1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix...

81
1 CSS/330: CSS/330: Critical Critical Thinking and Thinking and Computer Logic Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in the United States and/or other countries. (Week 3)

Transcript of 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix...

Page 1: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

11

CSS/330:CSS/330: Critical Thinking Critical Thinking and Computer Logicand Computer Logic

© 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in the United States and/or other countries.

(Week 3)

Page 2: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

22

Strategies in Decision MakingStrategies in Decision Making

Week One:Week One: Characteristics of Critical Thinking & Decision Characteristics of Critical Thinking & Decision

MakingMakingWeek Two:Week Two:

Problem Identification & FormulationProblem Identification & Formulation

Week Three:Week Three: Decision MakingDecision Making

Week Four:Week Four: Decision ImplementationDecision Implementation

Week Five:Week Five: Evaluation of Decision Outcomes & ProcessesEvaluation of Decision Outcomes & Processes

Page 3: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

33

Decision MakingDecision Making

Decision Making Tools and TechniquesDecision Making Tools and Techniques Decision Making StylesDecision Making Styles Influences that affect Decision MakingInfluences that affect Decision Making

Page 4: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

44

Tools and TechniquesTools and Techniques Affinity DiagramAffinity Diagram BenchmarkingBenchmarking Cause-&-Effect Cause-&-Effect

(Fishbone) Diagram(Fishbone) Diagram Criteria MatrixCriteria Matrix Decision TreeDecision Tree Flow ChartFlow Chart Gant ChartGant Chart CSP AnalysisCSP Analysis Venn DiagramVenn Diagram

Bar ChartBar Chart BrainstormingBrainstorming SWOT AnalysisSWOT Analysis Cause-&-Effect Cause-&-Effect

Diagrams w/cardsDiagrams w/cards Cause ScreeningCause Screening Check ListsCheck Lists Scatter DiagramsScatter Diagrams Statistical Process Statistical Process

ControlControl Pareto ChartsPareto Charts

Page 5: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

55

Tool CategoriesTool Categories

Define and Measure ToolsDefine and Measure Tools• Help frame the problem and quantify it.Help frame the problem and quantify it.

Analysis/Decision Making ToolsAnalysis/Decision Making Tools• Help think critically about a problem by Help think critically about a problem by

providing ways to process data into useful providing ways to process data into useful informationinformation..

Process Control ToolsProcess Control Tools• Help monitor the performance of a process to Help monitor the performance of a process to

ensure it stays on track.ensure it stays on track.• Act as early warning systems for an out of Act as early warning systems for an out of

control process.control process.

Page 6: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

66

Define and Measure ToolsDefine and Measure Tools

Flow DiagramFlow Diagram Stakeholders Analysis TableStakeholders Analysis Table Pareto chartPareto chart Run ChartsRun Charts

Page 7: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

77

Tools: Flow DiagramTools: Flow Diagram

B

ForecastG enerated

Dem andG enerated

O rder Parts

G enerate W orkO rder

PartsShipped

Parts PulledFrom

Stockroom

M ove toHead Shop

W ait for HeadShop Resource

Sort PartsInto Sub-

Assy.

PrepareHead Shell

Prepare Sub-Assy.

(up to 10)

CalibrateTracking and

FocusingTest Store in Cabinet

M ove toG P Test

Integrateinto

System

TestP iezo

Rotation

TestCL

Linearity

TestSystemSpec.

F inaled(Buff and

Polish)

M ove toG P Test

Re-Intergrateinto

System

FinalTest

SystemCom pleted

M ove toShipping

W ith inShippingW indow

Shipto

Custom er

Holdin

Shipping

PassPass25%

Fail

Fail

Fail

Pass50%

Pass60%

Fail

Pass99%

1 Fail

1Fail

Yes

No

- Sales/M arketing- K. Tuller

- Forecast-Custom er O rder

A

Fail 75% Fail 50% Fail 40%

B

Fail 1%

Assem bleHead

M ove toHead Shop

Calibrateand

Align

A

Closed Loop Head Present State Process MapJuly 9, 2003

Head Shop Team:W ayne C retin T racy E spinozaJoe R odriguez P ete TagleC hris W ard

Corporate Quality:M ark H olm an

Rem oveHead from

System

Page 8: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

88

Tools: Stakeholder AnalysisTools: Stakeholder Analysis

Validates team membershipValidates team membership Understand the milieu in which Understand the milieu in which

the team operatesthe team operates Build support for the project Build support for the project Understand who the process Understand who the process

impactsimpacts Minimize resistance to Minimize resistance to

implementing solutions implementing solutions

Page 9: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

99

Stakeholder Analysis ExampleStakeholder Analysis Example

Level of Commitment

Sales

Upstream

Dept.

Enthusia

sti

cHelpfu

l

Complia

nt

Hesitan

tIndiff

erent

Uncoopera

tive

Opposed

Hostile

People

or

Groups

X

X

X

X = Present Commitment

= Level Required

Union

Page 10: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

1010

Named after Italian economist Vilfredo Named after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto (circa 1906)Pareto (circa 1906)

Separates the “vital few” from the Separates the “vital few” from the “trivial many”“trivial many”

• 80/20 rule: 80% of the problems can be 80/20 rule: 80% of the problems can be attributed to only 20% of the causesattributed to only 20% of the causes

• Focus on the vital 20% to get the biggest Focus on the vital 20% to get the biggest impact (80%)impact (80%)

Clearly illustrates where to focus Clearly illustrates where to focus improvement effortsimprovement efforts

Tools: Pareto AnalysisTools: Pareto Analysis

Page 11: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

1111

Pareto Analysis ExamplePareto Analysis ExampleDAFM-CL Defect Pareto (since 5/30/03)

29%

52%

68%

81%

90%

100%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Piezo Rotation CL Linearity Wiring Mechanical PCB Electrical

Defect Category

Nu

mb

er o

f O

ccu

rren

ces

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Page 12: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

1212

Presents trends over time.Presents trends over time. Can link changes to order Can link changes to order volume,operational changes, volume,operational changes, process adjustments, etc.process adjustments, etc.

Tools: Run ChartsTools: Run Charts

Page 13: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

1313

Run Chart ExampleRun Chart Example

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

On-Time % 70.5% 66.5% 47.4% 80.9% 80.6% 85.3% 86.5% 92.2%

On-Time Goal % 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 78.0% 82.0% 85.0% 86.0% 88.0%

Total # of Shipments 305 224 456 314 222 184 141 344

On-Time # of Shipments 215 149 216 254 179 157 122 317

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

On-Time Shipment of Non-System Orders

Page 14: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

1414

Analysis ToolsAnalysis Tools Cause and Effect Analysis (Fishbone diagram)Cause and Effect Analysis (Fishbone diagram) The Five Why’sThe Five Why’s Flow DiagramsFlow Diagrams Solution Prioritization MatrixSolution Prioritization Matrix Cost Benefit (ROI) analysisCost Benefit (ROI) analysis Gant Chart (Schedule)Gant Chart (Schedule) CSP AnalysisCSP Analysis BrainstormingBrainstorming SWOT AnalysisSWOT Analysis Venn DiagramVenn Diagram

Page 15: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

1515

A method for developing root cause theoriesA method for developing root cause theories Provides a structure to understand the Provides a structure to understand the

relationship between potential causes.relationship between potential causes. Helps team members communicate within Helps team members communicate within

the team and across departments.the team and across departments. Provides a framework for planning what data Provides a framework for planning what data

to collect.to collect.

Tools: Cause & Effect AnalysisTools: Cause & Effect Analysis(Fish Bone Diagram)(Fish Bone Diagram)

Page 16: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

1616

Tools: Cause & Effect AnalysisTools: Cause & Effect Analysis

Milieu(or

Environment)Machines Methods

Measurement Manpower(or People)

Materials

Problem or

Effect

“Fishbone” diagram with the “Six Ms”

Page 17: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

1717

Tools: Cause & Effect AnalysisTools: Cause & Effect AnalysisMachine

sMethods

Measurement Manpower

(or People)

Materials

Poor PrintQualit

y

Inks

PaperInconsistent

Blanket Wash

NegativeNot Balanced

Opticopy Neg.

Fountain Solution

PlatesOverexposedUnderexposed

Blankets

Roller Wash

Rollers

Original Negatives

Not Checked

pH Off

Rollers NotSet Right

Don’t UnderstandProcess

Not Enough Inkin Fountain

Ink Adjust FountainToo Often

Adjust FountainWater Balance

Not Trained

Don’t Care AttitudeTwo much variation

in amount in fountain

DensitometersNot Calibrated

Press Not Capable

Too Many Trip Offs

PaperWon’t Feed

NotEnough

Dot Grain

Specs.Not Clear

Too Muchof a Hurry

Not EnoughTime to Maintain

Run PressToo Fast/Slow

Front to Back(Sheet)

Paper Movingon Back of Sheet

Too MuchDot Gain

Press Worn

Layoutof Form

Customer Doesn’t Understand Variation

Specs Wrong/Impossible to Meet

Page 18: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

1818

““Peeling the onion” technique Peeling the onion” technique A method to uncover root causesA method to uncover root causes

• What initially appears to be a “root cause” may What initially appears to be a “root cause” may really be a deeply embedded symptomreally be a deeply embedded symptom

Ask “Why?” five timesAsk “Why?” five times• Each response brings you closer to the root causeEach response brings you closer to the root cause• Keep digging until you run out of answersKeep digging until you run out of answers

Tools: The Five WhysTools: The Five Whys“Separating true problems from their

manifestations”

Page 19: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

1919

A video rental chain experienced an increasing degree of customer A video rental chain experienced an increasing degree of customer dissatisfaction. A simple questionnaire revealed the two most dissatisfaction. A simple questionnaire revealed the two most frequently mentioned reasons were long checkout lines and poor frequently mentioned reasons were long checkout lines and poor title selection title selection

The Five Whys ExampleThe Five Whys Example

WHY?

WHY?

WHY?

WHY?

WHY?

Dissatisfied

Customers

Poor Title Selection

Long Check-

out Times

Manual Invoicing

Poor Employe

e Training

Poor Custome

r Analysis

No Computer System

High Employee Turnover

Poor Question Method

Low Mgt Expertis

e

Low Wages

Poor Employe

e Training

Low Mgt Expertis

e

Low Wages

High Employee Turnover

Page 20: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

2020

Process flow maps as analysis tools:Process flow maps as analysis tools:• Activity flowchartActivity flowchart

Displays complexityDisplays complexity Shows decision pointsShows decision points Identifies loops and bottlenecksIdentifies loops and bottlenecks

• Deployment flowchartDeployment flowchart Highlights hand-off points between people and Highlights hand-off points between people and

functionsfunctions Clarifies roles or dependenciesClarifies roles or dependencies

• Value Stream MapValue Stream Map Examines value added, time and work in Examines value added, time and work in

progress elements for each process step.progress elements for each process step.

Tools: Flow DiagramsTools: Flow Diagrams

Page 21: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

2121

Flow Diagrams ExampleFlow Diagrams ExampleActivity Flowchart: First PassActivity Flowchart: First PassOn-Time Shipment of Non-System OrdersOn-Time Shipment of Non-System Orders

Recieve Requestfor Spare Part

Enter OrderERP Backlog

Report

Planning ChecksAvailability

Order Part

Commit Part

Receive Part

ERP PickReport

Stock RoomPicksPart

Deliver Partto Shipping

Pack Part Ship Part

Shipping Report toFinance

Invoice and CloseOrder

Page 22: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

2222

Flow Diagram ExampleFlow Diagram ExampleActivity Flowchart: In-DepthActivity Flowchart: In-DepthOn-Time Shipment of Non-System OrdersOn-Time Shipment of Non-System Orders

Receive Requestf or Order Check Availabiliy available? Type of

order?Process Order in

Glovia

SalesOrder

WarrentyOrder

Type?

Create S-Invoice

-950

-960

M or B?

Check MRP

Y

N

Buy

ExistingPO?

Y

N

Review COGNOSReport Review BOM Check Leadtime

Provide CustomerW/ Leadtime

Check Allocation

Expedite?

Review ExpediteW/ Planning

Determine NewDate

N

Y

Make

in stock?

available?N

Y

Run Sales OrderBacklog Report

Commit SalesOrder

Y

N MANUALLYUpdate and

Review PlanningLog

Release WorkOrders

Rev iew ShortageReport shortages?

Inform Purchasingof Shorts

Commit Parts thatare in Stock

Y

Update PlannerLog

?

Deliver toStockroom

Stockroom:Generate Pick List Pick

OrderComplete?

Stockroom toNotify Packing

N

review urgancy of orderupon request

remove expedite loop

eliminate warr. orders andmake then $0 sales order

(with approval)

N

Create Pack List Update ShippingLog

Deliver to Shipping-S/O, packlist,

pars

Release WorkOrder to Stock for

PickStockroom Pick

AssemblyNotification

AssemblyOperations

Inform Planningwhen Complete

Return Parts toStock

Review DeliveryDates on time?

Planner ReportsParts In-house

Date

Inform Customerof Late Delivery

Receive Partsafter Leadtime

Shiping: ReviewOrder

type oforder?

hazard?

hazard? Pack

Hazmat Report

Hazmat Report

Process Shipment

International

Domestic Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

Page 23: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

2323

Tools: Solution Tools: Solution Prioritization MatrixPrioritization Matrix Assists the team in evaluating Assists the team in evaluating solutions.solutions.

Links possible solutions to the needs or Links possible solutions to the needs or constraints of the business/process constraints of the business/process environment. environment.

Illustrates strengths and weakness of Illustrates strengths and weakness of solutionssolutions

Shows areas which may need attention Shows areas which may need attention during the implementationduring the implementation

Page 24: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

2424

2525DD

21.521.5CC

30.530.5BB

27.527.55 x (1.0) = 5 x (1.0) = 552 x (1.5) = 2 x (1.5) = 33AA

Su

m o

f weig

hte

d p

rod

ucts

Su

m o

f weig

hte

d p

rod

ucts

(2.0)(2.0)(1.5)(1.5)(1.0)(1.0)(1.0)(1.0)(1.5)(1.5)

Solu

tion

Solu

tion

Cost Cost EffectiveEffective

High High ImpactImpact

Efficient use Efficient use of Resourcesof Resources

Acceptable Acceptable across across

organizationorganization

Easy to Easy to implementimplement

Criteria and WeightsCriteria and Weights

Solution Prioritization Matrix Example

3 x (1.0) = 3 x (1.0) = 33

2 x (1.0) = 2 x (1.0) = 22

5 x (1.0) = 5 x (1.0) = 55

5 x (1.5)=5 x (1.5)=7.57.5

3 x (1.5)=3 x (1.5)=4.54.5

4 x (1.5) = 4 x (1.5) = 66

4x (1.0) = 4x (1.0) = 44

5 x (1.0) = 5 x (1.0) = 55

2 x (1.0) = 2 x (1.0) = 22

4x (1.0) = 4x (1.0) = 44 5 x (1.5)=5 x (1.5)=7.57.5

4 x (1.5) = 4 x (1.5) = 66

4 x (1.5) = 4 x (1.5) = 66

4 x (1.5) = 4 x (1.5) = 66

4 x (2.0) = 4 x (2.0) = 88

5 x (2.0)=5 x (2.0)=1010

2 x (2.0) = 2 x (2.0) = 44

3 x (2.0) = 3 x (2.0) = 66

Weighting Factor

Solution Evaluation

Page 25: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

2525

+ +++++

Enables the team to estimate the real cost and Enables the team to estimate the real cost and benefits for alternatives under consideration benefits for alternatives under consideration

Uncovers costs and benefits that aren’t Uncovers costs and benefits that aren’t immediately evidentimmediately evident

Creates a financial case for adopting a specific Creates a financial case for adopting a specific implementation planimplementation plan

Tools: Cost/Benefit AnalysisTools: Cost/Benefit Analysis(ROI Analysis)(ROI Analysis)

$$$

$$$ +

++ +

Page 26: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

2626

Tools: Cost/Benefit Analysis Tools: Cost/Benefit Analysis (ROI Analysis)(ROI Analysis)

CostsMachineRewiring and installationTrainingLost productionTotal cost

Benefits Year 1 and ongoingReduce failures by 10%Increase throughputReduce set-up timeTotal benefits

$ 750$ 500$ 250$1,500

$1,000$ 500$ 500$ 250$2,250

Comparing the costs and benefits over 2 years shows:

Costs Benefits ProfitYear 1 $2,250 $1,500 ($ 750)Year 2 $1,500 $1,500Total $2,250 $3,000 $ 750

Page 27: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

2727

Allows you to visualize the timing and Allows you to visualize the timing and complexity of a project. complexity of a project.

Microsoft Project software.Microsoft Project software. Steps:Steps:

• Identify desired outcome and date of Identify desired outcome and date of completion.completion.

• Identify starting point.Identify starting point.• Brainstorm all steps in between.Brainstorm all steps in between.• Put in order and assign length of time for Put in order and assign length of time for

each step.each step.

Tools: Gantt ChartTools: Gantt Chart

Page 28: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

2828

Gantt Chart ExampleGantt Chart ExampleID Task Name

1 Review Veeco ATP Data

2 Compile Data on Tilt Angle ATP Tests @ Veeco

3 Analyze Tilt Angle ATP Data

4 Review Current Tilt Angle Procedure

5 Audit Tilt Angle Repeatability Test

6 Establish Configuration of Seagate IBE Mills

7 Develop Survey for Normandale Field Service

8 Send Survey to Veeco Service @ Normandale

9 Complete Survey & Provide Results to PV

10 Review/Compile Survey Data

11 Identity Test Configuration

12 Conduct Tests @ Veeco

13 Identify Suitable Tool & Schedule Test Time

14 Configure Veeco Tool for Test Like Seagate Tool(s)

15 Assure Digital Inclinometer in Calibration

16 Design Fixturing to Affix Inclinometer to Wafer Seat

17 Machine Fixturing to Affix Inclinometer to Wafer Seat

18 Obtain Tilt Angle & Dwell Times from Seagate (email)

9/24

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T FSep 9, '01 Sep 16, '01 Sep 23, '01

Microsoft Project Chart

Page 29: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

2929

Tools: CSP AnalysisTools: CSP Analysis

CostCost

ScheduleSchedule

PerformancePerformance

Every project is controlled by these three variables

Any two can be freely changed but the third is dependent on the other two

Page 30: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

3030

Group exerciseGroup exercise• Define the problemDefine the problem• Collect ideas rapidly until there are no more contributions from Collect ideas rapidly until there are no more contributions from

the teamthe team• Collect ideas, facts, opinions on cards, “Post It” notes or Collect ideas, facts, opinions on cards, “Post It” notes or

electronic boardelectronic board• No critiques of ideas, just collection.No critiques of ideas, just collection.• Everybody participates, no bench warmersEverybody participates, no bench warmers• Arrange ideas in groups of thoughts / patternsArrange ideas in groups of thoughts / patterns• Give each group a category nameGive each group a category name

Be aware of group dynamics:Be aware of group dynamics:• Peer pressure, boss-subordinate inhibitionsPeer pressure, boss-subordinate inhibitions• Storming, Forming, Conforming, PerformingStorming, Forming, Conforming, Performing

Variations: Variations: • round robinround robin• nominal group technique. nominal group technique.

Tools: BrainstormingTools: Brainstorming

Page 31: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

3131

1. Adding structure to a large or complicated issue

2. Breaking down a complicated issue into broad categories

3. Gaining agreement on an issue or situation

One of the most widely used of the Japanese management and planning tools

Brainstormed list of ideasAffinity diagram, in which ideas

have been grouped into affinity sets

Page 32: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

3232

SWOT AnalysisSWOT Analysis

SWOT Analysis• Strengths• Weaknesses• Opportunities• Threats

SWOT Analysis is an effective method of identifying your Strengths and Weaknesses, and to examine the Opportunities and Threats you face. Often carrying out an analysis using the SWOT framework will be enough to reveal changes which can be usefully made.

Page 33: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

3333

SWOT Analysis: How toSWOT Analysis: How to Strengths:Strengths:

• What are your advantages? What are your advantages? • What do you do well? What do you do well?

• Consider this from your own point of view and from the point of Consider this from your own point of view and from the point of view of the people you deal with. Don't be modest, be realistic. If view of the people you deal with. Don't be modest, be realistic. If you are having any difficulty with this, try writing down a list of your you are having any difficulty with this, try writing down a list of your characteristics. Some of these will hopefully be strengths! characteristics. Some of these will hopefully be strengths!

Weaknesses:Weaknesses: • What could be improved? What could be improved? • What is done badly? What is done badly? • What should be avoided? What should be avoided?

• Again this should be considered from an internal and external basis Again this should be considered from an internal and external basis - do other people perceive weaknesses that you don't see? Do your - do other people perceive weaknesses that you don't see? Do your competitors do any better? It is best to be realistic now, and face competitors do any better? It is best to be realistic now, and face any unpleasant truths as soon as possible. any unpleasant truths as soon as possible.

Page 34: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

3434

SWOT Analysis: How toSWOT Analysis: How to Opportunities

• Where are the good chances facing you? • What are the interesting trends? • Useful opportunities can come from such things as:

Changes in technology and markets on both a broad and narrow scale Changes in government policy related to your field Changes in social patterns, population profiles, lifestyle changes, etc. Local Events

Threats • What obstacles do you face? • What is your competition doing? • Are the required specifications for your job, products or services

changing? • Is changing technology threatening your position? • Do you have bad debt or cash-flow problems?

• Carrying out this analysis is will often be illuminating - both in terms of pointing out what needs to be done, and in putting problems into perspective.

Page 35: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

3535

SWOT AnalysisSWOT Analysis

American Vs. Foreign carsAmerican Vs. Foreign cars

Page 36: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

3636

Tool: Venn DiagramTool: Venn Diagram Answer what part of the Answer what part of the

diagram represents each diagram represents each of the groups below:of the groups below:

1.1. Voters registered as Democrat Voters registered as Democrat and Republicanand Republican

2.2. Voters under 25 and not Voters under 25 and not registered as either Democrat registered as either Democrat or Republicanor Republican

3.3. Voters under 25 that are Voters under 25 that are registered both as Democrat registered both as Democrat and Republicanand Republican

4.4. Voters over 25 that are Voters over 25 that are registered only as Democratregistered only as Democrat

Democrat

Registered Voters under 25

Republican

Page 37: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

3737

Gantt ChartGantt Chart SSPGSSPG –– pgspgs 158158 -- 159159 FMEAFMEA SSPGSSPG –– pgspgs 2626 -- 2727 Planning GridPlanning Grid SSPGSSPG –– pgspgs 160160 -- 161161 BrainstormingBrainstorming SSPGSSPG –– pgspgs 9696 -- 9898 Consensus Decision MakingConsensus Decision Making SSPGSSPG –– pgspgs 153153 -- 154 154 Flow DiagramsFlow Diagrams SSPGSSPG –– pgspgs 104104 -- 110110 Solution Prioritization MatrixSolution Prioritization Matrix SSPGSSPG –– pgspgs 152152 -- 153153 Run ChartRun Chart SSPGSSPG –– pgspgs 5757 -- 6262 Pareto ChartPareto Chart SSPGSSPG –– pgspgs 8383 -- 8686 Frequency PlotFrequency Plot SSPGSSPG –– pgspgs 7070 -- 8282

Helpful Tools SummaryHelpful Tools Summary

• Rath & Strong’s Six Sigma Pocket Guide

Page 38: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

3838

Process Control ToolsProcess Control Tools

Quality control ChartQuality control Chart Statistical Process Control ChartStatistical Process Control Chart Advanced/Special Statistical MethodsAdvanced/Special Statistical Methods

• Design of ExperimentsDesign of Experiments• Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA)Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA)• OthersOthers

Page 39: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

3939

Tool: QC Process ChartTool: QC Process Chart

Corrective ActionsCorrective ActionsIndicatorsIndicatorsProcess StepProcess Step

Alert Process Engineer Alert Process Engineer immediately; organize immediately; organize investigation.investigation.

If more than 1 per If more than 1 per order, stop process, order, stop process, contact Packaging contact Packaging Engineer.Engineer.

Plot time on each Plot time on each order; should be order; should be << 2 2 hours; check for special hours; check for special causes.causes.

Count errors.Count errors.

ACTACTCHECKCHECKPLAN/DOPLAN/DO

Page 40: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

4040

Provides a record of how the process is Provides a record of how the process is performingperforming• Objective way to determine if the process is Objective way to determine if the process is

stablestable• Differentiates between natural variation and Differentiates between natural variation and

assignable causesassignable causes Catches process changes before they Catches process changes before they

become problemsbecome problems Focuses attention on monitoring process Focuses attention on monitoring process

variation over time.variation over time. See your local black belt for assistance.See your local black belt for assistance.

Tools: SPC Control ChartTools: SPC Control Chart

Page 41: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

4141

SPC Control Chart ExampleSPC Control Chart Example

Ground Grids Control Chart (+/- 3 sigma)

0.265

0.275

0.285

0.295

0.305

104

106

108

118

120

-5

122

-6

124

126

-12

128

-14

130

-16

132

-18

134

-20

136

-21

Do

me

He

igh

t

UCL

LCL

Mean

Page 42: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

4242

TOOLS ENDTOOLS END

Page 43: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

4343

Decision Making StylesDecision Making Styles

Autocratic ApproachAutocratic Approach Consultative Approach Consultative Approach Team ApproachTeam Approach DemocraticDemocratic

Page 44: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

4444

DECISION MAKING STYLES CONT’DDECISION MAKING STYLES CONT’D

Autocratic• Leader maintains total control and Leader maintains total control and

ownership of decision.ownership of decision.• Advantages:Advantages:

Fast decisionFast decision Personal responsibilityPersonal responsibility Good in emergenciesGood in emergencies

• Disadvantages:Disadvantages: No buy-in from the groupNo buy-in from the group Dissent among the ranksDissent among the ranks

Page 45: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

4545

DECISION MAKING STYLES CONT’DDECISION MAKING STYLES CONT’D

Consultative (Participative)• Leader maintains control of the decision.• Leader seeks and encourages input from

the group.• Advantages:

Personal responsibility Buy-in from the group (if decision is appears

good)

• Disadvantages: Time consuming decision process Backfire if leader does not listen to input

Page 46: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

4646

DECISION MAKING STYLES CONT’DDECISION MAKING STYLES CONT’D

Team (Consensus)Team (Consensus)• Leader gives up control of decision.Leader gives up control of decision.• The group makes the decision after seeking total The group makes the decision after seeking total

agreement and buy-in.agreement and buy-in.• Advantages:Advantages:

Group commitmentGroup commitment Group responsibilityGroup responsibility A more quality decision is reached based on diversityA more quality decision is reached based on diversity

• Disadvantages:Disadvantages: Very time consumingVery time consuming Requires high level of organizationRequires high level of organization Takes practiceTakes practice Can revert to democratic if total agreement is not Can revert to democratic if total agreement is not

achieved.achieved.

Page 47: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

4747

DECISION MAKING STYLESDECISION MAKING STYLES

DemocraticDemocratic – – • Leader gives up ownership by Leader gives up ownership by

allowing the group to vote.allowing the group to vote.• Advantage: Advantage:

Fairly fast decisionsFairly fast decisions Group participationGroup participation

• Disadvantage:Disadvantage: Neither the leader nor the group accept Neither the leader nor the group accept

responsibility.responsibility.

Page 48: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

4848

Management Decision Making Management Decision Making ModelModel

Crisis Situation

"The building is on Fire!"

Autocratic Approach

Routine Situation Knowledge Situation

Team Approach

Individual Decision Making Group Decision Making

Need for CommitmentTime Pressure

“I’ve seen this before, or

something like it.”

“I don’t know what the problem is or understand the

issues”

Consultative Approach

Page 49: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

4949

GUIDELINES FOR SUCCESSFUL GUIDELINES FOR SUCCESSFUL DECISION MAKINGDECISION MAKING

Ensure a CHAMPION – a responsible leader should manage Ensure a CHAMPION – a responsible leader should manage the decision making process.the decision making process.

SEEK UNDERSTANDING – probe through signals and SEEK UNDERSTANDING – probe through signals and symptoms to reach the root cause.symptoms to reach the root cause.

ESTABLISH AN OBJECTIVE – make decisions based on ESTABLISH AN OBJECTIVE – make decisions based on objective, not just a “first” solution. Analyze “trade-offs”.objective, not just a “first” solution. Analyze “trade-offs”.

USE CREATIVITY AND DIPLOMACY – develop diverse ideas, USE CREATIVITY AND DIPLOMACY – develop diverse ideas, avoid fallacies.avoid fallacies.

IDENTIFY MULTIPLE OPTIONS – reviewing competing IDENTIFY MULTIPLE OPTIONS – reviewing competing options makes for a better choice.options makes for a better choice.

IDENTIFY BARRIERS – seek participation to get buy-in.IDENTIFY BARRIERS – seek participation to get buy-in.

Page 50: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

5050

Influences on Decision Making Influences on Decision Making

• Contextual FactorsContextual Factors• Urgency Urgency • ImportanceImportance• ConstraintsConstraints• Resource Resource

AvailabilityAvailability• Political SupportPolitical Support

• PersonalitiesPersonalities• DiversityDiversity• GlobalizationGlobalization• EthicsEthics• MediaMedia

Page 51: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

5151

Class Activity: Count the F’s in this sentenceClass Activity: Count the F’s in this sentence

FOULED UP FILES ARE THE RESULT OF FOULED UP FILES ARE THE RESULT OF FOOLISH NEGLECT AND FINISHED FOOLISH NEGLECT AND FINISHED FILES ARE THE RESULT OF FILES ARE THE RESULT OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY COMBINED WITH SCIENTIFIC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF MANY YEARS.THE EXPERIENCE OF MANY YEARS.

Call out how many - let’s see who’s right firstCall out how many - let’s see who’s right first

Page 52: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

5252

Solution to Decision ExerciseSolution to Decision Exercise

Solution:Solution:

Which decision was faster to make?Which decision was faster to make?Which was more accurate?Which was more accurate?

Page 53: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

5353

Consensus ExerciseConsensus Exercise

Directions: Directions:

Read the story below and record the Read the story below and record the appropriate response on the attached appropriate response on the attached answer sheet for the eleven statements answer sheet for the eleven statements that follow it. Your response options are ‘T’ that follow it. Your response options are ‘T’ for true, ‘F’ for false, and ‘?’ for don’t for true, ‘F’ for false, and ‘?’ for don’t know.know.

**Read carefully and focus on what you know and don’t knowRead carefully and focus on what you know and don’t know

Page 54: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

5454

Consensus Exercise (cont.)Consensus Exercise (cont.)

The story …The story …

A businessman had just turned off the A businessman had just turned off the lights in the store when a man lights in the store when a man appeared and demanded money. The appeared and demanded money. The owner opened a cash register. The owner opened a cash register. The contents of the cash register were contents of the cash register were scooped up, and the man sped away. scooped up, and the man sped away. A member of the police force was A member of the police force was notified promptlynotified promptly

University Associates, Inc.

San Diego, CA

Page 55: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

5555

Consensus Exercise (cont.)Consensus Exercise (cont.)

1.1. A man appeared after the owner had turned off his store lights.A man appeared after the owner had turned off his store lights.

2.2. The robber was a man.The robber was a man.

3.3. The man did not demand money.The man did not demand money.

4.4. The man who opened the cash register was the owner.The man who opened the cash register was the owner.

5.5. The store owner scooped up the contents of the cash register and ran away.The store owner scooped up the contents of the cash register and ran away.

6.6. Someone opened a cash register.Someone opened a cash register.

7.7. After the man who demanded the money scooped up the contents of the cash. After the man who demanded the money scooped up the contents of the cash. register, he ran away.register, he ran away.

8.8. While the cash register contained money, the story does not state how much.While the cash register contained money, the story does not state how much.

9.9. The robber demanded money.The robber demanded money.

10.10. The story concerns a series of events in which only three persons are referred The story concerns a series of events in which only three persons are referred to: The owner of the store, a man who demanded money, and a member of the to: The owner of the store, a man who demanded money, and a member of the police force.police force.

11.11. The following events in the story are true: Someone demanded money, a cash The following events in the story are true: Someone demanded money, a cash register was opened, its contents were scooped up, and a man dashed out of register was opened, its contents were scooped up, and a man dashed out of the store.the store.

Page 56: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

5656

Consensus Exercise SolutionConsensus Exercise Solution

Page 57: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

5757

Problem Solving ModelsProblem Solving Models

PDCA 4-step plan PDCA 4-step plan • Plan, Do, Check, ActPlan, Do, Check, Act

DMAIC 5-Step plan (Six Sigma)DMAIC 5-Step plan (Six Sigma)• Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, ControlDefine, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control

University of Phoenix 9-step planUniversity of Phoenix 9-step plan• Describe, Frame, State goals, Identify Describe, Frame, State goals, Identify

alternatives, Evaluate alternatives, Assess alternatives, Evaluate alternatives, Assess risks, Make decision, Develop/Implement risks, Make decision, Develop/Implement solution, Evaluate results.solution, Evaluate results.

Page 58: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

5858

PDCA Problem Solving CyclePDCA Problem Solving Cycle

PDCAPDCA

Page 59: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

5959

Step One: Defining the Problem Step One: Defining the Problem and Collecting Dataand Collecting Data

Page 60: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

6060

Step Two: Analyzing DataStep Two: Analyzing Data

Affinity MatrixAffinity Matrix

Page 61: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

6161

Step Two: Analyzing Data Step Two: Analyzing Data

Building Consensus through MultivotingBuilding Consensus through Multivoting

Page 62: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

6262

Step Three: Evaluating and Step Three: Evaluating and Selecting Potential SolutionsSelecting Potential Solutions

Prioritization MatrixPrioritization Matrix

Page 63: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

6363

Step Three: Evaluating and Step Three: Evaluating and Selecting Potential SolutionsSelecting Potential Solutions

Variation: Weighted Solution Prioritization Matrix

Page 64: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

6464

Step Four: Developing an Action Step Four: Developing an Action Plan for Implementation Plan for Implementation

Constructing a Tree DiagramConstructing a Tree Diagram

Page 65: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

6565

Step Four: Developing an Action Step Four: Developing an Action Plan for ImplementationPlan for Implementation

Tree Diagram ExampleTree Diagram Example

Page 66: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

6666

PDCA Problem Solving CyclePDCA Problem Solving Cycle

Summary of Steps and TechniquesSummary of Steps and Techniques

Page 67: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

6767

Six Sigma Problem Solving ProcessSix Sigma Problem Solving Process

1Define

2Measure

3Analyze

4Improve

5Control

Data

Capability

Sampling

PatternsC

losu

re

Evalu

ate

Mon

itor

Docum

ent

StandardizeControl

Data

Analysis

Pro

cess

An

aly

sis

Root C

ause

Determ

inatio

n

Implementation

Pilot

Error Proof

Solutions

Pro

ject

Ch

art

er

Flo

w C

hart

Stakeholder

AnalysisVoi

ce o

f the

Custo

mer

Page 68: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

6868

UoP Decision Making ModelUoP Decision Making Model

Page 69: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

6969

Helpful Tips to Foster Better Decision Helpful Tips to Foster Better Decision MakingMaking

Page 70: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

7070

Strategies for Increasing Creativity Strategies for Increasing Creativity in Problem Solving in Problem Solving

Page 71: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

7171

Management’s Role in Supporting Management’s Role in Supporting and Stimulating Creativityand Stimulating Creativity

Page 72: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

7272

Management’s Role in Supporting Management’s Role in Supporting and Stimulating Creativityand Stimulating Creativity

Page 73: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

7373

Decision Analysis: Chapter 2Decision Analysis: Chapter 2 Identifying Objectives and Identifying Objectives and

Creating a Value TreeCreating a Value Tree

Page 74: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

7474

Decision Making: Identifying Decision Making: Identifying Objectives Objectives

A Comprehensive Value TreeA Comprehensive Value Tree

Page 75: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

7575

Value Tree Example: Widen Maple street?Value Tree Example: Widen Maple street?

Page 76: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

7676

Class Activity: Name Key Terms Class Activity: Name Key Terms and Conceptsand Concepts

AffinitizingAffinitizing Analogies (in problem Analogies (in problem

solving)solving) BrainstormingBrainstorming Convergent thinkingConvergent thinking CreativityCreativity Divergent thinkingDivergent thinking Idea growersIdea growers Idea killersIdea killers Innovation chamberInnovation chamber

MultivotingMultivoting Nominal group Nominal group

techniquetechnique PDCA cyclePDCA cycle Post-It Note Post-It Note

brainstormingbrainstorming P-P-C techniqueP-P-C technique Prioritization matrixPrioritization matrix Problem solvingProblem solving Round robinRound robin Tree diagramTree diagram

Page 77: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

7777

Next Week’s ReadingsNext Week’s Readings Management: Chapter 9Management: Chapter 9 Judgment in Managerial Decision Making: Judgment in Managerial Decision Making:

Chapter 6Chapter 6 Wharton on Making decision: Chapter 6Wharton on Making decision: Chapter 6 Supplements for case study: “Let it Pour”Supplements for case study: “Let it Pour”

Page 78: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

7878

Next Week’s Individual AssignmentNext Week’s Individual Assignment

Respond to the Discussion Questions posted by your Respond to the Discussion Questions posted by your instructor.instructor.

Critical Thinking Case StudyCritical Thinking Case Study Prepare a 1,750-2,100 word paper on the critical thinking Prepare a 1,750-2,100 word paper on the critical thinking

case study assignment, “Critical Thinking Case Study: Let it case study assignment, “Critical Thinking Case Study: Let it Pour - My First Assignment as Executive Assistant.” You will Pour - My First Assignment as Executive Assistant.” You will work individually to complete this critical-thinking case work individually to complete this critical-thinking case study analysis. study analysis.

For use in completing the individual Case Study For use in completing the individual Case Study assignment, access the following University of Phoenix assignment, access the following University of Phoenix Materials located on the : Materials located on the : • ““Critical Thinking Case Study: Let it Pour” Critical Thinking Case Study: Let it Pour” • ““Case Study Characteristics: Evaluation Form” Case Study Characteristics: Evaluation Form” • ““Preparing Case Study Analysis” Preparing Case Study Analysis” • ““Problem Solving Tools and Techniques” Problem Solving Tools and Techniques” • ““Decision Making Steps” Decision Making Steps” • ““Decision Making Worksheet”Decision Making Worksheet”

Page 79: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

7979

Case Study Grading CriterionCase Study Grading Criterion

Grading Criterion• Defines the problem that appears in the

case study• Proposes appropriate solutions to

problem• Uses course content to support

proposed solutions• Paper format

Page 80: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

8080

Next Week’s Team AssignmentNext Week’s Team Assignment Meeting FourMeeting Four Part III: Problem Analysis and Decision-Making Part III: Problem Analysis and Decision-Making

Technique PaperTechnique Paper Prepare a 1,050-1,400-word paper in which you Prepare a 1,050-1,400-word paper in which you

analyze at least three alternative solutions to the analyze at least three alternative solutions to the problem selected in Learning Team Meeting One. problem selected in Learning Team Meeting One. Remember each alternative must stand on its Remember each alternative must stand on its own. Any combination of alternatives becomes an own. Any combination of alternatives becomes an alternative of its own. Utilizing Decision-Making alternative of its own. Utilizing Decision-Making Tools or Techniques analyze each alternative and Tools or Techniques analyze each alternative and select the best one. Chose one of the solutions select the best one. Chose one of the solutions and identify three influences on that choice. and identify three influences on that choice.

Page 81: 1 CSS/330: Critical Thinking and Computer Logic © 2004 University of Phoenix. University of Phoenix is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in.

8181

THE ENDTHE END