Following the instructions in the template, cut and paste the information needed from previous modules, and complete any new information that is needed including figures:Problem/opportunity definitionIdeas you generated for your problem/opportunity in module 4Simple Multi-Attribute Rating TechniquesThe Process:Select “go/no-go” variables. On the left-hand side of the chart, list the “go/no-go” variables. Variables are those attributes that the automobile must possess in order to be acceptable as the right car for you. Selection of these variables and the importance you or your firm place on them is very subjective. You will have to be on your guard to remove your personal bias as much as possible in determining a balanced view of the importance of the variables. Failure to pass any of these “go/no-go” variables means that a vehicle will be instantly rejected and will not be considered. For example, you might select the following variables: mileage (less than 20 km–rejection/no go) and country of origin (only Japanese, North American, and German cars will be considered).Identify other variables. List the other variables (attributes) that are important to you. Though you may choose as many variables as you wish, normally six, seven, or eight variables will be quite sufficient. If you select twenty or thirty variables, you will find that the weight of the additional variables, as you will see in a moment, does not significantly impact on the model’s outcome and therefore adds little to the exercise.In this example, the variables you have chosen are: safety, luxury, original cost, reliability, warranties, and service facilities. Insert these variables into the chart.Assign weights to the “go/no-go” variables. These weights must total 100. It would be unwise to assign all the variables an equal weight. It is also not very useful if you assign one variable a significantly higher weight (over 50 per cent) when this strong weight would result in little reason to conduct the exercise. For example, if you gave safety 75 per cent of the total weight, the other variables would have very little impact on which car you would select from the list of possibilities. See the SMART chart weights for this example.Enter your list of alternatives. This is the list from which you will make a choice. In this case, five automobiles have been put on the list based on preliminary research of the marketing literature. They are the Neon, Buick Park Avenue, Dodge Grand Caravan, Volvo, and Ford Bronco.Before proceeding further, post your “pick to win” on the bulletin board. Let us see how accurate your intuitive selection is, compared to the objective decision-making process of the SMART model. We have taken some editorial liberty with the specifications of these vehicles in order to expedite the process.Evaluate each alternative on the “go/no-go” criteria. The SMART model is now complete, and you are ready to begin the evaluation process. The first step is to take the Neon and evaluate it against the “go/no-go” variables. If a no-go is “awarded,” no further examination is required: the automobile is rejected. In this case the Neon, Dodge Caravan, and Buick Park Avenue pass the “go/no-go” evaluation. Based on mileage and/or country of origin a no-go finding has been awarded to Volvo and Ford Bronco. No further evaluation of these two contenders is required.Rate each remaining alternative on the other variables. On a scale of one to ten, where one is the lowest rating and ten is the highest rating, proceed to rate the remaining automobiles. Rate Neon with respect to the first variable “safety” as eight. Carry out this rating technique for all variables for all the remaining automobiles.Calculate the value for each alternative. Calculate the weighted number for each variable and multiply it by the number awarded to Neon for “safety” and we get a value of 1.76. Continue to carry out this calculation for Neon and all of the remaining automobiles.Determine the final scores. The final step is to add up the scores of each of the automobiles and determine which one is the best fit for you given the variables important to you in an automobile. You can conclude from the scores resulting in this modelling exercise that the two best automobiles are the Neon and the Dodge Caravan.Probability TreeState the problem. Start by stating the issue or question to which you seek an answer. In our illustration, the question is “What is the probability your mentor will become CEO and you will receive a promotion?”Undertake research about the problem. Asking knowledgeable sources around the water cooler and reading the Economist and articles found at the OLA library or on the Web are of great assistance in researching questions of this nature. You arrive at an informed probability that your mentor will be the next CEO as a 60 per cent chance of success, with a 40 per cent chance of failure.Analyze potential outcomes. Look at each potential outcome and estimate the probability of the event happening. For example, what are the chances of being promoted if your mentor becomes CEO? What is the probability of promotion if your mentor is not selected as the next CEO? Make your best estimate of the outcomes. Based on research, you have determined the following assessments of probabilities. If the mentor is appointed CEO, then there is a 10 per cent chance that you will not be promoted and a 90 per cent you will! If the mentor is not appointed then there is a 70 per cent chance that you will not be promoted, and a 30 per cent chance you will be promoted.Graphically represent these possibilities on your Probability Tree. In this model, there are two possible events:Your mentor is promoted to CEO position.Your mentor is not promoted to CEO position.If you assume the success of the mentor’s appointment determines your promotion, you can add the two probabilities to calculate the likelihood of your promotion.The answer is a 66 per cent probability that you will be promoted. Clearly, you would agree this is more accurate than the 50/50 probability you may have originally guesstimated.Force Field AnalysisDescribe the change. Start with the premise that in any organization, process, or change there are forces that both push for change and that hinder or work against change. When the forces are equal, Lewin explained that as a state of “stationary equilibrium.” But, similar to a set of scales, a simple imbalance can tip the scales either for or against change. Examine a change/solution that you would like to bring about and identify the forces that may affect it. In the centre of a page, draw a rectangle and write a short statement of the change or objective you wish to bring about.Describe the change.Define the contributors and restrainers (the arrows). There are factors that contribute to the implementation of the change and the realization of your objective; these forces, called contributors, push the change into being. They are environmental in nature and include such things as management support, competitor activity, and resources. Contributors are anything from the “outside” that works in your favour and help make the change a reality. At the same time, there are opposing factors that push against the change. If everything were pushing for the change, it probably would already have happened. To identify some of the negative forces, ask the question, “Why hasn’t this already happened?” The negative forces are called “restrainers.”List the contributors. Identify and list the contributors by brainstorming what is driving the change. Add these to your diagram, and list as many contributing factors as you can.List the contributorsList the restraining factors. List as many as you can think of.List the restraining factorsDetermine force ratings. Force ratings are also called “valences.” This is a number that describes how much influence or input a contributor or restrainer has. If you ever participated in a rope pull contest, you’ve experienced this first hand. The team with the most force (or ability to pull) wins. If the contributors have the most influence, energy, or force they will win and the change will take place. If the restrainers are able to exert more force or have more energy, they will win and the change will be delayed or even stopped. Assign a value, or force rating, to each contributor. You will use a subjective scale of 10 to 1.Contributors that are of the utmost importance in terms of their impact towards creating change get a “10.” Contributors that are of minor or almost zero impact get a “1.” Though this is a subjective scale, you should not just randomly assign a number, but should have a rationale for the weighting you have assessed. The value of this step is in the rationales–not the numbers! Add your force ratings to the diagram as illustrated.Determine force ratingsNoteYou will see Force Field Analysis models described in much the same way—from text to text and author to author–up to this point. The last two steps in this particular model will add enormous value and usefulness to any Force Field Analysis you undertake.Add up the force ratings. In theory, if one side exerts more influence on the change or process then that side will “win.” For example, if the contributors exert more force then the change will happen or “win out;” if the restrainers have more influence, then the change will be stalled or will not happen. In this step, you simply add up the force ratings you have assigned to each factor. As mentioned before, the restrainers will likely be greater. If this is not the case, then why hasn’t this change already happened? Have you missed any other significant restrainers?Add up the force ratingsDetermine ownership. Specific forces normally fall into three categories of ownership:SelfSystem/organizationOtherThe fear of change, for example, is a self-imposed force. You and/or your team members are responsible. System/organization-imposed changes are dictated by the larger system of which you are a part. Better training is an example of a system/organizational force. Other imposed forces come from outside the organization, such as a tariff on softwood exports. For those of you familiar with Stephen Covey’s work, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, this is similar to his circle of influence. This is what makes managing the Force Field effective. Label each of the forces with self-imposed (S), system/organization imposed (SO), or other imposed (O).Determine ownershipPlan Actions/Activities. You have the most influence on self-imposed forces. You MAY have (or could obtain) influence over system/organization-imposed forces and will likely have extremely little or no influence on other-imposed forces. According to Plovnich, Fry, and Burke (1982), in order to bring about change there are two change strategies or alternative methods of solving a problem. The first way to facilitate change is to increase the strength of the contributing forces. This will create an imbalance or tension within the system. The system will find a way to balance itself by developing an equal but opposite force on the restraining side. For example, a manager who is trying to introduce a new software version into her department is encountering resistance. She can increase contributing forces for change by creating champions and by providing training workshops as well as on-the-job training. The second way to facilitate change is to reduce the influence of the restraining force. This will cause the equilibrium level to rise without the negative consequences of the first method. In the example started above, the manager could also add training incentives and rewards, essentially adding a level of excitement to the learning process. The challenge, then, is to find ways (actions, activities) to enhance the force of the contributors and decrease or reduce the force of the restrainers. This will allow change to take place through natural forces. Developing the actions and activities should take place in the following order:High-rated, self-imposed contributors (8, 9, or 10)High-rated, self-imposed restrainersHigh-rated, system/organization-imposed contributorsHigh-rated, system/organization-imposed restrainersConsider other-imposed contributors and restrainers. It’s important to note that some high-rated restrainers may be so completely overpowering that attempting change in the face of these may be frustrating and pointless. You may wish to note or highlight these forces first.Final conclusion and recommendations
