AN ANALYTICAL APPROACH TOIMPLEMENTING A SIX SIGMA TRAINING

PROGRAM

A CASE STUDY

Agenda

Background and drivers Identifying the options and designing the

experiment Executing the pilot Results and decisions Follow-on measurements and lessons

learned Summary and conclusions

Background and drivers Structure training to increase program impact

Increase overall learner success Reduce variability of learner success Increase learner satisfaction

Determine the contributing factors to learners’ success to a Six Sigma Green Belt curriculum

Minimize internal development Customize for the organization audience(s)

Pilot Approach Two curricula

Instructor-led classroom based Video-based eLearning

Two types of audience (Organizations A and B) Provide common tutorial to both groups Monitoring system

Determine how learners are doing Capture their level of satisfaction Determine their level of knowledge and skills

A picture of the pilot

Informal tutorials

Progress Test Homework

Progress Tests

Final Exam IL Final Exam EL

Audience A

Audience B

Instructor led E-learning

Pilots Curriculum Structure Instructor-based curriculum

2 classroom sessions of 1 week long 1 month between the sessions Sessions led by a master Black Belt instructor

E-Learning curriculum 80 mandatory videos and optional white papers Videos grouped in 10 chapters. Each chapter must be viewed

within 1 week. Successful test result mandatory to be able to view the following

chapter Monitoring

Progress test after each chapter. Tutorials

Optional weekly tutorials Q&A format for the tutorial (no agenda)

Pilot Performance Measures Learning dimension – based on test scores

Successful – achieved passing grade for course Unsuccessful – did not achieve passing grade or

withdrew

Alignment dimension – based on VOC results Promoter Neutral Detractor

Goal: Minimize the number of Unsuccessfuls and Detractors.

Alignment Attributes Definition VOC Questions

I’d recommend the course to a colleague I am overall satisfied with the course

Promoters average score for the indicated survey questions in the range:

A ≥ 4. Neutral participants

average score for the indicated survey questions in the range: 3 ≤ A < 4.

Detractors average score for the indicated survey questions in the range:

A < 3.

Key Result: Organization Performance Unsuccessful Students

39% of students were unsuccessful 53% of A students were unsuccessful 100% of unsuccessful students were from organization A

Detractors 29% of students were detractors 25% of A students were detractors 67% of all detractors were from the organization A Detractors are evenly distributed among successful and unsuccessful

students. Overall Satisfaction

100% of A students were dissatisfied with the program 0% of B students were dissatisfied with the program

There is a significant difference between A and B environments driving the poor results.

Contributing Factors Suitability – 100% of the unsuccessful students considered

themselves poor candidates for Six Sigma training. Relevance – >90% of the unsuccessful students considered

Six Sigma to be not relevant to their jobs. Pace – regardless of the amount of time provided to complete

the course, Students from the A organization uniformly reported insufficient time to complete the work.

Focus – 100% of the students who failed at least half of the progress tests were unsuccessful overall

Poor management communication and lack of management support is the principal driver of

poor results from organization A

Supporting Data from VOC SurveyStudents from organization A reported widespread lack of engagement

and missing support by management and senior management: Students were selected for the training by senior management

without consulting the students or students’ managers. No information was provided to students regarding the potential

benefits of Six Sigma, its relevance to their current role, how it might be applied on their jobs.

Students and managers were not informed of the expected level of time commitment.

Managers did not provide time for students to complete their Six Sigma training commitments.

Managers actively discouraged use of Six Sigma on the job. No one championed Six Sigma within organization A.

Other Results There was no statistically significant difference in

average satisfaction between the eLearning and Classroom curricula.

Students had a significantly higher probability of success in the eLearning curriculum.

For successful students, there was no statistically significant difference in the final grades for promoters, neutrals, or detractors.

Summary A and B student populations had significantly different outcomes and

perceptions of the pilot training program. The high rate of failure (53%) of A students compared to B (0%)

appears to be attributable principally to cultural factors, in particular to management inactions and attitudes that ranged from ambivalent to hostile.

Compared to the cultural issues, other factors such as curriculum, tutorials, training materials, homework, exams, and logistics have a Substantially smaller impact on student success.

High-reliability leading indicators exist for determining whether cultural issues threaten the success of a candidate student population

The associated training process appears to be executing at a Sigma-level of 0.75

New Program Principles Program commitment orientation and

agreement Structured, blended approach Custom examples, case studies, and

homework Simplified tools Project start during the training rather than at

the end

Orientation Program Commitment Agreement 2 hour session overview of the program Engage both learner and direct manager Explain criteria and recommend mitigation

strategies to satisfy them Learner skills and knowledge Time commitment Project selection

Require formal commitment or withdrawal from the program

Structured Blended Approach Instruction

70% online video instruction 30% instructor-led RIM-specific case studies

Monitoring Weekly homework Progress tests RIM Black Belts to support Six Sigma projects

Augment with custom examples, case studies, and homework for RIM audiences

Typical Course Timeline 12-week duration Expected effort: 8 hours/week Each week’s activities include

Viewing a pre-specified set of videos Completing an online progress test on the video

material Attending a 2-hour instructor-led case study or

project session Completing an online homework assignment

RIM Customizations Themed, RIM-specific case study (implemented

through the MindPro® Digital Project is the basis for Examples throughout the course 6 instructor-led tutorial sessions 6 homework assignments

Individual 6σ projects initiated during the course under supervision of a registered Black Belt Project selection Project charter Project measurement plan

Simplified Tools Project charter

Promote the critical information Enforce the support of data for explaining the

project expected ROI Storyboard

Include the Six Sigma tools for the corresponding belt

Promote consistency between projects

Student Success Rate

Wave 3Wave 2Wave 1

100.00%

80.00%

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00%

Perc

ent

of st

udents

com

ple

ting t

heir p

rogra

m

Successful studentsUnsuccessful students

C1

Successful and Unsuccessful Students

Promoters & Detractors (1)

Wave 3Wave 2Wave 1

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

Perc

ent

of Stu

dent

Popula

tion

PromotersDetractors

C1

Promoters and Detractors for Six Sigma

Promoters & Detractors (2)

Wave 3Wave 2Wave 1

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

Perc

ent

of st

udents

com

ple

ting t

heir p

rogra

m

Unsuccessful promoters Unsuccessful detractorsSuccessful promotersSuccessful detractors

C1

Line Plot of Wave 1, Wave 2, Wave 3

Overall Student Satisfaction for SSGB Waves 1, 2, and 3Improvement in Median & Distribution (2)

Backups

Comparison of SSGB Waves 1, 2, and 3 (1)  Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3

Number of participants registered 46 22 16

Percent completing the course 70% 91% 100%

Percent drop-out rate 30% 9% 0%

Number completing the course exit survey 44 16 14

Of those persons completing the program:

Percent successful students 61% 90% 100%

Percent unsuccessful students 39% 10% 0%

       

Percent unsuccessful promoters 0% 6% 0%

Unsuccessful neutrals 43% 0% 0%

Percent unsuccessful detractors 0% 0% 0%

Percent successful promoters 17% 63% 86%

Percent successful neutrals 17% 25% 7%

Percent successful detractors 29% 6% 7%

Average overall satisfaction (1 to 5 scale) 2.9 4.2 4.30

Median overall satisfaction 2.75 4.25 4.50

Standard Error of Mean for Overall Satisfaction 0.156 0.209 0.201

2 sample t-test comparing wave 1 and wave 3

N Mean StDev SE MeanWave 1 44 2.88 1.04 0.16Wave 3 14 4.286 0.752 0.20

Difference = mu (Wave 1) - mu (Wave 3)Estimate for difference: -1.40595% CI for difference: (-1.925, -0.885)T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -5.52 P-Value = 0.000

Conclusion: The null hypothesis is rejected with greater than 99% confidence.There is sufficient evidence to conclude that wave 3 students were more satisfied with their program than those who participated in wave 1.

2 sample t-test comparing wave 2 and wave 3 (1)

N Mean StDev SE MeanWave 2 16 4.219 0.836 0.21Wave 3 14 4.286 0.752 0.20

Difference = mu (Wave 2) - mu (Wave 3)Estimate for difference: -0.06795% CI for difference: (-0.662, 0.528)T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -0.23 P-Value = 0.819 DF = 27

Conclusion: The null hypothesis cannot be rejected.There is insufficient evidence to conclude that wave 3 students were more satisfied with their program than those who participated in wave 2.

Core (MindPro®) Curriculum

CoreInstructional

Videos

ApplicationVideos

ExpansionVideos

ProgressTests

FinalExam

DigitalProject

Green Belt Commercial15 Chapters140 Sections750 videos

SummarySlides

Resources

White Papers6σ Glossary

ToolsSimulators

6σ Knowledge Base6σ Digital Coach