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