Six Sigma Green Belt Training varies from 3 days to 3 weeks? Why such a disparity?

We have been looking around for some meaningful, and economical six sigma green belt training. I am seeing courses with exams with a duration of anywhere from 3 days to 3 weeks.
Both the 3 day and 3 week providers are well qualified institutions.
I am trying to figure why such a disparity in training time to achieve a green belt certification. Anyone have information or experience with reasons why the differences?

Six Sigma Green belt training

This is purely speculation, but I wonder if the difference could be the amount of time spent on basic statistical principles. “Green Belt for Engineers” could conceivably be a much shorter class than “Green Belt for Art Teachers,” but much longer than “Green Belt for Statisticians.”

Six Sigma Green belt training

There is a lot of variation in the training provided for both GBs and BBs. There are really no widely accepted standards ... anyone can design a course and call it a GB course.

It really depends on what you expect GBs to do ... e.g., support BBs on their projects, or do their own projects, but with a narower scope. Just SS, or also lean? Some GBs courses focus primarily on statistical/analytical tools. Some also in include some lean tools.

In my opinion, a decent GB course should be about 10 days in length.

I would like to say that 3-day training for Six Sigma green belt is nothing. I had attended a 3-day so called six sigma fundamental training If fact it was a training for 7 old and new quality tools. It covered the concept of six sigma and an example of six sigma project report.

I had also attended a 4-week ( 8 hour per day) six sigma green belt training conducted my employer. Even this 4-week course was arranged one month after month. During one month the assignment must be completed and the six sigma project should have progress. This training really helps a lot.

For black belt training, we spent another 3 weeks.

Why the training could last 3 days to 3 weeks ? I assume some is making money only while neglecting the result...

Best Regards,
Johnson Shao

I've had 16+ years of Green Belt training...

never mind.

Let me suggest the only true comparison is the Body of Knowledge in which the course purports to help the student become proficient.

Ask the course provider to provide that in advance as well as to disclose the prerequisite knowledge the student is expected to bring to the course.

Will the course have a "practical" application of the tools on a real world situation or will everything be "PowerPoint?"

Will the course provider supply references of satisfied clients? Will they supply samples of pre-and post-course comprehension tests?

If not, why not?

It depends on the content for the aim of the course. Our training is 1-week long and we expect people to work on an active project for 50% of that time in class while learning theory in the other half. We stick to the methodology and the quality tools and dont go down the statistics path. I definitely dont understand a 3 week class and if I was in charge in my organisation I certainly wouldnt allow anyone to go on training for longer than 5 days for a green belt project.

Paul06 said:

It depends on the content for the aim of the course. Our training is 1-week long and we expect people to work on an active project for 50% of that time in class while learning theory in the other half. We stick to the methodology and the quality tools and dont go down the statistics path. I definitely dont understand a 3 week class and if I was in charge in my organisation I certainly wouldnt allow anyone to go on training for longer than 5 days for a green belt project.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the Cove, Paul!

How do the instructors determine the students are competent after training? How are the instructors selected and evaluated on proficiency in training?

Many of the folks here will attest folks who are proficient in a Body of Knowledge are not always able to help other folks learn that BOK.

Who designs the curriculum? Who determines whether students may need different style or method of learning to assimilate the material?

I don't mean to put you on the spot - only to point out that time, alone, is not the major criterion for a successful course of education.

Re: Six Sigma Green Belt Training varies from 3 days to 3 weeks? Why such a disparity

Paul06 said:

We stick to the methodology and the quality tools and dont go down the statistics path.

Click to expand...

You have a 6S "methodology" and training regimen that doesn't include statistics? How do you explain to a neophyte what "six sigma" means, and having explained it, make him understand its underlying significance? I'm sorry, but this is just the sort of thing that puts a lot of people (including me) off when it comes to 6S. Everybody wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die first.

Paul06 said:

I definitely dont understand a 3 week class and if I was in charge in my organisation I certainly wouldnt allow anyone to go on training for longer than 5 days for a green belt project.

Click to expand...

I don't understand it either, unless the trainees have demonstrated at least a basic understanding of probability theory and normal-curve statistics. Perhaps then you could reduce the training to three weeks.

Re: Six Sigma Green Belt Training varies from 3 days to 3 weeks? Why such a disparity

I had a client ask me if I can develop a "green belt" course without any projects or certifications. Just want to train their people in the tools and statistics, and not caring about the color of the belt.