach. 

Engineers that are working in the very early stages of technology development have very different needs than those of engineers working in product launch closer to the manufacturing end of things. We're modularizing and aiming at more specific kinds of training than we had in the beginning.  In terms of the future, I've already commented on some of the new elements of DFSS that we've added over the last couple of years and aspects of DFSS that we are just now undertaking with our suppliers. 

I think DFSS and Six Sigma area robust set of ideas that will continue to evolve. For example, our ability to model a hard disk drive in every sense of its complexity is pretty limited and I would envision in a few years, that our modeling skills would greatly expand. We've found from one, very interesting company, a way of integrating our models into a single tool, which we think, is very exciting - again, we are just starting. 

Probably the most important challenge that will drive and shape DFSS is our very market. We are seeing new applications, segments, customers and requirements at an unprecedented rate. We are delighted to have new opportunities, but the need for enhanced systems tools, better IT capability to manage so many new product opportunities and the need for speed and flexibility will continue to place demands on our development process. 

So, I don't see a finish line to this (DFSS) journey… I just see it continuing as we build better engineering methods and get better results and find new elements to add to it. It is hard to say that in two years we will be done, and moving onto something else. In my mind, it's more likely that we'll find other elements to add into the DFSS kit and continue to upgrade our skills."

Rod Morgan, e-Zsigma, Inc.

 --------------------------------

If you have a six sigma "superstar" you would like to have featured in SpotLight, send your submission to news@e-zsigma.com.

Please include in your email;

1. a brief biography of the person you are recommending

2. the reason you are submitting their name

3. a photograph or "action shot" if you have one

4. your nominee's contact information (so that the e-Zsigma news team can obtain their consent as well as conduct an brief interview)

If you have any questions regarding Six Sigma Spotlight, please contact e-Zsigma at news@e-zsigma.com.  Your feedback is always appreciated.