Ineffective Approaches to Problem Solving and Variation ReductionBackground on the Three Approaches to DOEClassical DOETaguchi DOEShainin DOEThe Motorola Case Study: 10:1, 100:1, 1,000:1 Quality ImprovementThe Pot of GoldBob Galvin's Inspiring LeadershipToolsThe Arcade Pilot DOEThe Five-Plant Pilot Run in the U.S.The Worldwide Spread of DOEFundamental Weaknesses in Classical and Taguchi Approaches1. Techniques: Limited and Ineffectual for Classical/Taguchi; Versatile and Powerful for Shainin2. Clue Generation: ''The Parts Are Smarter Than the Engineers!''3. Effectiveness: Low Success Rates for Classical/Taguchi; High for Shainin4. Cost: High Cost of Failure in Classical/Taguchi versus Lower Costs of Success in Shainin5. Complexity: Incomprehensible Statistical Jargon in Classical/Taguchi versus Simple, Logical Concepts in Shainin6. Time in Instruction: Three Days to Two Weeks of Seminars for Classical/Taguchi versus One Day for Shainin; Time in Execution: False Starts in Classical/Taguchi versus Sure-Fire Clues in Shainin7. Statistical Validity: Confounding and Saturation in Classical/Taguchi versus Clear Separation of Main and Interaction Effects in Shainin8. Applicability: Shainin Best at the Design Stage of a Product or Process, in Production, at the Supplier, in the Field, Even in Administrative Applications9. Ease of Implementation: Classical/Taguchi—Difficult, Slow, Tedious; Shainin—Easy, Fast, Exciting10. Disruption of Production: Classical/Taguchi—Disruptive; Shainin—NondisruptiveAn Open Challenge