To have a look at my response to the question in the last week’s blog post, please click here –https://benchmarksixsigma.com/blog/how-to-find-if-a-data-set-is-genuine-part-2/
This week’s debate is about selecting a suitable approach for business improvement training in a corporate set up. In the Business Improvement domain, broadly, there are two approaches and each of these has its pluses and minuses. I have used both kinds and have had my share of experiences.
The standardized corporate approach to Lean Six Sigma training
A large number of companies have decided in favour of this approach. In this approach, a standard training program is delivered in a corporate setting while utilizing industry specific examples. There are several training providers who offer this kind of standard programs; there are bodies of knowledge provided by entities like Exemplar Global or ASQ. The thought behind these programs considers the following –
1. It is good to expose participants to all relevant available concepts and approaches as presented by the globally accepted norms. Participants shall be mentored on selection and appropriate use of methods for their chosen project.
2. Participants shall be able to pick and choose, conceptualize and select, customise and optimize the methodology as well as tools that suit best for a given problem. Such an effort sharpens their acumen and enhances their capabilities.
3. It is good to provide larger scope for creative use of methods, some of which may not have been imagined by other companies or experts in the past.
4. It is good to build competence as people shall carry out different kinds of projects in times to come. It is fine to reward people with a globally recognized certification if they do well.
The highly customized corporate approach to Lean Six Sigma training
There are several levels of customization. These range from just small tweaks in nomenclature and time spent on topics to the other extreme of the spectrum that uses a highly customized approach. I shall discuss the extreme customization approach here. In this approach, a specific group of problems or a set of related processes is identified. Case studies, exercises, games or activities are devised using real data and situations from the workplace. A DMAIC type roadmap is chosen and the workshops utilize a custom mix of methods selected carefully according to the participant background, the time frame of projects, and the complexity of problems being tackled. This approach considers the following thought patterns.
1. It does not make sense to expose participants to concepts and techniques that they cannot use immediately. We should study the management system well and remove topics which do not seem to have any relevance to problems at hand.
2. It is prudent to exclusively focus our energies on methods that are relevant to our identified focus areas. It also makes sense to add topics from other domains like project management, theory of constraints as required.
3. It is great to have games and simulations mimicking real challenges that allow teams to enjoy learning while focusing on real workplace issues.
4. It is good to expose people to limited useful methods in detail as compared to too many techniques that cause distraction. It is okay to reward people with a company’s own certification mechanism which is highly customized and focused.
Based on the above, we have the question of this week. This time, there are no right or wrong answers, just opinions.
The question is – If you were given a chance to select one of the above approaches in your corporate setting, which one you will prefer?
or
If you have a few more minutes, do provide your specific reason for the answer you have chosen and we may be able to have a discussion around it. To provide a comment, please click here.
Here’s hoping that you win many battles on the Lean Six Sigma battlefields.
Benchmark Six Sigma conducts workshops related to problem solving and decision making all across India and partners with a limited number of companies each year on "build your transformation team" projects. Public Workshops calendar can be seen here - http://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/calendar
Linkedin Group - To ask your own questions or to participate in interesting questions already posed, you may join our Linkedin Group - Lean Six Sigma War Room.
- When Design for Six Sigma Fails - September 24, 2015
- The root cause is missing - July 15, 2014
- Process Excellence Vs. Human Psychology - June 11, 2014
The partly or costomised approach helps people better, to get organised to the company. This approach can be used on all the employees, who have less knowledge of analytical capability, slowly bringing them to the Standard Approach.
I feel the customization approach will benefit more to that organization based on their practice, problems. Case studies, exercises, games or activities are devised using real data and situations from the workplace – Definitely it will help them to understand and to implement the six sigma easily in their organization.
I think that both the approaches are required to maximize learning. But it is better to begin with the standardized approach because of the following reasons –
1. The ‘T’ principle … initial training should broadly introduce all the tools and methodologies. In-depth understanding and new insights would be developed only through implementation and actual use of the concepts.
2. Cross-pollination of concepts and ideas … participants may be able to use concepts and techniques from outside their focus areas to achieve break-through improvements.
3. Reward & Recognition … a globally recognized certification is prestigious and coveted, besides being more formal. It re-enforces confidence among participants and inspires them to aim towards excellence.
4. Leverage on global best practices … a lot of research and efforts go into designing training programs and content like the ones offered by ASQ. Corporate entities would channelize their energies better by focusing on core business competencies.
However, this does not mean that customized training is not required. Eventually, all generic knowledge needs to be applied to real problems. Customized training programs are better suited for experienced participants who need a periodic refresher of the tools & concepts but in a more business-specific setting.
VK:
Both the approaches are required depending on the Cost of training, Time required / available to assimilate and apply the learning, Possibility of Utilization of the training in future, Organizations Vision / Mission / Goals etc.
Hence I have not chosen any of the option provided so the answer may not be biased. We may consider a third option – NOTA (Fallout of the recent elections… 🙂
As usual, awaiting your enlightening inputs at the earliest…..
Thank you very much VK.
Both the methods have pros and cons. Probably a mix of the approaches with a view of individuals skills and interest might be the best option.
If a corporation has a wide geographical spread, a certain level of standardized training to ensure consistency in nomenclature is required. This, to me, is the foundation on which the training program can be built robustly. I also like the implicit trust in external certification – the corporation, in effect, is saying “We’re committed enough to you to ensure you have the skills we need and we have confidence in our ability to keep you after certification.” Also, the halo effect from using a respected external supplier is beneficial in terms of how much is absorbed during the training.
I agree with Rishi Varma on his points and the T principle especially – expose people to many tools and the situations in which they can be used, whether or not it can be applied today. I’ve not used the Evaporating Cloud technique for several years, but I know I could pull it up online and be able to apply it again if the occasion arose.
I also think he hits the nail on the head with his use of the term “Global Best Practices” as it relates to training. Training companies keep on top of concepts and theory related to training much more enthusiastically than most large corporate entities ever could.
I would say that cross-pollination is not explicitly the domain of external training. I am a firm believer that at least as much real value is created during the coffee breaks in training when people from diverse areas talk informally and ‘bump ideas’ than during the training itself.
I am facing exactly this problem today! On the one hand I am preparing to do a standard Green Belt curricular training program for company X. The advantage is that preparation is minimal since the instructional materials have been in existence for years and we simply repeat the training. The advantage is thus also financial. Its cheaper to run through a canned program. Another advantage is the graduates of the course have a globally recognized and understood certificate. At the same time I am working all week to prepare a one day intro to what will become a highly focused training program using only the specific tools desired by the company and no certificate is likely to follow the training. The advantage is that choice of tools is aimed at unique problems the company is having and thus will be efficient for the members of the class. Is one better than the other? Depends on the needs of each company and a willingness on the part of company Y to pay more for less training hoping to maximize the value of the training.