4' Situation Appraisal

1
4. Situation Appraisal

• Whats going on ?
• Pattern 1 Assessing and Clarifying

2

• Management fantasy no. 1.
• Oh to start a fresh !

It isnt going to happen. You operate surrounded
by past problems, current demands and the
certainty of future threats ! Situation Appraisal
is an Evaluative Technique. Its purpose to select
appropriate analytical techniques. i.e. Problem
Analysis, Decision Anlaysis and Potential Problem
Analysis.
3
Situation Appraisal shows you -

• Where to begin.
• How to recognize situations that require action.
• How to break apart confusing and overlapping
  issues.
• How to set priorities.
• How to manage a number of simultaneous activities
  efficiently.
• Being able to do the above allows the most
  efficient use of downstream analytical skills,
  and hence makes for a truly better manager.

4

• Situation Appraisal Techniques. The Four
  Activities

• Recognize concerns
• Current or Future
• Deviations
• Threats
• Opportunities

• Plan for Resolution
• Select the appropriate process to resolve each
  concern
• Plan the Who, What, Where, When and Extent of the
  solution

• Separate
• Break broad concerns into more clearly defined
  sub-concerns.
• List additional concerns that must be resolved

• Set Priority
• Decide in which order to work on your separated
  concerns.

5
Recognizing Concerns.

• A concern is any situation that requires action
  and for which you have full or partial
  responsibility.
• Concerns can be straightforward. A report is due,
  staff member is performing poorly, a project is
  slipping. But sometimes you may have to search
  for them. Why ?
• How to find concerns -
• 1. List current deviations, threats and
  opportunities.
• 2. Review progress against goals.
• 3. Look ahead for surprises (internally
  externally)
• 4. Search for improvement.

Note It is possible to use this search as the
outline for a large number of project/management
meetings.
6

• Identifying concerns is so important that in
  addition to the steps mentioned the following
  series of questions assists -
• Where are we not meeting standards ?
• What problems from the last 6 months remain
  unsolved ?
• What recommendations are we currently working on
  or will be coming up in the near future ?
• What decisions need to be made now ?
• What decisions are being made now and will have
  to be implemented when a choice is made ?
• What major projects, systems, or plans are about
  to be implemented ?

7
Separating Concerns into Manageable Components
8
The structure of a day one problem.
SHOULD
Performance
DEVIATION
ACTUAL
Present
DAY 1
Time
9
Techniques of problem solving.

• 1. Define the problem.
• Descibe the problem in four dimensions. -
• Identity.
• Location.
• Timing.
• Magnitude.
• Test and verify most probable cause.
• Extract key information from step 2 to generate
  possible causes.

10
Case Study 1

• The leaking soybean oil filter. A true story !

11
(No Transcript)
12
Analysing this chain of events -   A number of
people had ideas about the cause of the problem
but couldnt explain how the causes they thought
of could produce the effect. Actions taken before
the problem was solved had been based on
experience, on similar problems in the past, on
standard operating procedures and on hunches. The
faulty gasket had even been replaced with an
identically useless one. The problem was
eventually solved in a roulette approach. The
solution being stumbled on. By reworking this
problem with the systematic approaches to be
presented the employees of this firm found that
they could solve the original problem in a matter
of hours compared with the several days it had
originally taken.
13
The process of problem analysis

• Definition of the problem.
• The deviation statement.
• Must be precise and unambiguous.
• Must be a description of one problem.
• Everything that follows relies on this statement.
• For our case study -
• Number one oil filter leaking oil.

14

• 2. Description of the problem in four dimensions
  
• Identity, location, timing and magnitude.
• All available information about a problem will
  fall within one of these four dimensions.
• By asking the specifying questions we will flesh
  out our description of the effect of the problem.
  This will provide us with the most useful type of
  information with which to commence our analysis.

15

• IDENTITY
• LOCATION

What is the unit that is Malfunctioning? What is
the malfunction ? Where is the malfunction
observed (Geographically)? Where on the unit is
the malfunction observed?
Number 1 Filter Leaking oil. Northeast corner
of filter house. At the cleanout hatch.
16

• TIMING
• MAGNITUDE

When was the malfunction first observed ? When
has been observed since? When in operating cycle
of the unit is the malfunction first
observed? What is the extent of the problem? How
many units are affected? How much of any one unit
is affected?
Three days ago at the start of shift. Continuously
, on all shifts. As soon as oil goes into filter,
at start of shift. Five to ten gallons of oil
leaked per shift. Only number 1 N/A
17

• IS and IS NOT . A basis of comparison.
• By identifying other items, people, machines,
  processes etc. that could have the same problem
  but do not we can begin to isolate the peculiar
  factors of our problem.
• Regardless of the content of a problem, nothing
  is more conducive to sound analysis than some
  relevant basis of comparison.
• We conduct this search for comparisons in all
  four dimensions of the specification.

18

• 3. Extraction of Key Information in the problems
  four dimensions to generate possible causes.
• Distinctions. By looking at our comparisons we
  try to identify differences. What is distinctive
  about the is data when compared with the is
  not data.
• Changes. Does the aforementioned distinction
  represent a change ?
• Generation of possible causes. Within the
  distinctions and changes lies the explanation of
  the cause ! Several possible causes may sometimes
  emerge.

19
(No Transcript)
20

• Generation of possible causes.
• By examining each distinction and change and
  asking the question -
• How could this distinction/change have produced
  the deviation described ?
• By examining our table we can identify the
  following possible causes -
• 1. Square cornered gasket (distinction) from the
  new supplier (change) is too thin and of uneven
  construction.
• 2. Vibration from feedwater pump in norheast
  corner (distinction) causes leak.
• Of the above 1. Is more likely as it has both
  distinction and change.

21

• 4. Testing for most probable cause.
• We ask of each cause -
• If this is the true cause of the problem, then
  how does it explain each dimension in the
  specification?
• The true cause must explain each and every aspect
  of the deviation.
• Possible cause 2 fails because it cannot explain
  the following -
• Is observed on cleanout hatch and not other
  parts. E.g. Valves,pipes locking mechanism.
• Is observed three days ago and not before.
• Possible cause 1 however does explain all the
  facts.

22

• 5. Verification of the true cause.
• To verify a true cause is to prove that it did
  produce the observed effect. In this instance all
  that needs doing is to obtain an old type gasket
  and replace. Alternatively gaskets from filter 1
  and 2 could be swapped and the results noted.
• Verification is an independent step taken to
  prove a cause and effect relationship.
• Sometime not possible. E.g. Rocket explodes. All
  that can be done then is to devise corrective
  action based on the most probable cause.

23

• Failure
• Failures in the use of this process can be
  attributed to -
• 1. Insufficient identification of key
  distinctions
• and changes related to the IS data in the
• specification.
• 2. Too many assumptions distorting judgement
• during the testing step. Do not grant
  assumptions the status of facts.

24
SUMMARY

• The structure of all problems is the same !
  Knowing this allows us to move systematically
  from definition to description to evaluation to
  hypothesis and finally to verification.
• 1. Deviation Statement.
• Concise description of both the object of our
  concern and the defect for which we wish to
  find the cause.
• 2. Specification
• Comprehensive description of the problems
  identity, location, timing and magnitude.
  Described as it IS and as it COULD BE but IS
  NOT. We assemble a basis of comparison.

25

• 3. Distinctions.
• Features that distinguish the IS data in all
  four dimensions. We build a collection of key
  features characterizing our problem in the 4
  dimensions.
• 4. Changes.
• We study each distinction to see if it also
  represents a change. We are narrowing our search.
• 5. Generate possible causes.
• Examination of all the distinctions and changes
  highlights possible causes. The possible causes
  are then tested against the specification in
  order to progress to status of most probable
  cause.

26

• 6. Verification
• The most probable cause is tested.
• A final word on the methodology.
• This is not supposed to be a completely
  prescriptive technique and invariably the cause
  will be found early in the analysis. It does
  however warrant appreciation as it is
  comprehensive and necessary for the more obscure
  and difficult problems. DO not however be a slave
  to the method.