|
Leo van Kampen
|
I use the fishbone to determine the relevance of a problem. On the upper side of the fishbone I put the positive characteristics (what are the benefits if the problem is solved). On the lower side the negative (what are the cost elements). I rate all characteristic on a scale from 1-5. Also sub branches are rated. Then I divide the positive by the negative. If the fraction is larger then 1 the problem is relevant if it smaller then one the subject is not that relevant. Relevance is translated to prioritizing. If there are no negative elements then the denominator is infinite small and the fraction becomes infinite large. Mostly quick wins. If there are no positive characteristics the numerator becomes infinite small and the fractal will be close to zero. No relevance. (...) Read more? Sign up for free
|
Please register now to read all responses and to join this discussion yourself. It's easy and 100% free.
Sign up for free Log in
|
| |
|
Mauricio
|
|
Interesting
I am going to try this in my next fishbone (...)
|
| |
|
Pamela
|
|
I like it
The only thing that worries me, is how avoid the s (...)
|
| |
|
A. J. Jegadheeeson
|
|
Good Idea
Only doubt I have is we construct the causes and e (...)
|
| |
|
ANUJ KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, Manager, India
|
|
Refinement of Suggested Approach to Calculate the Relevance of a Problem
Respected Sir,
Ratings on the basis of 1-5 may ea (...)
|
|
|
|
|
More on Cause and Effect Analysis
|
|
|
Special Interest Group Leader
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
