Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Six Sigma in Recruitment Presentation

11,469 views

Published on

A presentation about Sharp HealthCare’s Six Sigma Recruitment Process

  • Login to see the comments

Six Sigma in Recruitment Presentation

  1. 1. What Can Six Sigma Teach Us About Quality of Hire? Presented by: Erin McGlone Michael Peterson, PHR
  2. 2. Today’s Agenda <ul><li>Introduction to the Speakers </li></ul><ul><li>Introduction to Sharp </li></ul><ul><li>Introduction to Six Sigma </li></ul><ul><li>Sharp HealthCare’s Six Sigma Recruitment Project </li></ul><ul><li>Results </li></ul><ul><li>Questions </li></ul>
  3. 3. Today’s Speakers <ul><li>Erin McGlone </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Erin started her career at Sharp in 2001 in the Sharp Health Plan Quality Improvement department. While at the Health Plan, she served as health promotion coordinator, followed by quality improvement specialist, serving the health promotion and quality needs of 130,000 health plan members. Most recently, she was senior consumer research specialist in the Marketing division, overseeing the patient and physician satisfaction survey process and conducting focus groups and other research as needed. </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Today’s Speakers <ul><li>Michael Peterson, PHR </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mike is currently the Recruitment Supervisor for Sharp HealthCare one of the top healthcare systems in the US, which was recognized as a 2007 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award recipient. His past experience includes three Fortune-500 companies and a wide variety of industries including Real Estate, Software Development, Hardware Engineering and Defense. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>His expertise includes recruitment operations, emerging trends and media, business process design/redesign, media planning/strategy, brand development and project management. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>He is also the current Vice President of Marketing and Communications and is the past President of the San Diego Association for Health Care Recruitment. </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. <ul><li>Not-for-profit </li></ul><ul><li>Largest health care system in San Diego </li></ul><ul><ul><li>4 Acute Care Hospitals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3 Specialty Hospitals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2 Affiliated Medical Groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Full range of programs and services </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Largest private employer in San Diego </li></ul><ul><ul><li>14,000 Employees </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2,600 Affiliated Physicians </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2,000 Volunteers </li></ul></ul>Sharp HealthCare San Diego’s Health Care Leader
  6. 6. What is Six Sigma? <ul><li>A methodology that focuses on data-driven decisions </li></ul><ul><li>Reduction in variation </li></ul><ul><li>A statistical term that represents near-perfection </li></ul><ul><li>A philosophy of driving results to levels never before expected </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>D efine </li></ul><ul><li>The context of the process </li></ul><ul><li>The customer </li></ul><ul><li>The right metrics and targets </li></ul><ul><li>M easure </li></ul><ul><li>Input requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Output requirements </li></ul><ul><li>In-process requirements </li></ul><ul><li>A nalyze </li></ul><ul><li>Cause and effects </li></ul><ul><li>Determine the gap </li></ul><ul><li>I mprove </li></ul><ul><li>Ideal state </li></ul><ul><li>Apply innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Future state </li></ul><ul><li>C ontrol </li></ul><ul><li>Sustain the gains! </li></ul>DMAIC Methodology
  8. 8. <ul><li>Sigma level (1-6) refers to the number of defects per million opportunities. The higher the number, the fewer the defects. </li></ul><ul><li>Most organizations operate around 3 to 4 Sigma. </li></ul>From 3 σ to 6σ represents a 20,000 times improvement in quality. Is 99% Good Enough? What is Six Sigma? σ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Defects Per Million Opportunities % 697,672 308,770 66,810 6,209 232 3.7 30 69 93.3 99.37 99.97 99.9997
  9. 9. 20,000 lost articles of mail per hour The Classical View of Quality “ 99% Good” (3.8  ) Seven lost articles of mail per hour The Six Sigma View of Quality “ 99.99966% Good” (6  ) 68 wrong drug prescriptions each year 200,000 wrong drug prescriptions each year One short or long landing at most major airports every five years 2 short or long landings at most major airports daily 5,000 incorrect surgical operations per week 1.7 incorrect surgical operations per week
  10. 10. <ul><li>A Methodology That Focuses On </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improving Workflow </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Eliminating Waste </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Delivering Value </li></ul></ul><ul><li>On-Demand, Defect-Free, </li></ul><ul><li>One-By-One at the Lowest Cost </li></ul>WHAT IS “LEAN”?
  11. 11. ‘ Lean’ Thinking Complements Six Sigma <ul><li>Lean </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Waste is the enemy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on process velocity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tools provide analysis of process flow and value-added vs non-value added </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Six Sigma </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Variation is the enemy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on process quality and eliminating defects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tools provide analysis of contributing causes to identify the ‘vital few’ </li></ul></ul>Synergy: Variation is much easier to see with a ‘lean’ process
  12. 12. Lean Six Sigma Compared to Traditional Problem Solving <ul><li>Strong focus on the customer </li></ul><ul><li>Eliminating defects </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on process (velocity) </li></ul><ul><li>Intolerance to process ‘waste’ </li></ul>
  13. 13. Background <ul><li>Started in November 2005 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Highly variable relationship between the Recruitment Team and the hiring managers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>When announced, some managers stood up and clapped </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Finger pointing” </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Background <ul><li>Recruitment morale </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anecdotally: mixed depending on the managers the Recruiters worked with </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Satisfaction with Recruitment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anecdotally: mixed depending on the relationship with the Recruiter </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Baseline data for 3/2005: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Openings: 765 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New candidates: 1883 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Applicants per position: 2.5 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time to fill: 53 days* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>*all of CY 2005 </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Start up- Initial Reactions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recruitment leadership </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mixed feelings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pluses </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improve processes </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Documentation on how entire process is performing/how complex it is </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Educate the managers </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Start up- Initial Reactions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recruitment leadership </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mixed feelings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Minuses </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exposing your processes to scrutiny </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Change </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Start up- Initial Reactions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recruitment staff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Generally concerned </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of supporting systems (ATS) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In some cases, used to variable relationship with managers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Concerned about being taken away from their daily work because of project </li></ul></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Start up- Initial Reactions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hiring managers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Two groups </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Vast majority- No strong opinion </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Minority- Vocal, convinced this would finally reveal that Recruitment was underperforming </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Early Findings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Many people throughout the process knew at least some of what needed to take place to reach successful outcomes </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Early Findings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some distrust of the existing process (competition between facilities) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disagreements on what was most critical to pursue </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Recruitment processes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What was Recruitment doing right? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Contacting, screening and sending applicants within the prescribed time limit of 2 business days </li></ul></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Recruitment processes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What was Recruitment doing right? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Some Recruiters were screening appropriately </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Communication breakdowns </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Recruitment processes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What could Recruitment improve? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Streamline and more consistently use process steps within the ATS </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>For some Recruiters, improve prescreens </li></ul></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Recruitment processes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What could Recruitment improve? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More follow up with managers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Support a new report that would provide information on number of candidates being referred to the various facilities </li></ul></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>What were the hiring managers doing right? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some managers were responding to applicants quickly </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Many managers were doing a good job selling applicants on their positions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Great ideas for engaging applicants </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>What could hiring managers improve? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>As a group, consistency was a challenge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some managers needed to communicate more effectively throughout the process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Processes needed to be developed to support the managers </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Input about Human Resources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Largely positive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Areas to improve </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Wait times for pre-employment physical to take place </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Some redundancy in processes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Educating the managers </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Process design </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  29. 29. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recruitment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Eliminated redundant or unnecessary process steps in the ATS </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Created standardized definitions of the process steps in the ATS that were universally adopted </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improved prescreens </li></ul></ul></ul>
  30. 30. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recruitment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Tightened” existing processes and implemented new ones as necessary </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>With the help of IS, developed a Referral Report for the CNOs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Began finding ways to get better data from the ATS </li></ul></ul></ul>
  31. 31. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hiring managers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In general, more challenging as they are a broader and more diverse group </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>As a each manager had different challenges, recommended changes were specific </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Communication </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Prioritizing work </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  32. 32. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hiring managers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>As a each manager had different challenges, recommended changes were specific (cont.) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Understanding of processes </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Scheduling </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Shared Responsibility </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Using best practice managers as an example </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  33. 33. Recruitment’s Six Sigma Project <ul><li>Improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Human Resources- Only marginal improvements identified </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reduce delays in scheduling physicals at times of high hiring volume </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Process review </li></ul></ul></ul>
  34. 34. Results <ul><li>Measurable improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Number of open positions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>March 2005: 765 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>June 2009: 429 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reduction: 78% </li></ul></ul></ul>
  35. 35. Results <ul><li>Measurable improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Time to fill </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CY 2005: 53 days </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>YTD CY 2009: 36 days </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reduction: 32% </li></ul></ul></ul>
  36. 36. Results <ul><li>Measurable improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New applicants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>March 2005: 1883 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>June 2009: 3381 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Increase: 79.6% </li></ul></ul></ul>
  37. 37. Results <ul><li>Measurable improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Applicants per posting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>March 2005: 2.5 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>June 2009: 7.9 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Increase: 216% </li></ul></ul></ul>
  38. 38. Results <ul><li>Measurable improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduced expenses on interim staffing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FY 2004 Registry: $6,103,294 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FY 2008 Registry: $2,875,774 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reduction: $3,227,520 or 52.9% </li></ul></ul></ul>
  39. 39. Results <ul><li>Measurable improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduced expenses on interim staffing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FY 2004 Registry Hours: 114,989 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FY 2008 Registry Hours: 52,157 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reduction: 54.6% </li></ul></ul></ul>
  40. 40. Results <ul><li>Measurable improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduced expenses on interim staffing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FY 2004 Traveler Hours: 292,273 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FY 2008 Traveler Hours: 190,137 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reduction: 34.9% </li></ul></ul></ul>
  41. 41. Results <ul><li>Measurable improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New hire performance improvements* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FY 2004 vs. FY 2005: 15.3% increase </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FY 2004 vs. FY 2006: 23.1% increase </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FY 2006 vs. FY 2007: 20.5% increase </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FY 2007 vs. FY 2008: 23.1% increase </li></ul></ul></ul>
  42. 42. Results <ul><li>Non-measurable improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved approach to managing expenses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Media </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Events </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Other </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved approach to investigating new media, technologies and practices </li></ul></ul>
  43. 43. Results <ul><li>Non-measurable improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More confidence working with the hiring managers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improved relationships </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More comfortable “providing input” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More comfortable innovating </li></ul></ul></ul>
  44. 44. Results <ul><li>Non-measurable improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expedited a culture of more accountability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Within Recruitment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Outside of Recruitment </li></ul></ul></ul>
  45. 45. Results <ul><li>Outside recognition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Much more “day to day” recognition of Recruitment by the hiring managers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sharp Nurses are consistently named as finalists for Nurseweek Nursing Excellence awards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consistently named one of the best places to work (Modern Healthcare Magazine, CA Best Places to Work Program, Local SHRM) </li></ul></ul>
  46. 46. Results <ul><li>Outside recognition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Winner: 2008 Nurseweek Ad-Q Award for excellence in advertising </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Winner: 2008 Health Care Communicators of San Diego’s Finest Awards Silver in the Direct Mail category and Gold in the Special Event category </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Higher morale within the team </li></ul>
  47. 47. Questions?

×