Page 340 - Six Sigma Demystified

320 Six SigMa DemystifieD

and assign a number designating their relative importance. Use the following num-
ber system:

10 = much more important/preferred/desirable

5 = more important/preferred/desirable

1 = equally important/preferred/desirable
1/5 = less important/preferred/desirable

1/10 = much less important/preferred/desirable

In Figure F.25, using Quality America’s GreenBelt XL software, six criteria
were defined for the selection of black belts—technical competence, familiarity
with company systems and culture, having a positive attitude, being a risk taker,
having good communication skills, and being seen as a leader by peers.
The group decided that technical competence was more desirable than
familiarity with company systems and culture, so a value of 5 was placed in the
“Technical Competence” row, “Familiarity with Company Systems and Culture”
column. The software automatically filled in the complementary cell (“Famil-
iarity with Company Systems and Culture” row, “Technical Competence” col-
umn) with a value of 1/5. Likewise, the group considered technical competence
to be equally important as positive attitude, so a 1 was placed in those two
complementary cells, and so on. The software provides an easy-to-use wizard
that prompts the user for each of these comparisons.
The full analytical method then requires you to compare each of these options
for a given criterion. In Figure F.26, the options are the individuals being evalu-
ated as black belt candidates. The criterion shown is “Positive Attitude.” The

evaluation team apparently thought that Art’s attitude was equal to Jerry’s but
less positive than any of the other candidates. Jessie’s score of 56 (the highest)
shows that her attitude is perceived as more positive than those of any of the
other candidates, with Peter a close second. The percent of total, which is shown
in parentheses, will be used to calculate the final scores for all criteria.
Once the options have been compared for each of the criteria, a final
weighted score can be calculated by combining the matrices. Each option’s
score (as a percent of total) for a given criterion is multiplied by the ranking for
that criterion, summed across all criteria. The options are rank-ordered in the
summary matrix, with the top row being the highest ranking (i.e., best at meet-
ing the weighted criteria). In Figure F.27, Peter, Jessie, and Adrianne are clearly
distinct from the other candidates.