CPS is one of the most effective methods of finding solutions to various problems. The approach relies on creativity and imagination to generate reliable and accurate ideas (Treffinger, Isaksen & Stead-Doval, 2005). This study addresses various CPS components using a case study on production problems in organizations.
Case Description
Production issues are some of the common problems that affect the performance and growth of organizations. The most important thing for organizations in solving production failures is the adoption of an effective problem-solving approach. To solve production problems, it is important to adopt a problem-solving model that identifies causes, impacts, and solutions (Saksen, 2008).
Necessary Data for the Case
When solving the production problems in an organization, the data involved will be obtained by identifying all the facts that are associated with the problem. The following questions will provide the relevant information needed for the problem.
What is involved?
Where do production problems occur?
Who is involved in production problems?
What causes production problems?
When will the production problem occur?
How does the problem occur?
What are some of the examples of production problems?
In addition to the questions, it is important to identify additional information that is related to the problem. The main idea in the data finding stage is to obtain all the facts that are relevant to the problem. After data generation, divergent thinking can be applied to brainstorm and then apply convergent thinking to evaluate the selected facts (Saksen, 2008).
Problem Statement
Production problems in organizations should be solved in a creative and cost-effective manner. The most important thing in the problem statement is to embrace the fact there is a problem that needs to be solved (Saksen, 2008). This is then followed by the identification of sources, the impacts of the problem, and how the problem can be solved. It is also imperative to evaluate the adopted resolutions before implementation (Treffinger, Isaksen & Stead-Doval, 2005).
CPS Model Steps and Tasks
The CPS model involves exploration of the problem, generation of ideas, and preparation of an action plan. The model outlines all the processes and steps involved in solving problems as shown in the diagram (Saksen, 2008).
Problem exploration is the first step which involves identifying examples, effects, or results of a production problem. In idea generation, divergent thinking is applied to identify possible ideas that can help in solving production problems. It can entail problem and cause association, for instance, if production problems result from power failure, then solutions to solve power failure can be identified which takes about 2 to 5 hours depending on the complexity of the problem (Saksen, 2008). Preparation of an action plan involves ranking the ideas that can be used to solve production problems. For instance, in addition to power failure, idleness, strikes can be evaluated to identify the problems that are closely related to the issue at hand. The last stage is acceptance finding, which involves taking action on the identified cause of the problem (Treffinger, Isaksen & Stead-Doval, 2005)
Opportunities Available in the Process
The first stage has opportunities that include identification of the goals, collection of relevant data, and clarification of the problem. The second stage involves brainstorming to generate ideas, which can be used in solving production problems. The last stage entails the selection and strengthening of solutions using the generated ideas and opportunity to plan before implementing the action (Treffinger, Isaksen & Stead-Doval, 2005).
Important Questions
Was the model effective?
Was there an alternative model?
Was the problem solved?
References
Saksen, S. (2008).Creative problem solving: The basic course. New York. Bearly Limited.
Treffinger, D., Isaksen, S., & Stead-Doval, B. (2005). Creative problem solving: an Introduction. New York, Prufrock Press.
To solve the problem, one needs to take several steps that will allow planning and taking the necessary actions. First of all, it is important to look at problems from a broader perspective and from different angles, which will help to collect and analyze relevant data (How to master, 2019). In this situation, it is important to consider that refusing to join the fight can damage relationships with colleagues, which will negatively affect the working environment. Next, one needs to identify the major problem that entails other smaller ones. In this case, the central issue is the existence of a disagreement between the character of the story and his or her colleagues.
The third key step is the brainstorming of possible solutions, in which it is important not to miss potential options. In this case, one can not join the initiative of colleagues, which leads to a deterioration in relations or may harm current projects. Another option is to take on some of the colleague’s workload, which can also hurt current productivity. The most promising is the option to honestly articulate the problem to the boss and advocate for the redistribution of work to more employees. This step is the fourth, in which the choice of the best solution takes place.
In the fifth step, it is necessary to develop an action plan to solve the problem and implement the solution. In this situation, one must first discuss this initiative with a colleague, as well as with other employees. At this stage, it is important to articulate the concerns and reasons for making such a decision honestly. After that, it is necessary to collectively turn to the boss, having also discussed all the exciting problems and proposing to redistribute the work. The sixth step is to implement the plan and take action that will lead to a solution to the problem. In the seventh stage, it is necessary to observe the progress of the implementation of the plan and make the necessary adjustments.
Fran Hayden had pursued a Bachelor’s Degree course in Management Studies in the University of Waikato and by the given evidence, she was a high achiever. After four years in campus, the time to find a job had come and her main interest was working for Dairy Engineering due to the good pay the company offered.
Two weeks later she was invited for an interview in the company. At the end of the interview, she was surprised to be offered a position of an Assistant Cost Accountant. She said that she would think over and when she delayed in responding, the company called her again and this time around she accepted the offer though not convinced that she would enjoy the job.
On the reporting day, Fran having prepared herself well and even bought some new clothes which would match her new work requirements reported to work and got her first shock when she learnt that she was not expected in the Accounting Department but in the Management Information System (MIS).
She joined the department though that was not the plan. The work in the department was not that much as it involved photocopying and compiling of reports, the work was less and she even wondered why the department employed four people instead of less.
One lovely afternoon Rob, the Chief Accountant called Fran to his office and informed her that there was an upcoming management workshop and he would like one of the junior staffs to attend the workshop. He asked Fran if she would be interested to attend. As one would expect, Fran saw it as a good opportunity to move out and share her ideas and accepted the opportunity.
The problem could only arise due to the fact that Peter her Boss in the MIS department was not in to grant her the permission. The Chief Accountant agreed to talk with Peter. Fran attended the workshops and enjoyed very much and even wrote a detailed report of the workshop to the Chief Accountant before returning but contrary to her expectations, on coming back, she found that everything was not alright.
A Sunday before reporting to work, a workmate to Fran in the MIS department called her and informed her that Peter had been too furious on learning that Fran had gone to the workshop without his consent and thus he argued that Fran was overlooking his authority. She reported back to work the following day and the expected confrontation did not take place since Peter was not around during that period.
She forwarded the reports of the workshop to the Rob’s secretary before seeking the advice from her workmates on what she would do where workmates advised her to inform Rob on what was happening. The next day she booked an appointment with Rob and explained to him her fears about Peter’s behavior. The Chief Accountant commended her well written report and said she would discuss the matters with Peter once he came. She left the office reassured that all would be sorted out.
When Peter reported to job later in the week, he called Fran to his office where he attacked her furiously arguing that she should have requested for his point of view before attending the workshop. Life from then never went back to normal for Fran, she became miserable and depressed and even had social problems with her boyfriend and room mates. One day, Vernon her workmate passed through her office and observed that she looked stressed and disturbed in a way.
He enquired what was wrong with her in which she explained what had been going on. He advised her that they discuss with Rob about the situation. The chief accountant listened and asked for a report which he could forward for discussion during a scheduled management meeting. Despite the chief accountant reassurance that the matter would be looked into during the management meeting, he failed to fulfill his promises and during the meeting he did not confront Peter about the issue and thus nothing had been discussed.
Fran was left with two options, either she resigns or seek a transfer but having worked for less than five months resigning was not an option since no employer would be interested in recruiting her since they might assume that she is not suitable.
The only remaining option was seek for a transfer in which she did by applying for a position which was to fall vacant during the next few days. In order to succeed, her workmates told her that she had to apply directly to the Chief Accountant Office since it would be hard for Peter, her boss, to decline the request.
Fran took the request the following day and she was even surprised with the friendly nature of Rob who informed her that he intended to deal with the situation. She left the office not aware of what to expect and later Peter joined Rob in his office. Whatever transpired there no one knew but a few minutes later Peter passed through her office and in a loud voice told her that her business in the company was over and fired she was.
Key Issues
The key issues which needed to be understood in the case of Dairy Engineering was who allocated the jobs in the company since Fran was allocated a job she had not applied for and were there reasons which explained the misallocation of jobs in the company? could the MIS boss have had a hand in the misallocation and why was there a misunderstanding between Rob the chief accountant and Peter the MIS boss over Fran?
Did they have problems which were brought to the limelight by Fran’s case or did Peter just have his own problems with Fran? How the company operates is another major issue and how the different departments work in the achieving of the company’s objective remains a puzzle.
Define the Problem. Identify One Key Problem
The problems with Dairy Engineering appear to have been many with misunderstandings between the company senior employees appearing to have been a major problem. There seems to have a major misunderstanding and some degree of conflict between Peter the MIS boss and Rob the chief accountant.
From the case study, ever since the first day when Fran was reporting to her job, she was supposed to report to the accounting department but that was changed on arrival and she found that she had been posted in the MIS department. She continues working in the department and then a management workshop comes up, and the chief accountant as one of the bosses in the company approaches Fran and informs her about the management workshop, which he requests Fran to attend as one of the junior employees in the company.
With the opportunities the workshop promises to offer and naivety, she accepts to attend and when Peter her boss comes and finds she is not around, he is not happy since he claims that he wasn’t informed and there appears he is being overlooked.
For Fran, that marks the beginning of her problems. Instead of Rob owning up his mistakes and solve these problems with Peter, he seems to be afraid of him and cannot afford to challenge his decisions. Thus, whoever is senior in the company and how jobs and duties are distributed in the company becomes hard to understand.
Alternative Solutions
To avoid the above misunderstanding in the office, the management should have ensured that there was no space for confusion; Fran should have been provided with the details of how the company operates and what was expected of her to avoid the confusion and the latter problems which were brought about by one of the senior employees from the company.
Putting proper procedures in place would have been another solution in solving the office related problems and all employees, irrespective of the position one holds, should be aware of them. This would ensure some problems never arose (Otter & Gwartney, 2007). It is advantageous to put proper procedures in place since no employee will ever argue that he or she was never informed of what was expected of them and thus bearing of own crosses would become easier and everyone would feel appreciated in their roles (McKenzie, n.d).
Solution to the Problem
The misunderstanding between the Chief Accountant and the MIS boss should be looked deeply into since it might lead other employees to the same problems Fran found herself in.
This should be done by the company laying guidelines on what can be done when one senior officer in good faith decides that one of the employees should participate in an activity associated with the company and with the absence of department’s head where employees work under the decision by the other senior officers should be taken as a decision by the company (Khilawala, 2010).
Implementation/Recommendations
To implement the above solution is simple since the company management needs to meet with the other employees and decide the way forward. This can be done by writing a constitution with the help of a corporate lawyer and lay down the guidelines to be followed.
This will then be followed with establishment of institutions that guide the behavior and character of both the employees and the employers in Dairy Engineering Company. From this we expect misunderstandings such as the one which happened between Rob, Peter, and Fran will not reoccur and if it does action will need to be taken as guided by the constitution even if it means to fire senior employees in the company.
Reference List
Khilawala, R. (2010). Problems in the Work Place. Web.
McKenzie, O. Conflict Resolution. Web.
Otter, C. L., & Gwartney, M. (2007). Preventing Workplace Violence. Web.
It is much easier to address a particular problem or a difficult situation if a person can properly define this issue and distinguish its major components. In this way, an individual can take more informed decisions, especially at the time when it is necessary to reconcile several conflicting values or interests. The scenario that will be analyzed in this paper also represents a conflict of interests. In particular, one should mention the need for better economic opportunities and the necessity to complete one’s studies while avoiding additional expenses. Furthermore, one should keep in mind that the scenario does not include the information which may be important for choosing the most optimal solution. There are other aspects of this issue and they will be examined in the following sections of the paper. Overall, it is possible to apply the approach outlined in the article The Problem Solving Process (n. d.). This technique can be helpful for discussing this scenario from different perspectives and generating different solutions. These are the main questions that should be examined in greater detail.
Problem analysis and application of the problem-solving strategy
Problem definition
This problem can be reduced to the choice between two options, while the implications of each decision cannot be accurately determined. In this case, I have to decide whether I should accept the job offer from a company that is ready to hire me as a supervisor with a significant salary increase. However, I would have to start my work during my final examination period; so, I may need to abandon my studies at the college that I currently attend. One should take into account that the current company gives tuition reimbursement while the new company does not. Therefore, I may need to spend more time and money to obtain a Bachelor’s degree. This is one of the drawbacks that should be considered. Certainly, it is possible to work in the company in which I have worked for eleven years. Nevertheless, this decision can deprive me of possible opportunities for career growth and this mistake can have far-reaching implications.
Admittedly, it is possible to provide alternative definitions of this problem; however, one can do it only by identifying some of the important factors that are not identified in the chosen scenario. For instance, one may consider the opportunities for professional growth in the two companies. Furthermore, one should focus on such an issue as job design in each of the organizations. If this information had been provided in the scenario, the problem could have been formulated more accurately.
Problem analysis
While analyzing this problem, one should consider the factors involved in this problem, especially possible opportunities and threats associated with each of the decisions. In particular, one can focus on such factors as the new employment opportunity, increased salary, and favorable attitude of the management that reimburse the relocation costs. These are the positive aspects of the first option. At the same time, one should not overlook potential disadvantages such as the increased costs of education and possible necessity to spend more time in order to receive an academic degree. By staying in the current company, I would manage to avoid these pitfalls, but I may not be able to increase my socio-economic status and acquire new professional skills.
This situation can be examined from a different perspective if one can learn more about the details omitted from this case. In particular, one may focus on the way in which each of the choices can contribute to a person’s career. For instance, this problem might be examined with the help of the cost-benefit analysis. In particular, this technique can be applied provided that the cost of tuition is specified. However, this information is not available. Overall, a decision-maker should remember that even the most rigorous analytical tool can be ineffective, if the available information is inaccurate or incomplete (Engel, 1998).This is one of the issues that should not be overlooked.
Generating possible solutions
Overall, it is possible to identify several solutions to this scenario. For instance, it is possible to ask the management of the new company to postpone the start date so that I could have enough time to complete my studies and obtain a Bachelor’s degree. Furthermore, I may take an academic leave and resume my studies at the time, when I get used to the requirements of the new employer. Thirdly, it is possible to reject the offer and continue working in my current company.
Analyzing the solutions
It is possible to mention that the first solution may be the most optimal decision, if the managers of the new company agree to postpone the start of my career in this organization. Nevertheless, this organization may not be able to offer me this opportunity due to possible time constrains. So, they may not be open to negotiation while discussing this particular issue. In turn, the second solution enables a person to take new employment opportunity and retain the chance of continuing one’s education. However, this solution leads to the increased costs that may be required for receiving a degree. In turn, the third approach enables the person to avoid these expenditures. Yet, this evaluation can be fully valid provided that one can take accurately assess two companies. For instance, the chosen scenario does not tell a person how the managers of the current company can respond, if an employee, who has worked for the organization for eleven years, decides to leave. In particular, they may choose to offer him/her a salary increase. This is one of the cases illustrating the limitations of the current analysis which cannot incorporate the relevant evidence. So, while solving a particular problem, one should not disregard the issues that are not mentioned in the scenario (Brest & Krieger, 2010). This is one of the points that should be made.
Selecting the most optimal course of action
Overall, the most optimal approach is to combine the first two solutions. In particular, at the beginning, one should carefully explain the complexity of the situation to the management of the new company and ask them if it is possible to start working after the examination period. It is quite possible that they will agree to wait for the completion of the examination period. Provided that this opportunity is not available, one should take an academic leave or move to a different college since in this way, one can make use of the new employment opportunity. However, this chosen approach can be adopted only if the management of the current company does not try to retain the employee in any way.
Planning the next course of action
The next course of action will strongly depend on the work environment of the new company and the ability of a person to meet the requirements of the employee. Provided that I am able to perform successfully in the organization, I will continue my education and take a Bachelor’s degree. Furthermore, it is possible that I may stay at the company in which I am currently working and complete my graduate studies. Overall, it is possible to say that the solution of the problem can take different paths, depending on the decisions of other people. This is one of the details that should not be overlooked.
The evaluation of the selected problem-solving strategy
Overall, the problem-solving strategy that has been described in this paper can be applied to various situations. Moreover, it can be used in different settings because it is compatible with various analytical tools and data collection methods. Apart from that, this strategy enables a person to distinguish those issues that are not fully described in a particular scenario. This is the main advantage of this problem-solving strategy.
Conclusion
Overall, these examples show that the application of a problem-solving strategy can be useful for taking decisions. They enable a person to decompose a certain problem and identify the advantages and disadvantages of possible solutions. It should be noted that the selected scenario does not include specific and relevant data that may be important for developing the most appropriate solutions. More importantly, at this point, one cannot accurately identify the most optimal decision, because it is important to consider the responses of various stakeholders such as the managers of both companies. These are the main details that can be singled out.
Reference List
Brest, P., & Krieger, L. (2010). Problem Solving, Decision Making, and Professional Judgment: A Guide for Lawyers and Policymakers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Engel, A. (1998). Problem-Solving Strategies. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
The success of many organizations depends on how well their managers address the challenges that affect them. Problem-solving is a skill that many managers acquire, based on their experiences on the job and, most importantly, their choice and adoption of problem-solving techniques (Hill, 2012). Depending on the type of problem affecting an organization and the resources available to solve them, managers have a selection of tools to address their corporate challenges. The Fishbone diagram, Duncker diagram, Kepner Tregoe diagram, and TRIZ are some problem-solving techniques available to managers. Researchers, observers, and commentators alike have often debated their efficacies and use in different management contexts.
In this paper, we focus on the Kepner Tregoe technique as an effective problem-solving tool for manufacturing companies. To do so, we use a case study of its application in Toyota Motor Corporation (Japan). This case study highlights how the managers of the automobile giant continue to rely on the Kepner Tregoe technique to solve some of the problems associated with the implementation of the just-in-time (JIT) technique in its manufacturing and assembly processes. We have divided this paper into six key sections that include an introduction, problem identification, problem analysis, an analysis of the significance of the problem for local and international organizations, and an overview of the application of the technique selected for the problem. In the last section of this paper, we evaluate the solutions to the problem and review the underlying justifications for developing them.
Identification of the Problem
In the early 1970s, Toyota used the Kepner Tregoe technique to improve its manufacturing and vehicle assembly processes during the evolution of its manufacturing processes that hinged on the adoption of the JIT production process (Kaynak, 2013). The adoption of the JIT process was known as the “Toyota Production Process” and was intended to improve the corporation’s manufacturing efficiency (Kaynak, 2013). Outside of the automobile industry, other companies have also used the same technique to reduce waste and improve the quality of their production processes.
Before the use of the Kepner Tregoe technique, Toyota often relied on a standard troubleshooting process that did not yield much success in identifying the main problems associated with its manufacturing and assembly process (Institute for Manufacturing, 2016). Consequently, the problems associated with the technique would reoccur because the company was not effectively minimizing them. More importantly, Toyota did not understand these problems in the first place. This challenge came at a huge cost to the company because it lost a lot of money through excess inventory and through reworking most of its products (Institute for Manufacturing, 2016). After suffering these production inefficiencies, the company chose to adopt a new technique – the Five Whys technique, which it merged with the Kepner Tregoe model to improve its operational efficiency.
Indeed, experts who have investigated the company’s problems say the use of this problem-solving technique birthed the concept of the five why techniques to improve its manufacturing competencies (Institute for Manufacturing, 2016). To explain its application, Vilet (2014) says, “The premise of the five whys technique is to find the root cause of a problem or defect by carefully asking and repetitively asking why” (p. 6). By doing so, it is easy to understand the cause of a problem. Consequently, managers could effectively develop a countermeasure for solving it. The use of this technique was part of Toyota’s proposal to induct new processes into its production system.
Originally adopted by Sakichi Toyoda, Toyota’s managers used the tool as a critical component of its problem solving and training methods (Kaynak, 2013). Taiichi Ohno headed the company’s production system and approved its use in the department (Kaynak, 2013). Its application involved the repetition of “why” five times to identify the company’s manufacturing and production problems (Institute for Manufacturing, 2016). According to Vilet (2014), Toyota adopted this technique to understand the nature of its problems as well as the possible solutions to them. By repetitively asking “why,” the company was able to peel off different layers of symptoms for the company’s production problems to identify the main issues affecting each department. Practically, asking this question repetitively led to a situation where the symptom of the problem was followed by another “why.” Although the standard criterion used to probe a company’s problems, asking five “whys” the Institute for Manufacturing (2016) says the probing may stretch beyond this limit of questioning to identify more symptoms of a problem.
Toyota asked five key fundamental questions about its just-in-time production process that was designed to improve the delivery of its production goals. The questions appear below:
Why is production running slowly?
Why did the new widgets fit wrongly?
Why is the hole too small?
Why is that measurement specified in the drawings?
What data is in the computer-aided design system?
The use of the Kepner Tregoe technique to solve some of the implementation challenges of the JIT production technique is a current problem for Toyota Corporation because the organization’s culture mirrors that of the Japanese, which always strives for constant improvement (Institute for Manufacturing, 2016). In other words, employees are always willing to achieve higher levels of efficiency despite realizing some substantial levels of success with the JIT approach over the years. Therefore, although the company already meets high standards of production in the global automobile sector, Toyota still believes that it could achieve higher standards of the same. Since Toyota’s employees have worked with the company for most of their careers, they are constantly striving to hone their skills in the implementation of the JIT approach (Kaynak, 2013). These cultural dynamics of the organization show that Toyota still has room to improve the implementation of its JIT approach even today. Therefore, the Kepner Tregoe technique stands out as a valuable tool to guide the organization through its path to self-improvement.
Analysis of the Problem
According to proponents of the Kepner Tregoe model, the best recourse, or action, that managers could take in problem-solving is preempting a problem and solving it before it happens (Hill, 2012). However, this was not the case for Toyota because the company’s management started reporting significant challenges with its JIT model before it could preempt them. A significant challenge that they reported on the adoption of the technique centered on errors in multi-skilling (Institute for Manufacturing, 2016). This problem mostly involved a management challenge of allocating employees different types of jobs, based on existing workflow patterns. Another challenge reported by the management team centered on redesigning the vehicles to eliminate or widen, their tolerance (Institute for Manufacturing, 2016). This problem emerged from the fact that assembly line managers did not know which parts to use in the production process. At the same time, they had to minimize waste by using all of them. In line with the principles of the JIT approach, the employees also had to make sure that all parts fit perfectly. Lastly, Toyota had a problem of training its suppliers to adhere to the principles of the JIT approach by requiring them to make timely supplies and in good quality (Institute for Manufacturing, 2016). Collectively, these issues outlined the main challenges associated with its JIT approach.
Significance of the Problem for Local and International Organizations
The JIT production process is not exclusive to Toyota; different companies have always relied on the management philosophy to deliver their products to their customers on time and in the right quality and quantity (Lai & Cheng, 2009). Different corporations have chosen to use the technique as a preferable choice for their manufacturing and production activities because of its efficiencies. For example, some observers hail it for reducing waste and setting up timely production processes (Lai & Cheng, 2009). This technique is also popularly used in Japan and other manufacturing companies around the world since the 1970s (Institute for Manufacturing, 2016). As mentioned in this paper, the technique was introduced in Toyota by Taiichi Ohno who wanted to eliminate delays in delivery of products to customers and increase the timeliness of undertaking different production processes across the manufacturing and assembly chain. Experts attribute the company’s success to the proper understanding and implementation of this system (Institute for Manufacturing, 2016).
For Toyota, the focus was mostly on improving the company’s efficiencies by focusing on three core functional areas of production – people, systems, and plants (Kaynak, 2013). The focus on people was important because the company’s managers, at the time, understood that the success of the JIT production process would depend on the involvement of all employees in the organization. Similarly, they realized that this technique would be successful only if the organization’s plant and processes were organized for maximum organizational output (Kaynak, 2013). The organization’s quality and production programs also had to be arranged in a manner that easily met the production and demand expectations of the organization.
Based on the key competencies of the JIT approach, the management challenges experienced by Toyota, when implementing the strategy, are equally useful to other companies that want to implement it. Although the technique originated from Japan, its use has transcended this geographic location and permeates through different organizational management paradigms today. For example, Hewlett Packard, Dell, McDonald’s owe part of their success in the implementation of the JIT approach (Institute for Manufacturing, 2016). In other words, different companies recognize its advantages and work towards benefitting from its efficiencies.
Relative to this advantage, the Institute for Manufacturing (2016) says, “JIT manufacturing has the capacity, when properly adapted to the organization, to strengthen the organization’s competitiveness in the marketplace substantially by reducing wastes and improving product quality and efficiency of production” (p. 5). Consequently, the problems experienced by Toyota and the use of problem-solving techniques have a larger and significant implication for local and international organizations that use the JIT approach or are planning to do so. Therefore, Toyota’s experience in using this technique will offer valuable lessons to such corporations regarding the implementation of the technique and its possible adoption in different aspects of the manufacturing sector.
Application of the Technique Selected for the Problem
The Kepner Tregoe technique is a systematic problem-solving tool that seeks to rule out possible solutions to a problem and identify its real causes. Abstractly, researchers have said that it adds rational thought to managers who are involved in problem-solving actions (Hill, 2012). Founded in 1958 by Charles Kepner and Dr. Benjamin Tregoe, the theory posits that some people are better decision-makers than others are. Proponents of the theory have been committed to the model because they believe it is the best way for companies to improve their problem-solving skills (Hill, 2012). The Kepner Tregoe model premises on four basic pillars.
The first one is the situation appraisal process, which identifies the main concerns plaguing an organization and strives to highlight the main priorities that managers should consider in their primary working environments (Hill, 2012). The second tenet is the problem analysis stage, which strives to identify the main problems facing a company and its possible causes. The third basic step of the Kepner Tregoe model is the decision analysis stage, which strives to identify and analyze the main alternatives for solving the main problem by evaluating the pros and cons of each (Hill, 2012). Managers make a final decision after this review. The last tenet of the Kepner-Tregoe technique is the problem analysis stage, which strives to evaluate the chosen solutions by reviewing how it compares to others and how people could take corrective actions to minimize its possible risks.
Toyota’s decision-making process involved an analysis of several key issues such as establishing the objectives of the decision, classifying the objectives according to the importance of each, developing alternative actions, evaluating the possible alternatives against the established objectives and identifying the best alternative that would help to achieve all the laid out objectives (Lai & Cheng, 2009). These considerations led it to develop its tentative decision. After this process, the company’s managers evaluated the tentative decision for possible future risks and controlled the effects of the final decision by taking proactive measures to prevent possible adverse outcomes. The last stage also involved making sure that the selected alternatives were undertaken or completed (Lai & Cheng, 2009).
After completing these stages, the managers of Toyota evaluated the procedures for scoring alternatives. The possible alternatives for solving the JIT challenges meet the “must” and “want” criteria (Kaynak, 2013). For example, to identify the performance of each identified objective, the managers evaluated the possible objectives according to how the proposed alternatives met the “want” objective. To do so, it was important to rank each alternative using a number. The number could range from one to ten. The best alternative would have a score of one, while the least desirable alternative would have a score of 10 (Kaynak, 2013). If there were no significant differences between the scores evaluated, the managers could give them the same score. The scores would simply outline how every alternative would rank with the emphasis placed on each objective.
Understanding the worth of every alternative chosen would involve a process of multiplying the score of each objective with the weight assigned to each. Understanding the weight of each alternative would go a long way in indicating how the alternative would influence the company’s performance. Similarly, it would help in understanding the importance of that performance. By doing so, the managers would also have a better understanding of how each score would affect the company’s objective. Nonetheless, using these numbers did not help to make a decision for the managers; instead, their experiences and available facts were some of the main contributors to the process of evaluating the best alternative (Kaynak, 2013). In other words, the numbers used by the managers only helped to record the decision-making process of the manager and provide a basis for dealing systematically with the problem-solving process. Problem analysis is often the last and most important part of the problem-solving process (Hill, 2012). Comprehensively, the best alternative that had the highest score on the performance measure emerged as the best alternative in the problem-solving process. Based on a review of these processes, Toyota achieved the following goals.
Waste reduction
According to Lai and Cheng (2009), Toyota’s mantra of continuous improvement has permeated throughout the company’s departments and operational years. The successful implementation of the JIT approach created a disdain for inefficiencies in the organization’s operational plans. The reduction of inefficiencies in the company’s plans has emerged in several ways, including a reduction of wasted time and excess materials. For most companies, once they find a system that works and makes a company profitable, it would take a long while for managers to change anything (Lai and Cheng, 2009). However, for Toyota’s managers, even when a system is successful, they find a way to improve it. For example, if it were able to install a hood in 10 minutes, it would look for better ways to install it in half that time, or even quarter the time. Such is the progress that Toyota has made in improving its operational efficiencies. Waste reduction is a key outcome in the implementation of the Kepner Tregoe technique (Lai and Cheng, 2009).
Development of the Kanban System
The production challenges that led to the inefficient application of the JIT system and the use of the Kepner Tregoe technique to solve them led to the development of the Kanban system as a useful production technique for Toyota. Some people termed this method as the supermarket system because it was borrowed from the merchandising process used in different chain stores (Toyota Global, 2016). The Kanban system works as the supermarket model where products have control cards that contain details about each item on display. At Toyota, the company introduced Kanban signs to improve synergy in production processes because whenever a process is dependent on preceding parts, the Kanban system outlines the details of the preceding process so that there are harmony and synchrony throughout the production process. The diagram below provides a graphical representation of the Kanban system.
(Source: Toyota Global, 2016).
The Kepner Tregoe technique is largely responsible for the establishment of the continuous improvement model, which is a critical component of the company’s operational process. The same technique has elevated the JIT approach as the company’s most successful operational technique (Institute for Manufacturing, 2016). The Kanban system, which contains information about manufacturing specifications, eliminated inconsistencies in production processes. The system helped to answer important questions regarding the company’s JIT system, such as why did the new widgets fit right? Why is the hole too small? What measurement is specified in the drawings? And What data is in the computer-aided design system? These kinds of questions posed a problem in the implementation of the JIT plan but were solved by the implementation of the Kanban system, which is a product of the use of the Kepner Tregoe technique.
Evidence of the successful implementation of the JIT method exists in different research studies, such as those highlighted by the Institute for Manufacturing (2016), which showed that Toyota adopted the technique successfully. Generally, the company improved its product quality and increased its market share, using this method, because many people became aware of its key competencies and were willing to buy their cars at the expense of others (customer satisfaction led to customer loyalty) (Institute for Manufacturing, 2016). In terms of its service delivery, Toyota was able to reduce its response time to about a day and minimized the probability that its vehicles would not be sold. Through the improvement of the company’s return on equity, Toyota has grown to be the envy of many local and international companies in the global manufacturing and automobile sector. Comprehensively, the use of the Kepner Tregoe technique in the implementation of the JIT production model helped to improve the organization’s production process and bring a new level of operational efficiency that has seen Toyota build some of the most reliable and efficient cars in the automobile industry.
References
Hill, A. (2012). The encyclopedia of operations management: a field manual and glossary of operations management terms and concepts. New York, NY: FT Press.
Institute for Manufacturing. (2016). JIT just-in-time manufacturing. Web.
Kaynak, H. (2013). Total quality management and just-in-time purchasing: their effects on performance of firms operating in the U.S. London, UK: Routledge.
Lai, K., & Cheng, E. (2009). Just-in-time logistics. London, UK: Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Toyota Global. (2016). Just-in-time — philosophy of complete elimination of waste. Web.
