Following from my last blog on the analysis of problem, we are still on the case of the plant which manufactures quarter panels. I stated the issue as a production of defective output of about 10% of the panels coming from some lines being rejected by the Quality control because of some burrs and other rough spots. We ended the issue at the second meeting where a new entrant had been introduced to the meeting where the discussion about the problem and solutions are being discussed.
She pointed out the one-by-one process of going from one problem to its cause, which may be a problem to be solved. The one-by-one process includes the following:
Defining the problem: a major problem most decision maker usually make around problem definition is jumping into conclusions about the cause of the problem. She was able to decipher problem from decisions due to her understanding of the two concepts. She understood a decision is always a choice among various ways of getting a particular thing done. Members all agreed that the simplest way to solve a problem is to think of it as something that’s wrong and we need to fix.
Outlining the specification: this is a process where we dissect the problem in detail, by getting specific facts about it in four different dimensions by answering the what, where, when and extent question. She decides to put this in a quadrant which she called a specification sheet. This tool basically describes both the problem and what lies outside of the problem but is closely related to it.
Spotting the distinction: this is a process where we analyse between what is and what is not. Looking at a contrasting or opposing view in making decision. She actually looks for what set the “is” apart from the “is not”.
Seeking the cause: the distinction obtained from the specification will give the areas where to look for possible causes of the blurred panels. In seeking the cause, we have to fit the facts in our specification is and is not. But if the fact does not fit in our already defined specification, then we have n choice that to strike it out as not part of the cause.
Respecifying the problem: sometimes those initial issues identified may not be the real problems that we should be dealing with. Therefore, there is the need for us to respecify the problems if we further understand what the real problem is. There may be some times when you can spot a change in some facts about a problem right off and hit the cause at once. Sometimes you can just go through the process mentally, for it tells you the relevant questions to ask about every problem.
In conclusion from the case, the real issues were uncovered based on the analysis and they seem to be those issues which none of the decision makers were thinking of when they began the analyses in the first place. This further shows that in corporate decision making there is need for decision makers to follow a systematic way of dealing with issues that requires them making decisions.
SGD
Bayes Theorem and conditional probabilities