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