Header Space reserved for Publication

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF SIX SIGMA PROJECT: APPLICATION OF Q METHODOLOGY

Jaran Sabseree.1 , Vinit Thueakthong2and Pichit Sukchareonpong3

(1),(2) Department of Quality Management Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University Bangkok, Thailand

(3) Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, KasetsartUniversityBangkok, Thailand

e-mail:

ABSTRACT:

This study investigated the critical success factors of Fusion Six Sigma project. Q methodology has been employed for this purpose. The results indicated that there are 3 groups of critical success factors which are (1) using Six Sigma tools, Six Sigma training and Six Sigma project execution (2) Six Sigma leadership of management and (3) Six Sigma Black Belt and team. As the structure of subjectivity of the population, these CSFs can be grouped into 3 factors, this discovery implies that the CSFs of each Six Sigma project are different and CSFs of some projects may not be significant for those of others. Qualitative data from interview of the respondents were also obtained to illuminate deep understanding of the critical success factors.

Keywords:Fusion Six Sigma, Six Sigma Project, Critical Success Factors (CSFs), Q Methodology

INTRODUCTION

Fusion Six Sigma is an enhanced Six Sigma methodology developed by the author (Sukchareonpong Sabseree & Thueakthong, 2007 ; Sabseree, Thueakthong & Sukchareonpone, 2008). The methodology has been applied successfully in various industries in Thailand to solved quality problems. It would be beneficial to study the critical success factors (CSFs) of Fusion Six Sigma, focusing on the success at project level. This may be different from those of traditional Six Sigma methodology because of some methods and power of problem solving as well as the context of implementation. The purpose of this paper is to identify critical factors of Fusion Six Sigma projects by employing Q methodology.

Q methodology can be used to observe perception of a group of individual, gathering data from issues of interest. The individual points of view are grouped based on similarity of opinion (Brown, 2004 ; Amin, 2000). The authors used this methodology to study the critical success factors based on the fact that the data from the data gather from Black Belts who have experience in executing Six Sigma projects are subjective in nature. The subjective opinion from these qualified respondents can be identified and grouped, reflecting the critical success factors of Fusion Six Sigma at project level. This approach allows us to define the CSFs in the structure of subjectivity. Moreover, qualitative data from the context of application also can be obtained to illuminate deep understanding of the critical factors.

USING Q METHODOLOGY FOR STUDYING CSFS FOR SIX SIGMA PROJECT

Establishing the Q-Set

Primary statements from the population (or respondents) and secondary statements from literatures were used to construct the Q-set as Table 3, consisting of 60 statements which reflected the overall possible dimensions of CSFs of Fusion Six Sigma project. The Q-set were tested by 4 people who had qualification closed to the population. The purpose of the test was to ensure that (1) The respondents could understood all statements. (2) The Q-set covered all important dimensions of CSFs of Fusion Six Sigma project. (3) The sorting procedure was practical. The results of the test were satisfied, therefore and the Q-set were ready the next steps.

Selection of Population

Thai Black Belts were selected as the population, consisting of 28 respondents from 9 companies.

They were trained in Fusion Six Sigma methodology and had experience in executing the projects using Fusion Six Sigma methodology under the coaching of the author.

Administering the Q-Sort

Respondents were instructed to sort the opinion statements in the Q-set under condition of instruction into a predefined set of categories, ranging from “Most Disagree” to “Most Agree” as an example in Figure 1.

43
38
13 / 5 / 56 / 59 / 55
31 / 52 / 50 / 40 / 53 / 41 / 58
32 / 46 / 24 / 60 / 4 / 51 / 23 / 42 / 54
18 / 1 / 35 / 8 / 10 / 2 / 45 / 37 / 34 / 39 / 21
11 / 20 / 15 / 6 / 44 / 19 / 57 / 28 / 16 / 26 / 29 / 3 / 27
7 / 14 / 47 / 49 / 17 / 22 / 12 / 25 / 36 / 30 / 33 / 9 / 48
-6 / -5 / -4 / -3 / -2 / -1 / 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6
Most Disagree Most Agree

Figure 1 – Example of Q sort by respondent #1

1 month or longer after the first sort, the respondents were also asked for retest. The results of the retest showed that overall correlation between the first test and the second test is 0.787 and all individual respondent had correlation within himself at least 0.7. These confirmed that content in the Q- set and the data were reliable.

In-Depth Interview of Respondents

Respondents were interviewed after sorting the statements in the Q-set by asking why some statements were sorted at high score (strongly agree). The statements selected for the interview are (1) the distinguishing statements with high factor score (2) the non-distinguishing statement with high factor score and (3) the statements with high factor score for 2 factors. The interview provided qualitative data which illuminated deeper understanding of the CSFs in the context of Fusion Six Sigma project execution.

CRITCAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF SIX SIGMA PROJECT

The data can be analyzed by using the techniques of Q methodology (Fang, 2006 ; Brown, 2004), consisting of the following 4 steps:

(1) using principle component analysis to define appropriate number of factors

(2) using factor analysis to define the membership of the respondents into factors or groups

(3) finding factor scores of all statements for each factor

(4) constructing the factor arrays

After the analysis, the author can identify the dimensions or components of CSFs of Six Sigma project from (1) the distinguishing statements of factors with high score(2) the non-distinguishing statements with high score and (3) the statements with high score for 2 factors (or more). The statement with high score can be defined as the statement with standardized score more that 0 (expected valued) with statistical significance. This approach can be accomplished by determining the critical score, based on one-tail test at 95% confidence, which can be defined as 1.65* standard error (SE) of the factor score.

Factor Analyzing the Q-Sort

The data from Q sort were analyzed by using principal component analysis as Figure 2, indicating that the population should be grouped into 3 factors (or groups of respondents). The Eigenvalue for factor 1, 2 and 3 are significant (10.395, 4.054 and 2.039 respectively) while other factors did not constitute a large enough group to merit further examination.

Figure 2 – Scree Plot

The data were also analyzed by using factor analysis with varimax method of orthogonal rotation. The result of the factor analysis was factor loading as Table 1, grouping the respondents into 3 factors (16 for factor 1, 6 for factor 2 and 10 for factor 3) with 3 different viewpoints. From the defined membership, the factor score for each factor can be calculated as the equation (1) and (2) (Fang, 2006).

Score = ∑ Wn * Zi(1)

Wi = Li / (1-Li2) (2)

Score : Factor score for each statement of factor n

Zi : Standardized score of respondent i who is a member of factor n.

Wn: Coefficient of factor n

Li: Loading of respondent i who is a member of factor n.

Table 1 – Factor Matrix

# of Respondent / Factor1 / Factor 2 / Factor3
1 / 0.630X / 0.135 / -0.483
2 / 0.544X / -0.182 / -0.124
3 / 0.698X / -0.068 / -0.232
4 / 0.636X / -0.048 / -0.482X
5 / 0.808X / -0.108 / -0.036
6 / 0.784X / -0.111 / -0.124
7 / 0.723X / -0.007 / -0.209
8 / 0.100 / -0.715X / 0.081
9 / -0.029 / -0.799X / -0.121
10 / 0.509X / -0.343 / -0.166
11 / 0.746X / 0.271 / 0.343
12 / 0.790X / 0.018 / 0.072
13 / 0.337 / -0.319 / -0.465X
14 / 0.151 / -0.522X / -0.526X
15 / 0.094 / -0.755X / -0.132
16 / -0.128 / -0.740X / -0.182
17 / 0.622X / -0.214 / -0.326
18 / 0.579X / -0.077 / -0.419
19 / 0.561X / 0.028 / -0.604X
20 / 0.235 / -0.040 / -0.823X
21 / 0.313 / -0.454 / -0.549X
22 / 0.033 / -0.355 / -0.471X
23 / 0.287 / 0.030 / -0.676X
24 / 0.730X / -0.331 / -0.348
25 / 0.673X / 0.122 / -0.424
26 / 0.772X / -0.169 / -0.265
27 / -0.092 / -0.405 / -0.640X
28 / 0.280 / -0.737X / -0.032
Variance / 7.903 / 4.163 / 4.395
% Variance / 28.3% / 14.9% / 15.7%

Note: X indicating a Defining Sort

After calculating the factor score, a composite Q-sort (or rank) and factor arrays could be uncovered for each of the factors. In Q methodology, interpretations are based on factor arrays and factor scores rather than the loading (Brown, 2004). The factor arrays, as shown in Table 2, reflected an overall Q-sample for respondents who loaded in the factor in total. In addition, the distinguishing statements and non-distinguishing statements for each factor could be identified, being based on the factor scores. The statements with the factor score over the critical value could be considered as the dimensions or components of CSFs.

Table 2 –Factor Arrays

# / Statement / Factor1 / Factor2 / Factor3
RNK / Score / RNK / Score / RNK / Score
1 / Customer Focus / -6 / -1.63 / 3 / 1.00** / -5 / -1.64
2 / Black Belt is full-time. / 2 / -0.65 / -5 / -1.58** / -1 / -0.16*
3 / Support, cooperation and involvement of Six Sigma Team / 2 / 0.91 / -2 / -0.73** / 6 / 1.81**
4 / Team has enough time to execute Six Sigma project. / 2 / 0.65 / 0 / 0.11* / 3 / 0.89
5 / Measuring some important independent variables (Xs) / 4 / 1.29** / -1 / -0.17* / 1 / 0.44
6 / Support from process owner / -2 / -0.88** / 5 / 1.45** / 2 / 0.68
7 / Champion Training / -3 / -1.14 / 0 / 0.06** / -4 / -1.57*
8 / Define and selection of Six Sigma Project / 2 / 0.84** / -1 / -0.27 / 0 / -0.07
9 / Technical knowledge and experience of Six Sigma team / 2 / 0.63 / 1 / 0.25 / 4 / 1.25**
10 / Six Sigma project supports organization's goal / 0 / -0.19 / 1 / 0.49* / -1 / -0.13
11 / Management Involvement / -5 / -1.47* / 4 / 1.35** / -2 / -0.71
12 / Project management skill of Black Belt / 1 / 0.38* / 3 / 0.99 / 5 / 1.31
13 / SPC system / 1 / 0.37** / -3 / -0.96 / -5 / -1.76**
14 / Change Management / -3 / -1.06** / -6 / -2.05 / -5 / -1.65
15 / Communication about Six Sigma from management to personnel in organization / -3 / -1.07** / 1 / 0.18* / -1 / -0.43
16 / Team has knowledge and understanding in (Fusion) Six Sigma / 1 / 0.32 / 0 / -0.14 / -2 / -0.25
17 / Job Motivation / -2 / -0.68 / -2 / -0.87 / 2 / 0.64**
18 / Ability to adjust to change / -4 / -1.33 / -6 / -2.08* / -4 / -1.58
19 / Quality system such as ISO9000 , TS16949 etc. / -4 / -1.15 / -4 / -1.08 / -6 / -2.28**
20 / Management has knowledge and understanding in (Fusion) Six Sigma / -4 / -1.19 / 4 / 1.09** / -3 / -0.94
21 / Using Fusion Six Sigma Tools together with technical knowledge / 5 / 1.49** / 2 / 0.83 / 2 / 0.74
22 / Lean system including lean subsystem such as 5S, Visual Control , TPM etc. / -2 / -1.03 / -3 / -1.02 / -6 / -1.92**
23 / Six Sigma project coaching / 6 / 1.52* / 3 / 0.97 / 2 / 0.64
24 / Control of Six Sigma project schedule / 0 / 0.12 / 2 / 0.61* / -3 / -0.90**
25 / Black Belt can request management support to remove roadblock & conflict. / -1 / -0.41* / 0 / 0.11 / 3 / 0.92**
26 / Leadership of Black Belt / 3 / 0.98 / 4 / 1.26 / 5 / 1.42
27 / Technical knowledge and experience of Black Belt in the related job / 4 / 1.38 / 5 / 1.49 / 5 / 1.37
28 / Creativity / -1 / -0.54 / -3 / -0.98 / -1 / -0.43
29 / Using quality tools as Fusion Six Sigma Methodology / 3 / 1.00** / -1 / -0.18 / 0 / 0.23
30 / Black Belt has enough time to execute Six Sigma project. / 2 / 0.83 / 3 / 1.05 / 3 / 0.83

Note: * sig. at P<.05 ; ** sig. at P<.01 ; RNK = dimension or component of CSF

Table 2 –Factor Arrays (continue)

# / Statement / Factor1 / Factor2 / Factor3
RNK / Score / RNK / Score / RNK / Score
31 / Follow up and review of Six Sigma project / 3 / 0.91** / 1 / 0.23 / 0 / 0.3
32 / Management removed the obstacle and problem in Six Sigma project / -2 / -1.03** / 2 / 0.72 / 1 / 0.46
33 / Training of Six Sigma tools / 3 / 1.27** / 1 / 0.41 / 1 / 0.49
34 / Good behaviour such as relationship , commitment and communication in team / -1 / -0.24 / -3 / -1.03** / 4 / 1.08**
35 / Process Management / -1 / -0.49 / -1 / -0.28 / -3 / -0.8
36 / Resource Allocation / -2 / -0.72 / -4 / -1.08 / 0 / 0.11**
37 / Six Sigma Instructor/Mentor / 4 / 1.27** / -1 / -0.15 / 1 / 0.49
38 / BB have competence in communication, leading the meeting and project presentation / 1 / 0.56 / -2 / -0.69** / 0 / 0.42
39 / Using Fusion Six Sigma tools to discover the root causes / 5 / 1.46 / 4 / 1.12 / 2 / 0.68
40 / Defining project charter, role and decision making / 0 / 0.23 / 0 / -0.02 / -2 / -0.52*
41 / Analytical and problem solving skill of Six Sigma team / 2 / 0.86 / -2 / -0.71** / 1 / 0.5
42 / Cooperation between departments / -1 / -0.22 / -3 / -0.94** / 3 / 0.97**
43 / Black Belt can motivate and inspire the team / 1 / 0.32 / -1 / -0.17* / 4 / 1.20**
44 / There are enough personnel in Six Sigma project / 0 / 0.06 / 0 / -0.02 / 1 / 0.49*
45 / Reward and Recognition / -5 / -1.46 / -5 / -1.46 / -3 / -0.93**
46 / Management Commitment / -5 / -1.47** / 6 / 2.13** / 2 / 0.52
47 / Customer focus of management / -6 / -1.54* / 6 / 1.61** / -4 / -1.14
48 / Black Belt have willingness and desire to execute Six Sigma project / 4 / 1.3 / 3 / 0.96 / 6 / 2.01**
49 / Leadership of Management / -4 / -1.22** / 5 / 1.44** / 0 / -0.05
50 / Measurement system and quality objective / 0 / 0.16 / 0 / -0.05 / -2 / -0.62*
51 / Six Sigma project have obvious financial benefit. / 0 / -0.03** / -5 / -1.92** / -3 / -0.93
52 / Organization Learning / -3 / -1.14 / -4 / -1.21 / -2 / -0.69
53 / Shared Vision / -2 / -0.78 / -4 / -1.37* / -2 / -0.75
54 / Correct conclusion from the analysis of Fusion Six Sigma tools / 6 / 1.86** / 2 / 0.84 / 4 / 1
55 / Commitment to improvement / 0 / -0.09** / 2 / 0.68 / 3 / 0.8
56 / Data collection system / 3 / 1.22** / 1 / 0.33 / 1 / 0.23
57 / Black Belt understand the enterprise view of business / -3 / -1.15 / 0 / -0.02** / -4 / -1.29
58 / Correct and appropriate using of Fusion Six Sigma tools / 5 / 1.39** / 2 / 0.68 / 0 / 0.21
59 / Training for Green Belt and Six Sigma team / 1 / 0.28** / -2 / -0.8 / -1 / -0.38
60 / Team accept (Fusion) Six Sigma / 0 / 0.10* / -2 / -0.42 / -2 / -0.63

Note: The original statements were in Thai language.

Factor 1: Using Six Sigma Tools, Six Sigma Training & Six Sigma Project Execution

The distinguishing statements with high factor score of factor 1 (16 respondents) as Table 3 indicated that the respondents in factor 1 regarded “using Six Sigma tools”, “Six Sigma training” and “Six Sigma project execution” as CSFs of Six Sigma project. The statements indicating “using Six Sigma tools” as CSFs are the statement # 54, 21, 58 and 29. The statements indicating “Six Sigma training” as CSFs are the statement # 23, 37, 33 and 59. The statements indicating using “Six Sigma project execution” as CSFs are the statement # 5, 56, 31, 8 and 13. The factor scores of these statements were higher than those of other factors and were above the critical score; thus these statements could be considered as the dimension of CSFs from the view point of the respondents in factor 1.

Table 3– Components of CSFs from Distinguishing Statements of Factor 1

# / Statement / Factor1 / Factor2 / Factor3
RNK / Score / RNK / Score / RNK / Score
54 / Correct conclusion from the analysis of Fusion Six Sigma tools / 6 / 1.86* / 2 / 0.84 / 4 / 1.00
23 / Six Sigma project coaching / 6 / 1.52 / 3 / 0.97 / 2 / 0.64
21 / Using Fusion Six Sigma Tools together with technical knowledge / 5 / 1.49* / 2 / 0.83 / 2 / 0.74
58 / Correct and appropriate using of Fusion Six Sigma tools / 5 / 1.39* / 2 / 0.68 / 0 / 0.21
5 / Measuring some important independent variables (Xs) / 4 / 1.29* / -1 / -0.17 / 1 / 0.44
37 / Six Sigma Instructor/Mentor / 4 / 1.27* / -1 / -0.15 / 1 / 0.49
33 / Training of Six Sigma tools / 3 / 1.27* / 1 / 0.41 / 1 / 0.49
56 / Data collection system / 3 / 1.22* / 1 / 0.33 / 1 / 0.23
29 / Using quality tools as Fusion Six Sigma Methodology / 3 / 1.00* / -1 / -0.18 / 0 / 0.23
31 / Follow up and review of Six Sigma project / 3 / 0.91* / 1 / 0.23 / 0 / 0.30
8 / Define and selection of Six Sigma Project / 2 / 0.84* / -1 / -0.27 / 0 / -0.07
13 / SPC system / 1 / 0.37* / -3 / -0.96 / -5 / -1.76
59 / Training for Green Belt and Six Sigma team / 1 / 0.28* / -2 / -0.80 / -1 / -0.38
Remark : All distinguishing statements are significant at P < .05 ; * significant at P < .01
SE of factor score = 0.124 ; the critical score = 0.205

Qualitative data from interview of the respondents in factor 1 as Table 5 illuminated that many Six Sigma projects executed by the respondents in factor 1 are complicated, using various advanced Six Sigma tools. Moreover, the data showed that various Fusion Six Sigma tools such as P-M analysis, reversed hypothesis test and design of experiment (DOE) and etc. were important to problem solving. The qualitative data also indicated that Fusion Six Sigma methodology facilitated project planning for Black Belts and using Fusion Six Sigma tools together with technical knowledge was important in identifying possible root causes. When these tools were used appropriately, the root causes as well as the problem solutions could be discovered.

The qualitative data also indicated that Six Sigma training, including coaching, is important because it could help Black Belts understand and apply Six Sigma tools appropriately. In addition, project review was important because it could motivate the team to drive the progress of the project. Lastly, data collection was also important because it provided important information necessary for process performance evaluation as well as root cause analysis. Moreover, data collection should include the measurement of important independent variables (Xs) because these data provided the relation Y=f(Xs) which was critical to root cause analysis and solution generation.

Table 4– Qualitative Data Supporting the Distinguishing Statements of Factor 1

CSFs/Statements / Samples of Qualitative Data
Using Six Sigma tools:
  • (54) Correct conclusion from the analysis of Fusion Six Sigma tools
  • (21) Using Fusion Six Sigma Tools together with technical knowledge
  • (58) Correct and appropriate using of Fusion Six Sigma tools
  • (29) Using quality tools as Fusion Six Sigma Methodology
/
  • Conclusion from DOE L18 lead to important root causes finding. [3]
  • Used tools together with technical knowledge to identify process parameters and then used reversed hypothesis test and DOE to identify the root causes. These lead to the appropriate solutions.[24]
  • Appropriate use of various tools, such as (reversed) hypothesis test, DOE, and etc., lead to effective finding of the root causes. [12]
  • Using various Six Sigma tools as Fusion Six Sigma methodology, such as P-M analysis, reversed hypothesis test and DOE, was important mechanism in project planning and execution.[5]

Six Sigma Training:
  • (23) Six Sigma project coaching
  • (37) Six Sigma Instructor/Mentor
  • (33) Training of Six Sigma tool
  • (59) Training for Green Bet l& Six Sigma team
/
  • Six Sigma training and project coaching made us understand Six Sigma tools and apply them appropriately.[7, 19, 25]
  • Mentor advised how to apply the tools appropriately. [5,17]
  • Six Sigma training for team/Green Belt made them understand the tools. It is helpful in brainstorming and using tools such as FMEA and C&E diagram. [3]

Six Sigma project execution:
  • (5) Measuring some important independent variables (Xs)
  • (56) Data collection system
  • (31) Follow up and review of Six Sigma project
  • (8) Define and selection of Six Sigma Project
  • (13) SPC system
/
  • Measuring Xs, such as some dimensions, lead to finding or the root causes. [12,4]
  • Data collection system with Xs and Ys made it easy to find the root causes. [4]
  • Project follow up/review motivated the team and drove the project’s progress. [4, 17,10]
  • Select the project with high potential and within responsibility of Black Belt lead to high probability of success. [18]
  • SPC system provided the data for process capability analysis. [19]

Remark: [ ] is # of the respondent

Factor 2: Six Sigma Leadership of Management

The distinguishing statements with high factor score of factor 2 (6 respondents) as Table 5 indicated that the respondents in factor 2 regard “Six Sigma leadership of management” as CSFs of Six Sigma project. The factor scores of these statements were higher than those of other factors and were above the critical score; thus these statements could be considered as the dimensions of CSFs from the view point of the respondents in factor 2.

From the qualitative data in Table 6, together with the statements in Table 5, the 7 components of Six Sigma leadership of management as CSFs for Six Sigma project can be identified asthe following:

(1) Management commitment in Six Sigma project

(2) Management involvement in Six Sigma project

(3) Management support form process owner

(4) Management define Six Sigma project with alignment of the organization’s goal

(5) Customer focus of management

(6) Management review and control the Six Sigma project

(7) Having knowledge and understanding in Six Sigma

Table 5 – Dimension of CSFs from Distinguishing Statements of Factor 2

# / Statement / Factor1 / Factor2 / Factor3
RNK / Score / RNK / Score / RNK / Score
46 / Management Commitment / -5 / -1.47 / 6 / 2.13* / 2 / 0.52
47 / Customer focus of management / -6 / -1.54 / 6 / 1.61* / -4 / -1.14
6 / Support from process owner / -2 / -0.88 / 5 / 1.45* / 2 / 0.68
49 / Leadership of Management / -4 / -1.22 / 5 / 1.44* / 0 / -0.05
11 / Management Involvement / -5 / -1.47 / 4 / 1.35* / -2 / -0.71
20 / Management has knowledge and understanding in (Fusion) Six Sigma / -4 / -1.19 / 4 / 1.09* / -3 / -0.94
1 / Customer Focus / -6 / -1.63 / 3 / 1.00* / -5 / -1.64
24 / Control of Six Sigma project schedule / 0 / 0.12 / 2 / 0.61 / -3 / -0.90
10 / Six Sigma project supports organization's goal / 0 / -0.19 / 1 / 0.49 / -1 / -0.13
Remark : All distinguishing statements are significant at P < .05 ; * significant at P < .01
SE of factor score = 0.20 ; the critical score = 0.33

Table 6– Qualitative Data Supporting the Distinguishing Statements of Factor 2