THE NEW RATIONAL MANAGER KEPNER TREGOE PDF
The following is an excerpt from The New Rational. Manager. You will be provided a paperback or ebook version of the book when you attend a Kepner-. One of the best-selling business books of all time with a newly updated Foreword for , The New Rational Manager, describes Kepner-Tregoe critical. Tregoe, Benjamin B. and Charles H. Kepner The New Rational Manager. Princeton, N.J.: Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. p. Book and jacket.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Academic & Education|
|ePub File Size:||16.66 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.15 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
One of the best-selling business books of all time, The New Rational Manager, describes Kepner-Tregoe critical thinking processes for effective leadership and . This edition of The New Rational Manager goes beyond individual skill building to capture some of what Kepner-Tregoe has learned about installing the. The New Rational Manager by Benjamin B. Tregoe, December , Kepner- Tregoe edition, Paperback in English.
Those rare books in the business category that have withstood the test of time evolve directly from real-world expe- rience and the day-in and day-out struggle of managers and workers on the firing line. Surely, this explains in part the enduring appeal of The New Rational Manager and its several sequels.
The original book was published by Mc- Graw Hill in The problem-solving and decision-making approaches described in that book and in this edition were developed in the late s by Benjamin B. Kepner, two social scien- tists living in California. Ben Tregoe and Chuck Kepner studied up-close the problem-solving and decision-making habits of managers.
Some were proficient, others were less so. The distinctions between both sets of managers yielded rich insights into the fundamentals of effective problem solving and decision making.
Ben Tregoe and Chuck Kepner codified their findings into a set of processes—rational processes—which were further tested and refined, added to over the years, until we have the problem-solving, decision- making, planning, and situation-appraisal processes presented here.
By that standard the Kepner-Tregoe problem-solv- ing and decision-making processes have paid handsome dividends to those who have employed them. Rational process continues to make a lasting contribution to the disci- pline of management for one good reason: The approach gets results. Process is a pattern of sequential thinking, driven by a series of questions, aimed at retrieving, organizing, and analyzing information for the purpose of reaching a sound conclusion.
This edition of The New Rational Manager goes beyond individual skill building to capture some of what Kepner-Tregoe has learned about installing the problem-solving and decision-making processes in organi- zations.
But, too often, it does not. There is misunderstanding and miscommunication, sometimes by accident and sometimes not. Things get done, progress is made. But not enough of the right things get done as well as they should. Progress, however it is defined, does not meet expectations. The search has been on for many years to find ways of improving or- ganizational effectiveness.
Everyone agrees that there is room for im- provement, that the organization as we know it is not perfect. Failure of the organization to perform as a functional unit limits full realization of its potential.
What to do about it and how to improve the organization to make it more productive and efficient are subjects of great disagreement. In , we wrote The Rational Manager. In that book, we described the concepts and techniques we had developed for using information in problem solving, decision making, and planning for the future.
During the period before and after , we conducted week-long workshops for twenty or so executives at a time, offering intensive training in the use of these concepts and techniques. How the executives would apply what they had learned when they returned to their jobs was left largely up to them. Nearly everyone left the workshop determined to put the new ideas to work. Not surprisingly, results were better in the organizations that promot- ed and encouraged the continuing use of these ideas.
Where there was lit- tle or no encouragement to use the ideas, where there were few or no oth- er people who also had been exposed to them, their use dwindled. Organizations recognized these facts. We have learned how to help our clients establish the teamwork they have come to value at least as highly as discrete management skills. From these clients we have learned what works and what does not. This book, then, has grown out of the experience we and they have amassed since the writing of The Rational Manager—years of research, trial, er- ror, and innovation based on what they have told us they want and need.
Understanding one another as individuals, being consciously sen- sitive to one another, and knowing how to adapt to individual peculiari- ties are trademarks of a functioning group that will hold together.
Com- mon regard and the psychological benefits that group members derive from the association make group activity desirable and reasonable to achieve. Such a group, however, is not a team. A team is built primarily on the technical capabilities of its members working in pursuit of specific goals, only secondarily on attraction among the members as individuals. The members of a team must be able to toler- ate one another enough to work closely together. Beyond this, all the members must be committed to a common goal and the same set of pro- cedures for achieving that goal.
An athletic team does not win a game because the members like to be together. It wins because it plays smart, knows how to play the game bet- ter than the opposition, avoids unnecessary errors, and pulls together as a coordinated unit. Most certainly, it is not the mechanism that makes the team suc- ceed. The overall goal of a team is to win, and every member keeps this firmly in mind. But when you analyze how a game is won, you discover that it happens because all the players know what to do and how to coor- dinate their efforts.
The members are specialists in all required areas of expertise, with unique contributions to make by virtue of unique experiences and knowl- edge. They are necessarily different sorts of people: All these men and women were hired because they were different and had different things to offer.
What kind of method for coordinating their efforts? One consisting of simple, common, sensible guidelines and procedures expressed in a com- monly understood language.
They should also keep the team fo- cused and prevent the addition of new tasks that are not essential. Sports rise above local language and culture. A Brazilian soccer player, for example, can play the game in any country.
The skills of good team playing are transfer- able in sports, and so it is in management. A competent manager can be a member of many teams, contributing wherever there is a need for his or her skills and experience, and be an active partner in the coordinated ac- tivity that makes an organization thrive.
One of our clients, a large commodity-trading corporation with operations in twenty countries, faced a series of difficult decisions. Should the compa- ny continue to rent storage and handling facilities in the Port of Antwerp or move to some other location in Europe? If the company were to seek anoth- er location, where?
Once a location had been agreed upon, how should the company operate it? Build new facilities? Rent existing ones? Form a joint venture with someone having such facilities? Once the type of operation was decided, what would be the best way to communicate and sell the rec- ommendation to all the others involved? How would foreign exchange, time and cost of shipping, and sales and marketing considerations be integrat- ed into this decision?
A task force of executives from five nations convened in Europe. They were from different organizational levels, with different kinds of expertise and different native tongues. Many of them had never worked together—some had never even met—but all of them were familiar with Kepner-Tregoe deci- sion-making concepts.
The New Rational Manager
Although some of the managers had originally learned the concepts in French, German, or Italian, everyone was fluent enough in English to use that as the common language. Over the next two days they worked their way through the entire set of de- cisions. Such a simple thing, you might think, but it meant that with a minimum of internal translation, each person was able to grasp what was going on all along the way, to ask and answer ques- tions so that everybody understood what everybody else was saying.
Which is not usual in such a situation, I can tell you. Put sales, production, and finance people of any organization together in the same room, and you may see the same result. Knowing where to start, what questions to ask, and what to do is just as important, regardless of whether people all come from the same geographical area or even from the same building. A team that functions efficiently can be put together, but it must be managed into being.
If you wish to develop an organization to its full po- tential, many things must be done in addition to teaching and installing a common approach and a common language for addressing management concerns. Introducing the concepts presented in this book is only the first step toward realizing their benefits.
Continual, routine, shared use of the concepts must be planned for and implemented by the organization if these benefits are to be achieved and maintained. The organi- zation was stale. This fact was denied by no one. Under tight control by the previous president and major stockholders, with decision making confined almost exclusively to the top level, rifts and cliques had developed. One company within the conglomerate was played off against another to the detriment of overall productivity.
The notion of mutual responsibility was unknown. Major problems had been ignored or swept under the rug for years. Now our executive was in the top position, not an altogether enviable one. Five years earlier he had attended one of our workshops. Now he was able to put that belief to the test. He wanted managers at all levels—in all companies within the organization— to learn and use the Kepner-Tregoe approaches individually and together. He felt that this experience would enable the managers to begin to see themselves as managers of a single organization, not as vassals of a col- lection of fiefdoms.
Under his leadership, the new president and his twenty-four senior execu- tives were the first to learn and use the concepts. They analyzed nearly thirty situations in the first week, some of which had been avoided for years.
Some were resolved; decisions were made to correct many more. Soon after, another group of managers went through the same procedure. They learned to use the concepts, put them to work identifying and analyz- ing situations of major concern, and planned for continuing their analyses to the point of resolution. Shortly thereafter, a final group of managers fol- lowed suit. In this way, over a period of two months, eighty-four managers learned to use common approaches for addressing and resolving manage- ment concerns.
New systems and procedures were established to support continuing use of these approaches. By his actions, the new president said these things loudly and clearly, and everyone in the organization heard them: This is one organization. By using common approaches to solving problems and making deci- sions, we can work together cooperatively as parts of one organiza- tion.
Everyone will use these approaches, beginning with me.
You can think. Your knowledge and experience are important. What you do with these approaches will have an important impact on the organization. You are all valuable members of the management team. The climate of that organization changed rapidly. People learned to talk about problems that had never been discussed openly before. They learned how to communicate good ideas so others could understand why they were important.
Through the use of systematic, commonly shared approaches, they solved more problems and made better decisions than they had before.
The question is academic. One ele- ment without the other could not have produced the same result. The president in this example let his people know he believed they could think. He wanted them to express their ideas; he would listen to them, and he wanted them to listen to each other. He provided them with new conceptual tools so they could do a better job of working with avail- able information. He led the way by using the new ideas himself.
He es- tablished credibility for the new approaches by putting them to the test on real and important situations. He let people learn for themselves that the approaches worked in solving the kinds of concerns faced by the con- glomerate and all its components. He made a planned intervention into his organization. He introduced the kinds of major changes he believed would do the most good.
He introduced a new idea to his people: He introduced a means by which thinking could be coordinated and channeled. The climate of cooperation and teamwork followed and was a result of the intervention. Finally, he modified the systems and procedures of the organization to provide support for the continuing use of the new ideas.
The new president did not set out to build teamwork or group cohe- siveness as desirable things that would somehow improve the operation of the company. He did not try to heal the scars of past in-fighting and conflict.
He let teamwork, cohesiveness, and mutual respect grow out of the experience of working together with common guidelines and proce- dures.
He made sure the results of that experience—problems accurately identified and resolved, decisions well formulated and successfully im- plemented—were recognized and rewarded. But they resist only those changes they do not understand, are suspicious of, or consider to be against their interests. Humans embrace change that seems good for them or good for the world they live in and care about. A new idea or a new expectation, in itself, will seldom bring about change.
On the other hand, change can be very attractive if it is the prod- uct of a new idea or expectation that appears to be in the best interests of the people who are expected to adopt it, if it is accompanied by the means for its fulfillment, and if it results in recognition and approval.
To im- prove an organization, we must introduce good ideas, establish the means for making them work, and provide a visible payoff for the effort in- volved. The more complex the activities of the organization, the more need there is for coordination if the organization is to flourish.
No one knows it all any- more. Teamwork is an increasingly critical element in organizational suc- cess. Fortunately, teamwork can be achieved by creating and nurturing the conditions that produce it. These four basic patterns of thinking are re- flected in the four kinds of questions managers ask every day: Why did this happen?
Which course of action should we take? What lies ahead? It asks for a sorting out, a breaking down, a key to the map of current events, a means of achieving and maintaining control. It reflects the pattern of thinking that enables us to impose order where all has been disorder, uncertainty, or confusion.
It enables us to establish priorities and decide when and how to take actions that make good sense and produce good results. It is the pattern that enables us to move from observing the effect of a problem to understanding its cause so that we can take appropriate actions to correct the problem or lessen its ef- fects. This fourth basic pattern of thinking enables us to assess the problem that might happen, the decision that might be necessary next month, next year, or in five years.
Four kinds of questions. Four basic patterns of thinking. Of course, people ask other questions and think in other patterns. Nevertheless, every productive activity that takes place within an organization is related to one of these four basic patterns. The patterns are universal and applica- ble to any situation. Over millions of years, through natural selection, these neurological structures—the patterns of thinking, response, and be- havior that promoted survival—tended to be preserved and passed on; patterns with low survival value dropped out.
Humans became adaptive problem solving in their way of life. The elements that made possible those patterns of thinking became part of human nature. By accumulating answers to these questions, humans learned how to deal with complexity, how to discover why things are as they are, how to make good choices, and how to anticipate the future. Survival was guaranteed by the ability to use these patterns, to think clearly, and to communicate with one another for a common purpose. The group became a team by working together.
Teamwork en- sured a food supply for everyone.
Integrating Root Cause Analysis Methodologies
Teamwork ensured shelter, protection, and a basis for living in a brutally competitive world. There was a place for physical strength, but brains combined with strength counted for far more.
Humans could separate a com- plex situation into its components, decide what had to be done, and deter- mine when, how, and by whom it would be done. They could set priori- ties and delegate tasks. In response, humans took the steps necessary for survival. They moved to a new location, altered eating habits, adopted better hunting practices. In short, this fundamental pattern of thinking enabled humans to prevail in a variety of surroundings and against an array of profoundly adverse conditions.
The earliest humans did not un- derstand such natural events as birth, illness, and death, or the rising and setting of the sun. It was the refinement of cause-and-effect thinking that enabled hu- mans to move beyond mere reaction to their environment, to make use of the environment instead of being forever at its mercy. This desire is so basic that even an inaccu- rate explanation of a puzzling fact is preferable to none at all.
Early man was satisfied with an explanation of a universe that revolved around the activities of supernatural beings. It was far preferable to no explanation at all for such readily perceived phenomena as the changing nature of a star- filled sky. Even today we have relatively few answers to the gigantic puz- zle of the universe, but the answers we do have are comforting.
The thinking pattern we use to relate cause to effect is as basic and natural as the pattern we use to assess and clarify complex situations. Both enable us to survive, flourish, and maintain a true measure of con- trol over our environment. It is the pattern that permitted early man to decide whether to continue the hunt all night or wait until morning, hide in this cave or that tree, camp on this or that side of the river.
Productive, coherent action—as op- posed to simple reaction to the event of the moment—depends on a sound basis for choice. In a hostile environment populated with larger, stronger, and faster creatures, random action too often could have only one end for early man, and that sudden.
The development of sophistication in the making of choices, along with goal setting and consideration of the con- sequences of one action as opposed to another, meant that humans could sometimes eat tigers instead of vice versa.
The choice-making pattern gives rise to three major activities: Determination of purpose to what end the choice is being made. Consideration of available options how best to fulfill the purpose. Assessment of the relative risks of available options which action is likely to be safest or most productive. When faced with a choice, we are likely to spend most of our time and thought on only one of these three activities. But whatever the bal- ance, however complex the choice, these three factors determine the kinds of choices humans have always made and continue to make.
This ability to imagine and construe the future, even a little way ahead and that imperfectly, gave our ances- tors a tremendous advantage. It permitted them to anticipate the storm and the snake, the starvation of winter, the thirst of summer.
Future-ori- ented thinking was made possible largely by the superior development of cause-and-effect thinking the second basic pattern described above. Hu- mans learned to apply their knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships: They learned to take actions in the present against the possible and probable negative events of the future.
Although preventive action is as old as the human race, the thinking pattern that produces this action is less successful than our other patterns. Unfortunately, the future carries less urgency than the present. Early man learned to keep some of the food of summer against the ravages of winter —but the supply was rarely adequate.
The importance of the future tiger, the future fire, or future starvation was small compared with the immedi- acy of the tiger five yards away, the threat of fire visibly approaching, or the reality of imminent starvation. Even today we face the unfulfilled po- tential of this fourth basic pattern of thinking: These processes are systematic procedures for making the best possible use of the four patterns of thinking.
This is why the Kepner-Tregoe processes are univer- sally applicable, regardless of cultural setting or the content against which they are applied. Whether managers are Japanese, Canadian, or Brazilian, they are all equipped—as a result of common human experiences—with identical, unchangeable patterns of thinking.
It is only the content that changes. When a management situation occurs, the available information is usually a confusion of the relevant and the irrelevant, the important and the inconsequential.
Before anything reasonable or productive can be done, the situation must be sorted out so that its components can be seen in perspective. Priorities must be set and actions delegated. There must be some means of keeping track of information as old situations are resolved and new ones take their place. Situation Appraisal is designed to identify problems to be solved, de- cisions to be made, and future events to be analyzed and planned.
Aerospace and Defense
For this reason, Situation Appraisal is presented in Chapter Seven, following the explanation of the three remaining Rational Processes: It enables us to accurately identify, describe, analyze, and resolve a situation in which something has gone wrong without explanation. It gives us a methodical means to extract es- sential information from a troublesome situation and set aside irrelevant, confusing information. Problem Analysis is explained in Chapter Two, and examples of its use are presented in Chapter Three.
Using this process, we can stand back from a decision situation and evaluate its three components. We can analyze the reasons for making the decision and examine its purpose. We can analyze the available options for achieving that purpose. We can ana- lyze the relative risks of each alternative.
From this balanced picture of the situation, we can then make the wisest and safest choice—the one that has emerged after careful consideration of all the factors. Decision Analysis is explained in Chapter Four, and examples of its use are presented in Chapter Five. A potential problem exists when we can foresee possible trouble in a given situation. No one knows for sure that trouble will develop, but no one can guarantee that it will not. This process uses what we know or can safely assume in order to avoid possible negative consequences in the future.
It is based on the idea that thinking and acting beforehand to prevent a problem are more effi- cient than solving a problem that has been allowed to develop. Likewise, Potential Opportunity Analysis involves looking ahead and anticipating situations that we may be able to turn to our advantage.
This Rational Process enables an organization to take an active hand in shaping its fu- ture. Chapter Six deals with the ways organizations have used Potential Problem Analysis to reduce the number and severity of their problems and Potential Opportunity Analysis to benefit from their opportunities. These processes are basic and natur- al. Unfortunately, they cannot be put to work automatically, used equally well by all humans, or shared. Why should this be so? Every person has a personal, idiosyncratic way of understanding, han- dling, and communicating such things as cause-and-effect relationships and choice making.
Some people develop better ways than others. Some may be only moderately skilled in, say, cause-and-effect thinking, but be exceptionally good at communicating their conclusions. They may be more successful than others who are more skilled but less communica- tive.
What information was used and how it was used remains invisible. So we have a twofold need, complicated by the fact that we are often unaware of even our own thinking patterns. The actual level of skill in thinking—about problems, decisions, and all other organizational con- cerns—needs to be as high as it can be.
That level of skill rises when people have grasped the techniques of the Rational Processes and have learned to apply their basic thinking patterns to management concerns.
It is more difficult for people to learn to think togeth- er. How can we achieve teamwork in an activity as individual and inter- nal as thinking? Teamwork in the use of patterns of thinking does not just happen. As discussed earlier, it must be contrived, consciously planned, or uncon- sciously fostered through the closeness and visibility of the team mem- bers.
A group may become a team of sorts simply by working together on a particular task for a long enough time. Although a workable set of effec- tive and appropriate compromises may emerge from this context, this group is not yet the full-scale, multipurpose team that can truly share in the thinking process. Teamwork is perceived as a precious commodi- ty today, and the earliest humans had it down pat. For early man, available information was largely visual: The young learned from the old through intimate contact and close observation.
Old and young pooled their intellectual resources by talking about what they saw. They thought aloud—a characteristic typical of peo- ple who live together closely. In this way they acquired commonly under- stood meanings for their words. Their language became expressive of de- tail, of fine distinctions of form, color, texture, and of thoughts and feel- ings.
They developed few abstract terms. With a common experience of their environment and a common set of terms to describe it, the members of a hunting team functioned more as a single coordinated body than any comparable modern group.
There was no need for their leader to give orders and directions constantly. Every- one understood what was to be done, who could do it best, and how to mesh individual efforts into a concerted whole.
Entire vocabularies were committed to sign language to preserve silence. Hundreds of words could be expressed by formalized gestures, instantly and commonly understood. It is little wonder that hunting and gathering people were able to achieve such a high order of coordination and teamwork in their activi- ties.
It was as though they carried computers within themselves, all of which were commonly programmed with a single shared set of routines and instructions. With these computers so closely aligned, even a little information was sufficient to trigger a common understanding among all those who received it. They knew what the information meant and what was to be done with it. There was little ambiguity or uncertainty in the treatment of and response to an input.
This teamwork was made possi- ble by the possession of a common language to express and share a com- mon way of thinking. The domestication of plants and animals doomed the hunting life.
No longer was it necessary for the members of a band to think and exist in so parallel a fashion. Now there was specialization of function. Groups be- came larger, and diverse social and political units appeared.
Now there was room for different beliefs and behavior. Gone was the economic un- certainty of hunting and gathering, but gone also was the closeness such a life imposed. The intense teamwork of the hunting group disappeared for- ever; the luxury of individual thought and individual interpretation of ideas had arrived.
But it would be tremendously valuable if we could recapture that ability to work together, with even a fraction of that efficiency, to deal better with modern problem situations. Now, through contrivance and planning, we can recapture that ability and channel it to meet the needs of the modern organization.
This is not to say that the organizational team will somehow represent a modern hunting group armed with ballpoint pens instead of bows and arrows. What is required today is not total teamwork in all aspects of life; rather, it is a selective, functional teamwork that can be turned on when needed, limited to those activities where it will be most productive.
What is required is teamwork that can be summoned to han- dle organizational problems yet leave team members free to act as indi- viduals in all other respects. When we need answers to specific questions, we need an approach that can be invoked and shared regardless of content. We need the kinds of accurate communication and common under- standing that prevailed in the hunting bands.
These must be modernized, selectively adapted to current conditions, and directed toward the critical functions of organizational activity where teamwork is most essential.
All of this can be done. It is exactly what was done by the new presi- dent mentioned earlier in this chapter. He brought into his organization a common language and common approaches for using the four basic pat- terns of thinking to produce order, resolve problems, make good choices, and protect against future threats. His people learned to share this lan- guage and use these approaches. Their acceptance of his new and differ- ent modus operandi came as a result of their own experience. The new, common language they learned was not a long list of jargon that required a month to memorize.
It consisted of down-to-earth words and phrases that conveyed an exact meaning to everyone exposed to that language. The new, common approach- es worked when they were applied to actual situations within the organi- zation. The individual payoff for adopting the new behavior was great; the organizational payoff was greater. The people of the organization soon were equipped to act as a team in the fullest sense of the word.
Rational management, which means making full use of the thinking abili- ty of the people in an organization, is a continuing process. Rational Management aims at major change and therefore demands major commitment.
The four Rational Processes we will describe in the next several chapters constitute an explicit, logical system that can have a far-reaching impact within an organization. We must identify the people who have the greatest influence on the important issues facing the organization. They should be the first to learn and use the new ideas. We must identify the people who provide them with information. We must identify those who will implement the conclusions that come out of the use of the ideas.
In short, it is imperative to pinpoint all the people within an organization who make things hap- pen. The objective is to move the organization closer to its full potential. While people in organizations enjoy the rewards that go with success, they also enjoy the process that pro- duces success. Regardless of their organizational level, they will not only accept but will also seek problem-solving opportunities as long as four conditions exist: They possess the skills needed to solve the problems that arise in their jobs.
They experience success in using those skills.
They are rewarded for successfully solving their problems. They do not fear failure. The converse is equally true. People will avoid problem-solving situa- tions when they are unsure of how to solve their problems, when they do not experience success after trying to solve a problem, when they feel that their efforts are not appreciated, and when they sense that they have less to lose either by doing nothing or by shifting responsibility. This chapter is concerned with the first condition: The other conditions for habitual, successful problem solving will be discussed in subsequent chapters.
Problem Analysis provides the skills needed to explain any situation in which an expected level of performance is not being achieved and in which the cause of the unacceptable performance is unknown. These deviations may appear in the performance of people or the performance of systems, policies, or equipment, that is, anything in the work environment that may deviate from expected performance with no known cause.
In this chapter, we will explain and demonstrate Problem Analysis by examining a problem that occurred in a production plant owned by one of our clients. We have selected this problem as a case vehicle because it is concrete and easily understood, therefore ideal for introducing the tech- niques of Problem Analysis.
In Chapter Three, we will describe the use of these techniques in a variety of industries, at differing organizational lev- els, and over a wide spectrum of problem situations. A problem is the visible effect of a cause that resides somewhere in the past. We must relate the effect we observe to its exact cause.
Only then can we be sure of taking appropriate corrective action—action that can correct the problem and keep it from recurring. A simple example is the car that stalls in traffic, goes into the shop for costly repair, and then stalls again on the way home. If the cause of the stalling is a worn-out distributor and the action taken is a readjustment of the carburetor, then the car will continue to stall.
Superior problem solving is not the result of knowing all the things that can produce a particular effect and then choosing a corrective action directed at the most frequently observed cause. Yet this is the way most people approach problems on the job. Problem Analysis is a systematic problem-solving process.
It does not reject the value of experience or of technical knowledge. Rather, it helps us to make the best use of that expe- rience and knowledge.
Our objectivity about a situation is often sacrificed under pressure. This is the most common approach to problem solving, and problem solving by extrapolation is a tough habit to break despite its relatively poor payoff in appropriate, lasting corrective actions. A chief purpose of this chapter and the next is to demonstrate that the habit can be broken. Through the experiences of people in our client or- ganizations, we will show that the effort required to adopt a systematic approach to problem solving is small in light of the results that follow.
They meet our defi- nition of a problem because in each one an expected level of performance is not being achieved, and the cause of the unacceptable performance is unknown. Then, in the middle of the morning three weeks ago, it went dead. There are other kinds of problem situations that do not meet our spe- cific definition. For example: This is a serious problem.
It does not represent a deviation between expected and actual performance that is of unknown cause. In this example, resolution will consist not of an ex- planation as to why the situation arose but of a choice. Those concerned must identify some course of action that can produce satisfactory results under less-than-optimal conditions. Compromises will probably be identified.
Objectives for meeting the goal may have to be reviewed, reshuffled, or altered. Any number of po- tential actions may be considered.
But the cause of the difficulty is known all too well. Decision Analysis, which is presented in Chapters Four and Five, is useful for resolving this kind of dilemma.
A decision requires an- swers to the following questions: This is true for everything in the work environment: If there is an alteration in one or more of these con- ditions—that is, if some kind of change occurs—then it is possible that performance will alter, too. That change may be for better or for worse. A situation analysis will clarify the distinctions in all these processes and as a result it will be possible to search for suitable solutions.
This situation analysis provides an insight into necessity, priority and urgency of the various tasks. When it has become clear which tasks are to be prioritized action list preparations can be made for potential problems. By using a good problem analysis in advance, a process will be created to prevent future problems or in emergencies, to limit the damage.
Certain causes are therefore excluded. Through research Charles Kepner and Benjamin Tregoe discovered that the registration of a problem is not a uniform process. In spite of the available information, people usually process information badly, misinterpret this or overlook important matters. They discovered that a predetermined logical method facilitates the search for the causes of a problem. Apart from the fact that the Kepner Tregoe Method leads to an explanation of problems, it also helps improve mutual understanding within an organization.
Moreover, it also helps improve clear communications with customer and suppliers, production quality, customer service and anything related to maintenance and repairs. After some research the class was able to identify two potential sources of this problem.
So I guess it is how this make a structure for problem solving and it is a system that can be applied in a multitude of industries to help save time and money. Also that it can be used for very severe problems and for everyday things as well. Yes, I am being a little harsh on you, but your initial post on the thread sounds like an ad.
We're trying to get a little more information or get confirmation that you're just advertising. Youre right Now that I re-read it the post does sound like an ad: Reading the book would be very benifical if you can pick up on the process.Such a group, however, is not a team. By his actions, the new president said these things loudly and clearly and everyone in the organization heard them: 1. He said his wife was taking a class at a local college that started classes at 8: Mark Manson.
Yet it is of known cause and all that a logical analysis can produce as an explanation is "Number One Filter Leaking Oil.