deciding the course of action the kepner-tregoe approach paul morris cis144

Deciding the Course of ActionThe Kepner-Tregoe Approach

Paul MorrisCIS144

Situation Analysis(Where are we?)

Problem

Analysis

Past

What is

the fault?

Decision

Analysis

Present

How to correct

the fault?

Potential

Problem Analysis

Future

How to prevent

future faults?

Learn Cause Make Decision

Plan Success

“You think you have problems”

Timing How urgent is the problem? Is a deadline involved? What will happen if nothing is done for

a while?

“You think you have problems”

Trend What is the problem potential for

growth?

“You think you have problems”

Impact How serious is the problem What are the effects on the people, the

product, the organization, and its policies?

“Trouble at the Bakery”

“You know it’s a really bad day when…

“You think you have problems”

“First Day on the Job…Trial by Fire” problem

Pareto Analysis and Diagram

This method shows the relative importance of each individual problem to the other problems in the situation.

This analysis draws its name from the Pareto Principle (80% of the trouble comes from 20% of the problems)

Vital few concerns vs. the trivial many

Toasty O’s Product Problem

A. Inferior printing on boxes (smeared/blurred) 10,000

B. Overfilling boxes (too much weight) 30,000

C. Boxes damaged during shipping 2,000

D. Inner wrapper not sealed (stale) 25,000

E. No prize in box 50,000

Toasty O’s Boxes Analysis

A B C D E

S1

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Toasty O’s Product Problem

A. Inferior printing on boxes (smeared/blurred) $100

B. Overfilling boxes (too much weight) $6,000

C. Boxes damaged during shipping $7,000

D. Inner wrapper not sealed (stale) $87,500

E. No prize in box $17,500

Boxes vs. Lost Revenue

A B C D E

S1

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

A B C D E

S2

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

K.T. Problem Analysis and Troubleshooting

The basic premise of KT PA is that there is always something that distinguishes what the problem IS from what it IS NOT.

Fear of Flying Problem

Decision Analysis

Prepare a decision statement with both an action and a result component

Establish strategic requirements (Musts), operational objectives (Wants), and restraints (Limits)

Rank objectives and assign relative weights

Generate alternatives

Decision Analysis

Assign a relative score for each alternative on an objective-by-objective basis

Calculate weighted score for each alternative and identify top two or three

List adverse consequences for each top alternative and evaluate probability and severity

Make a final single choice

Example of Decision Analysis

Our company is looking for a new site for construction of a branch office.

We have determined our MUSTs and several other factors to consider

Two sites have been brought to our attention.

General Factors for Our Example

Factor Weight

1 Developable >= 25acres “Must”

2 Favorable physical site attrib. 6

3 Competitive location costs 7

4 Access to quality/trainable workforce

8

5 Quality transportation access 10

6 Capacity & flexibility of utility services

5

7 Regional air quality designations 8

Comparative Analysis

Site A Site B

Factor Wt. FactsScor

eWt.

ScoreFacts Score

Wt. Score

Favorable phy. site

6Great size &

config10 60 Poor config & soil 4 24

Competitive costs

7Low Land

dev. $8 56 High Land dev. $ 6 42

Access to qual. workforce

8Dense Pop;

many compare ind.

9 72Adeq. Pop; high unemplyment

8 64

Quality trans. access

1030 miles to I-5 with good

access7 70

Right on Freeway; good access

9 90

Utility services 5All systems meet req.

7 35All systems meet

req.8 40

Air Quality 8Near non-attainment

4 3280 miles to non-

attainment8 64

Total 325 324