Top 20 Prince2 Interview Questions For 2021

Making your way towards the Project Management field is not easy. You need to have specific skills, you need to have knowledge about essential tools, you need to acquire specific soft skills to carry out the entire process. And we don’t need to mention it, having a skill like Prince2 in your resume is always a cherry on the top!

But, as the project management field is ever-evolving, the gateway to enter this field too is being more and more guarded by passing days. This means you are more likely to face new challenges at the interview table once you appear for one.

As you know, with the proper tactics and particular practices it is easy to cross any hurdle, and so is the project management interviews. Since interviewers nowadays take a keen interest in Prince2 methodologies in order to craft the interview questions, we fetched out the top 20 Prince2 interview questions just for you. Have a look!

Top 20 questions to crack the PRINCE2 Interview

1. What is Prince2?

Ans. PRINCE2 (PRojects IN Controlled Environments) is a structured project management method and practitioner certification program. PRINCE2 emphasizes dividing projects into manageable and controllable stages.

2. Give a proper definition of a project.

Ans. Any undertaking carried out individually or collaboratively and possibly involving research or design, that is carefully planned (usually by a project team) to achieve a particular aim is called a project.

3. What are the key features of prince 2?

Ans. The key features of Prince2 are:

◉ It is well organized

◉ You can apply it to any project

◉ It is based on management by exception

◉ It has some extraordinary diagnostic tools to offer

◉ It is consistent and reusable.

4. What are the 7 processes of Prince2?

Ans. The 7 processes of Prince2 are as follows:

◉ Starting Up A Project, in which the project team is appointed including an executive and a project manager, and a project brief is produced

◉ Initiating A Project, in which the business case refined and Project Initiation Documentation assembled

◉ Directing A Project, which dictates the ways in which the Project Board oversees the project

◉ Controlling A Stage, which dictates how each individual stage should be controlled, including the way in which work packages are authorized and distributed

◉ Managing Product Delivery, which has the purpose of controlling the link between the Project Manager and the Team Manager(s) by placing formal requirements on accepting, executing and delivering project work.

◉ Managing Stage Boundaries, which dictates how to transition from one stage to the next

◉ Closing A Project, which covers the formal decommissioning of the project, follow-on actions, and evaluation of the benefits.

5. What are the 7 themes of Prince2?

Ans. The 7 themes of Prince2 are:

◉ Business Case

◉ Organization

◉ Quality

◉ Plans

◉ Risk

◉ Change

◉ Progress

6. What will be the essential steps if you want to direct a project?

Ans: Directing a project involves the following steps:

◉ Supporting a project

◉ Accepting the results 

◉ Providing approval from the management

7. Define ‘Plan’ in PRINCE2® methodology.

Ans. A plan is basically a timeline that provides us with a vision of how the objectives can be achieved and point out the main products, activities, and resources that are required for the scope of the plan.

8. What are the 7 principles of Prince2?

Ans. The 7 principles of Prince2 are:

◉ Continued Business Justification: The business case is the most important document, and is updated at every stage of the project to ensure that the project is still viable. Early termination can occur if this ceases to be the case.

◉ Learn From Experience: Each project maintains a lesson log and projects should continually refer to their own and to previous and concurrent projects' lesson logs to avoid reinventing wheels. Unless lessons provoke change, they are only lessons identified (not learned).

◉ Defined Roles and Responsibilities: Roles are separated from individuals, who may take on multiple roles or share a role. Roles in PRINCE2 are structured in four levels (corporate or program management, project board, project manager level, and team level). Project Management Team contains the last three, where all primary stakeholders (business, user, supplier) need to be presented.

◉ Manage by Stages: the project is planned and controlled on a stage by stage basis. Moving between stages includes updating the business case, risks, overall plan, and detailed next-stage plan in the light of new evidence.

◉ Manage by Exception: A PRINCE2 project has defined tolerances (6 aspects above) for each project objective, to establish limits of delegated authority. If a management level forecasts that these tolerances are exceeded (e.g. time of a management stage will be longer than the estimated time in the current management stage). it is escalated to the next management level for a decision about how to proceed.

◉ Focus on Products: A PRINCE2 project focuses on the definition and delivery of the products, in particular their quality requirements.

◉ Tailor to Suit Project Environment: PRINCE2 is tailored to suit the project environment, size, complexity, importance, time capability, and risk. Tailoring is the first activity in the process of Initiating A Project and reviewed for each stage.

9. What are the steps that are involved in planning?

Ans. Steps involved in the planning are:

◉ Directing a project(DP)

◉ Starting up a project(SU)

◉ Initiating a Project(IP)

◉ Controlling a Stage(CS)

◉ Managing a project delivery(MP)

◉ Managing a Stage Boundary(SB)

◉ Closing a Project(CP)

10. What is the risk register?

Ans. A risk register is a table that contains the list of risks that can threaten the goals of the project.

11. Who are the primary stakeholders of a Prince2 project?

Ans. There are 3 primary stakeholders of a Prince2 project:

◉ Users 

◉ Suppliers

◉ Business sponsors

12. What are the different levels of plans?

Ans. The different levels of plans are as follows:

◉ Project Plan

◉ Stage Plan

◉ Team Plan

◉ Exception Plan

13. Which role is responsible for producing a Product Status Account?

Ans. Project Support responsible for producing a Product Status Account

14. Which role is responsible for drafting the outline Business Case?

Ans. The executive is responsible for drafting the outline Business Case.

15. Which role assures the stage and project progress against agreed tolerances?

Ans. Project Assurance confirms stage and project progress against agreed tolerances.

16. What are the two types of progress controls provided by PRINCE2?

Ans. Prince2 provides time-driven and event-driven progress control.

17. Which process can be carried out without following the Closing a Project(CP)?

Ans. Managing the Product Delivery process can be carried out easily without following the PRINCE2® methodology.

18. State the objectives of closing a project process by following Prince2 methodology.

Ans. Objectives of closing a project process with the help of Prince2 methodology are:

◉ Verifying the user’s approval of the project deliverables

◉ Ensuring the products support after the product delivery and project closure

◉ Reviewing the project performance of the project by comparing the actual project with the baselined documents

◉ Assessing the benefits already acquired and then planning the review of benefits which will be acquired once the project is finished

◉ Addressing the open issues and risks in the project and then performing a follow-up action based on the recommendations.

19. Name a process that triggers the request to deliver a project.

Ans. Initiating a Project process triggers the request to deliver a project.

20. Which document contains the planned and actual dates for product approval and hand-over?

Ans. Product Checklist document contains the planned and actual dates for product approval and hand-over.

Continue reading

DOE in Software Testing: The Potential and the Risks

Testing software is hard work. Many aspects of software systems are difficult or impossible to observe and measure directly. That makes finding defects, characterizing performance and estimating reliability the toughest parts of the development process.

While there are no silver bullets (and no “lead bullets” either, as per Dr. Barry Boehm, noted software engineering professor and author), there are some tools and approaches in the Six Sigma toolkit that are worth understanding in connection with software testing.

A number of articles have pointed out benefits connected with the application of design of experiments (DOE) – and fractional factorial designs in particular – to software testing. While statistical approaches like this do hold promise, those who use them need to understand them in a balanced way – looking for where they do and do not fit. Test designers also should understand some of risks involved.

Strengths of DOE in Test Planning

DOE provides, at the very least, a way to think about the whole range of test conditions that could be considered. DOE helps a test designer to think in terms of “factors” and “levels” that describe prospective test conditions (Table 1). That alone can help identify the test landscape and scope the magnitude of a particular test challenge.

Table 1: Factors and Levels

Test Situation	Factors	Levels
External States	Printer Status	Ready, Busy, Off
Data Entry	Data Field 1	Empty, Wrong Type, Wrong Value
Internal States	Memory	Available, Unavailable, Corrupt
I/O	File System	NTFS, FAT32, Custom

Part of the “design” in a DOE is to assemble factor combinations into and efficient set of cases that make the best use of limited amounts of data. That fits with the test challenge to learn as much as possible, in limited time, without the luxury of exhaustive coverage of all possible data.

Full Factorial DOE Designs

A full factorial design looks at all possible combinations of the factors at all their levels. While the benefits of DOE are more pronounced with more factors and levels, a simple three-factor case is a good way to illustrate some key points. A full factorial design for three factors, like “workload,” “number of servers” (roundtrip in a transaction) and “security overhead” – each at two levels, would call for eight cases.

Figure 1: Full Factorial Design Three Factors and Two Levels

The eight test cases depicted in Figure 1 allow for the isolation of the impacts of each factor on the test results (response time), and for the quantification of interactions (beyond the scope of this article). In a full factorial, a test designer gets all the information, but must pay for it. Three factors at two levels are easy enough to study exhaustively, but more factors and levels require more resources. Six factors, for example, at just two test levels each, call for 64 cases in a full factorial. The information paid for in running such a large test set would include the isolation of the effects of complex interactions (3-,4-,5- and 6-way) that are very rarely important. Experimenters, like testers, strive to focus resources on the information most likely to be valuable, and they see the inefficiency in large factorial designs. Interest in spending less time and effort to uncover the specific behaviors of interest usually favors fractional factorial designs in test settings.

Fractional Factorial Designs

As the name indicates, a fractional factorial looks at a subset of all possible combinations. Not just any subset though. There is a smart way to skip and keep test cases so that the smaller plan has a good chance of learning most of what the larger plan would have. A look at the logic and then a walk through of the uses and risks would valuable.

Looking at Figure 1, a good question is: “If you only had time to run four tests (not eight), which four would you run?” A little thinking will probably result in what DOE suggests – a plan like the one shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Fractional Factorial Design

The four test cases depicted in Figure 2, do a pretty good job covering the domain of the complete set of tests. Thinking in the geometry of the illustration, each face of the three-factor cube is covered with two 2 test cases. The test result for each missing case can be estimated using the combined information from the included cases. The logic in such a design is – if the behavior of the system under test is fairly “continuous” – what gets learned in the four test cases that are run can be used to interpolate what would be expected at the cases that were not run.

What does it mean to be continuous? Factors like workload and number of servers probably each influence the overall response time in a smooth, additive way. More or less workload and/or more servers likely push the response time up or down in a reasonably behaved way. There are not big spikes up or down at unknown points. In contrast, if the factors were application and file type (graphics, text), there could well be a certain combination that is quite unlike any others. Trying to study the part in order to know more about the whole could be futile. Unfortunately this cannot be reduced to a simple rule set. However, knowing about the nature of the performance being tested can to guide the tester toward or away from fractional test designs. 

Fractional Factorial Case Example

An example helps illustrate the workings and potential limits of a fractional approach. A team decides to test for response time in system with the three factors (workload, number of servers and security overhead), and using just four test cases illustrated on the cube. Each test result for response time (unitless for simplicity) for each factor combination is shown at its corresponding location on the test case cube (Figure 3). Response time is considered a “fail” when above 300. 

Figure 3: Fractional Test Design Response Time Measured in Four Test Cases

As mentioned, the cases that are included in a fractional design can be used to predict the results for cases not done. None of the tested cases failed, but the results were used to interpolate the untested cases. Figure 4 illustrates those predicted values.

Figure 4: Fractional Test Design Predicted Response Times for Cases Not Run

In this case, the fractional data suggests that the case in the upper right corner of the cube could be a “fail” condition (response time greater than 300). Actual testing at the point bears that out. 

Table 2: Predicted Versus Actual Response Times at Points Initially Untested

Test Cases			Response Time
Workload	Servers	Security	Predicted	Actual
Small	3	High	268.04	264.8
Small	6	Low	281.40	260.8
Large	3	Low	266.36	277.7
Large	6	High	312.20	302.8

Looking at Fractional DOE Drawbacks and Risks

The case so far describes a situation where a fractional approach paid off. Testers are not always so lucky. As discussed, if one or more factors influences the test result in a discontinuous way or if there are large unaccounted interactions between the factors, a single point that is left out in a fractional design can be the one place that the system comes to its knees. Where that concern is active there is no substitute for actually observing the cases with highest risk. 

It should be noted that there are interim strategies that combine fractional designs supplemented with cases of special risk (and perhaps excluding cases known to be very low risk). Some DOE software offers “D-optimal” designs, which basically ask for information about: 

◉ How many cases are there time and resources to do

◉ The factor effects and interactions to study

◉ Any test cases that should be excluded (already tested or impractical)

◉ Any test cases that should be included (special risk or interest)

From there, D-optimal design software searches for the best set of test cases that fit the test needs and resource constraints. 

Looking at More Test Factor Combinations

A quick tour of a larger fractional test case may round out the picture a bit. The test setting for the three factors used here actually includes three others as well – Client CPU (2.8, 4.0) Server CPU (3.5, 4.5), and data compression (light, complex). Testing response time for all six factor combinations would call for 64 cases (26). 

A fractional design of only eight cases was used, replicating each test (to observe response time variation) to give a total of 16 test cases. This is still just 25 percent of the exhaustive plan. 

Figure 5, showing the distribution of results, indicates that about 25 percent of the cases were failures. 

Table 3 sorts the results, isolating the failures. It can be seen that no one factor is responsible for the failures. As expected, it is the combined effect of all the factors in concert that drive the overall result. Using that rule of thumb in this case, every factor except Client CPU could be deemed significant. There is a lot more involved in interpreting these outputs, but the focus here is only on the simple basics.

Figure 5: Distribution of Test Results

Table 3: The Sorted Details – Failures Top the List

Workload	Client CPU	Server CPU	Compression	Security	Servers	Response Time
Large	2.8	3.5	Light	Low	6	318.4
Large	4.0	4.5	Complex	High	6	310.7
Small	2.8	3.5	Complex	High	6	308.0
Large	2.8	3.5	Light	Low	6	302.5
Small	4.0	3.5	Light	High	3	301.9
Large	2.8	4.5	Light	High	3	299.6
Small	2.8	3.5	Complex	High	6	298.3
Large	4.0	4.5	Complex	High	6	290.1
Large	2.8	4.5	Light	High	3	281.2
Large	4.0	3.5	Complex	Low	3	275.4
Small	4.0	4.5	Light	Low	6	272.4
Large	4.0	3.5	Complex	Low	3	268.8
Small	4.0	3.5	Light	High	3	266.8
Small	4.0	4.5	Light	Low	6	265.3
Small	2.8	4.5	Complex	Low	3	232.9
Small	2.8	4.5	Complex	Low	3	210.0

Figure 6 shows how the analysis of variance (ANOVA) can be used to single out the impacts of each factor on the test result. The slope of each line provides a quick visual cue to each factor’s relative impact. Client CPU has the least impact (almost a flat line) and number of servers has one of the strongest impacts. 

ANOVA further quantifies factor effects, as shown in Table 4. The “sequential sum of squares” for each factor gets larger as the factor shows more influence, and the p-value for each factor gets smaller (in its 0-to-1 probability scale) as the factor influence is seen as statistically more significant. Experimenters often use a p-value threshold of about 0,10, view factors with values below that level as worthy of attention and inclusion in the model. 

With this plan, the failures detected and those predicted (for the untested cases) found about 95 percent of the fail conditions that were uncovered in a follow-up exhaustive test. There is no guarantee, of course, that any particular application will find similar results.

Figure 6: Factor Effects on Response Time

Table 4: Analysis of Variance for Response Time, Using Adjusted Sum of Squares for Tests

Source	DF	Seq.SS	Adj.SS	Adj.MS	F	P
Workload	1	2282.5	2282.5	2282.5	13.17	0.005
Client CPU	1	0.0	0.0	0.0	00.00	0.993
Server CPU	1	1978.0	1978.0	1978.0	11.41	0.008
Compression	1	810.8	810.8	810.8	04.68	0.059
Security	1	2779.9	2779.9	2779.9	16.04	0.003
Servers	1	3280.4	3280.4	3280.4	18.93	0.002
Error	9	1559.8	1559.8	173.3
Total	15	12691.4
S = 13.1646 R-Sq = 87.71% R-Sq (adj) = 79.52%

Continue reading

What Is DMAIC?

DMAIC is an acronym for Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control. DMAIC is the process improvement methodology of Six Sigma that’s used for improving existing processes.

DMAIC is pronounced: Duh-May-Ick.

What Is DMAIC?

DMAIC refers to a data-driven quality strategy for improving processes, and is an integral part of the company’s Six Sigma Quality Initiative. DMAIC is an acronym for five interconnected phases: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control.

DMAIC Process Steps

Each step in the cyclical DMAIC Process is required to ensure the best possible results. The process steps:

Define the Customer, their Critical to Quality (CTQ) issues, and the Core Business Process involved.

Define who customers are, what their requirements are for products and services, and what their expectations are

Define project boundaries ­ the stop and start of the process

Define the process to be improved by mapping the process flow

Measure the performance of the Core Business Process involved.

Develop a data collection plan for the process

Collect data from many sources to determine types of defects and metrics

Compare to customer survey results to determine shortfall

Analyze the data collected and process map to determine root causes of defects and opportunities for improvement.

Identify gaps between current performance and goal performance

Prioritize opportunities to improve

Identify sources of variation

Improve the target process by designing creative solutions to fix and prevent problems.

Create innovate solutions using technology and discipline

Develop and deploy implementation plan

Control the improvements to keep the process on the new course.

Prevent reverting back to the “old way”

Require the development, documentation and implementation of an ongoing monitoring plan

Institutionalize the improvements through the modification of systems and structures (staffing, training, incentives)

Continue reading

Continual learning and your cognitive health

Continual learning has been shown to be fantastic for our cognitive health, particularly when you learn something new and practice it. In this article we delve into mind health and the advantages of structured learning throughout your life and career.

The benefits of continual learning

Just as exercise has been proven to be good for your physical health, continual learning is unquestionably valuable for your mind health. Education has even been linked to a longer life expectancy!

Structured learning has been shown to reduce rates of anxiety and depression, and lower stress levels. This in turn can mean better cardiovascular health, an improved immune system, lower blood pressure and less risk of common chronic disease. Evidence that continuing to learn does great things for our quality of health and for our brains.

Ongoing learning also limits our cognitive and memory decline as we age. Harvard Medical School has found that new brain cell growth can readily happen in adulthood through the processes of training, acquiring information and new experiences. Continued learning can stimulate the process of new cell growth and keep our brains functioning at optimum levels.

The saying goes ‘use it or lose it’, and when it comes to our brain health it is important to practice what you have learned. When you challenge yourself to learn something new, you are forming new cells and new neural connections. Over time we lose brain cells, so it is paramount that we train our brains continually so as not to become stagnant.

Cognitive health and your career

Intellectual growth and expansion can be of vast value for your career. As you learn, you better your cognitive flexibility – meaning you can switch between tasks with ease. You also strengthen your decision-making abilities and improve problem-solving functioning, which can only be a good thing in the workplace as you are more able to make the right call in challenging scenarios.

A healthy, stimulated brain will also have better memory functioning which can prevent you from chasing up tasks and employees unnecessarily. What’s more, boosted memory and information retention will allow you to recall past events in order to learn from them.

On the path of continual learning, you are bound to feel a great sense of accomplishment. Pair this with improved outcomes from upgraded skills and you have a recipe for improved self-confidence at work too. All of these positive effects can do wonders for your career, your prospects, and can set you up for a bright future.

Committing to a journey of continued learning

Despite its vast and varied benefits for the health of your brain, body, and career, committing to a journey of continued learning can sound like a huge undertaking, but it needn’t be. There is no set rule for hours of learning per week, nor a one-size-fits-all approach. What matters is that you choose a path of continual progression and that you make time for growth. To successfully establish good learning habits, you must do what works for you. It could be as simple as setting aside time every day for reading!

Committing to gaining a professional qualification is a surefire way to strengthen your cognitive health. At PRINCE2.com, we offer a range of professional development training courses which are designed to fit around you and your learning style. Our e-learning courses for example, offer a twelve month window for completion, allowing you to slot learning into your schedule as and when, meaning you keep your mental activity thriving.

There is a lifelong value to learning, for our health, our careers and our wellbeing. And so, shooting to supercharge your cognitive functioning has a host of benefits. A brain which is strengthened by continual learning is more engaged with improved functionality. (And let’s not forget that extended lifespan!)

Source: prince2.com

Continue reading

The Importance of Vision Casting

Lean Six Sigma (LSS) practitioners can get so focused on the analytics of our DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) and Kaizen efforts that we can neglect the softer aspects of creating substantial lasting change. The following is a practical summary on how to cast a vision and help inspire your teams and stakeholders to dream bigger and improve more.

Fighting Fires

A man was promoted to leader of an application operations team. This team monitored applications 24/7 and responded to application outages and customer impacts regularly. The new leader noticed his team was engaged in firefighting mode much of the time. He wanted to inspire them to think differently about their role.

So, what did he do? He called the fire department! He literally called the fire department to see if there were any metaphorical insights he could gain from them to translate to his team’s situation. He was pleased to find there was a person working there whose job included addressing such odd inquiries.

The fire department had experienced a dramatic decrease in deaths due to fire over the last 15 years. The city had also experienced vast reductions in property damage due to fire. The new manager wondered what was the secret that brought about such bold improvements. Did the fire department find more efficient ways to put out fires? Did they develop new chemical methods that would put the fires out faster?

The answer was unexpected. The massive improvements came as the fire department seemed to shift its primary focus away from fighting fires. Instead, they focused on two areas:

1. Fire prevention

2. Training

The department began a vast campaign to inform citizens how to prevent fires. They held fun, entertaining training assemblies in schools to teach children about fire prevention. They ran advertisements on local TV stations about ways to prevent fire. Firefighters would travel to the homes of families who could not afford smoke detectors and install one for free. The fire department sought policy changes to city codes to guarantee smoke detection systems in new buildings.

The result of the shift from firefighting to fire prevention was a long-lasting dramatic improvement in the safety and well-being of the city. The fire department had additional time to respond to medical emergencies before ambulances arrived, leading to more lives saved.

Armed with these great insights, the new manager translated the concept to his new team. He cast a vision for them on how they could switch from fighting fires to preventing fires in the applications space. The team embraced the new perspective. They began to create tools that worked as “smoke detectors” for applications, providing early warnings when an application might fail so they could address it before it was a “fire.” They focused on training, so they could understand how to address application issues with greater acumen.

The result: The team saw dramatic and lasting improvements. There were fewer outages, fewer customer impacts and greater customer satisfaction. Furthermore, the team’s satisfaction increased. They knew they were part of accomplishing something of value and their day-to-day work life was more peaceful.

Why Is Vision Important?

Our reality is limited by what we first mentally create. In other words, if we don’t first dream it, it will not come to be. We must envision a potential improvement ourselves, then we need to share the idea with teammates and stakeholders so they can begin to understand and visualize the value of the change we desire. As they see it in their mind’s eye, they can begin to act on it until it becomes a reality.

Nothing of value will get accomplished unless people can visualize the value in their mind first. Then they will be engaged to act.

5 Practical Steps to Casting a Vision

You have experienced the cold reality that people seem to fear change when having to change themselves and when trying to encourage others to change. We need to embrace the axiom that people do not fear change, they fear the unknown. As we cast a vision for a new and better future, people can free themselves from the fear of change as their unknown becomes known in their hearts and minds. Here are five practical steps to help you cast a compelling vision.

1. Have a Vision

It may sound simple, but before you can compel others to join in on a change, you must have a dream or idea of what you want to change. As LSS practitioners, when we embark on a DMAIC project, our project charter should paint a picture of what we hope to accomplish. At this stage, we do not yet know what the root causes are or the specific improvement steps we must take. But we can hold fast to a vision of the overall goal we hope to accomplish. And we can embrace with passion the potential the improvement will bring to bear.

At times we can view the project charter as a somewhat cold listing of facts devoid of enthusiasm. Don’t lose sight of the opportunity to use this tool to speak with passion about the advantages of the new reality you propose in the change you will introduce.

2. Share the Vision

Next, we need to engage others in the vision. There are standard methods to communicate this vision such as sharing of the project charter and engaging in stakeholder meetings.

Less traditional methods may assist as well. Consider holding a vision-casting session where you invite participants to engage in a more contemplative way about areas you want to improve. Have them visualize in their mind the problem you are hoping to solve. Then have them visualize what life would be like if the problem did not exist or were greatly improved. Have them share as a group how their particular area would be better off. For example, you could ask a series of questions like the following:

◉ Think about what you feel is the greatest issue we face as an organization now. Give the participants time to think about this and perhaps journal some ideas on the question.

◉ How would your life (or the lives of those we serve) be different if this issue no longer existed? Again, give the participants time to think about and journal their thoughts.

Then share some ways to address the issue, or perhaps have your first brainstorming session on possible improvement opportunities to bring about the overall vision.

You may also want to consider the marketing rule of seven. This rule states that for people to “hear” your message they need to encounter is seven times. Consider different ways to spread the word so people can encounter and contemplate the value of your vision seven times in seven different ways (i.e., emails, social media, meetings, brainstorming sessions, etc.).

3. Fan the Flames of the Vision

Encourage people to join in the dream of the new reality you are proposing. Here are a few ways to accomplish this.

◉ Advertise your wins. As you start the process of implementing some improvements, spread the word on any wins along the way. People will see the success and be more willing to join in on the remainder of the efforts.

◉ Advertise wins from other groups who have done something similar.

◉ Share practical examples of the value your change will add if implemented. For example, if you see a problem that exists on a given day, remind your stakeholders that your goal of the change you will implement is to eliminate the pain in question.

4. Execute on the Vision

If you plant a vision in someone’s heart and mind you must execute on it. This is the most important of the five steps listed. If you cause people to dream of a new hope and the hope does not come to pass or is deferred, those who initially embraced the vision will become jaded to your future proposals.

There are many methods to assist in executing on a plan. As you go through the phases of a DMAIC effort you will measure and analyze to determine the root causes of your current state and then prioritize which root causes to address. During the Improve phase, you will begin to implement your real-world improvements. And then during the Control phase you will set up ways to make sure the improvements remain.

As you execute, following best practices in a DMAIC project, people will see your vision turn to reality and will be more likely to embrace future improvement ideas.

5. Advertise and Reward the Accomplishment of the Vision

Once the improvement happens spread the word. Let people see what has happened. The vision you cast has come to pass in reality. This will not only encourage people to accept your future vision-casting opportunities but will encourage and empower some to begin doing the same.

Reward those who helped in bringing about the improvements in whatever ways you can, such as through words of praise, monetarily or comp time off. In the example at the beginning of this article, the manager was able to give large bonuses to those who took the time to invent smoke detectors for their applications. As you implement improvements this will often result in money and/or time savings. You can give a portion of the savings to the staff that helped implement it.

Final Thoughts

It is easy to underestimate our ability to bring about great change. We may think, “Who am I to call people to change?” Remember, however, most great changes throughout history were made by people who started out as average humans. Perhaps the most important vision to cast is the belief in yourself – you can be an agent of lasting positive change in your world. What vision will you cast to improve your sphere of influence? What dream will you impart and then execute on to make your world a better place for others?

Continue reading

Implementing a Customer Satisfaction Metric

Organizations evaluate themselves by measuring customer satisfaction with their products or services. As organizations evolve, the measurement of customer satisfaction across the entire organization becomes imperative. The first step is for an organization to implement a metric for tracking customer satisfaction.

To develop a metric, an organization should explore these questions:

◉ Who are its customers?

◉ What type of survey should be administered to them?

◉ How will satisfaction be measured across the organization?

The answers to these issues, along with an understanding of the Servqual survey framework and a voice-of-the-customer (VOC) matrix, will aid in the implementation of a customer-satisfaction metric.

Understanding the Customer

A rule for implementing a satisfaction metric is that customer satisfaction must be measured for every function and every service of an organization. There are usually many interlinks among the services and products within an organization. For instance, a typical information technology (IT) company provides a variety of different products in the market and, in addition, a number of services for those products, such as help-desk or desk-side support, IT infrastructure, and network security.

In such a complex IT organization, the services get classified into functions, such as sales and operations. Thus, the first step is to identify the customers, both internal and external, for each of the functions throughout the organization.

For example, for the application development team, customers would include the application users, along with some internal people to whom services are catered.

Dimensions of Customer Satisfaction

The next step is to determine the strategy for collecting the VOC. The challenge is to develop survey questionnaires to measure customer satisfaction with the various aspects of a product or service, such as the actual product, the processes followed (for instance, for a warranty), and the quality of service.

There are different theories for understanding customer needs and arriving at specific factors for measuring customer satisfaction. One widely used framework for measuring customer satisfaction is Servqual, developed in the 1980s by Valarie A. Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman and Leonard L. Berry. The method is also known as the RATER model, because it prescribes measuring satisfaction in these five dimensions:

◉ Reliability – A company’s ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately

◉ Assurance – The knowledge, competence and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence

◉ Tangibles – Physical facilities, equipment and appearances that impress the customer

◉ Empathy – The level of caring, individualized attention, access, communication and understanding that the customer perceives

◉ Responsiveness – The willingness displayed to help clients and provide prompt service

The Servqual dimensions can be used as the high-level survey categories in a questionnaire. Other guidelines to follow when developing a questionnaire:

◉ Use a Likert-scale rating (a respondent’s level of agreement with a statement) for customer responses for all questions.

◉ Assign an importance weight to each dimension of the survey. The importance weight, combined with the customer rating, helps an organization identify areas for improvement. Because the questions and the assigned weights might differ for each survey, it may not be possible to aggregate the total score at the dimension level. In such a case, assign function-level and organization-level weights to the dimensions in order to prioritize the dimensions to be focused on (Table 1).

Table 1: Sample Importance Weights at Function and Organization Levels

Dimensions (Based on SERVQUAL Framework)	Organization-Level Weights	Function-Level Weights
Reliability	3	5	3	1	3	5	4
Responsiveness	5	3	2	1	5	4	4
Assurance	5	4	4	4	5	3	5
Empathy	5	4	4	5	5	5	5
Tangibles	5	2	5	1	3	5	1

◉ Include an overall satisfaction question. This can be aggregated at every level – functional as well as organizational – in every survey.

The customer satisfaction level should be measured for every function of a business using surveys designed with these guidelines. Each team within the function should develop its survey questionnaire in the same fashion to ensure consistency. This way measurement is consistent across the organization.

Developing the VOC Matrix

One of the tools used for customer-satisfaction assessment across an organization is the VOC matrix shown in Figure 1. This analysis tool helps in evaluating the relative customer value of the service provided, determining the key performance drivers for meeting customer requirements and deciding the potential focus areas for improvements.

Figure 1: Voice of the Customer Matrix

The prioritization matrix examines the relationship of various service areas or process steps with prioritized customer requirements. The purpose of this tool is to determine which processes have the strongest correlation to the requirements. It uses inputs from the customers on not only their requirements but also the relative priority ranking for each area. The steps for developing a VOC prioritization matrix are:

1. List the company’s service areas across the column headings

2. List the dimensions and the survey questions in the rows

3. Put the customer’s ranking of relative importance for each survey question after each question

4. Put the total score as the last column in the grid

5. Determine the total score for each question by multiplying the rating for each function by its importance weight and adding the products together

6. Repeat building this matrix at all levels or business functions

Figure 2: Sample VOC Matrix for the Business Function Customer Support

Analyzing the VOC Matrix

Using the Servqual survey mechanism and the resulting matrix, it is possible to calculate metrics to be implemented organization-wide. The metrics are:

◉ Satisfaction rating – This can be aggregated by question or dimension. Table 2 shows a satisfaction rating gathered within a single question; Table 3 shows a satisfaction rating aggregated from responses to all questions within a single dimension.

Table 2: Sample Satisfaction Rating at the Survey Question Level

Please Rate How Well the Product Met Your Requirements
Response options (1 = Poor, 5 = Excellent)	1	2	3	4	5
Number of responses	5		8	23	22
Percent of responses	8.6		13.8	39.7	37.9

Table 3: Sample Satisfaction Rating at the Dimension Level

Reliability
Response options (1 = Poor, 5 = Excellent)	1	2	3	4	5
Number of responses	12	7	11	25	45
Percent of responses	20.7	12.1	19	43.1	77.6

◉ Satisfaction score – This is the efficiency score (rating x weight) for each question. It is used to determine the focus area for potential improvement. The highest-ranked service areas indicate the strongest performance in meeting customer requirements; the lowest indicate areas that do not meet customer requirements.

◉ Composite satisfaction index – The composite score is derived by calculating an efficiency score (rating x weight) for each function, based on the mean of ratings from the questionnaire and the weights given to each dimension at the function or organization level (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Sample Composite Satisfaction Index

Dimensions with high scores are satisfactory or need to be further strengthened; low-scored areas with high weight are dissatisfactory and should be further analyzed for root causes and to develop an action plan for improvement.

Tools that support this root cause analysis are correlation analysis, logistic regression, ANOVA or chi-square, or design of experiments. The VOC results are also necessary inputs for developing a control plan or FMEA (failure mode and effects analysis).

Successful Implementation

Implementing the customer satisfaction metric across an organization requires a well planned execution. In order to produce meaningful results, importance must be placed on areas related to completeness and accuracy of data during the survey process. Techniques such as Servqual are ideal for building effective survey systems; however, these need to be supplemented with tools such as the VOC matrix to capture the quality and importance of a service from the customer’s perspective.

The lifecycle for these initiatives starts and ends at the customer. Even though a variety of tools and techniques are available, success truly depends on consistency and accuracy in measurement across an organization.

Continue reading

Reducing Cycle Time for Six Sigma Projects

While Six Sigma continues to evolve, the most often cited complaint is long project cycle times. The obvious expense of eight to nine month (or longer) Black and Green Belt projects is opportunity lost. For example, a project that produces cost savings at a run rate of $30,000 per month leaves $150,000 on the table when it takes nine months versus four months to complete.

The less recognized but even more insidious cost of lengthy projects is erosion in management commitment. Managers with Black Belt overhead begin to question the affordability of Six Sigma.

Are long project cycle times inevitable with Six Sigma? No, Six Sigma project cycle times can be systematically reduced, thus improving the productivity of Black/Green Belts and satisfaction with Six Sigma.

Beating the Project Extenders

Talk to Six Sigma practitioners and you’ll find a long list of avoidable time consumers. A recent survey of 242 Deployment Leaders, Master Black Belts and Black Belts produced the following list of “project extenders”:

◉ Lack of reliable data on the process selected for improvement

◉ Re-scheduling of team meetings and “toll gate” reviews

◉ Changes in project scope

◉ Shifting of management priorities

◉ Resistance to change

A major cause of Six Sigma “project extenders” is the inability of most Belts to get the people running the business – line managers and employees – to put forth the effort to also improve the business. In simple terms, more Belts must know when, where and how to involve non-Belts in their projects. Mastering the skill of engaging non-Belts starts with recognizing a simple fact of business improvement: People’s motivation to change is highly perishable! For any Six Sigma practitioner, this means that time is not on your side. The longer it takes to get results and the more burdensome the involvement, the sooner everyone runs for the exits when Six Sigma Belts come around.

Three critical points in Six Sigma Deployments are key to driving faster project cycle times and bigger bottom-line results. At each point, Belts who can engage line managers and employees in the process make the difference between deployments that fail and those that transform the culture of the organization.

Better Planning Before Work Begins

Most Six Sigma initiatives do a good job of identifying project priorities – whether from a simple review of strategic plans and business goals or more sophisticated analysis. Where Six Sigma projects can lose steam is in the more tactical planning that occurs in the Define step of DMAIC.

The core of the problem is the lack of a structured approach for effectively engaging leadership teams before project work begins. The solution is no more complicated than developing a collective understanding of the performance drivers (X factors) that must be changed in order to achieve the desired end result (the big Y goal). With this known, leadership teams can assess the problem; weigh the benefits/risks/costs of attacking critical X factors; and, most importantly, match the right tools to opportunities for improvement.

Y = f (X)

The end result of this advanced planning is better understanding of project goals and more ownership by leaders who must sanction change. It also produces faster action on obvious opportunities where study and analysis are not required, or simply wasteful.

This type of project planning is not required for all Six Sigma projects, nor is it a skill every Belt requires. The biggest return comes from training Black Belts to apply this discipline on projects that need solutions to many X factors, have high human factor quotients and will require multiple improvement methods (statistical study, Lean design, Work-out, etc.).

Faster Quick Wins and Solution Deployment

Perhaps the biggest limiter to faster Six Sigma results is the lack of a reliable method for engaging frontline people in what they do best – taking action! The key is involving frontline managers and employees where they have the biggest impact and on issues they care most about. At two points the need for frontline involvement directly intersects with frontline motivation to change.

The first leverage point is in harvesting quick win opportunities. Quick win opportunities are “improvements in waiting” that do not require system and process design change. Such opportunities exist in nearly every Six Sigma project. Unfortunately, they often go unaddressed as Belts work their way through the DMAIC process.

The second leverage point is in solution deployment – the I and C phase of DMAIC projects. This is the time at which the burden shifts from the Belts to people doing the work. Defining CTQs, establishing reliable performance metrics and separating causes and effects is the domain of the Belts. Identifying solutions, implementing them and holding gains belong at the local employee level.

How can Six Sigma Deployments expand involvement of non-Belt team members without diluting the power of fact-based problem solving? One approach is so-called “Yellow or White Belt” training. However, this can be costly and produces mixed results. A more effective strategy is to equip Black and Green Belts with skills and tools for engaging frontline personnel in project execution. These tools can include group brainstorming; solution organization and prioritization; implementation checklists; and, results documentation templates.

Also the value of short, interactive meetings for frontline staff over long sessions filled with complex analyses should not be overlooked. And Belts should never miss an opportunity to create ownership which comes when people are encouraged to share ideas and be part of the solution.

In sum, to quickly reduce project cycle times, leave the detailed analysis to the Belts and engage the frontline in the heavy lifting of implementation.

Continue reading

Solving the Dilemma Created by the No-Show Patient

When scheduled patients fail to show up for their exam, they cause an interruption in the scheduling process, which creates inefficiency in the delivery system. If schedulers are able to fill the open time slot with another patient, the problem is limited to the inefficiencies created by extra work. If the open time slot cannot be filled, the no-show costs the facility a revenue opportunity. Healthcare facilities must put measures in place to control no-shows in order to allow the delivery system to realize process efficiencies and minimize missed revenue opportunities.

In an attempt to control no-show activity, facilities often implement measures such as patient pre-exam notification or overbooking patients. Pre-exam notification, often in the form of a phone call, mailer or email, reminds the patient they have an exam scheduled. At the same time it increases the chance that the facility will get advance notice that a patient may miss a scheduled exam. Overbooking is an attempt to address the statistical certainty that some patients will not show up for their exam by booking more patients into the schedule than the facility has time slots.

While measures such as the ones mentioned above can somewhat control patient no-show consequences, they do not add efficiencies to the overall patient flow. In fact, these measures can create non-value-added quality check steps to the process or create bottleneck issues with patient flow, when actually the root causes for no-show activity have not been clearly identified.

Utilizing Simple Six Sigma Tools

Simple Six Sigma tools and methodologies can be utilized to help healthcare facilities understand the root causes of the no-show problem and identify the most effective measures to control or eliminate the issues causing patient no-shows. By putting measurement systems in place to collect data on the potential causes of patient no-show activity, the facility can begin to identify the critical factors affecting the no-show rate. Basic quality tools such as a Pareto chart, cause-and-effect diagram and check sheets can be used to sort through the “potential causes” list to evaluate the frequency of specific reasons patients fail to show up for their exams. This in turn will help the facility focus on the vital few causes (critical factors). By setting both a target and a specification limit for acceptable no-show rates, the facility can then begin to look at the process and identify where the critical factors are occurring.

Understanding Root Causes Is the Key

Understanding the root causes is the key to identifying solutions that control patient no-show rates to acceptable levels. Through the analysis and application of Six Sigma tools, issues may come to the surface that might otherwise not have been considered as having an effect on the no-show rate, and some intuitive responses may be proven invalid. While each institution must let its own data lead it to the one solution or combination of solutions that will work best for it, here are some examples of areas that may impact the no-show rate and require appropriate actions:

◉ Patient transportation capabilities (public transportation, parking fees)

◉ Patient child care needs

◉ Demographics of patients not arriving for exams

◉ Patient co-pay concerns

◉ Scheduling errors (double scheduled, cancellation)

◉ Excessive backlog

◉ Time of day

 Action Plans Based on Root Causes

Any trends noted in these or any other areas that present during data collection would be candidates for further investigation by the facility working to solve this problem. Specific action plans can be developed for correcting the root causes creating most of the defects in the process. Action plans based on the root cause trends could include:

◉ Schedule according to public transportation availability, waive parking fees, provide taxi vouchers, etc.

◉ Address unique payment arrangements for co-pays

◉ Provide timely/convenient scheduling, next-day service. Adjust schedule to cover peak hours of no-show activity

◉ Work with referring MDs with a high rate of no-show clients to insure the office is not double-booking, office is informing patient of exam date/time, etc.

Once the action plans have been implemented, re-measuring the no-show rate will prove the effectiveness of the strategy. Additional action steps can be taken as needed. Ongoing monitoring will help the facility measure how well the process remains in control and if the improved results are sustainable.

Reaping the Benefits

Institutions that use a data-driven methodology to identify and control root causes of no-show activity are better able to discover untapped efficiency and predictability in their exam delivery systems. As efficiencies are realized through control of the root causes, additional activity such as the previously mentioned pre-exam notification will serve to enhance the predictability of the delivery system. Specific scripting of this pre-exam communication can provide the facility with necessary details to expedite the exam process, thus adding additional efficiencies to the process. Understanding, controlling and eliminating root causes of no-show activity allow healthcare facilities to gain higher returns from additional activities aimed at improving the efficiency and predictability of exam delivery systems.

Continue reading