The ability to define a problem and analyze data is an essential function not only for somebody running a business, but for life in general. I have had numerous experiences through school, the Army and police work to define a problem and analyze why that problem is happening. And I have managed to do it without any formal, theoretical process. However, when working with many different clients on numerous projects, especially in a professional setting, it is always beneficial to have a standardized process by which to analyze an issue. Additionally, by formally structuring a problem solving process, it becomes much easier to discover problems in a situation where you, as a mediator, may not have direct knowledge or direct, first-hand experiences with the organization in question. I feel that it is always beneficial to get direct, first-hand knowledge of an issue before you attempt to solve that issue. This is where I have struggled slightly with the final project scenarios: I can only use the provided information to begin solving a problem. Since it is only a scenario, there are no employees that I can question, no policy manuals that I can observe and no factory floor that I can actually visit. It is a long standing notion that direct, first-hand knowledge of a problem or a company is vital in assisting that company in solving problems (Mortensen and Beyene, 2009). Clarity of expectations plays a key role when it comes to avoiding conflict within an organization. For example, the police department that I work for (along with every department in the country) has a large policy manual in which are contained every policy within the police department for everyday operations. These policies and procedures clearly define how we, as officers, are to conduct ourselves during our duties and what rules we, as a department, are to follow. Without these policies, employees within the department would not know or understand what was expected of them or how they were to conduct business. This would inevitably lead to conflict, as there would be no standard with which supervisors could hold people responsible. The "5 Whys" is a technique used in the analyze phase of the DMAIC process and, in many cases, can be completed without a data collection plan (ISixSigma, n.d.) For my final project, I chose cast study one involving the Telephone Company and deciding which US based facility they would be closing. In regards to the problem I identified in that scenario, I would ask the following "Whys:"
1) Why does the Board of Directors insist on closing a U.S. based manufacturing plant? 2) Why does the working group refuse to consider closing a U.S. based manufacturing plant? 3) Given that a U.S. plant must close, why does the working group refuse to come to a consensus on which plant to close? 4) Why are working group members hesitant to identify shortcomings with the U.S. plant in which they work? 5) Why do the Board of Directors insist on opening an additional foreign based manufacturing plant? References: ISixSigma. (2018). Determine the Root Cause: 5 Whys. Retrieved from https://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/cause-effect/determine-root-cause-5-whys/ Mortensen, M., & Beyene, T. (2009). Firsthand Experience and the Subsequent Role of Reflected Knowledge in Cultivating Trust of Global Collaboration. Harvard Business School.
In responding to your peers, consider how your identified strengths as an analyst can help you suggest ways your peers can deepen their understanding of the Analyze phase and its application to their organizational conflicts or to the Garden Depot.
Sample Solution