Employees' preference analysis on lean six sigma program coaching attributes using a conjoint analysis approach.

Anna Luisa C Guevarra, Yogi Tri Prasetyo, Ardvin Kester S Ong, Klint Allen Mariñas

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

The Indonesian consumer perspective on the massage industry: A conjoint analysis approach.PloS one · 2024
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anna Luisa C GuevarraSchool of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Mapúa University, 658 Muralla St., Intramuros, Manila 1002, Philippines.

Yogi Tri PrasetyoInternational Bachelor Program in Engineering, Yuan Ze University, 135 Yuan-Tung Road, Chung-Li 32003, Taiwan.

Ardvin Kester S OngSchool of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Mapúa University, 658 Muralla St., Intramuros, Manila 1002, Philippines.

Klint Allen MariñasSchool of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Mapúa University, 658 Muralla St., Intramuros, Manila 1002, Philippines.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the preference of employees for Lean Six Sigma project coaching attributes. Conjoint analysis with an orthogonal design was utilized and six attributes were considered: coaching style, frequency of coaching sessions, duration of coaching sessions, the turn-around time of feedback, documentation review, and mock defense. In addition, 4 different projects were also evaluated: Quick Win project, Yellow Belt project, Green Belt project, and Black Belt project. The results showed that for Quick Win projects, employees consider conducting a mock defense as the highest preference, followed by having a documentation review, and a democratic coaching style. For Yellow Belt projects, employees considered conducting a mock defense as the highest preference, followed by having a documentation review, and a weekly coaching session. For Green Belt projects, employees consider having a documentation review as the highest preference, followed by a transactional coaching style, and conducting a mock defense. Lastly, for Black Belt projects, employees consider having a documentation review as the highest preference, followed by conducting a mock defense, and a 1-week turn-around time for feedback. The results of this study will help companies to implement and to sustain better employee-oriented LSS programs.

Indexed as

Conjoint analysisEmployee preferenceLeanProject coachingSix sigma

Identifiers

PMID37483734

DOI10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17846

PMCPMC10359860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.