Tool 218: Window Analysis


AKA

N/A

Classification

Analyzing/Trending (AT)

Tool description

The window analysis technique is used to determine the potential root causes(s) of a performance problem. Developed by Fyuji Fukuda from Johari's window model, this technique questions any two parties, individuals, or organizational units, if a practice, procedure, or a set of work instructions is known and practiced in order to prevent or minimize performance problems.

Typical application

  • To identify root causes of a performance problem.

  • To verify the adherence to company practices, procedures, or work instructions by all organizational units.

  • To investigate if performance problems could have been prevented.

Problem-solving phase

Select and define problem or opportunity

Identify and analyze causes or potential change

Develop and plan possible solutions or change

Implement and evaluate solution or change

Measure and report solution or change results

Recognize and reward team efforts

Typically used by

Research/statistics

Creativity/innovation

Engineering

Project management

2

Manufacturing

Marketing/sales

Administration/documentation

3

Servicing/support

Customer/quality metrics

1

Change management

start sidebar
links to other tools

before

  • Five Whys

  • Brainstorming

  • Cause and Effect Diagram (CED)

  • Fault Tree Analysis

  • Process Analysis

after

  • Problem Specification

  • Countermeasures Matrix

  • Potential Problem Analysis (PPA)

  • What-If Analysis

  • Cost-Benefit Analysis

end sidebar

Notes and key points

  • Window categories descriptions:

    1. Practices, procedures, or work instructions have been established and both parties (party X and Y) use this information to minimize performance problems. Status: Company directives are followed.

    2. Practices, procedures, or work instructions have been established; however, party X or Y does not use this information correctly. Status: Company directives are not always followed.

    3. Practices, procedures, or work instructions have been established; however, party X or Y does not have this information. Status: Company directives were not communicated to some parties.

    4. Practices, procedures, or work instructions have not been established and, therefore, neither party (party X and Y) has this information. Status: Company directives need to be communicated to make information available to all parties.

  • Known = not known (negation of known).

    For more information: The Johari Window: A Model for Soliciting and Giving Feedback, by P. G. Hanson in 1973 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators, edited by John. E. Jones and J. William Pfeifer. San Diego, CA: University Associates.

Step-by-step procedure

  • STEP 1 A team is assembled with representation from the organizational units to be analyzed. See example Lack of Adherence to World Class Practices: Quality Function Deployment (QFD), Design of Experiments (DOE), Cycle Time Management (CTM).

  • STEP 2 Participants identify and discuss perceived performance problems. A priority list of no more than five problems is developed.

  • STEP 3 Using the window diagram, participants systematically explore all squares and discuss each category (A–D) to identify which window square best represents the true situation.

  • STEP 4 Lastly, participants receive assignments to collect data to prove or disprove a particular category (B-D) previously selected as a potential root cause or the problem.

Example of tool application

click to expand




Six Sigma Tool Navigator(c) The Master Guide for Teams
Six Sigma Tool Navigator: The Master Guide for Teams
ISBN: 1563272954
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2005
Pages: 326

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net