SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 75
Certified Six Sigma Green Belt
            Course
          Brandon Theiss
     Brandon.Theiss@gmail.com
Motivation
• Teaching the tools, techniques and Methods of Lean Six
  Sigma is inherently difficult in academic setting.
• When taught in a industrial setting students have a
  common motivation (the improved welfare of the
  company), similar levels of education and knowledge of
  domain specific information. Student are encouraged to
  learn by applying the material to their daily activities.
• This is not possible in an academic setting particularly in a
  mixed environment that includes everything from
  undergraduate juniors through senior PhD researchers.
• In addition undergraduate students tend either lack
  professional or have experience in Fields that are not
  traditionally thought of as benefiting or implementing Six
  Sigma (waitressing, check out clerk etc.)
Solution
• The beauty of the Six Sigma Methodology is that it can be applied
  to any process.
• The definition of a process is quite broad and can be reduced to any
  verb- noun combination.
• Therefore the collective process which the class studied and
  improved was to
                               Pass [the]
                                  ASQ
                       Certified Six Sigma Green
                               Belt Exam

• Therefore the foundational Six Sigma Concept of DMAIC (Define
  Measure Analyze Improve Control) represents both the material
  covered in the course as well as the pedagogical method used for
  instruction
About the Course & Partnership
• Offered as a Non-Credit extracurricular course
  at Rutgers University in Piscataway NJ
• Co-Sponsored by the Rutgers Student Chapter
  of the Institute for Industrial Engineers (IIE) and
  the Princeton NJ section of American Society for
  Quality (ASQ)
• Open and advertised to all members of the
  Rutgers Community (students, staff and faculty)
  as well as the surrounding public
• Objective of the course was to train students to
  pass the June 2nd 2012 administration of the
  ASQ Certified Six Sigma Green Belt Exam
Class Demographics
  • 71 Students Registered
           – 57 At Student Tuition Rate ($296)
           – 14 At Professional Tuition Rate ($495)

                                                                                            Histogram of Years Of Work Exprience
             Highest Accademic Grade                                                3

                    Completed                                              20


40.0%
35.0%                                                                      15
30.0%




                                                               Frequency
25.0%
                                                                           10
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%                                                                      5
 5.0%
 0.0%
                                                                           0
        Junior Year   Senior   BA/BS    Some MA/MS/JD PhD/PE                    2       4      6   8     10    12   14    16   18   20   22   24
                       Year            Grdudate                                                        Years Of Work Exprience
Course Syllabus
    1.      Introduction, Sample Exam            7.    Analyze 2, Analyze 3
    2.      Review Exam, Define 1                8.    Improve 1, Sample 50 Question Exam
    3.      Define 2, Measure 1                  9.    Review Exam, Control 1
    4.      Measure 2, Measure 3                 10.   Sample 100 Question Exam
    5.      Measure 4, Sample 50 Question        11.   Review Exam, Additional Questions
            Exam
    6.      Review Exam, Analyze 1


          Define               Measure                 Analyze Improve Control
•        Project Definition   • Measurement        • Inferential          • Pareto Charts
•        Team Dynamics          Systems              Statistics           • Process
•        Brainstorming        • Histograms         • Confidence             Capability
•        Process Mapping      • Box Plots            Intervals            • Lean
                              • Dot Plots          • Hypothesis
                              • Probability          Tests
                                Plots              • Regression
                              • Control Charts       Analysis
Pre Test
• On the first night of classes students were
  given an introductory survey of Six Sigma
  by means of a worked example applying
  DMAIC to the Starbucks Experience from a
  Customers Prospective.
• Students were then given a copy of the
  Certified Six Sigma Green Belt Handbook by
  Roderick A. Munro
• Then given a 50 Question Multiple Choice
  Test representative of the ASQ CSSGB Exam
• The Test was administered on two
  successive nights (Monday and Tuesday)
Measurement System



• An Apperson GradeMaster™ 600 Test
  Scanner was utilized which enabled test to
  be scored and returned immediately upon
  student submission at the exam site.
• In addition all of each answer to every
  question was downloaded to connected
  computer enabling further detailed analysis
MONDAY RESULTS
Test Scores
                            Histogram of Test Scores
                                       Normal

                                                                Mean    0.5589
            9
                                                                StDev   0.1177
                                                                N           35
            8

            7

            6
Frequency




            5

            4

            3

            2

            1

            0
                36.00%   48.00%     60.00%    72.00%   84.00%
                                  Test Scores
Test for Normality
                                 Probability Plot of Test Score
                                         Normal - 95% CI
          99
                                                                              Mean      0.5589
                                                                              StDev     0.1177
          95                                                                  N             35
                                                                              AD         0.396
          90
                                                                              P-Value    0.352
          80
          70
Percent




          60
          50
          40
          30
          20

          10

          5


          1
               0.2   0.3   0.4      0.5     0.6   0.7      0.8    0.9   1.0
                                       Test Score
Is process in Control?
                                           I Chart of Test Score
                   1.0
                                                                                    UCL=0.9468
                   0.9

                   0.8

                   0.7
Individual Value




                   0.6                                                              _
                                                                                    X=0.5589
                   0.5

                   0.4

                   0.3

                   0.2
                                                                                    LCL=0.1709
                   0.1
                         1    4   7   10   13    16   19   22   25   28   31   34
                                                Observation
Is the Process Capable?
                                      Process Capability of Test Scores

                                                                                LSL
        P rocess Data                                                                               Within
LS L               0.78                                                                             Overall
Target             *
USL                *                                                                         P otential (Within) C apability
S ample M ean      0.558857                                                                          Cp           *
S ample N          35                                                                                C PL     -0.61
S tDev (Within)    0.120985                                                                          C PU         *
S tDev (O v erall) 0.117718                                                                          C pk     -0.61
                                                                                                  O v erall C apability
                                                                                                     Pp           *
                                                                                                     PPL      -0.63
                                                                                                     PPU          *
                                                                                                     P pk     -0.63
                                                                                                     C pm         *




                                         0.36       0.48     0.60        0.72         0.84
 O bserv ed P erformance      E xp.   Within P erformance   E xp. O v erall P erformance
P P M < LS L    971428.57     PPM     < LS L 966214.72      P P M < LS L 969849.40
PPM > USL               *     PPM     > USL             *   PPM > USL                 *
P P M Total     971428.57     PPM     Total     966214.72   P P M Total       969849.40
Are there bad questions?
                                          NP Chart of Wrong Answers
               40
                                                                                  1

                                               1
               30                     1
                                                                 1
                             1   1
Sample Count




                                                                                            UCL=24.25

               20
                                                                                            __
                                                                                            NP=15.44

               10
                                                                                            LCL=6.63
                        11
                                                                              1
               0                                                     1
                    1    6       11       16       21     26     31      36       41   46
                                                        Sample
Does the order the exams are turned in effect the
                     score?

                                 Trend Analysis Plot for Test Score
                                             Linear Trend Model
                                          Yt = 0.5018 + 0.00317*t
                   0.9                                                              Variable
                                                                                    Actual
                                                                                    Fits
                   0.8
                                                                              Accuracy Measures
                                                                               MAPE    15.9381
                   0.7                                                         MAD      0.0840
      Test Score




                                                                               MSD      0.0124

                   0.6


                   0.5


                   0.4


                   0.3
                         3   6   9   12   15     18 21   24   27    30   33
                                               Index
TUESDAY RESULTS
Test Scores
Test for Normality
Is the process in Control?
                                          I Chart of Scores
                                                          1
                    90.00%
                                                                              UCL=84.62%
                    80.00%

                    70.00%
 Individual Value




                    60.00%                                                    _
                                                                              X=55.93%
                    50.00%

                    40.00%

                    30.00%
                                                                              LCL=27.25%

                    20.00%
                             1   4   7   10    13   16    19   22   25   28
                                              Observation
Is the process capable?
Are there Bad Questions?
                                           NP Chart of Incorrect
                30
                                                                            1

                25
                                           1

                                                                                      UCL=20.80
                20
 Sample Count




                15
                                                                                      __
                                                                                      NP=12.78
                10


                5                                                                     LCL=4.76
                                                      1   1
                                      1                                 1
                                                               1
                0        1
                     1       6   11   16       21     26      31   36       41   46
                                                    Sample
Does the order exams are turned in
        effect test scores?
                           Trend Analysis Plot for Scores
                                   Linear Trend Model
                                Yt = 0.5614 - 0.000138*t

             0.9                                                           Variable
                                                                           Actual
                                                                           Fits

             0.8                                                     Accuracy Measures
                                                                      MAPE    13.9747
                                                                      MAD      0.0779
             0.7                                                      MSD      0.0100
    Scores




             0.6


             0.5


             0.4

                   3   6   9   12     15    18    21       24   27
                                    Index
COMBINED RESULTS
Combined Test Scores
                          Histogram of Combined
                                  Normal
            20                                           Mean    0.5591
                                                         StDev   0.1099
                                                         N           64


            15
Frequency




            10




            5




            0
                 0.36   0.48     0.60      0.72   0.84
                               Combined
Test Scores
                                              Histogram of Monday, Tuesday
                                                                      Normal


                                                                                  0   0%          0   0%          0   0%          0   0%          0   0%
                                                                           3   6.          4   8.          6   0.          7   2.          8   4.

                                    Monday                                                      Tuesday                                                       Monday
            9                                                     9                                                                                        Mean 0.5589
                                                                                                                                                           StDev 0.1177
            8                                                     8                                                                                        N         35

            7                                                     7                                                                                           Tuesday
                                                                                                                                                           Mean 0.5593
Frequency




            6                                                     6                                                                                        StDev 0.1018
                                                                                                                                                           N          29
            5                                                     5
            4                                                     4
            3                                                     3
            2                                                     2
            1                                                     1
            0                                                     0
                     36        48        60        72        84
                0.        0.        0.        0.        0.
Is there a difference Between Classes?
                Boxplot of Monday, Tuesday
            Monday                           Tuesday
      0.9


      0.8


      0.7


      0.6


      0.5


      0.4


      0.3
Is there a statistical Difference?
 Anova: Single Factor

 SUMMARY
       Groups           Count      Sum     Average Variance
 Monday                      35      19.56 0.558857 0.013857
 Tuesday                     29      16.22 0.55931 0.010357



 ANOVA
  Source of Variation      SS       df        MS        F     P-value   F crit
 Between Groups         3.26E-06          1 3.26E-06 0.000265 0.987056 3.995887
 Within Groups           0.76114         62 0.012276

 Total                  0.761144         63
Brainstorming Techniques
• At the beginning of class students were asked as a group to
  brainstorm ideas for why they failed the pre-test
   – Only 4 ideas were proposed
• Students were taught the different brainstorming techniques
  contained in the CSSGB Body of Knowledge
   –   Nominal Group Technique
   –   Multi-Voting
   –   Affinity Diagrams
   –   Force Field Analysis
   –   Tree Diagrams
   –   Cause and Effect Diagrams
• Students were then broken up into 6 different groups, assigned one
  of the brainstorming techniques and given the task to brainstorm
  why they failed the pre-test
Brainstorming Techniques Continued
• Students then presented their results to the
  Group
Brainstorming Results




Cause and Effect (Fishbone)




                              Affinity Diagram
Brainstorming Results




                        Tree Diagram

Force Field Analysis
Brainstorming Results




                        Nominal Group Technique
Multi-Voting
Brainstorming Continued
• Students then were given told to return to
  their groups and apply their “favorite” of the
  brainstorming techniques to the task how can
  you Pass the midterm exam
• Students Found the positive formulation of
  the task much more challenging and most
  groups stayed with the same technique they
  used for the Negative version.
Team Dynamics
• The 3rd weeks lesson began with an
  introduction of the Tuckman cycle of team
  dynamics
 • Students were asked
   to reflect upon their
   experience in the
   brainstorming activity
   to see if their
   experiences paralleled
   those predicted by the
   model
Process Mapping
• The second portion of the 3rd Class was spent
  introducing the process mapping strategies in
  the CSSGB BoK
  – SIPOC (Suppliers Inputs Outputs Customers)
  – Process Mapping
  – Value Stream
     Mapping
Process Mapping Continued




•   Students were again divided into 6 groups. Each group was assigned a map type and
    told to Map the Exam Taking Process at either a Micro or Macro Level
•   Micro Level Groups Handled the Physical steps of taking the exam such as reading
    the question, locating the answer and filling in the bubbles
•   Macro Groups Handled the all of the preparation leading up to taking the exam
•   The point was to emphasize that the same tools techniques and methods can be
    used on the very micro level (an operator tightening a bolt) to the very macro level
    (the operations of a fortune 500 company)
Control Charts
• Class 4 Introduced Students to the Control Charts Covered in the
  CSSGB BoK
    –   I-MR
    –   X Bar-R
    –   X Bar- S
    –   P
    –   NP
    –   U
    –   C
• Students were emailed prior to class a Microsoft Excel Workbook
  containing the test results and told to bring their laptops to class
• Students were asked to do the following by hand (with Excel
  helping for the calculations):
    –   I-MR Chart for Test Scores
    –   P Chart testing for “Bad Questions”
    –   NP Chart testing for “Bad Questions”
    –   C Chart for the number of wrong responses per exam
    –   U Chart for the number of wrong responses per exam
Control Charts Results




NP Chart


                       C Chart
Midterm Analysis
Midterm Exam Results
Pre Class Exam Results
Comparison
Does a T-Test Indicate there was improvement?




          t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

                                                            Mid      Pre
          Mean                                            0.607234 0.561702
          Variance                                        0.014373 0.01111
          Observations                                          47       47
          Hypothesized Mean Difference                           0
          df                                                    91
          t Stat                                          1.955429
          P(T<=t) one-tail                                  0.0268
          t Critical one-tail                             1.661771
          P(T<=t) two-tail                                  0.0536
          t Critical two-tail                             1.986377
Does ANOVA Indicate there was
       Improvement?
  Anova: Single Factor

  SUMMARY
         Groups          Count      Sum     Average Variance
  Pre Total                   64      35.78 0.559063 0.012082
  Mid Total                   53      31.72 0.598491 0.013705



  ANOVA
   Source of Variation      SS       df         MS        F     P-value  F crit
  Between Groups         0.045069           1 0.045069 3.516685 0.06329 3.923599
  Within Groups          1.473823         115 0.012816

  Total                  1.518892         116
Change in Scores
Is the Change in Control?
          C Chart of Change in # of Correct Responses
15



10
                                                        UCL = 8.29

 5
                                                        Mid= 2.28

 0
                                                        LCL = -3.74

 -5



-10



-15
Is the change in Scores Significant?




        t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

                                                  Mid       Pre
        Mean                                  0.607234043 0.561702
        Variance                              0.014372618 0.01111
        Observations                                   47       47
        Pearson Correlation                   0.689206844
        Hypothesized Mean Difference                    0
        df                                             46
        t Stat                                3.475995635
        P(T<=t) one-tail                      0.000560995
        t Critical one-tail                   1.678660414
        P(T<=t) two-tail                       0.00112199
        t Critical two-tail                   2.012895599
Not all Material on the Exam has been
           Covered in Class
Midterm Comparison
Pre Test Comparison
Comparison of Results for Material
    that has been Covered
                            Boxplot of Covered Scores
                 1.0


                 0.9


                 0.8
Covered Scores




                 0.7


                 0.6


                 0.5


                 0.4


                 0.3
                       Pre Covered                      Mid Covered
                                      Subscripts
Comparison of Covered Material
                              Histogram of Pre Covered, Mid Covered
                                                 Normal

                                                 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
                            Pre Covered                   Mid Covered           Pre Cov ered
                                                                               Mean 0.5785
              12                                                               StDev 0.1252
                                                                               N           64
              10                                                                Mid Cov ered
                                                                               Mean 0.6516
                                                                               StDev 0.1174
  Frequency




              8                                                                N           53


              6


              4


              2


              0
                   0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Does ANOVA Indicate there was
       improvement?
  Anova: Single Factor

  SUMMARY
        Groups           Count    Sum     Average Variance
  Pre Covered                 64 37.02632 0.578536 0.015686
  Mid Covered                 53 34.53333 0.651572 0.013785



  ANOVA
   Source of Variation      SS      df         MS        F     P-value   F crit
  Between Groups         0.154648          1 0.154648 10.43065 0.001616 3.923599
  Within Groups           1.70503        115 0.014826

  Total                  1.859678        116
Comparison of Results for Material
   that has not been Covered
                             Boxplot of Scores
          0.9

          0.8

          0.7

          0.6

          0.5
 Scores




          0.4

          0.3

          0.2

          0.1

          0.0
                Pre Not Covered                  Mid Not Covered
                                   Subscripts
Comparison of Material Not Covered
Does ANOVA indicate the Exam was
            harder?
     Anova: Single Factor

     SUMMARY
           Groups           Count    Sum     Average Variance
     Pre Not Covered             64 31.83333 0.497396 0.01785
     Mid Not Covered             53     27.5 0.518868 0.024926



     ANOVA
      Source of Variation      SS      df         MS        F     P-value   F crit
     Between Groups         0.013367          1 0.013367 0.635003 0.427168 3.923599
     Within Groups          2.420698        115 0.02105

     Total                  2.434065        116
Is the Exam Taking Process Capable?
Control Charts with Minitab




• Students were emailed a Microsoft Excel Workbook with the Mid-
  Term data set
• It was heavily suggested that students purchase the Minitab
  academic license and bring their laptops to class.
• Students then divided themselves into groups around those who
  purchased the software and created the analysis control charts on
  the preceding slides.
Hypothesis Testing Exercises
• In week 8 students were introduced to the hypothesis tests covered
  in CSSGB BoK
   –   Z Test
   –   Student T
   –   Two Sample T (known variance)
   –   Two Sample T (unknown variance)
   –   Paired T Test
   –   ANOVA
   –   Chi Squared T
   –   F Test
• Students were emailed a data set containing both the Pre-Test and
  Mid-Term data and asked to perform each of the listed test using
  either Minitab or Microsoft Excel. The emphasis was placed on the
  conclusions from the data
Confidence Intervals
• Not all students took the Mid-Term that took the
  pre-test.
• This enabled students to utilize inferential
  statistics to draw conclusions about the
  population parameters (mean and variance
  particularly)
• By using the class data set provided students
  were able to calculate their confidence in the
  overall population parameters for the average
  test score as well as the standard deviation of the
  entire class
Improve-Control
• Improve and Control are not an emphasis in the CSSGB BoK. For the
  coverage of the material and extended example of the Starbucks
  Experience from a customers perspective is presented.
• When introducing Lean and the types of Waste the process of making
  various beverages are presented. Students then proposed improvement
  strategies to minimize the ‘Muda’

                                               Triple Tall Half Hot Half Cold Americano
                                                             (Future State)
    Triple Tall Half Hot Half Cold Americano
                  (Current State)
Final Exam Analysis
Exam Scores
Doesn’t Look Normal
It’s Bi-Modal!
Did the scores Improve?
Was The Difference Significant?
   Anova: Single Factor


   SUMMARY
              Groups           Count        Sum         Average    Variance
   Pre                                 64    35.78      0.559063    0.012082
   Mid                                 47    28.54      0.607234    0.014373
   Final                               40    30.43       0.76075    0.020084



   ANOVA
         Source of Variation    SS          df            MS          F        P-value     F crit
   Between Groups              1.029282             2   0.514641      34.534    4.91E-13   3.057197
   Within Groups               2.205562           148   0.014902


   Total                       3.234844           150
Individual Improvement




Variable N N* Mean StDev Minimum Q1 Median Q3
Change 36 0 0.1939 0.1419 -0.0600 0.0675 0.2000 0.2875
Was the Individual Improvement
          Significant?
 t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means


                                       Final        Pre
 Mean                                  0.750556     0.556667
 Variance                              0.019743     0.010023
 Observations                                  36         36
 Pearson Correlation                   0.342582
 Hypothesized Mean Difference                   0
 df                                            35
 t Stat                                8.199954
 P(T<=t) one-tail                        5.8E-10
 t Critical one-tail                   1.689572
 P(T<=t) two-tail                       1.16E-09
 t Critical two-tail                   2.030108
Where there Hard Questions?
Pareto Chart on Topic
                                       Pareto Chart of Question Topic
                         16
                                                                                                                                100
                         14
                         12                                                                                                     80
                         10




                                                                                                                                      Percent
                                                                                                                                60
Count




                         8
                         6                                                                                                      40
                         4
                                                                                                                                20
                         2
                         0                                                                                                      0
        Question Topic                  s                    r                                         l
                                      at        sis       ro               bl
                                                                             ity           s
                                                                                                    va           r ts     EA
                                    St       he        Er                a             am         er           ha       FM
                                c          ot                          ap           Te         In
                                                                                                 t
                                                                                                            lC
                              si         yp                        C                         e           ro
                           Ba           H                      s                           c          nt
                                                             es                          en        Co
                                                           oc                         fid
                                                      Pr                             n
                                                                                   Co
                  Count                 3         3            2              2            2           1           1        1
                 Percent             20.0      20.0         13.3           13.3         13.3         6.7         6.7      6.7
                 Cum %               20.0      40.0         53.3           66.7         80.0        86.7        93.3    100.0
Initial Process Capability
Final Process Capability
Results
• Students test scores improved on average 19.4%
• The Passage Rate on the actual ASQ Administered
  Certified Six Sigma Greenbelt Exam Far exceeded
  the national average*
• 68.75% of respondents to an online survey
  ranked their level of satisfaction with the course
  at a 5 or higher on a 7 point scale
• Increased ASQ Princeton Membership by 62
  members
Lessons Learned
• Using the passing the exam process as a class exam for
  the implementation of the tools and techniques of Six
  Sigma is an effective methodology
• There is demand for teaching Six Sigma in an academic
  setting
• The joint venture between Rutgers and ASQ is feasible
  and mutually beneficial.
• Having a diverse student population increases the
  overall performance of the group.
• Students need to be adequately qualified to sit for ASQ
  exam prior to taking the course.

Más contenido relacionado

Was ist angesagt?

7 NEW QC Tools | 7 NEW QC Tools Training
7 NEW QC Tools | 7 NEW QC Tools Training7 NEW QC Tools | 7 NEW QC Tools Training
7 NEW QC Tools | 7 NEW QC Tools Traininghimalya sharma
 
Six Sigma in Healthcare
Six Sigma in HealthcareSix Sigma in Healthcare
Six Sigma in Healthcareljmcneill33
 
Six sigma - yellow belt program v3-030610
Six sigma - yellow belt program v3-030610Six sigma - yellow belt program v3-030610
Six sigma - yellow belt program v3-030610Prabhu Subramanian
 
'Top Challenges We Face In IT Today To Hinder Our Pursuit Of Quality' by Lloy...
'Top Challenges We Face In IT Today To Hinder Our Pursuit Of Quality' by Lloy...'Top Challenges We Face In IT Today To Hinder Our Pursuit Of Quality' by Lloy...
'Top Challenges We Face In IT Today To Hinder Our Pursuit Of Quality' by Lloy...TEST Huddle
 
How do quality improvement (QI) tools and methods contribute to healthcare im...
How do quality improvement (QI) tools and methods contribute to healthcare im...How do quality improvement (QI) tools and methods contribute to healthcare im...
How do quality improvement (QI) tools and methods contribute to healthcare im...Institute for Knowledge Mobilization
 
Improving Quality
Improving QualityImproving Quality
Improving QualityBusiness901
 

Was ist angesagt? (10)

7 NEW QC Tools | 7 NEW QC Tools Training
7 NEW QC Tools | 7 NEW QC Tools Training7 NEW QC Tools | 7 NEW QC Tools Training
7 NEW QC Tools | 7 NEW QC Tools Training
 
Six Sigma in Healthcare
Six Sigma in HealthcareSix Sigma in Healthcare
Six Sigma in Healthcare
 
Six sigma - yellow belt program v3-030610
Six sigma - yellow belt program v3-030610Six sigma - yellow belt program v3-030610
Six sigma - yellow belt program v3-030610
 
Innovation training
Innovation trainingInnovation training
Innovation training
 
'Top Challenges We Face In IT Today To Hinder Our Pursuit Of Quality' by Lloy...
'Top Challenges We Face In IT Today To Hinder Our Pursuit Of Quality' by Lloy...'Top Challenges We Face In IT Today To Hinder Our Pursuit Of Quality' by Lloy...
'Top Challenges We Face In IT Today To Hinder Our Pursuit Of Quality' by Lloy...
 
2015-09 IBMS
2015-09 IBMS2015-09 IBMS
2015-09 IBMS
 
Applying Lean in Pathology
Applying Lean in PathologyApplying Lean in Pathology
Applying Lean in Pathology
 
How do quality improvement (QI) tools and methods contribute to healthcare im...
How do quality improvement (QI) tools and methods contribute to healthcare im...How do quality improvement (QI) tools and methods contribute to healthcare im...
How do quality improvement (QI) tools and methods contribute to healthcare im...
 
PDSA Problem-Solving
PDSA Problem-SolvingPDSA Problem-Solving
PDSA Problem-Solving
 
Improving Quality
Improving QualityImproving Quality
Improving Quality
 

Andere mochten auch

ASQ CSSBB Affidavit Example
ASQ CSSBB Affidavit ExampleASQ CSSBB Affidavit Example
ASQ CSSBB Affidavit ExampleGovind Ramu
 
Six sigma green belt training (autosaved)
Six sigma green belt training (autosaved)Six sigma green belt training (autosaved)
Six sigma green belt training (autosaved)Uppiliappan Gopalan
 
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 7
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 7Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 7
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 7Skillogic Solutions
 
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 8
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 8Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 8
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 8Skillogic Solutions
 
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 5
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 5Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 5
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 5Skillogic Solutions
 
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 3
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 3Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 3
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 3Skillogic Solutions
 
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 2
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 2Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 2
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 2Skillogic Solutions
 
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 4
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 4Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 4
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 4Skillogic Solutions
 
Six Sigma Green Belt for Beginners in a Nutshell
Six Sigma Green Belt for Beginners in a NutshellSix Sigma Green Belt for Beginners in a Nutshell
Six Sigma Green Belt for Beginners in a NutshellMentor Global Delhi
 
Lean Six Sigma Course Training Material Part 9
Lean Six Sigma Course Training Material Part 9Lean Six Sigma Course Training Material Part 9
Lean Six Sigma Course Training Material Part 9Lean Insight
 
Lean Six Sigma Awareness Handouts
Lean Six Sigma Awareness HandoutsLean Six Sigma Awareness Handouts
Lean Six Sigma Awareness Handoutsguest0981f4
 
Lean six sigma Yellow Belt Complete training
Lean six sigma Yellow Belt Complete trainingLean six sigma Yellow Belt Complete training
Lean six sigma Yellow Belt Complete trainingAnkit Sharma
 

Andere mochten auch (17)

ASQ CSSBB Affidavit Example
ASQ CSSBB Affidavit ExampleASQ CSSBB Affidavit Example
ASQ CSSBB Affidavit Example
 
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Outline
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt OutlineLean Six Sigma Green Belt Outline
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Outline
 
Six sigma green belt training (autosaved)
Six sigma green belt training (autosaved)Six sigma green belt training (autosaved)
Six sigma green belt training (autosaved)
 
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 7
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 7Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 7
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 7
 
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 8
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 8Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 8
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 8
 
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 5
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 5Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 5
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 5
 
2013 QMOD Presentation
2013 QMOD Presentation 2013 QMOD Presentation
2013 QMOD Presentation
 
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 3
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 3Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 3
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 3
 
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 2
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 2Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 2
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 2
 
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 4
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 4Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 4
Six Sigma Green Belt Training Part 4
 
Six Sigma Green Belt for Beginners in a Nutshell
Six Sigma Green Belt for Beginners in a NutshellSix Sigma Green Belt for Beginners in a Nutshell
Six Sigma Green Belt for Beginners in a Nutshell
 
Lean Six Sigma Course Training Material Part 9
Lean Six Sigma Course Training Material Part 9Lean Six Sigma Course Training Material Part 9
Lean Six Sigma Course Training Material Part 9
 
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt roadmap poster
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt roadmap posterLean Six Sigma Green Belt roadmap poster
Lean Six Sigma Green Belt roadmap poster
 
Six Sigma Sample Project
Six Sigma Sample ProjectSix Sigma Sample Project
Six Sigma Sample Project
 
Lean Six Sigma Awareness Handouts
Lean Six Sigma Awareness HandoutsLean Six Sigma Awareness Handouts
Lean Six Sigma Awareness Handouts
 
Lean six sigma Yellow Belt Complete training
Lean six sigma Yellow Belt Complete trainingLean six sigma Yellow Belt Complete training
Lean six sigma Yellow Belt Complete training
 
six sigma ppt
six sigma pptsix sigma ppt
six sigma ppt
 

Ähnlich wie Rutgers Green Belt

An Initial Evaluation of Metacognitive Scaffolding for Experiential Training ...
An Initial Evaluation of Metacognitive Scaffolding for Experiential Training ...An Initial Evaluation of Metacognitive Scaffolding for Experiential Training ...
An Initial Evaluation of Metacognitive Scaffolding for Experiential Training ...Adam Moore
 
Collagen Stuffed Sutures Enhance Healing of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears
Collagen Stuffed Sutures Enhance Healing of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff TearsCollagen Stuffed Sutures Enhance Healing of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears
Collagen Stuffed Sutures Enhance Healing of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff TearsAlan M. Hirahara, M.D., FRCSC
 
Interpretation and lesson learned from high maturity implementation of cmmi svc
Interpretation and lesson learned from high maturity implementation of cmmi svcInterpretation and lesson learned from high maturity implementation of cmmi svc
Interpretation and lesson learned from high maturity implementation of cmmi svcKobi Vider
 
Anatomy of course redesign tamu presentation (2)
Anatomy of course redesign tamu presentation (2)Anatomy of course redesign tamu presentation (2)
Anatomy of course redesign tamu presentation (2)Mike Simmons
 
B-School Satisfaction Survey - Advanced Marketing Research
B-School Satisfaction Survey - Advanced Marketing ResearchB-School Satisfaction Survey - Advanced Marketing Research
B-School Satisfaction Survey - Advanced Marketing ResearchArunachalam Ramanathan
 
Generating chemistry majors and graduates at utep using plus two pltl
Generating chemistry majors and graduates at utep using plus two pltlGenerating chemistry majors and graduates at utep using plus two pltl
Generating chemistry majors and graduates at utep using plus two pltlchandrasekharpappu
 
Base your initial m&a to ppm, qpm, car
Base your initial m&a to ppm, qpm, carBase your initial m&a to ppm, qpm, car
Base your initial m&a to ppm, qpm, carKobi Vider
 
Caveon Webinar Series: Considerations for Online Assessment Program Design
Caveon Webinar Series: Considerations for Online Assessment Program Design Caveon Webinar Series: Considerations for Online Assessment Program Design
Caveon Webinar Series: Considerations for Online Assessment Program Design Caveon Test Security
 
Curriculum for Resuscitation Education - Univ.of Florida - Gainesville 2010
Curriculum for Resuscitation Education -  Univ.of Florida -  Gainesville 2010Curriculum for Resuscitation Education -  Univ.of Florida -  Gainesville 2010
Curriculum for Resuscitation Education - Univ.of Florida - Gainesville 2010Eric B. Bauman
 
Using ExamSoft Data for Item Revision and Faculty Development
Using ExamSoft Data for Item Revision and Faculty DevelopmentUsing ExamSoft Data for Item Revision and Faculty Development
Using ExamSoft Data for Item Revision and Faculty DevelopmentExamSoft
 
Rutgers Governor School - Six Sigma
Rutgers Governor School - Six Sigma  Rutgers Governor School - Six Sigma
Rutgers Governor School - Six Sigma Brandon Theiss, PE
 
Risk management Report
Risk management ReportRisk management Report
Risk management ReportNewGate India
 
Essentials Of Succession Planning
Essentials Of Succession PlanningEssentials Of Succession Planning
Essentials Of Succession PlanningSnyder Inc.
 
Math workshop presentation
Math workshop presentationMath workshop presentation
Math workshop presentationlivinwhope
 
Certified Quality Auditor Certification Overview
Certified Quality Auditor Certification OverviewCertified Quality Auditor Certification Overview
Certified Quality Auditor Certification OverviewStephen Deas
 

Ähnlich wie Rutgers Green Belt (20)

An Initial Evaluation of Metacognitive Scaffolding for Experiential Training ...
An Initial Evaluation of Metacognitive Scaffolding for Experiential Training ...An Initial Evaluation of Metacognitive Scaffolding for Experiential Training ...
An Initial Evaluation of Metacognitive Scaffolding for Experiential Training ...
 
Collagen Stuffed Sutures Enhance Healing of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears
Collagen Stuffed Sutures Enhance Healing of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff TearsCollagen Stuffed Sutures Enhance Healing of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears
Collagen Stuffed Sutures Enhance Healing of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears
 
TAO DAYS - E-Assessment for Learning
TAO DAYS - E-Assessment for LearningTAO DAYS - E-Assessment for Learning
TAO DAYS - E-Assessment for Learning
 
Interpretation and lesson learned from high maturity implementation of cmmi svc
Interpretation and lesson learned from high maturity implementation of cmmi svcInterpretation and lesson learned from high maturity implementation of cmmi svc
Interpretation and lesson learned from high maturity implementation of cmmi svc
 
Anatomy of course redesign tamu presentation (2)
Anatomy of course redesign tamu presentation (2)Anatomy of course redesign tamu presentation (2)
Anatomy of course redesign tamu presentation (2)
 
B-School Satisfaction Survey - Advanced Marketing Research
B-School Satisfaction Survey - Advanced Marketing ResearchB-School Satisfaction Survey - Advanced Marketing Research
B-School Satisfaction Survey - Advanced Marketing Research
 
Generating chemistry majors and graduates at utep using plus two pltl
Generating chemistry majors and graduates at utep using plus two pltlGenerating chemistry majors and graduates at utep using plus two pltl
Generating chemistry majors and graduates at utep using plus two pltl
 
Base your initial m&a to ppm, qpm, car
Base your initial m&a to ppm, qpm, carBase your initial m&a to ppm, qpm, car
Base your initial m&a to ppm, qpm, car
 
Criterion-related Validity (Overview)
Criterion-related Validity (Overview)Criterion-related Validity (Overview)
Criterion-related Validity (Overview)
 
Caveon Webinar Series: Considerations for Online Assessment Program Design
Caveon Webinar Series: Considerations for Online Assessment Program Design Caveon Webinar Series: Considerations for Online Assessment Program Design
Caveon Webinar Series: Considerations for Online Assessment Program Design
 
Curriculum for Resuscitation Education - Univ.of Florida - Gainesville 2010
Curriculum for Resuscitation Education -  Univ.of Florida -  Gainesville 2010Curriculum for Resuscitation Education -  Univ.of Florida -  Gainesville 2010
Curriculum for Resuscitation Education - Univ.of Florida - Gainesville 2010
 
Using ExamSoft Data for Item Revision and Faculty Development
Using ExamSoft Data for Item Revision and Faculty DevelopmentUsing ExamSoft Data for Item Revision and Faculty Development
Using ExamSoft Data for Item Revision and Faculty Development
 
Rutgers Governor School - Six Sigma
Rutgers Governor School - Six Sigma  Rutgers Governor School - Six Sigma
Rutgers Governor School - Six Sigma
 
Zero defect
Zero defectZero defect
Zero defect
 
Risk management Report
Risk management ReportRisk management Report
Risk management Report
 
Essentials Of Succession Planning
Essentials Of Succession PlanningEssentials Of Succession Planning
Essentials Of Succession Planning
 
Math workshop presentation
Math workshop presentationMath workshop presentation
Math workshop presentation
 
Experimental design
Experimental designExperimental design
Experimental design
 
Certified Quality Auditor Certification Overview
Certified Quality Auditor Certification OverviewCertified Quality Auditor Certification Overview
Certified Quality Auditor Certification Overview
 
SQC Guest Lecture- Starbucks
SQC Guest Lecture- StarbucksSQC Guest Lecture- Starbucks
SQC Guest Lecture- Starbucks
 

Mehr von Brandon Theiss, PE

A Six Sigma Analysis of Mobile Data Usage
A Six Sigma Analysis of Mobile Data UsageA Six Sigma Analysis of Mobile Data Usage
A Six Sigma Analysis of Mobile Data UsageBrandon Theiss, PE
 
Six Sigma Analysis of Daily Cycling Commute
Six Sigma Analysis of Daily Cycling Commute Six Sigma Analysis of Daily Cycling Commute
Six Sigma Analysis of Daily Cycling Commute Brandon Theiss, PE
 
Teaching tactical industrial engineering to high school students
Teaching tactical industrial engineering to high school studentsTeaching tactical industrial engineering to high school students
Teaching tactical industrial engineering to high school studentsBrandon Theiss, PE
 
Is the Rate of Events of Terrorism Increasing?
Is the Rate of Events of Terrorism Increasing?Is the Rate of Events of Terrorism Increasing?
Is the Rate of Events of Terrorism Increasing?Brandon Theiss, PE
 
15th QMOD conference on Quality and Service Sciences 9/07/2012
15th QMOD conference on Quality and Service Sciences 9/07/201215th QMOD conference on Quality and Service Sciences 9/07/2012
15th QMOD conference on Quality and Service Sciences 9/07/2012Brandon Theiss, PE
 

Mehr von Brandon Theiss, PE (10)

A Six Sigma Analysis of Mobile Data Usage
A Six Sigma Analysis of Mobile Data UsageA Six Sigma Analysis of Mobile Data Usage
A Six Sigma Analysis of Mobile Data Usage
 
Six Sigma Analysis of Daily Cycling Commute
Six Sigma Analysis of Daily Cycling Commute Six Sigma Analysis of Daily Cycling Commute
Six Sigma Analysis of Daily Cycling Commute
 
Teaching tactical industrial engineering to high school students
Teaching tactical industrial engineering to high school studentsTeaching tactical industrial engineering to high school students
Teaching tactical industrial engineering to high school students
 
Is the Rate of Events of Terrorism Increasing?
Is the Rate of Events of Terrorism Increasing?Is the Rate of Events of Terrorism Increasing?
Is the Rate of Events of Terrorism Increasing?
 
Starbucks Wait Time Analysis
Starbucks Wait Time AnalysisStarbucks Wait Time Analysis
Starbucks Wait Time Analysis
 
Neqc poster
Neqc posterNeqc poster
Neqc poster
 
Greenbelt review
Greenbelt reviewGreenbelt review
Greenbelt review
 
15th QMOD conference on Quality and Service Sciences 9/07/2012
15th QMOD conference on Quality and Service Sciences 9/07/201215th QMOD conference on Quality and Service Sciences 9/07/2012
15th QMOD conference on Quality and Service Sciences 9/07/2012
 
IIE Conference Presentation
IIE Conference PresentationIIE Conference Presentation
IIE Conference Presentation
 
Starbucks Wait Time Analysis
Starbucks Wait Time AnalysisStarbucks Wait Time Analysis
Starbucks Wait Time Analysis
 

Último

Metabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptx
Metabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptxMetabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptx
Metabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptxDr. Santhosh Kumar. N
 
BBA 205 BE UNIT 2 economic systems prof dr kanchan.pptx
BBA 205 BE UNIT 2 economic systems prof dr kanchan.pptxBBA 205 BE UNIT 2 economic systems prof dr kanchan.pptx
BBA 205 BE UNIT 2 economic systems prof dr kanchan.pptxProf. Kanchan Kumari
 
DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...
DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...
DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...AKSHAYMAGAR17
 
3.14.24 The Selma March and the Voting Rights Act.pptx
3.14.24 The Selma March and the Voting Rights Act.pptx3.14.24 The Selma March and the Voting Rights Act.pptx
3.14.24 The Selma March and the Voting Rights Act.pptxmary850239
 
LEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced Stud
LEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced StudLEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced Stud
LEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced StudDr. Bruce A. Johnson
 
3.12.24 Freedom Summer in Mississippi.pptx
3.12.24 Freedom Summer in Mississippi.pptx3.12.24 Freedom Summer in Mississippi.pptx
3.12.24 Freedom Summer in Mississippi.pptxmary850239
 
ASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in Pharmacy
ASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in PharmacyASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in Pharmacy
ASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in PharmacySumit Tiwari
 
ICS2208 Lecture4 Intelligent Interface Agents.pdf
ICS2208 Lecture4 Intelligent Interface Agents.pdfICS2208 Lecture4 Intelligent Interface Agents.pdf
ICS2208 Lecture4 Intelligent Interface Agents.pdfVanessa Camilleri
 
Metabolism of lipoproteins & its disorders(Chylomicron & VLDL & LDL).pptx
Metabolism of  lipoproteins & its disorders(Chylomicron & VLDL & LDL).pptxMetabolism of  lipoproteins & its disorders(Chylomicron & VLDL & LDL).pptx
Metabolism of lipoproteins & its disorders(Chylomicron & VLDL & LDL).pptxDr. Santhosh Kumar. N
 
BBA 205 BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT UNIT I.pptx
BBA 205 BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT UNIT I.pptxBBA 205 BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT UNIT I.pptx
BBA 205 BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT UNIT I.pptxProf. Kanchan Kumari
 
30-de-thi-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-co-dap-an.doc
30-de-thi-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-co-dap-an.doc30-de-thi-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-co-dap-an.doc
30-de-thi-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-co-dap-an.docdieu18
 
AUDIENCE THEORY - PARTICIPATORY - JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY - PARTICIPATORY - JENKINS.pptxAUDIENCE THEORY - PARTICIPATORY - JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY - PARTICIPATORY - JENKINS.pptxiammrhaywood
 
HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...
HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...
HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
25 CHUYÊN ĐỀ ÔN THI TỐT NGHIỆP THPT 2023 – BÀI TẬP PHÁT TRIỂN TỪ ĐỀ MINH HỌA...
25 CHUYÊN ĐỀ ÔN THI TỐT NGHIỆP THPT 2023 – BÀI TẬP PHÁT TRIỂN TỪ ĐỀ MINH HỌA...25 CHUYÊN ĐỀ ÔN THI TỐT NGHIỆP THPT 2023 – BÀI TẬP PHÁT TRIỂN TỪ ĐỀ MINH HỌA...
25 CHUYÊN ĐỀ ÔN THI TỐT NGHIỆP THPT 2023 – BÀI TẬP PHÁT TRIỂN TỪ ĐỀ MINH HỌA...Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
The First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdf
The First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdfThe First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdf
The First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdfdogden2
 
UNIT I Design Thinking and Explore.pptx
UNIT I  Design Thinking and Explore.pptxUNIT I  Design Thinking and Explore.pptx
UNIT I Design Thinking and Explore.pptxGOWSIKRAJA PALANISAMY
 
Riti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptx
Riti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptxRiti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptx
Riti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptxDhatriParmar
 
Quantitative research methodology and survey design
Quantitative research methodology and survey designQuantitative research methodology and survey design
Quantitative research methodology and survey designBalelaBoru
 
Material Remains as Source of Ancient Indian History & Culture.ppt
Material Remains as Source of Ancient Indian History & Culture.pptMaterial Remains as Source of Ancient Indian History & Culture.ppt
Material Remains as Source of Ancient Indian History & Culture.pptBanaras Hindu University
 

Último (20)

Metabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptx
Metabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptxMetabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptx
Metabolism , Metabolic Fate& disorders of cholesterol.pptx
 
BBA 205 BE UNIT 2 economic systems prof dr kanchan.pptx
BBA 205 BE UNIT 2 economic systems prof dr kanchan.pptxBBA 205 BE UNIT 2 economic systems prof dr kanchan.pptx
BBA 205 BE UNIT 2 economic systems prof dr kanchan.pptx
 
DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...
DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...
DNA and RNA , Structure, Functions, Types, difference, Similarities, Protein ...
 
3.14.24 The Selma March and the Voting Rights Act.pptx
3.14.24 The Selma March and the Voting Rights Act.pptx3.14.24 The Selma March and the Voting Rights Act.pptx
3.14.24 The Selma March and the Voting Rights Act.pptx
 
LEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced Stud
LEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced StudLEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced Stud
LEAD6001 - Introduction to Advanced Stud
 
3.12.24 Freedom Summer in Mississippi.pptx
3.12.24 Freedom Summer in Mississippi.pptx3.12.24 Freedom Summer in Mississippi.pptx
3.12.24 Freedom Summer in Mississippi.pptx
 
ASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in Pharmacy
ASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in PharmacyASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in Pharmacy
ASTRINGENTS.pdf Pharmacognosy chapter 5 diploma in Pharmacy
 
ICS2208 Lecture4 Intelligent Interface Agents.pdf
ICS2208 Lecture4 Intelligent Interface Agents.pdfICS2208 Lecture4 Intelligent Interface Agents.pdf
ICS2208 Lecture4 Intelligent Interface Agents.pdf
 
Metabolism of lipoproteins & its disorders(Chylomicron & VLDL & LDL).pptx
Metabolism of  lipoproteins & its disorders(Chylomicron & VLDL & LDL).pptxMetabolism of  lipoproteins & its disorders(Chylomicron & VLDL & LDL).pptx
Metabolism of lipoproteins & its disorders(Chylomicron & VLDL & LDL).pptx
 
BBA 205 BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT UNIT I.pptx
BBA 205 BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT UNIT I.pptxBBA 205 BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT UNIT I.pptx
BBA 205 BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT UNIT I.pptx
 
30-de-thi-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-co-dap-an.doc
30-de-thi-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-co-dap-an.doc30-de-thi-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-co-dap-an.doc
30-de-thi-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-co-dap-an.doc
 
AUDIENCE THEORY - PARTICIPATORY - JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY - PARTICIPATORY - JENKINS.pptxAUDIENCE THEORY - PARTICIPATORY - JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY - PARTICIPATORY - JENKINS.pptx
 
HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...
HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...
HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 11 THEO CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ĐÁP ÁN CHI TIẾT - HK2 (...
 
25 CHUYÊN ĐỀ ÔN THI TỐT NGHIỆP THPT 2023 – BÀI TẬP PHÁT TRIỂN TỪ ĐỀ MINH HỌA...
25 CHUYÊN ĐỀ ÔN THI TỐT NGHIỆP THPT 2023 – BÀI TẬP PHÁT TRIỂN TỪ ĐỀ MINH HỌA...25 CHUYÊN ĐỀ ÔN THI TỐT NGHIỆP THPT 2023 – BÀI TẬP PHÁT TRIỂN TỪ ĐỀ MINH HỌA...
25 CHUYÊN ĐỀ ÔN THI TỐT NGHIỆP THPT 2023 – BÀI TẬP PHÁT TRIỂN TỪ ĐỀ MINH HỌA...
 
The First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdf
The First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdfThe First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdf
The First National K12 TUG March 6 2024.pdf
 
UNIT I Design Thinking and Explore.pptx
UNIT I  Design Thinking and Explore.pptxUNIT I  Design Thinking and Explore.pptx
UNIT I Design Thinking and Explore.pptx
 
Riti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptx
Riti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptxRiti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptx
Riti theory by Vamana Indian poetics.pptx
 
Quantitative research methodology and survey design
Quantitative research methodology and survey designQuantitative research methodology and survey design
Quantitative research methodology and survey design
 
Least Significance Difference:Biostatics and Research Methodology
Least Significance Difference:Biostatics and Research MethodologyLeast Significance Difference:Biostatics and Research Methodology
Least Significance Difference:Biostatics and Research Methodology
 
Material Remains as Source of Ancient Indian History & Culture.ppt
Material Remains as Source of Ancient Indian History & Culture.pptMaterial Remains as Source of Ancient Indian History & Culture.ppt
Material Remains as Source of Ancient Indian History & Culture.ppt
 

Rutgers Green Belt

  • 1. Certified Six Sigma Green Belt Course Brandon Theiss Brandon.Theiss@gmail.com
  • 2. Motivation • Teaching the tools, techniques and Methods of Lean Six Sigma is inherently difficult in academic setting. • When taught in a industrial setting students have a common motivation (the improved welfare of the company), similar levels of education and knowledge of domain specific information. Student are encouraged to learn by applying the material to their daily activities. • This is not possible in an academic setting particularly in a mixed environment that includes everything from undergraduate juniors through senior PhD researchers. • In addition undergraduate students tend either lack professional or have experience in Fields that are not traditionally thought of as benefiting or implementing Six Sigma (waitressing, check out clerk etc.)
  • 3. Solution • The beauty of the Six Sigma Methodology is that it can be applied to any process. • The definition of a process is quite broad and can be reduced to any verb- noun combination. • Therefore the collective process which the class studied and improved was to Pass [the] ASQ Certified Six Sigma Green Belt Exam • Therefore the foundational Six Sigma Concept of DMAIC (Define Measure Analyze Improve Control) represents both the material covered in the course as well as the pedagogical method used for instruction
  • 4. About the Course & Partnership • Offered as a Non-Credit extracurricular course at Rutgers University in Piscataway NJ • Co-Sponsored by the Rutgers Student Chapter of the Institute for Industrial Engineers (IIE) and the Princeton NJ section of American Society for Quality (ASQ) • Open and advertised to all members of the Rutgers Community (students, staff and faculty) as well as the surrounding public • Objective of the course was to train students to pass the June 2nd 2012 administration of the ASQ Certified Six Sigma Green Belt Exam
  • 5. Class Demographics • 71 Students Registered – 57 At Student Tuition Rate ($296) – 14 At Professional Tuition Rate ($495) Histogram of Years Of Work Exprience Highest Accademic Grade 3 Completed 20 40.0% 35.0% 15 30.0% Frequency 25.0% 10 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5 5.0% 0.0% 0 Junior Year Senior BA/BS Some MA/MS/JD PhD/PE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Year Grdudate Years Of Work Exprience
  • 6. Course Syllabus 1. Introduction, Sample Exam 7. Analyze 2, Analyze 3 2. Review Exam, Define 1 8. Improve 1, Sample 50 Question Exam 3. Define 2, Measure 1 9. Review Exam, Control 1 4. Measure 2, Measure 3 10. Sample 100 Question Exam 5. Measure 4, Sample 50 Question 11. Review Exam, Additional Questions Exam 6. Review Exam, Analyze 1 Define Measure Analyze Improve Control • Project Definition • Measurement • Inferential • Pareto Charts • Team Dynamics Systems Statistics • Process • Brainstorming • Histograms • Confidence Capability • Process Mapping • Box Plots Intervals • Lean • Dot Plots • Hypothesis • Probability Tests Plots • Regression • Control Charts Analysis
  • 7. Pre Test • On the first night of classes students were given an introductory survey of Six Sigma by means of a worked example applying DMAIC to the Starbucks Experience from a Customers Prospective. • Students were then given a copy of the Certified Six Sigma Green Belt Handbook by Roderick A. Munro • Then given a 50 Question Multiple Choice Test representative of the ASQ CSSGB Exam • The Test was administered on two successive nights (Monday and Tuesday)
  • 8. Measurement System • An Apperson GradeMaster™ 600 Test Scanner was utilized which enabled test to be scored and returned immediately upon student submission at the exam site. • In addition all of each answer to every question was downloaded to connected computer enabling further detailed analysis
  • 10. Test Scores Histogram of Test Scores Normal Mean 0.5589 9 StDev 0.1177 N 35 8 7 6 Frequency 5 4 3 2 1 0 36.00% 48.00% 60.00% 72.00% 84.00% Test Scores
  • 11. Test for Normality Probability Plot of Test Score Normal - 95% CI 99 Mean 0.5589 StDev 0.1177 95 N 35 AD 0.396 90 P-Value 0.352 80 70 Percent 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Test Score
  • 12. Is process in Control? I Chart of Test Score 1.0 UCL=0.9468 0.9 0.8 0.7 Individual Value 0.6 _ X=0.5589 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 LCL=0.1709 0.1 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 Observation
  • 13. Is the Process Capable? Process Capability of Test Scores LSL P rocess Data Within LS L 0.78 Overall Target * USL * P otential (Within) C apability S ample M ean 0.558857 Cp * S ample N 35 C PL -0.61 S tDev (Within) 0.120985 C PU * S tDev (O v erall) 0.117718 C pk -0.61 O v erall C apability Pp * PPL -0.63 PPU * P pk -0.63 C pm * 0.36 0.48 0.60 0.72 0.84 O bserv ed P erformance E xp. Within P erformance E xp. O v erall P erformance P P M < LS L 971428.57 PPM < LS L 966214.72 P P M < LS L 969849.40 PPM > USL * PPM > USL * PPM > USL * P P M Total 971428.57 PPM Total 966214.72 P P M Total 969849.40
  • 14. Are there bad questions? NP Chart of Wrong Answers 40 1 1 30 1 1 1 1 Sample Count UCL=24.25 20 __ NP=15.44 10 LCL=6.63 11 1 0 1 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 Sample
  • 15. Does the order the exams are turned in effect the score? Trend Analysis Plot for Test Score Linear Trend Model Yt = 0.5018 + 0.00317*t 0.9 Variable Actual Fits 0.8 Accuracy Measures MAPE 15.9381 0.7 MAD 0.0840 Test Score MSD 0.0124 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 Index
  • 19. Is the process in Control? I Chart of Scores 1 90.00% UCL=84.62% 80.00% 70.00% Individual Value 60.00% _ X=55.93% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% LCL=27.25% 20.00% 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 Observation
  • 20. Is the process capable?
  • 21. Are there Bad Questions? NP Chart of Incorrect 30 1 25 1 UCL=20.80 20 Sample Count 15 __ NP=12.78 10 5 LCL=4.76 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 Sample
  • 22. Does the order exams are turned in effect test scores? Trend Analysis Plot for Scores Linear Trend Model Yt = 0.5614 - 0.000138*t 0.9 Variable Actual Fits 0.8 Accuracy Measures MAPE 13.9747 MAD 0.0779 0.7 MSD 0.0100 Scores 0.6 0.5 0.4 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 Index
  • 24. Combined Test Scores Histogram of Combined Normal 20 Mean 0.5591 StDev 0.1099 N 64 15 Frequency 10 5 0 0.36 0.48 0.60 0.72 0.84 Combined
  • 25. Test Scores Histogram of Monday, Tuesday Normal 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 6. 4 8. 6 0. 7 2. 8 4. Monday Tuesday Monday 9 9 Mean 0.5589 StDev 0.1177 8 8 N 35 7 7 Tuesday Mean 0.5593 Frequency 6 6 StDev 0.1018 N 29 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 36 48 60 72 84 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
  • 26. Is there a difference Between Classes? Boxplot of Monday, Tuesday Monday Tuesday 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
  • 27. Is there a statistical Difference? Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Monday 35 19.56 0.558857 0.013857 Tuesday 29 16.22 0.55931 0.010357 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 3.26E-06 1 3.26E-06 0.000265 0.987056 3.995887 Within Groups 0.76114 62 0.012276 Total 0.761144 63
  • 28. Brainstorming Techniques • At the beginning of class students were asked as a group to brainstorm ideas for why they failed the pre-test – Only 4 ideas were proposed • Students were taught the different brainstorming techniques contained in the CSSGB Body of Knowledge – Nominal Group Technique – Multi-Voting – Affinity Diagrams – Force Field Analysis – Tree Diagrams – Cause and Effect Diagrams • Students were then broken up into 6 different groups, assigned one of the brainstorming techniques and given the task to brainstorm why they failed the pre-test
  • 29. Brainstorming Techniques Continued • Students then presented their results to the Group
  • 30. Brainstorming Results Cause and Effect (Fishbone) Affinity Diagram
  • 31. Brainstorming Results Tree Diagram Force Field Analysis
  • 32. Brainstorming Results Nominal Group Technique Multi-Voting
  • 33. Brainstorming Continued • Students then were given told to return to their groups and apply their “favorite” of the brainstorming techniques to the task how can you Pass the midterm exam • Students Found the positive formulation of the task much more challenging and most groups stayed with the same technique they used for the Negative version.
  • 34. Team Dynamics • The 3rd weeks lesson began with an introduction of the Tuckman cycle of team dynamics • Students were asked to reflect upon their experience in the brainstorming activity to see if their experiences paralleled those predicted by the model
  • 35. Process Mapping • The second portion of the 3rd Class was spent introducing the process mapping strategies in the CSSGB BoK – SIPOC (Suppliers Inputs Outputs Customers) – Process Mapping – Value Stream Mapping
  • 36. Process Mapping Continued • Students were again divided into 6 groups. Each group was assigned a map type and told to Map the Exam Taking Process at either a Micro or Macro Level • Micro Level Groups Handled the Physical steps of taking the exam such as reading the question, locating the answer and filling in the bubbles • Macro Groups Handled the all of the preparation leading up to taking the exam • The point was to emphasize that the same tools techniques and methods can be used on the very micro level (an operator tightening a bolt) to the very macro level (the operations of a fortune 500 company)
  • 37. Control Charts • Class 4 Introduced Students to the Control Charts Covered in the CSSGB BoK – I-MR – X Bar-R – X Bar- S – P – NP – U – C • Students were emailed prior to class a Microsoft Excel Workbook containing the test results and told to bring their laptops to class • Students were asked to do the following by hand (with Excel helping for the calculations): – I-MR Chart for Test Scores – P Chart testing for “Bad Questions” – NP Chart testing for “Bad Questions” – C Chart for the number of wrong responses per exam – U Chart for the number of wrong responses per exam
  • 38. Control Charts Results NP Chart C Chart
  • 41. Pre Class Exam Results
  • 43. Does a T-Test Indicate there was improvement? t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Mid Pre Mean 0.607234 0.561702 Variance 0.014373 0.01111 Observations 47 47 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 91 t Stat 1.955429 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0268 t Critical one-tail 1.661771 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0536 t Critical two-tail 1.986377
  • 44. Does ANOVA Indicate there was Improvement? Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Pre Total 64 35.78 0.559063 0.012082 Mid Total 53 31.72 0.598491 0.013705 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 0.045069 1 0.045069 3.516685 0.06329 3.923599 Within Groups 1.473823 115 0.012816 Total 1.518892 116
  • 46. Is the Change in Control? C Chart of Change in # of Correct Responses 15 10 UCL = 8.29 5 Mid= 2.28 0 LCL = -3.74 -5 -10 -15
  • 47. Is the change in Scores Significant? t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means Mid Pre Mean 0.607234043 0.561702 Variance 0.014372618 0.01111 Observations 47 47 Pearson Correlation 0.689206844 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 46 t Stat 3.475995635 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000560995 t Critical one-tail 1.678660414 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.00112199 t Critical two-tail 2.012895599
  • 48. Not all Material on the Exam has been Covered in Class
  • 51. Comparison of Results for Material that has been Covered Boxplot of Covered Scores 1.0 0.9 0.8 Covered Scores 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Pre Covered Mid Covered Subscripts
  • 52. Comparison of Covered Material Histogram of Pre Covered, Mid Covered Normal 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Pre Covered Mid Covered Pre Cov ered Mean 0.5785 12 StDev 0.1252 N 64 10 Mid Cov ered Mean 0.6516 StDev 0.1174 Frequency 8 N 53 6 4 2 0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
  • 53. Does ANOVA Indicate there was improvement? Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Pre Covered 64 37.02632 0.578536 0.015686 Mid Covered 53 34.53333 0.651572 0.013785 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 0.154648 1 0.154648 10.43065 0.001616 3.923599 Within Groups 1.70503 115 0.014826 Total 1.859678 116
  • 54. Comparison of Results for Material that has not been Covered Boxplot of Scores 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 Scores 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Pre Not Covered Mid Not Covered Subscripts
  • 55. Comparison of Material Not Covered
  • 56. Does ANOVA indicate the Exam was harder? Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Pre Not Covered 64 31.83333 0.497396 0.01785 Mid Not Covered 53 27.5 0.518868 0.024926 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 0.013367 1 0.013367 0.635003 0.427168 3.923599 Within Groups 2.420698 115 0.02105 Total 2.434065 116
  • 57. Is the Exam Taking Process Capable?
  • 58. Control Charts with Minitab • Students were emailed a Microsoft Excel Workbook with the Mid- Term data set • It was heavily suggested that students purchase the Minitab academic license and bring their laptops to class. • Students then divided themselves into groups around those who purchased the software and created the analysis control charts on the preceding slides.
  • 59. Hypothesis Testing Exercises • In week 8 students were introduced to the hypothesis tests covered in CSSGB BoK – Z Test – Student T – Two Sample T (known variance) – Two Sample T (unknown variance) – Paired T Test – ANOVA – Chi Squared T – F Test • Students were emailed a data set containing both the Pre-Test and Mid-Term data and asked to perform each of the listed test using either Minitab or Microsoft Excel. The emphasis was placed on the conclusions from the data
  • 60. Confidence Intervals • Not all students took the Mid-Term that took the pre-test. • This enabled students to utilize inferential statistics to draw conclusions about the population parameters (mean and variance particularly) • By using the class data set provided students were able to calculate their confidence in the overall population parameters for the average test score as well as the standard deviation of the entire class
  • 61. Improve-Control • Improve and Control are not an emphasis in the CSSGB BoK. For the coverage of the material and extended example of the Starbucks Experience from a customers perspective is presented. • When introducing Lean and the types of Waste the process of making various beverages are presented. Students then proposed improvement strategies to minimize the ‘Muda’ Triple Tall Half Hot Half Cold Americano (Future State) Triple Tall Half Hot Half Cold Americano (Current State)
  • 66. Did the scores Improve?
  • 67. Was The Difference Significant? Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Pre 64 35.78 0.559063 0.012082 Mid 47 28.54 0.607234 0.014373 Final 40 30.43 0.76075 0.020084 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 1.029282 2 0.514641 34.534 4.91E-13 3.057197 Within Groups 2.205562 148 0.014902 Total 3.234844 150
  • 68. Individual Improvement Variable N N* Mean StDev Minimum Q1 Median Q3 Change 36 0 0.1939 0.1419 -0.0600 0.0675 0.2000 0.2875
  • 69. Was the Individual Improvement Significant? t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means Final Pre Mean 0.750556 0.556667 Variance 0.019743 0.010023 Observations 36 36 Pearson Correlation 0.342582 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 35 t Stat 8.199954 P(T<=t) one-tail 5.8E-10 t Critical one-tail 1.689572 P(T<=t) two-tail 1.16E-09 t Critical two-tail 2.030108
  • 70. Where there Hard Questions?
  • 71. Pareto Chart on Topic Pareto Chart of Question Topic 16 100 14 12 80 10 Percent 60 Count 8 6 40 4 20 2 0 0 Question Topic s r l at sis ro bl ity s va r ts EA St he Er a am er ha FM c ot ap Te In t lC si yp C e ro Ba H s c nt es en Co oc fid Pr n Co Count 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 Percent 20.0 20.0 13.3 13.3 13.3 6.7 6.7 6.7 Cum % 20.0 40.0 53.3 66.7 80.0 86.7 93.3 100.0
  • 74. Results • Students test scores improved on average 19.4% • The Passage Rate on the actual ASQ Administered Certified Six Sigma Greenbelt Exam Far exceeded the national average* • 68.75% of respondents to an online survey ranked their level of satisfaction with the course at a 5 or higher on a 7 point scale • Increased ASQ Princeton Membership by 62 members
  • 75. Lessons Learned • Using the passing the exam process as a class exam for the implementation of the tools and techniques of Six Sigma is an effective methodology • There is demand for teaching Six Sigma in an academic setting • The joint venture between Rutgers and ASQ is feasible and mutually beneficial. • Having a diverse student population increases the overall performance of the group. • Students need to be adequately qualified to sit for ASQ exam prior to taking the course.

Hinweis der Redaktion

  1. Six Sigma is a problem solving tool kit that seeks to improve the quality of process outputs by identifying and removing the causes of defects (errors) and minimizing variability in manufacturing and business processes.Six Sigma Green Belts are the tactical leads on improving functions within a job function that are able to apply the Lean Sigma Concepts to their daily work.The methods are universally applicable to anything where a customer is being serviced.
  2. This is a unique pedagogical approach and from philosophically is quite “meta”. The objective under examination is in fact the actor performing the examination.The most brilliant of teacher can write the most profound equation on a chalkboard, and the most diligent of students can take pristine notes. However learning only occurs when the student is able to apply the material. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was correct when he said “Knowing is not enough; we must apply.”Given the diversity of the composition of the students in terms of education, life experience, income and industry finding a common task in which to apply the LSS would have been impossible. The only true commonality between the group was that they were all humans and wanted to earn their greenbelt. We were able to leverage this fact in developing the instructional roadmap for course.Also the utilization of Shewhart Control Charts which are used to differentiate between common cause and special cause variation, is fairly novel in academic settings.
  3. The instructor for the course, Brandon Theiss, is a Senior Member of ASQ and a Graduate student at Rutgers University. Currently there is not a course offered in the undergraduate Industrial and Systems Engineering Program at Rutgers. This course provided an opportunity for students to not only be exposed to the material but also to earn a nationally recognized certification in the tools techniques and methods of Six Sigma. It represented a first of its kind partnership between the student chapter of the IIE and ASQ Princeton section. Part of the proceeds for the course were used to fund the IIE trip to their national conference in Orlando.
  4. The cost of the course for students included the textbook and ASQ student membershipThe professional rate only included the text.The ASQ Certified Six Sigma Green Belt Requires 3 or more years of work experience in one of more areas of the Body of Knowledge. There was a very long and at times heated exchange with the ASQ certification committee about what constitutes work experience. A compromise was ultimately reached however there were still a large number of qualified students that were denied the right to sit for the exam
  5. The course met once per week over an 11 week period from 6:30 to 9:30PM. There were two sessions per week and students were free to attend either the Monday or Tuesday class based upon which ever was more convenient for their schedule
  6. Students were notified via email prior to the first night of the course that an exam would be administered on the first night.This provided both a baseline for the future improvement as well as showing students directly the level of mastery they would need to obtain to become certified.
  7. Feedback in any system is critically important. With a course that only meets once per week, having students wait a week would be to long. By providing students immediate feedback they were able to best utilize their time to study as well as not mis-learn material thinking that they had been correct on a question when in fact they were not.
  8. A simple histogram of the exam results from the Monday section with a normal distribution fit. It does appear to be normal but has a very large standard deviation 11.8%
  9. The probability plot indicates that there is insufficient data to reject the null hypothesis that the data is normally distributed. This is indicated by the P value which indicates the probability that the difference between the measured data and the model occurred by pure chance. The null hypothesis of normality would have been rejected if the value had been less than alpha (5%) representing a 95% confidence level.
  10. It is technically debatable if the test scores are continuous or discrete variable and if a I chart is appropriate. However the point is to introduce students to control charts and an Individuals chart.Since no point lies about the Upper or Lower Control Limit, the process is in a state of “statistical control”. However common sense shows that this is nonsensical as the range of the limits is between 17% and 95%. This was caused by the large standard deviation observed.This was used as an opportunity to discuss the difference between statistical significance and actual significance. This reinforces the concept that the math does not know where the numbers came from and can at best direct teams to derive the true underlying meaning.
  11. Again there is a technical point if the test scores are discrete or continuous. The above Process Capability study requires that the data be considered continuous. Process capability is essentially the probability of producing a product that will meet your customers specification. In this case the passing score (78%) sets that limit. As you can see in the above chart for every 1,000,000 students from the Monday population that took the pre-test exam ~970,000 students will fail.
  12. Everyone has taken a test where the test taker believes there was a question that either had the wrong answer or was too difficult. By using a NP (or P) control chart, one can easily distinguish if a question was statistically significantly too difficult above the UCL or too easy below the LCL
  13. There were several students who handed in their exams very quickly. We wanted to see if the amount of time a student spent on the exam effected their scores. And for the Monday data set it appears it did.
  14. A histogram of the Tuesday data set
  15. Again the data is normal as indicated by a P value greater than 5%. It is however notable in the above plot that there is a clear outlier.
  16. Again we can see that there is clearly an outlier in the data set.
  17. The Tuesday process is very similar in its inability to produce a unit meeting customers expectations and again will generate ~970,000 failures for every million students from the population that take the exam
  18. In the above graph it does appear that there were questions that a statistically significant number of students got wrong.
  19. Interestingly, the order in which a student turned in their exam did not have an effect on the Tuesday data set.
  20. Combined Histogram of the results
  21. Both distributions look somewhat similar.
  22. The above shows a box plot comparing the two classes. The median appears to be higher in the Tuesday class. However is the difference significant?
  23. An ANOVA analysis was performed which results in a very high p value which means that there is not a statistically significant difference between the two population means.
  24. Nominal Group -&gt; when individuals over power a groupMulti-Voting -&gt; Reduce a large list of items to a workable number quicklyAffinity Diagram -&gt; Group solutionsForce Field Analysis -&gt; Overcome Resistance to ChangeTree Diagram -&gt; Breaks complex into simpleCause- Effect Diagram -&gt; identify root causes
  25. Most Common Model of group Development was proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965.In order for the team to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results. They must go through the cycleFormingTeam members getting to know each otherTrying to please each otherMay tend to agree too much on initial discussion topicsNot much work accomplishedMembers orientation on the team goalsGroup is going through “honeymoon period”StormingVoice their ideaUnderstand project scope and responsibilitiesIdeas and understanding cause conflictNot much work gets accomplishedDisagreement slows down the teamNormingResolve own conflictsCome to mutually agreed planSome work gets doneStart to trust each otherPerformingLarge amount of work gets doneSynergy realized Competent and autonomous decisions are madeAdjourningTeam is disbanded, restructured or project re-scoped.Regression to Forming stage
  26. Control Charts are used to differentiate between common cause (normal) and special cause (abnormal) variation.
  27. There does not appear to be a large change between the Pre Test and the Mid Term
  28. A T-Test indicatesthat there is significant improvement, as indicated by the one tail P value.
  29. ANOVA on the other hand indicates that there is not a difference between the two means.
  30. Displays a histogram of the changes in scores, about 40% of the students went down and 60% increased their score.
  31. This is a somewhat novel adaptation of a C chart that allows for negative values. However there appear to be students that did much better and much worse than the other students.
  32. Looking at a Paired-T test there was absolutely a statistically significant improvement.
  33. Why did the test scores not improve more dramatically? Well the exams cover all of the material in the CSSGB BoK the course was only half complete. When we looked at the material covered up to the midterm on both the pre-test and the mid term the above pie charts show the percentage of the covered material on each exam.
  34. Not surprisingly students performed better on the material that was covered as compared to the material that was not covered.
  35. However the students also scored better on that same material on the pre test.
  36. So was there actual improvement?
  37. The change in the means indicates a ~8% improvement. However is that statistically significant?
  38. ANOVA does indicates that there is a difference in the means. The students did in fact learn the material that was covered.
  39. There does not appear to be a difference in the scores in the material that was not covered yet in the course.
  40. There was a small increase in the means ~2% is that significant?
  41. No. There is not a statistically significant difference between the pre-test and mid-term scores on the material that was not covered. As a result it would indicate that the exams were roughly the same difficulty.
  42. The process is still incapable of generating a passing score on the test.
  43. Minitab is the de facto industry standard for statistical process control. Unfortunately the undergraduate program at Rutgers does not include any training in the software suite. It is fairly intuitive however students needed additional instruction.
  44. Unfortunately, as this courses primary purpose was to act preparation for the Greenbelt Exam a larger focus could not placed on this material. However in an industrial setting most projects fail in the control phase. Regression to the mean is the natural trend. Anyone that has ever tried to lose weight or quit smoking knows that the trouble is always in sustaining the improvement.
  45. The above histogram does not quite look normal and has a very large standard deviation 14%.
  46. A dot plot again shows a strange pattern.
  47. The distribution is in fact bimodal. Unfortunately due to ASQ’s interpretation of the meaning of work, a large number of qualified application were unable to sit for the actual Greenbelt exam and became disenchanted with the course and represent the lower distribution. This assumption was supported by a post hoc online survey.
  48. However the test scores did appear to approve (even with the lower distribution)
  49. And the improvement was very significant as indicated P value of 4.91 x 10^-13
  50. On average the students improved 19.4% only a few students scores decreased,
  51. The Paired T Test Results also confirm that the students test scores improved!
  52. A P Chart was again used to detect difficult questions.
  53. A Pareto Chart above shows the topics that generated that special cause variation in the prior P chart.
  54. The initial process capability was quite poor, producing defects ~970,000 failures per 1,000,0000
  55. The final process capability though still not best in class, is much better, producing 475,000 failures per million (the observed is used since the data was already proven to be non normal as it is bimodal)
  56. *Actual data has not yet been released for the national average yetAs Confucius says “I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.”