WCM 610 SNHU Qualitative Information in DMAIC Process Model Discussion Everything needed is attached. Responses also attached. First, read Chapter 5 in

WCM 610 SNHU Qualitative Information in DMAIC Process Model Discussion Everything needed is attached. Responses also attached.

First, read Chapter 5 in The Essential Workplace Conflict Handbook and review your work with SMART goals from Module Two.

Next, carefully read the MEASURE Supplementary Document and, using your actual organization’s conflict (or the Garden Depot case study), Measure the problem or problems you Defined in Module Two. Use the Organization A Example Flowchart to help you organize your thinking, and then put the information from your flowchart into a Measure gap-analysis table using the Measure Gap-Analysis Table Template. Upload this table to the discussion.

In your initial post, address the following:

What were some challenges you encountered in identifying the variables (ethical, moral, or legal) that were or are present between employees and the organization you evaluated?
How will you apply what you have learned about transforming qualitative information to quantitative data to identify and analyze gaps in your final project case study’s organizational conflict?

In responding to your peers, reflect upon the issues addressed in the Measure phase, and recommend revisions.

Use specific examples from your own organizational conflict or the Garden Depot case study in your initial posts and in your responses to other students’ posts.

In Modules One and Two, you examined the process model DMAIC via an overview of the model. These modules introduced SMART goals, and you spent some time exploring the Define piece of the DMAIC model. In this module, you will explore the M, or Measure, piece of the DMAIC model. You will learn how to Measure with confidence when taking soft or qualitative skills and quantifying them for analysis. While you may use statistical software for the Measure phase, you can also transform qualitative information to quantitative information by using a gap-measurement table chart. No statistics are required for this course.

As Woods (2011) recommends, gathering information via interviews and then analyzing that information to create data can be the ideal means by which to gather critical data. Transforming data obtained through interviewing individuals, asking key questions that meet the points you have deconstructed for the Define phase, and then asking your interviewees to assign a numerical value to their information is a simple means by which to understand the Measure phase and achieve viable results. You will view a sample table chart and complete your own.

The Measure phase of DMAIC allows you to gain an appreciation of what problem is to be measured, as well as provides you with the understanding that knowing where the situation is now is critical. You cannot move forward confidently unless you know clearly where you are now, as well as what problems are to be addressed, and what success actually looks like. “Having spent considerable effort so far, you want to make sure that you measure the right things and that your measurements, which will be the basis for further work, are accurate and precise” (Carroll, 2013, Chapter 11, “Overview,” para. 1).

For the discussion in this module, you will take your organizational conflict or the Garden Depot conflict and work with the Measure phase of DMAIC. You will link your Measure back to your Define, and begin to build your DMAIC process model.

You will also submit your first milestone of your final project, which is your selection of your final project case study and your draft of the Define phase of the selected case study.

In Module Four you will explore the Analysis, or A, phase of DMAIC, building on the Define and Measure phases you have already constructed.

References

Carroll, C. T. (2013). Six Sigma for powerful improvement: A Green Belt DMAIC training course with Excel tools and a 25-lesson course. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Woods, M. (2011). Interviewing for research and analysing qualitative data: An overview Massey University. Retrieved from http://owll.massey.ac.nz/pdf/interviewing-for-rese… Graduate Discussion Rubric
Overview
Your active participation in the discussions is essential to your overall success this term. Discussion questions will help you make meaningful connections
between the course content and the larger concepts of the course. These discussions give you a chance to express your own thoughts, ask questions, and gain
insight from your peers and instructor.
Directions
For each discussion, you must create one initial post and follow up with at least two response posts.
For your initial post, do the following:
? Write a post of 1 to 2 paragraphs.
? In Module One, complete your initial post by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.
? In Modules Two through Ten, complete your initial post by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
? Consider content from other parts of the course where appropriate. Use proper citation methods for your discipline when referencing scholarly or
popular sources.
For your response posts, do the following:
? Reply to at least two classmates outside of your own initial post thread.
? In Module One, complete your two response posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.
? In Modules Two through Ten, complete your two response posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
? Demonstrate more depth and thought than saying things like “I agree” or “You are wrong.” Guidance is provided for you in the discussion prompt.
Rubric
Critical Elements
Comprehension
Timeliness
Engagement
Exemplary
Develops an initial post with an
organized, clear point of view or
idea using rich and significant
detail (100%)
N/A
Provides relevant and
meaningful response posts with
clarifying explanation and detail
(100%)
Proficient
Develops an initial post with a
point of view or idea using
appropriate detail (90%)
Submits initial post on time
(100%)
Provides relevant response
posts with some explanation
and detail (90%)
Needs Improvement
Develops an initial post with a
point of view or idea but with
some gaps in organization and
detail (70%)
Submits initial post one day late
(70%)
Provides somewhat relevant
response posts with some
explanation and detail (70%)
Not Evident
Does not develop an initial post
with an organized point of view
or idea (0%)
Value
20
Submits initial post two or more
days late (0%)
Provides response posts that are
generic with little explanation or
detail (0%)
10
20
Critical Elements
Critical Thinking
Writing (Mechanics)
Exemplary
Draws insightful conclusions
that are thoroughly defended
with evidence and examples
(100%)
Initial post and responses are
easily understood, clear, and
concise using proper citation
methods where applicable with
no errors in citations (100%)
Proficient
Draws informed conclusions
that are justified with evidence
(90%)
Needs Improvement
Draws logical conclusions (70%)
Not Evident
Does not draw logical
conclusions (0%)
Value
30
Initial post and responses are
easily understood using proper
citation methods where
applicable with few errors in
citations (90%)
Initial post and responses are
understandable using proper
citation methods where
applicable with a number of
errors in citations (70%)
Initial post and responses are
not understandable and do not
use proper citation methods
where applicable (0%)
Total
20
100%
WCM 610 MEASURE Supplementary Document
Identifying and measuring the different variables in organizational conflict will be your task when you complete the
Measure phase of your final project. Below is an example of how to measure these variables quantitatively when
interviewing stakeholders for the organization. Review this document carefully in order to complete the Module Three
discussion on quantifying qualitative information in the Measure phase of the DMAIC process model.
Recall the SMART goals from Organization A that you worked with in the Define phase in Module Two. The Gap in Points
column indicates opportunities where SMART goals can be narrowly specified. Think of a funnel, and of moving your
DMAIC process from the widest to the narrowest part of the funnel. Here you seek to quantify soft communication skills
as a piece of the Measure phase of the interdepartmental relationship among teams at Organization A. Problems are
identified in the key areas in the chart, and they are quantified. One could then take each specific piece of the Measure
table and create specific SMART goals for each. Iteratively link the Measure phase back to the Define phase as you move
back, as you would do in a real organizational conflict.
In the Module Three discussion, in order to gain a conceptual understanding, begin by creating a flowchart to show
relationships between and among the various pieces to be measured, and then put your findings (variables) and results
(quantitative data) into your gap-analysis table. View the Organization A Example Flowchart to assist you with this.
Notice how the flowchart includes a reflect and revise recommendation. DMAIC is a recursive process, rather than a
linear process. Once you are fairly confident in the Define and Measure phase findings and results, move ahead to
Analyze, bearing in mind that reflection, review, and revision of all earlier phases is critical.
To see how to create a flowchart, view Microsoft PowerPoint: Create a Flow Chart. You may also find How to Make a
Flowchart in PowerPoint helpful.
(Note: The Measure phase here involves conflicts in groups. In Module Six, you will learn about Dr. Bruce Tuckman’s Five
Stages of Group Development. Tuckman’s theory uses a model to help you to deconstruct the stages of how separate
individuals become a viable team.)
Next, you will take your actual organization’s conflict or the Garden Depot case study, and measure the problems you
defined in Module Two. Use the Organization A Example Flowchart to help you to organize your thinking, and then put
the information from your flowchart into a Measure gap-analysis table using the Measure Gap-Analysis Table Template.
(See the completed example below.)
While DMAIC as a methodology used in many organizations typically involves statistics, some conflict specialists find that
a qualitative methodology produces key variables that can be used to define, measure, analyze, improve, and control
the problems facing the organization. This involves the use of the in-depth interview process, asking open-ended “what”
and “how” questions of employees, external stakeholders (e.g., customers), and leadership.
The first column in the Measure gap-analysis table below shows variables. A variable is a piece of information that
differs with each research participant (e.g., an interviewee), and also differs among research projects. Note that, in order
to arrive at data that can be compared and analyzed, each participant (interviewee) must be asked the same questions.
The variable may also be thought of as the outcome of the analyst’s research questions. By examining the variables in
the Measure gap-analysis table below, you should be able to pose the specific questions that would be likely to result in
the variables provided. You must first conceptualize what you want to know. Think of a funnel. Beginning with the broad
question, “What happens when your team works on a project?” would lead to increasingly narrower questions, such as,
“How well do interdepartmental teams collaborate on joint projects?” and, “What is your present level of satisfaction
with the interdepartmental team collaboration, giving a percentage rating from 1 to 100% (with 100% being the highest
possible rating for collaboration on joint projects)?”
From here, the situation and its issues can be deconstructed even further, to the asking of questions relating to specific
projects, particular pieces or phases of specific projects, and the individual contributions of each team member, with a
Measure gap-analysis table for each individual team member’s responses. You then can see what each individual’s
experience of working with the team is, and create an overall table that shows the averages of each column. To protect
the confidentiality of each individual team member who contributed to the figures, the overall table would be used
when working with the team.
In Organization A, the team’s individual members were asked key questions that provided the analyst with the data or
information to understand, or define, the problems facing the team, from the perspective of each team member. Each
individual team member was asked the same questions, and the spoken information, or data, was categorized into
themes by the analyst. These themes are the variables, and the data that then needed to be subjected to the Measure
part of DMAIC. To arrive at the Measure piece, each team member was asked to provide a numerical rating of the
importance of the variable to successful team effectiveness. Each individual was then asked to provide a numerical
rating for the level of skill satisfaction, to show how well the team performs in each variable now (second column). The
results from each team member were then examined and analyzed in the Analyze phase of DMAIC. In the example, the
results from one team member are presented.
The opportunities for Improve and Control are found in the third column, Gap in Points. Improve recommendations
must be specific, precise, and measurable. Here, you return to the creation of specific, measurable, attainable, realistic
and relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals, which the conflict specialist would help the team generate. In Control, the
conflict specialist assists the team to be sure that the specific goals are being met and that the team is moving toward
working autonomously.
Measure Gap-Analysis Table
Organization A
Importance
(Percent of inputs that are
critical or very important)
Skill Satisfaction
(Percent of skill ratings at
better than average)
(Variables)
Gap in Points
(Reframe as possible
opportunity; the higher
the number, the more
important satisfaction of
the gap is)
Interdepartmental Team Collaboration on
Projects
98
23
75
Interdepartmental Team
Communication/Verbal Delivery of
Information
80
28
52
Effective Listening Among Individuals
95
15
80
Addressing Difficult Conversations
91
12
79
Written Communication/Email
82
32
50
Interdepartmental Team Meetings/Live
Presentations
85
48
37
Interdepartmental Team Meetings/Virtual
Presentations
40
67
-27
*Negative number
indicates that the issue is
unimportant and skill
satisfaction is higher than
the importance
For more information on qualitative research, variables, and qualitative methodologies, see Research Methods:
Qualitative Approach.
For more information on working with teams and generating team effectiveness, consult the following:
Doyle, M., & Straus, D. (1993). How to make meetings work: The new interaction method. New York, N.Y.: Berkley.
Schwarz, R. (2002). The skilled facilitator: A comprehensive resource for
consultants, facilitators, manager, trainers, and coaches (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
S
w
908C06
THE GARDEN DEPOT
Karin Koopmans wrote this case under the supervision of Professor Elizabeth M. A. Grasby solely to provide material for class
discussion. The authors do not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may
have disguised certain names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality.
Ivey Management Services prohibits any form of reproduction, storage or transmittal without its written permission. Reproduction of
this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization. To order copies or request permission to
reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Management Services, c/o Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of
Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7; phone (519) 661-3208; fax (519) 661-3882; e-mail cases@ivey.uwo.ca.
Copyright © 2007, Ivey Management Services
Version: (A) 2008-01-30
?I can’t take this anymore! When is Derek going to start doing his job?? exclaimed Janice Bowman, after
hanging up the phone. It was an early June morning in 2007 when Bowman, office manager at the Garden
Depot (The Depot), had again dealt with a very irate customer. The phone call was one of many that
Bowman had taken during the past four months concerning the lack of communication between Derek
Sinclair, the Barrie, Ontario, store’s landscaping manager, and his customers. This call was the last straw
for Bowman, compounding her anxiety about numerous labor and organizational problems she had
witnessed in the landscaping division. Bowman knew that extensive changes needed to be made if she
were to do her job effectively while, at the same time, managing to avoid involvement in the landscaping
division’s problems.
THE GARDEN DEPOT
The Depot originated in 1985 as a small, family-owned floral company in Barrie, Ontario. As sales and
profits grew, the company began carrying a larger variety of floral, gardening and lawn-care products. In
1992, The Depot launched a lawn maintenance department to capitalize on the growing desires of
customers to have professionals take care of their lawns. Responding again to customer demand, The
Depot created a landscaping division in 1998, offering complete custom landscaping packages, waterfalls
and sprinkler systems. By 2007, The Depot operated a successful 12,000-square-foot retail store, a lawn
maintenance division and a landscaping division (see Exhibit 1 for an organizational chart).
Due to the nature of the gardening business, The Depot’s sales fluctuated with seasonal demands. It was
always a challenge to recruit and retain qualified staff, and management was often forced to downsize staff
during the winter months. During peak summer months, 80 per cent of The Depot’s employees were
students who would leave at the end of the summer to return to school in September. There was no formal
performance appraisal system at The Depot, nor any defined job responsibilities. The Depot’s owners
relied on department managers to deal with any labor issues.
This document is authorized for use only by Samantha Panizo Baiocchi in WCM-610-X4388 Intro Org Conflict Mgmt 20TW4 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
Page 2
9B08C006
JANICE BOWMAN
Janice Bowman began her career in the gardening industry in 1992, working as a general manager for one
of Garden Depot’s competitors. After 13 years of service, personal differences with management forced
Bowman to leave the company. Upon hearing of her availability, The Depot approached Bowman with an
offer in June 2005, which she accepted, to join the company immediately. Although there was no
particular opening for her, management was confident that The Depot could benefit from her 13 years of
operational knowledge in the industry. In her first few months, Bowman was asked to organize the
computer inventory system and develop a material ordering system. After the first few months, Bowman
began to work on other small projects within every division of the company, sharing her knowledge
wherever it was needed.
Bowman described herself as a dedicated worker who was happy to help co-workers whenever they
needed help. She was never one to say ?that’s not my job,? and she could often be seen cleaning shelves
on the retail floor. She took great pride in her job and wanted to ensure all areas of the business were
running smoothly. She described herself as highly customer-oriented and would go out of her way to
ensure customers had a positive experience with The Depot.
In March 2006, Bowman’s manager, Dave Sampson, suggested they sit down informally and discuss her
performance to date. The informal appraisal was highly positive; however, Sampson had noted that Janice
was involved in too many areas of the business, and this level of involvement was not sustainable. They
decided to loosely define her job title as ?office manager,? which included tasks such as inventory
management, computer system management and logistics.
Although Bowman often worked seven days a week without complaint, she was growing increasingly
frustrated with how The Depot’s landscaping division was run. Since her job relied on information
provided by this division, she deemed it her responsibility to try to solve many of the division’s issues.
She knew that if no action were taken, she would spend more hours trying to fix the division’s mistakes
and more hours taking customer complaints.
THE LANDSCAPING DIVISION
The landscaping division was responsible for designing and installing custom landscaping, including rock
walls, gardens, waterfalls and sprinkler systems. The division employed 12 landscapers, 11 of whom were
part-time summer staff. The department managed to complete approximately 50 landscaping jobs each
year, which were fewer than what was demanded, resulting in many jobs being pushed back to the
following spring if they could not be completed in the fall.
In January 2007, the manager of the landscaping division left the company to pursue other opportunities.
In a move that was viewed as questionable by many full-time employees, The Depot’s owner hired his 35year-old son-in-law, Derek Sinclair, as the new manager of the division. Many staff worried that The
Depot’s owner was doing his son-in-law a favor by hiring him, given that he appeared unqualified for the
position. Bowman noted some immediate problems with Sinclair’s integration into his position and with
his management capabilities.
This document is authorized for use only by Samantha Panizo Baiocchi in WCM-610-X4388 Intro Org Conflict Mgmt 20TW4 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
Page 3
9B08C006
MURRAY KING, PRESIDENT
Murray and Glenda King started the Garden Depot in 1985 based on their shared love of gardening. The
husband-and-wife team had been equally involved in growing the business until 2004, when Glenda
retired. Murray King was a ?hands-off? manager who trusted his division managers to run their respective
divisions appropriately. King worked at The Depot five days a week, spending most of his time in his
office. Bowman’s interaction with King had been limited to asking him questions when she needed
clarification. On more than one occasion, King would claim to know nothing about what Bowman was
asking, leading her to believe he was quite removed from many of the day-to-day activities in the business.
Bowman had observed that King spent endless hours crunching performance metrics in his office, but very
little time was spent on planning the company’s strategic direction. Bowman chose not to involve King in
any of the issues she was having with the landscaping division since he appeared to be far removed from
its operations. In fact, King had commented on more than one occasion that Sinclair was doing a superb
job and he was happy with Sinclair’s performance to date. Bowman noted that Sinclair had a strong
rapport with King and would often be in King’s office chatting casually; in fact, if Sinclair had any
concerns or problems, he took them directly to King for discussion.
DAVE SAMPSON, GENERAL MANAGER
Dave Sampson joined The Depot as its general manager in 2002 and was responsible for ensuring the
overall financial health of the company. Sampson had a good relationship with all division managers and
was well respected by all employees. Sampson spent most of his time in the retail side of the business,
wherein he managed the retail staff, ensured the store looked presentable and kept an eye on sales levels
and profitability. Despite this concentration, King had commented that Sampson was responsible for the
operating efficiency of both the landscaping and maintenance divisions.
Sampson gave his subordinates a lot of autonomy to run their own divisions and intervened only when
problems became too burdensome for managers to solve. Sampson was recep…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment