One of the best outcomes of many companies' moves into Six Sigma quality is the improvement of their training processes. In
some ways, we can view the training given in Six Sigma initiatives as the evolution of quality training. Many of the methods that didn't work in the past have been discarded or totally revamped
while successful ideas that have garnered excellent results have been copied and even improved upon. In many cases, we've reinvented what cognitive psychologists have told us for years.
In the early 1980s, after incurring many trials and errors while trying to improve the quality, reliability and productivity of AT&T products through training at Bell Labs, Madhav
Phadke found a winner by redesigning the Robust Design Workshop ("Taguchi Methods"). The new course was taught in two parts. Participants came in three- or four-person teams from the
same center or laboratory. During the first three days, participants learned the principles of experimental and robust design and planned an experiment. Then they presented their plans to their
directors and obtained approval for conducting the experiments and for the resources they would need. During the following four to six weeks, each team was supported by one of the internal
consultants/instructors running the course. Each team then came back for a final two-day session, finished their analyses and prepared their presentations and implementation plans. At the end of
the two days, they presented their results and implementation plans to their directors. In most Six Sigma quality programs, these successful ideas have been further refined. The first
step is a decision by senior management to engage in such an effort. Because it requires significant resources, the chief executive and those immediately under him or her must make this decision.
Then there's a one- or two-day seminar for the executive team to learn the basic approach and discuss their own roles. One of the key steps is selecting the "Champions," senior
managers who will oversee the actual work of the Six Sigma teams. The company then provides a special three- to five-day course for the Champions, during which the fundamental methods of Six
Sigma are introduced. Also during this initial training, Champions often define some projects and select Black Belt candidates. Black Belt candidates are usually leaders within the
organization who are asked to work on the project full time. The training they receive is the heart of the Six Sigma quality effort. It's usually four or five weeks long, each separated by three
or four weeks of hard work as the Black Belts and their teams apply the new methods and tools to the problem. Each week, the Black Belts present their work to the instructors and other Black Belt
candidates for feedback. The Champions and other members of the senior executive team usually attend these project reviews. The exact form of Black Belt training has evolved over the
years as more companies implement and adapt Six Sigma methodology. Not surprisingly, because the purpose of the training is to enable the Black Belts to achieve significant results, it has become
quite effective and efficient. The training incorporates many of the modern ideas of cognitive theory described by Marsha C. Lovett and Joel B. Greenhouse in their August 2000 American
Statistician article "Applying Cognitive Theory to Statistics Instruction." Examples include:  Students learn best what they practice and perform on their own.
Knowledge tends to be specific to the context in which it is learned. Learning is more efficient when students receive real-time feedback as they solve problems. Learning involves integrating new knowledge with existing knowledge. Students' learning becomes less efficient as the mental load they must carry increases.
The evolution of Six Sigma training has also incorporated many other educational reforms discussed by Lovett and Greenhouse: Collaborative learning. Students work together in small teams, solving
problems; in work groups, designing and conducting small experiments; and with actual project teams, applying the lessons learned to real problems. Active learning. Students are continuously engaged in applying new methods to
realistic problems and solving these problems in an open environment. They conduct real experiments and analyze real data in small groups, comparing their results with those of other teams. Targeting misconceptions. Students are encouraged to solve problems
incorrectly--often using methods they've been using on the job. Examples of these methods include one-factor-at-a-time experiments, simple tests of hypotheses
without testing assumptions, and paired comparisons without blocking extraneous variables. The students quickly see how easily one can derive misleading data or
spend a great deal of time and money only to achieve inferior results.
Use of technology. In all Black Belt training, students use computers with the same software they will use on their actual projects and work assignments. Many
companies have also created intranets to provide sharing of software, methods and results across all divisions and locations.
About the author A. Blanton Godfrey, Ph.D., is dean and Joseph D. Moore Distinguished University Professor at North Carolina State University's College of Textiles. He
was formerly chairman and CEO of Juran Institute Inc. E-mail him at agodfrey@qualitydigest.com . |
