CHAPTER 18

Tools of Logical Thinking and Qualitative Analysis

To believe is very dull; to doubt is intensely engrossing; to be on the alert is to live; to be lulled into security is to die

– Oscar Wilde

Background

Thinking is the most fundamental activity for every person. If one thinks one can accomplish, perhaps one will; on the other hand, if one thinks one cannot, one will never accomplish. Every human being is endowed with the power to think, and in majority of the cases, it is a power which is under-utilised. Any entity that is under-utilised gets rusted and this is also true of thinking which needs to be arrested by resorting to thinking as a routine habit and refining it to become a process of quality thinking.

Quality thinking

Thinking about a problem is a fundamental step in solving it. There is no doubt that everyone thinks. There is also no doubt that everyone thinks that he/she is thinking. This may not always be so. Hence, it is desirable to check this to ensure that one’s thinking proves to be productive most of the time. First, we have to be aware of the following situations.

1. One may be thinking and, in reality, it may actually be worrying oneself: worrying is not thinking.
2. One may be thinking and, in reality, it may be reacting within oneself to a situation or person: reacting is not thinking.
3. One may be thinking and, in reality, it may be dreaming, an act of building castles in air: dreaming is not thinking.
4. One may be thinking and, in reality, it may be only an act of commenting on the views/thoughts of someone else: thinking is not just adding on to the views of others.

Thus, the first step in cultivating quality thinking is to ensure that it is focused on the problem and does not degenerate as worry, being reactive, dreaming or making a weighty comment.

Thinking is the process of focusing one’s in-depth attention on a problem, proposition, proposal, suggestion, an issue or conjecture to understand it wholistically with clarity in order to plan for an action. It is the process of analysing all the pros and cons of an issue to facilitate the plan of action.

Another dimension of quality thinking on a problem is that it should bring out all the relevant points associated with the problems without the label of critical, major, minor, etc. This task of unearthing all the relevant points is referred to as qualitative analysis and it leads to quality thinking.

Yet another discipline of thinking is that it has to be quantitative and not dramatic.

Question: How is his attendance?
Answer 1: Very good; always present.
These are dramatic expressions besides being subjective.

Answer 2: His attendance is 95 per cent or 30 per cent?
These are quantitative and objective.

For thinking to be quantitative, it has to be data-based and data-oriented. This aspect of quality thinking is dealt in Chapter 19.

Tools of qualitative analysis

The tools of qualitative analysis discussed in this chapter are

1. Brainstorming
2. Customer requirements and their classification
3. Factors that are critical to quality (CTQ)
4. Flow chart
5. Checklist
6. Cause–effect diagram
7. Relationship diagram
8. Logical handling of surmises
9. Practicality analysis
10. Priority analysis
11. Force-field analysis
12. Affinity diagram
13. Comparing product/service to the nearest competitor

The features common to most of the tools stated are that each one is meant to

1. facilitate systematic thinking (not regimented) on diverse aspects of a problem,
2. apply thought to identify the relationship,
3. apply logic to examine the relationship in the nature of cause–effect,
4. identify the key drivers for an outcome and thus plan for data to verify and confirm,
5. generate as many ideas as possible,
6. identify different aspects of a problem. Note that ideas are related to different aspects of a problem,
7. bunch together all the ideas related to an aspect and
8. thus, get a profile of the aspect and ideas related to a problem.

The process of bringing about the features is through brainstorming. It is a versatile tool capable of ensuring that everyone proactively participates in the continual improvement project in all its phases.

Brainstorming

The technique owes its origin to A.F. Osborne who invented it for the sole purpose of producing a checklist of ideas that can be used in developing solutions to a problem.

The ground rules for a brainstorming session to generate ideas are

1. Identify resource persons known for their ability to generate original ideas or suggestions. The basis for selection is the ability to contribute ideas/suggestions and not their position in the organisational hierarchy.
2. To conduct the session, select an open-minded, amiable and motivating person as the chairman and another person with proven ability in communication—written and oral—to record the proceedings of the session.
3. No criticism is permitted. No evaluations or judgemental opinions or views are to be expressed. The floor is free for all members to come out with their ideas.
4. Emphasis is on generating more ideas—quantity and not necessarily quality.
5. Duration of a session can be 60–75 min. The chairman facilitates and motivates everyone to come out with ideas.
6. Use of authority is not displayed.
7. Board and marker are available to make flow charts, drawings, etc.
8. The session starts with a statement of the problem or issue in precise, clear and specific terms giving its background and all relevant information.
9. During the progress of a session and/or subsequent sessions, the specific segments requiring ideas can also be indicated.

If ideas rule the world, one of the tools to generate a wealth of ideas is brainstorming.

Brainstorming has to be resorted at different stages of a problem-solving project as

• Problem formulation and setting out objectives.
• Type of data to be collected.
• Interpretation of results of the study.
• Fixing the source of root cause(s) and means of plugging the cause at its source.
• Means of evaluating the effectiveness of action taken.
• Confirmation of the effectiveness of action.
• Areas of institutionalising the effective measures.
• Areas of extending the actions—horizontal deployment.
• In the use of several techniques listed in this chapter to arrive at a consensus.

Thoroughness and the speed with which an improvement study progresses are influenced by the use of brainstorming technique at each of the key stages of the study.

Customer requirements and their classification

Every problem-solving project must start with the customer, must be focused on customer requirement and enhance value to the customer. The customer can be internal and/or external. Many points related to customer focus, customer requirements, customer satisfaction, dissatisfaction and achieving customer trust and confidence have been discussed in Chapter 10. Gap analysis to ensure that nothing is missed out and/or wrongly spelt out in customer needs and requirements has been dealt in Chapter 9.

Here, the tool for fine tuning the customer requirement as applicable to the problem on hand is dealt with. The tasks that are better done through brainstorming approach include

1. Identify the customer(s).
2. Enumerate the customer requirements/needs as relevant to the problem taken up for study.
3. Classify each requirement based on the categories presented in Table 18.1. This is known as Kano classification, named after Noriaki Kano, a key figure in Japanese quality movement.
4. Examine the status of each category. First ensure that basic requirements are met. Next ensure that satisfiers are met, and then focus on delighters.
5. Note that in the present dynamic market situation, delighters of today turn into basics of tomorrow.
6. Check whether the measurement on requirements is understood clearly so that it facilitates collection of correct data to assess the quality of compliance to the requirement.

 

TABLE 18.1 Classification of Customer Requirements

Classification	Description and focus of action
Dissatisfiers	These must be category features and/or performance parameters. Customers (i) take it for granted that they are met satisfactorily and (ii) get terribly annoyed when these requirements are not met. They may even feel that they are cheated. Focus here is elimination of dissatisfiers.
Satisfiers	These are features which enhance the satisfaction level of a customer. These features fall into two sub-classes: Higher and/or more the features, higher the satisfaction. Lower the features, higher the satisfaction. Price is an example. Focus here is ‘Can we do more?’
Delighters	These are features beyond customers’ expectation or anticipation. These need to be researched. They are latent requirements. For example, features perceived as value by customers are generally not known. The perception quality is real but latent and hence has to be researched and found. Focus here is to ‘Create new and be innovative’, to have more of delighters frequently.

For example, stating the requirement as shipment received on time is vague and hence proper data cannot be generated. Instead if the requirement is stated as ‘shipment received from 8 AM to 7 PM everyday from Monday to Saturday is treated as shipment-on-time’, it helps to collect the data on shipment receipt which are in-time as well as those which are not in-time. Thus, the manner of stating the required should facilitate correct collection of data.

The point to be noted is that every word should be probed to find the area of vagueness to bring clarity. In this example, the imprecise words were on-time, and clarity was given to these two words. Any failure to meet a requirement is a defect. Measurement of defects to assess the Sigma value of the process is the first step of the Six Sigma exercise.

Factors that are critical to quality

Requirements of quality (specification) are known and rendered free from being vague and incomplete through gap analysis. The type of attention to be given is known through Kano analysis as already discussed. Now, the question is focused on improving the conformance level as illustrated.

1. To increase the number of students scoring 75 per cent and above from the present level of 85 to 95 per cent, which is reducing defect level from 15 to 5 per cent level of acceptance.
2. The per cent of batches not having the minimum yield of 98 per cent is 2 per cent. The objective is to reduce this to 0.5 per cent. That is, per cent of batches with a yield of 98 per cent and above is 99.5 per cent.
3. Five per cent of the batches is not accepted due to impurities traceable to the quality of water. Impurity level is maximum 0.5 gpl. The task is to reduce the non-acceptance from 5.0 to 0.5 per cent of batches.

In all these illustrations, the quality target to be achieved is defined on the basis of the current defect level. Now, the task is to reach a new level of improvement.

This hinges on the question, which factors affect the quality level? The ones that affect are termed as factors critical to quality and they are designated as CTQs. CTQs need to be discovered. There are a number of tools for discovering/surmising/guessing the CTQs. The factors fall into two categories and each category admits a different type of approach for their control. The details are given in Figure 18.1.

In some cases, it may be difficult to ‘discover’ the CTQs. A logical approach termed ‘building a CTQ tree’ can help. This is illustrated as follows:

1. Process: Handling passbook entries as well as telephone queries about the passbook.
2. Problem: Long waiting time on the first working day of the week as well as on the day immediately after a holiday.
3. Analysis: See Figure 18.1a.
   
   

Figure 18.1 CTQ classification

 

Figure 18.1a Analysis of process load

From the analysis given above, the following points are clear.

1. One service centre caters to two different types of customers although the nature of service sought by both are not the same.
2. Parameters governing the service are totally different between the two types of customers and parameter of one type does not serve the interests of the other.
3. Therefore, bifurcating the customer stream into two, one each exclusively for queue at the counter and other for queue through phone, is identified as a factor critical to quality. On the basis of these analysis, the action taken was to establish two service stations: one for those seeking passbook entries and another for servicing those enquiring through telephone.

Flow diagram

It is an analytical and logical method of mapping out a process/activity. It helps to locate the problem in the process and identify bottlenecks and non-value adding activities in a process. This was explained with illustrated example in Chapter 6.

Flow chart is to be used to

1. Locate the problem to be solved in the process.
2. Raise a number of questions related to the problem such as where the incidence was noticed, how it was noticed, how it can be seen/verified, what are the causative factors, what is the technical explanation or logic and can the logic be verified?

Thus, a flow chart of the process is a tool to raise questions with clarity on the origin, cause and interpretation of the problem in all its details. This is a qualitative analysis. From this follows formulating conjectures or hypotheses through which further probing can be undertaken. This phase needs quantitative techniques of analysis.

For example, to say, low pressure is the cause of poor adhesion is a technical hypothesis/conjecture. It is not a fact. Suitable data has to be collected and the actual situation has to be verified. This is verification of the conjecture/hypothesis. If data confirms the conjecture/hypothesis, it is considered as a fact. Thus, it can be noted that in problem solving, thinking/questioning helps to come out with a number of conjectures/hypotheses which can turn out to be solutions to the problem. In generating such conjectures/hypotheses relevant to a process, the flow chart is a useful tool of qualitative analysis.

Checklist

Certain processes are characterised by a set of pre-determined steps and are applied every time a need arises. When the pre-determined steps are complied with appropriately, it helps to transact the task concerned properly. There are several checklist-controlled processes such as

• medical and surgical procedures,
• consignment release for dispatch,
• contract review prior to accepting a contract and
• inspection procedure for any system/equipment.

Thus, a possible solution to any process problem that has a checklist, lies in examining the checklist itself for omissions, new additions, lack of clarity, mistakes, etc., and set right the checklist. Likewise, adopting the checklist in any process wherein a checklist is admissible can also render the process defect-free. A checklist-controlled automated process is the most desirable one.

Defects lie in details. This is equivalent to the saying devil lies in details. Every job has its own few details perceived as minor ones and these are the potential source of defects. A knowledge of them is important and more important is to put that knowledge to work. The best method to accomplish is to make the job controllable through a checklist in which the ‘minute details’ are incorporated. This adds immense value to the checklist.

Cause–effect diagram (CED)

Prof. Kaoru Ishikawa, the father of quality circles in Japan, designed this method and is named after him as Ishikawa diagram. It is also called as fish-bone diagram.

The basic purpose of this tool is to facilitate picturising all the causes for a certain effect, categorisation of causes into major factors and sub-factors within a major factor, and linking up the causes with the effect as a logical network to picturise clearly the entire cause–effect anatomy of the problem. Figures 18.2 and 18.3 illustrate the diagram. The final version of CED as seen in Figures 18.2 and 18.3 needs several iterations and cannot normally be arrived at in just one or two attempts.

This is an aid to systematically enumerate all the causes and not leave out anything, logically categorise them and link them. A blank CED as shown in Figure 18.4 can be kept ready to prepare the diagram. It is better if each member of a quality circle draws the CED according to his/her perception, examine each CED and develop a final CED. Examination of this final version of CED is vital.

It is better to have provision for three/four main causes such as man, material, machine and method. The CED should be used to generate technical conjectures and hypotheses. These have to be recorded. For each conjecture/hypothesis, the technical explanation/justification or logic should be stated. This provides the basis for verification exercise. Verification can be in two ways—physical verification of the set-up, parameter settings, etc. at the place of work; data verification through data already available or to be collected. The CED exercise has to find the root cause(s) for the effect under study.

Classification of the cause does not necessarily mean identification of its source. In such cases, the source also needs to be identified.

Cause/source identification should lead to the next step of plugging them. Methods and means of plugging must be found and data evidence also needs to be demonstrated that the chosen mode and method of plugging to prevent occurrence of the defect are effective. All these results need to be documented as in Table 18.2.

Our opinion based on the observation made on the use of CED in a large number of projects spread over a number of organisations is not a happy one. CED is used as a ritual because ‘instruction’ has been given that a problem-solving study must have evidence of having used cause–effect diagram. The conviction that CED is used because it was found necessary is not evident. The conclusions arrived through CED application are also vague and more often do not appear to have emerged from CED analysis. All these infirmities need to be overcome.

Figure 18.2 Cause–effect diagram

Figure 18.3 Cause and effect diagram for high petrol consumption

 

Figure 18.4 Blank cause–effect diagram

 

TABLE 18.2 Results of CED Analysis

Relationship diagram

For a problem under investigation, it is better to enumerate all the factors related to it. After such an enumeration, it becomes necessary to distinguish each factor as an effect or a cause and, among the causes, to identify the predominant ones. This logical qualitative analysis is accomplished through the use of the tool relationship diagram explained in Illustrations X and Y.

Illustration X—High turnover of employees: relationship diagram The factors identified through brainstorming are (A) low pay scales, (B) benefits not competitive, (C) no scope for getting trained, (D) poor job satisfaction, (E) working condition stressful, (F) difficulty in getting suitable persons, (G) competition to attract good people and (H) no scope for advancement.

Now complete the following exercise:

1. Take one factor, say (A).
2. Take any other factor, say (B).
3. Ask the question: Is (A) responsible for (B)?
4. If the answer is Yes, connect (A) and (B) as (A)→(B); If the answer is No go to step (6).
5. Record the results as shown here.
6. Repeat steps (1) to (5) on each factor (A) to (H).
7. Represent the data as in Table 18.3; all the results are thus recorded graphically in Figure 18.5.

 

Figure 18.5 Linkage: plot and summary

Factor	No. of out-arrows	No. of in-arrows
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H)	3 2 2 – 1 1 1 3	– – – 5 4 4 – –

 

TABLE 18.3 Record of the Linkages Between the Factors

Factor	Linkage	Type of linkage
(A) Low pay scales (B) Benefit not competitive (C) No scope for getting trained (D) Poor job satisfaction (E) Working condition stressful (F) Difficulty in getting suitable persons (G) Competition to attract good people (H) No scope for advancement	(D) (E) (F) (D) (F) (D) (E) Nil (D) (E) (F) (D) (E) (F)	→ → → → → → → →

‘Out’ arrow is the cause; ‘in’ arrow is the effect. Of the eight factors enumerated, (A), (B), (C), (G) and (H) are the causes and (D), (E) and (F) are the effects. The priority attention has to be bestowed on causes (A) and (H) followed by (B) and (C).

Illustration Y—Analysis of factors for lost sales: relationship diagram Six factors are responsible for lost sales. They are (A) inexperienced sales staff, (B) customers do not get the information they need to decide, (C) pricing not competitive, (D) incorrect information given to customers, (E) customers feel that they are not treated well, (F) Lack of training and (G) customers’ needs not known well.

Each factor was questioned in relation to each of the remaining factors. Each of the seven steps explained in the illustration is applied to each of the factors (A) to (G) stated above. This resulted in the linkage plot given in Figure 18.6. From this plot, it can be seen that from (A) four arrows emerge, from (G) three arrows emerge, from (F) two arrows emerge, from (B) and (D) one each, and from (C) and (E) nil, indicating that priority attention needs to be bestowed on (A)—inexperienced staff and (G)—customers’ needs not known well.

The causes identified through the cause–effect diagram and the relationship diagram represent conjectures and they are not facts. To show that these conjectures are facts, they need to be verified through data, experimentation and statistical analysis.

Figure 18.6 Linkage plot

Logical handling of surmises

In a certain process, it is surmised that three of its factors—pressure, temperature, rate of addition—give good yield (>80%) when they are in the range 2.5–2.6 kg/cm², 100–102°C, 3–4 kg/m, respectively. To explore this conjecture, the available process log data is used and the results are tabulated as in Table 18.4 and then the results are checked.

From the summary, it is seen that the average yield of the batches within the range is higher than that of the batches not in range. Thus, on the face of it, there exists scope for in-depth investigation of the phenomenon. Prior to this, it is worthwhile to establish statistical significance of the results. This is dealt in Chapter 23. The mode of handling a surmise through logical summarisation and scrutiny of the available data to gain an in-depth understanding of a process and thus recognise the use of available data are to be noted.

TABLE 18.4 Summary of the Results Recorded in the Logbook

Practicality analysis

At a certain stage in ‘continual improvement’ studies, several suggestions come up. Along with them come the issues of feasibility and practicality of implementation. These have to be faced objectively and unilateral choice of a few cannot be made by brushing aside views of others. This is the worst course one can take and hence needs to be avoided. The method to be chosen to overcome the natural resistance is to have a brainstorming session on the two issues of feasibility and practicality as

1. Draw the practicality scale as given in Figure 18.7.
2. Provide expressions to verbalise the situations under (1) and (2) through expressions like we cannot, they will not accept, we have never done it before, we are not equipped to do such things, it cannot work here, it is highly disruptive, etc. drawn from Annexure 15A.
3. Take each idea/suggestion/proposed solution.
4. Locate it on the scale: in case it is (4) or (5), take the next one.
5. In case the location is (1) or (2), focus on the ways and means of moving up the scale through intense interaction with a positive outlook using 5W 1H tool given in Annexure 15B. Mental blocks get dissolved leading to ideas/suggestions/proposed solutions getting redefined or simplified. Record the new version which has moved up the scale.
6. Subject each idea to the cycle (iv) and (v).
7. When a certain idea/suggestion does not change from (1) and (2), leave it as such for some time to process again later and not to ignore the idea/suggestion.

 

Figure 18.7 Practicality scale

Priority Analysis

This is another version of practicality analysis. A number of alternative solutions are arrived at during problem-solving. Each one varies according to its pay off as well as difficulty in implementation. Categorise pay off as high and low and difficulty as hard and easy to implement. Draw a chart as shown in Figure 18.8, and inside each quadrant post each solution according to its judgement as pay off and implement. Such a four-way priority classification suggests itself the way of handling each alternative.

P: Pick to implement without delay—Small pay off and easy to implement
I: Implement aggressively—Big pay off and easy to implement
C: Challenge to render it implementable—Big pay off and hard to implement
K: Kill or ignore—Small pay off and hard to implement

Figure 18.8 Priority Analysis Chart

Force-field analysis

In improving the practicality of implementation of suggestions/ideas/proposed solutions, there is another tool called Force-field analysis. It is (i) classifying the forces governing the problem as favourable and unfavourable; (ii) analysing each favourable one to strengthen them to solve the problem and (iii) scrutinising each unfavourable one in order to find ways and means of eliminating them and/or minimising their influence. Favourable factors are those that help and support improvement; unfavourable ones hinder and hamper improvement. They are explained here.

Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist, developed this method. It is based on the following concept that a given goal can be attained through building on strengths, rendering weakness irrelevant and taking simultaneous actions on both.

TABLE 18.5 Classification Forces—Favourable and Unfavourable

Favourable	Unfavourable
Identify the critical ones, which if strengthened give a pay off.	Identify the critical ones which if weakened/eliminated give good relief.
The method of strengthening the critical ones.	The method of weakening the critical ones.
Any new force that can be added.	Any force that can be neutralised/eliminated.
Integrating the new favourable forces into the work system. Method of integration depends on the nature of favourable force such as changing a procedure, using a new device or employing a new machinery.	The mode of neutralising is not same for every negative force but depends on the type of force on hand. The common modes available are as many as discussed in the Chapters 7 to 10.

In the task of achieving a certain objective/goal at any given point of time there would be positive forces helping to achieve targets and also the negative ones acting as a drag. These negative forces are not necessarily ‘human problems’. They can arise out of certain other limitations also. When negative forces dominate, it can dampen the interest and drive out the enthusiasm behind a venture resulting in its failure. To avoid such situations ‘force-field’ approach is recommended. It comprises

• Always be alive to the actual situation.
• Categorise the forces into two sets, one as a set of favourable forces and another as unfavourable ones.
• Ensure that the resultant of these two opposing forces is always a positive one so that the goal is attained.
• To accomplish these task, examine the favourable and unfavourable sets as shown in Table 18.5.

Force-field approach has to be always kept in view. Steps must be taken to ensure that the resultant of positive and negative forces is always positive so that the goal is achieved. Force-field approach has also the virtue of looking at negative forces positively.

The approach to force-field analysis is as follows:

All the driving forces as well as restraining forces associated with a change need to be listed and tabulated (Table 18.6a) and action plan on the lines indicated in Table 18.6b needs to be worked out.

TABLE 18.6a Listing of Forces

Driving forces—Help and support improvement	Restraining forces—Hinder improvement
Higher rate of output	More space is needed
Handling varieties of jobs	Fear of mishandling
Customised products possible	Not in current year’s budget
Less wastage on par with competitors	Spare parts difficulty
Can meet closer tolerances	Skilled labour availability

 

TABLE 18.6b Action Plan

Make widely known and seek support

Neutralise the restraining forces by identifying which ones are illusion; really a constraint for which alternate approaches can be a solution; a block (real or mental) which can be overcome through regulation in policy/regulations

Following illustration explains the tool of force-field analysis.

1. Problem: This relates to a case of handling heavy cargo containers of 25 T and above. Cargo containers come in trucks. A set of 60 fork lifts, three on either side of the truck work in perfect harmony to lift the container from the truck, allow the truck to move out and then rest the cargo container on the ground for removal of contents from the containers.

   The entire operation is highly risky and hazardous to drivers, forklift operators, cargo container and the cargo itself.

2. Goal: To improve safety.
3. Force-field: Forces acting on the field of safety are categorised as shown in Table 18.7.

Categorisation showed that pay-off lies in neutralising the negative forces by questioning the basic ‘mind-set’ issues—Is a heavy duty lift necessary? Is handling the container warranted? These questions bring into sharp focus the following points.

1. The thing needed is to unload the material contained in the container.
2. All other activities are secondary.
3. Material can be removed directly from the container the same way it was put in the container.
4. Capacity of each of the available forklift is more than adequate to handle the material.
5. No need to handle the container.
6. No need to buy heavy-duty forklifts.

 

TABLE 18.7 Factors Affecting Safety

Positive forces	Negative forces
Knowledgeable workmen Work crew are well motivated Work crew are not tradition bound	Heavy duty forklift not available Cargo has to be handled using a pack of lifts Total capacity matching the needs of cargo and individual capacity far less
Harmony in work crew	Resources not available to purchase/lease heavy duty lifts

Accordingly, the practice was changed. Positive forces facilitated quick adoption and assimilation, sources of risk and hazard were totally eliminated.

Affinity diagram (KJ diagram named after Kawakita Jiro, the one who developed the method)

The nature of some projects is such that during brainstorming sessions they attract numerous ideas and suggestions. It is neither necessary nor wise to restrict the flow of ideas and suggestions but to welcome as many as possible.

When these ideas and suggestions are listed, it appears formidable besides being incoherent and illogical. To handle such a raw data of ideas and suggestions, it is necessary to use the idea of natural attraction or kinship. This idea is shaped as a tool called affinity diagram and it is as follows:

1. Critically read through each idea/suggestion.
2. Look for closely related ones.
3. Put together the closely related ones and arrive at several such bunches.
4. Name each bunch by a suitable title suggested by the ideas themselves which have been bunched together.
5. Rearrange the maze of ideas into ‘bunch’ of ideas. The bunches can be arranged in logical order which can be made out from the title.
6. Post on the board, the bunches of ideas arranged in the logical order.
7. Have a brainstorming session with the specific purpose to find out the need for ‘new bunches’ and ‘new ideas/suggestions’ in each bunch. This step further enriches the data on ideas and suggestions.

Illustrative example 1

A multi-location company intends to establish a multi-purpose recreation facility for its employees. The company sets up a cross-functional team of six persons, two persons from each of its three locations. The team is expected to submit a preliminary report on the various issues to be considered for setting up the facility. The team goes through a few brainstorming sessions and organises its ideas and suggestions as per the affinity diagram shown in Figure 18.9.

Twenty-nine different ideas affiliated to the project are represented as an affinity diagram as shown in Figure 18.9.

Illustrative example 2

While conceptualising a product, the first step is to enumerate the basic needs to be met by a product in terms of its broad generic classification applicable to a product and inviting various ideas under each generic classification. Grouping of the various ideas under different generic titles is the affinity diagram. This forms the basis of eventual actions related to formulating product specification, manufacturing standard, material specification, etc. Thus, for example, the affinity diagram for a brief case can be as given in Table 18.8.

Figure 18.9 Affinity diagram

 

TABLE 18.8 Classification of Customer Requirements

Comparing product/service with the nearest best competitor

One of the best and easy ways of identifying areas requiring improvement is through a study to compare one’s product/service with that of the competitor benchmarked for the purpose. This exercise has to be undertaken by a team of competent persons drawn from different functional areas such as marketing, sales, design, customer service and production.

The outline of the steps for comparative study is as follows.

1. Arrive at a list of customer requirements classified as vital, critical, major and minor as defined in Table 18.9.
2. Identify the nearest worthy competitor.
3. Get the data/information similar to (i) from the competitor.
4. Compare the list of the company with that of the competitor and note the areas of difference.
5. Study the differences, understand the implications of the difference to one’s own company, and decide on how to put to use the information and the manner of difference. For example, a requirement considered ‘vital’ by the company may be treated as ‘major’ by the competitor. It may be the result of ignorance or exemplary action by the competitor whereby the requirement thought to be vital by the company is reduced to the status of major at the hands of the competitor. Record the results in Table 18.9.
6. Now compare each requirement with that of the competitor’s. Assign a score that reflects the degree of difference as shown in Table 18.10. The score is from 1 to 5, where 5 indicates the ‘best’ compared to the competitor and 1 indicates the ‘worst’.
7. Plan the action on all requirements having the rank (1) to (3).

 

Table 18.9 Summary of Results—Comparative Study

 

Table 18.10 Summary of Results—Ranking

Conclusion

The 13 tools of analysis explained in this chapter are meant to enhance the ability to think analytically as well as logically. Application of these tools while handling a problem helps to (i) dissect the problem, (ii) understand the different aspects of the problem, (iii) identify the diverse factors related to an aspect and (iv) raise certain pertinent questions to get a clear picture of the problem. All these instinctively develop the habit of verifying the understanding reached on a problem on the basis of data and thus establish its veracity. Thus, it can be seen that the tools are a skill-set of fundamental importance for everyone. Therefore, everyone must compulsorily be made to learn and use these tools of logical thinking. Chapter 19 deals with tools of analysis of data and it is complementary to the subject of this chapter.