After the Analysis Dust Settles – Then What? | EPPIC

Analysis of the Root Causes for Gaps From the Desired State

Whether the Product is off – and/or the Process is off – or you simply want to make things even better when nothing is a Problem – your Analysis should determine where things need to be or could be improved.

There are many basic models, and more complex models for making this determination.

There is the Ishikawa Diagram from Japan in the 1950s. And there is my adapted version of that, the EPPI Fishbone, from the 1980s.

Where’s the Gap?

Or gaps.

If the Analysis shows that the Products produced, the Results, the Accomplishments (of behavior and other stuff) are OK – and that the issues/symptoms lie in the Processes that produce those Products are suspect – you need to go further in your analysis to determine where those are not OK. My model frames the Enablers of Process into two categories – Human Assets and Environmental Assets.

It Could Be the Process Itself

If the Process simply isn’t capable of producing stuff to Stakeholder Requirements – then it’s premature to look at the Enablers – as the fixed Process might require different Enablers.

Stakeholders judge the Products produced – and/or the Processes that produce them

My Stakeholder List – is often presented as a hierarchy in case there are conflicts and someone has to win and someone needs to lose – or else everyone is stymied – and nothing gets any traction. Here’s my list:

Society
Government
Owners/Shareholders
Executive management
Management
Customers
Employees
Suppliers
Community

Your version may differ.

To read more about mine – search on Stakeholder Requirements – on this web site. Or check out this 1995 article by me…

The Customer Is King – Not! – 15 page PDF – the original version of the article published in the Journal for Quality and Participation in March 1995 – address Balancing Conflicting Stakeholder Requirements, and suggests that the Customer is Not the King of Stakeholders (despite the unfortunate slogans from the Quality movement despite Deming’s admonitions about slogans).

If the Stakeholders are not satisfied – and/or you are trying to get ahead of the Change Curve – as wherever their Needs and Satisfaction are now – that/those too will change. For today…

The Only Constant Nowadays is Constant Change

Sometimes It’s the Environmental Assets That Enable – That Are “The Gaps”

Sometimes what needs to be addressed is the stuff that people work with – and have to work with – and their general Environment – including their Culture – which IMO is driven by the Consequence System in place.

Your view may differ.

Sometimes It’s the Human Assets That Enable – That Are “The Gaps”

Sometimes we have people who need development – and need to learn how to do stuff – Formally and/or Informally.

Before you embrace one or another – hopefully in an overall blended approach – you do some level of Risk & Reward Assessment to determine the best course(s) of action – as any Good Steward of Shareholder Equity should – IMO.