iSixSigma

Arne Buthmann

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #56521

    Arne Buthmann
    Participant

    Sachin:
    Are you more interested in general benefits like increased revenue / improved use of workspace or in project examples or case studies?
    Arne
     

    0
    #56520

    Arne Buthmann
    Participant

    Tom:
    As far as I know the ASQ only certifies Black Belts  in the US. For a BB certification in Europe I would recommend to contact either the “Deutsche Gesellschaft für Qualität” (http://www.dgq.de) or the “Swiss Association for Quality” (http://www.saq.de).
    Arne

    0
    #56315

    Arne Buthmann
    Participant

    Sure I do. One of the major golas of Six Sigma is to contribute to the company’s success. Therefore, projects should always start where there’s a ‘real’ and important business case! Arne

    0
    #56312

    Arne Buthmann
    Participant

    Kiruba:
    I would recommend not to change the Sigma level to 6 although you reach the SLA of 85% FCR. Reason is that in fact you still have 15% of the issues which are not resolved after the first call, i.e. 15% defects!
    For example in automotive industries customers require a cpk value of 1,3 (and higher) from their suppliers. That means, that they accept a certain defect rate but actually that doesn’t make the process more capable! Transferred to your case, your customers today accept a 2,5 Sigma level but that doesn’t make your process 6 sigma!  
    I think there’s no right or wrong. But to continue your Sigma calculation based on the CTQ “First contact resolution” makes more sense to me rather than to take the SLA of 85% as CTQ (Just consider that one day your customers may require 90% FCR!)
    Hope that helps
    Arne
     
     

    0
    #56286

    Arne Buthmann
    Participant

    Hello JJ:
     
    ad 1)

    To calculate a Cpk your data have to be continuous and you have to have specification limits (in your case you don’t have spec limits – 0 for defectives is not a specification, it reflects a way of thinking that there is no variation). To calculate Cpk you would need to measure your data continuously, e.g. measuring the weld strength in a destructive test of pull-off force in Newton – and what is the spec here, what force must the weld connection stand?
    ad 2) To display the defect rate (e.g. per shift) you should use the p-control-chart (instead of the individuals control-chart). Since specification (=target)-limits (in your case 0% defect) are not displayed in a control chart, because only statistically calculated control limits are shown, there is no problem if the target and the control limits are the same. (If you decide to measure the components, your control chart will have different control limits, anyway)
    ad 3) For discrete data (what the defect rate actually is) normal distribution is not assumed and, moreover, cannot even be expected. The p-chart makes no assumption of normal distribution but requires binomially distributed data.  
    Summarized: The best would be if you could measure the components instead of just counting defective parts. If this is not possible, use a p-chart to display the defect rate.
    If you have any further questions, please ask!
    Arne

    0
    #56274

    Arne Buthmann
    Participant

    Hey Bill!
    Do you use Minitab 13 or 14? If you are working with Minitab 14 (you can get a free, 30-day demo of MINITAB 14 on http://www.minitab.com) use the capability analysis for multiple variables (Stat>Quality Tools>Capability Analysis>Multiple Variables).
    This allows you to enter different spec limits for each group being analyzed. You don’t have to enter these upper and lower spec limits manually, but you can get them from 2 seperate worksheet columns (one for LSL, one for USL). These columns can be quickly generated by
    – inserting an additional column which contains (in your case) the values 5-100, and then
    – calculating the LSL column and the USL column, resp., as +/- 5 % of the additionally inserted column (with the help of the Minitab Calculator).
    Hope that works! For any further questions don’t hesitate to ask me!
    Arne
     

    0
    #100821

    Arne Buthmann
    Participant

    Hi!
    If I get you right, LOR isn’t the right tool. LOR is used when you have an ordinal Y variable and one or more continuous X variables (i.e. just the other way round as you have).
    In your case, you can use a simple linear regression and / or the fitted line plot (if you work with Minitab).
    For any help to how to conduct the regression analysis and / or interpret the results don’t hesitate to ask me!
    Arne

    0
    #56265

    Arne Buthmann
    Participant

    Kiruba:
     
    Thanks for clarifying my questions.
     
    So, I think you’re on a good track with analyzing the data. Some ideas I have in order to improve your agents’ soft skill (ratings) are:
     
    –         If possible, ask a sample of customers why they rated your agents soft skills down (as well as why they rated them up!): Why is accent a problem for the customer? What can you / your agents do to better satisfy your customer needs. I think, your customer data base (only the responses to your Csat survey) is not enough. Try to clarify the CTQs: When do you and your customer agree that your agents’ accent is good?  etc.).
    –         Maybe use a fishbone diagram or the 5-Whys-technique to deeper analyze why accent is a problem for the customer (One hypothesis I have is that accent is not the ‘real’ cause but rather the most obvious and, thus, rated one.) You might get additional ideas how to solve accent problems, especially if you find out that it is difficult to improve somebody’s accent.
    –         Conduct simulations (role-playing) of different agent-customer situations (especially those where the agent has difficulties to solve the customer’s problem). Have other agents rate and analyze soft skills of the role-playing agent. You should get a better picture of what goes wrong and how to improve.
    –         Finally (as you already mentioned) improve the agents’ problem solving skills. This will actually not improve your agents’ skills themselves but maybe the ratings and – what is most important – customer satisfaction.
     
    For any questions, don’t hesitate to ask me. Unfortunately, I can’t provide an ITES study.
     
    Kind regards
    Arne Buthmann

    0
    #56261

    Arne Buthmann
    Participant

    Hello Kiruba: Before I am in a position to answer your questions I’ve some additional questions: – How do you know that the communication skill is running at 85-90%? Since you write that 68% of your customers are not satisfied with the communication skills of the agent, I don’t understand where the 85-90% come from and how you’ll measure 97%? – Why are you concentrating on communication skills? From a ustomer point of view, it seems to make more sense to focus on better resolving their problems (especially if 68% of your customers say that their issues remain unsolved)? – Do you want to improve the communication skills of your agents or the customer ratings of your agents’ skills? Both might have different root causes. Since you write that you will maybe concentrate on problem resolution to improve the communication skills, it looks more like that you want to improve the ratings rather than the skills. – Why do you want to normalize the data with Minitab? Normalizing data only makes sense, if you want to use a tool or statisitc procedure that requires normally distributed data? (But since “customer ratings (1-4)” and “the number of customers that give a particular comment on the agents’ soft skills” are discrete data normalizing data with Minitab will be impossible, anyway) Maybe you can answer my questions to help me better understand your stuation. My intial comment on your question is that drilling down negative communication skill ratings in order to identify root causes makes much ense. But since most of your customers did not specify their ratings you should ask (maybe a sample of) the customer again why they negatively rate your agents. On the other hand, I don’t think you have to consider all 5 issues since some of those reasons may also be part of the “no reason specified” group. If your’re interested in improving the skills (not only the ratings of the skills) you should think about additional methods to better identify the root causes (like videotaping agent-customer interactions or role-playing plus additonal ratings maybe by colleagues) 
    I’m looking forward to hearing from you!   Arne      

    0
    #56253

    Arne Buthmann
    Participant

    Dear BT,
    From my experience in different companies (as a Six Sigma consultant) I would not recommend to hire Black Belts from US, but to quickly qualify your own BBs. External BBs will never have (and will at least 1-2 years need to build up) the same organisational knowledge as your own employees have. A Black Belt needs more than just technical and mathematicsl Six Sigma skills to succeed, but all that personal characterisitcs as

    willingness to embrace change and new ideas
    tough, resilient, and able to persuade others
    ability to work at multiple levels within the organization
    ability to communicate at all levels
    ability to promote the key messages of pace, results and sustainability in all activities
    ability to quickly grasp the bigger picture of company’s business drivers and infrastructure
    etc.
    These ‘softer’ competencies are more difficult to apply for BB unexperienced of your company’s behaviours and culture (even if he or she has those abilities in general).
    If you plan to hire external Black Belts, than better recruite them within Europe and take French and UK national BBs instead. From my experience the Black Belts should at least have the same language as well as the same cultural background since even global acting companies always have national cultures. For example, we’ve experienced that American (Six Sigma) teams differ from French teams regarding their pace of change and their dealing with change: from an American perspective French teams push change initiatives much slower than US teams would do, what often may cause frustrations on the American side.
    Six Sigma is quite established in Europe and well educated Six Sigma experts are available in France, the UK etc. as well.
    Kind regards,
    Arne

    0
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)