Leaderboard

YES “Captaincy is 90% luck and 10% skill. But don't try it without that 10% - Richie Benaud, former Australian Test All-rounder, Cricket Commentator and Author Ambassador Argument Submission Priyer It is necessary to have Lean Six Sigma skills and awareness about it, but executing a DMAIC or DMADV is not necessary. The person can also come from a Lean background and apply his experience derived by following the other methodology cycle followed for Lean projects (12 week cycle or 16 week cycles or A3 approach) to be succesful in improvement manager role. How can the Manager without experience of a complete project add value to his reports and the SS Project team? Even if he is sincere and committed, the inability to add value will show up the Manager Kavitha Sundar As per the previous question, if the organisation does not allow the BB/ GB to do a DMAIC project, the opportunity is not given to him to prove his skill set. But in such cases, he can only refresh his knowledge and simulate a project experience and move on to next firm if there is an opportunity. Hence the BB / GB should be ready to take up a project and prove his skill set at any point in time even if we don't get an opportunity. He can also use lean approach instead of DMAIC / DMADV. So, the project using DMAIC / DMADV methodology application should not be a road block for his career growth. This is a different question and nothing is mentioned about the organisation not allowing a project Simulation is no substitute for the actual experience If the Improvement Manager restricts himself only to Lean projects, then many improvement opportunities could be lost By not doing any SS projects, both his career would not develop and the organization will lose out on improvements Togy Jose I would have preferred to say Yes, but there isn’t a lot of adoption by Organization around Lean Six Sigma methodologies - which means even if an individual has put in a lot of effort in getting certified, he/she may not get to work on a project because the org is not interested. So, for selecting a BB - an MBB or a highly experienced BB should have an in depth conversation with the candidate to just check for conceptual clarity / aptitude / functional experience / maturity level etc Given that in some industries (eg: Consulting) where LSS is not encouraged but there are enough high quality profiles, would we want to be limited by this requirement? Even if someone were to claim having done a project end to end, there is no way to review the data and verify the findings on account of confidentiality. So we’ll limit ourselves to just checking only conceptual clarity anyway. Not every LSS intervention needs to be a project, even a well-timed and well-documented FMEA can help with prioritised corrective action or a well documented QFD can help with a well structured design process. So a certified BB who has a done a lot standalone interventions deserves a chance. Standards cannot be diluted just because organizations are not following the SS Methodology The profile would not be that high quality if there were no SS Project experience This cannot be a reason for leaving out the requirements Possible to understand the truth by repeated questioning Agreed that not every LSS intervention needs to be a project. Tools were, are and will be used by themselves. But by not having SS project experience, the main benefits of the SS Methodology are lost Atul Dev Completion of a Six Sigma project depends on opportunity That is fine. But not having an opportunity still remains a drawback Alex Fernandes .completion of a full-fledged DMAIC or DMADV project not be an essential criterion for the hiring of a Lean Six Sigma BlackB Belt professional in an improvement manager job role and this is one huristic that the feternity needs to change. It is important for the interviewer to assess candidate's knowledge and project completion is a good source to gauge from but this is not always true. Reasons: 1. Genuinity of projects cannot always be verified. 2. Success of the project cannot be established. 3. Level of participation of candidate in the project cannot always be checked. In fact, projects could be misleading and could give an upper edge to undeserving candidates. It is important for a candidate to know and apply SixSigma tools and techniques and that could be established even without a full fledged project. Leading interview questions can reveal the truth Same as above Same as above Phani Kumar. N Since Six Sigma is an approach for process improvement, a person experienced in the area of operation acquiring skills and the techniques to be implemented for process improvement can be a better pick than a person who has handled improvement projects in other areas. However, nowadays there is a need for doing Projects has become a pre-requisite for handling Business Excellence function when it comes to hiring by organizations. This I look as a drawback in hiring process. The USP of the SS Methodology is its completeness of approach. Expertise in this completeness is acquired only by completing projects. All other related skills cannot make up for a lack of experience in completing sufficient number of projects in various roles like member, leader, mentor and so on Rajesh Chakrabarty I do agree on the point about a person having experience in the area of operations acquiring skill and technique.... This person can definitely be of great help to the project lead/improvement Manager.....especially for FMEA The experience is never complete without the project. Nazim Because identifying the improvements are not dependent on the experience of DMAIC & DMADV, the candidate should be aware of how to find the areas of improvement and drive business benefit out of it Unless the candidate is experienced in various nuances of the methodology that is best learnt by doing different types of projects, the person will never be sufficiently aware Arunesh Ramalingam In my opinion it should be a "Good to have" requirement. I strongly feel the following two aspects should be given more importance: 1. The Professional's familiarity and understanding of Lean Six Sigma concepts and his attitude/thought process towards the concept of "Continuous improvement". This aspect would indicate if the person would be able to identify, initiate and promote improvement activities. 2. The Professional's overall job experience. This would highlight his skills related to working in a team, leading projects, ability to communicate with the management, handling conflicts and so on which are critical for executing any six-sigma project. I would agree that a person with prior project execution experience may be more familiar with all the aspects of project execution, but he may not be essentially a keen promoter of continuous improvement culture. Also, the ambience under which he completed the projects is an unknown factor. For example, there could have been high level of support that he received from the management and his team, enabling him to complete the projects. On the other hand, a professional with the right attitude and skills may turn out to be a better option (albeit with some mentoring or learning gap). The points 1 and 2 identified above could be evaluated with well drafted detailed interview questions involving case study analysis and presentations. The completion of a full-fledged DMAIC or DMADV project should be a "good-to-have" requirement, and making it an essential criterion may not be the right thing to do. Knowing Arunesh’s performance in the competitions, first reaction on the lighter side would be, “Et tu, Brute” :-) The question is only about the essentiality of project experience and nothing to do with attitude. A person’s ability to identify, initiate and promote improvement activities will be complete only with relevant project experience. Merely having those skills is insufficient. What is required is using the skills effectively in projects. If the person were not a keen promoter of Continuous Improvement culture, the person would not have applied for the role in the first place. Same as above Same as 1 above As mentioned above, the candidate’s likelihood of success lies in understanding the full potential of the SS Methodology which is best achieved in performing different types of projects.

My stand is NO. In my opinion it should be a "Good to have" requirement. I strongly feel the following two aspects should be given more importance: 1. The Professional's familiarity and understanding of Lean Six Sigma concepts and his attitude/thought process towards the concept of "Continuous improvement". This aspect would indicate if the person would be able to identify, initiate and promote improvement activities. 2. The Professional's overall job experience. This would highlight his skills related to working in a team, leading projects, ability to communicate with the management, handling conflicts and so on which are critical for executing any six sigma project. I would agree that a person with prior project execution experience may be more familiar with all the aspects of project execution, but he may not be essentially a keen promoter of continuous improvement culture. Also, the ambience under which he completed the projects is an unknown factor. For example, there could have been high level of support that he received from the management and his team, enabling him to complete the projects. On the other hand, a professional with the right attitude and skills may turn out to be a better option ( albeit with some mentoring or learning gap). The points 1 and 2 identified above could be evaluated with well drafted detailed interview questions involving case study analysis and presentations. The completion of a full-fledged DMAIC or DMADV project should be a "good-to-have" requirement, and making it an essential criterion may not be the right thing to do.