As requested, I am publishing an application of Kepner-Tregoe methodology in selecting a candidate for the 2010 Philippine Presidential elections.
Decision Analysis Template
A template is provided below:
You can also download the voting-matrix spreadsheet from the FV site and customize it to YOUR preferences.
To guide you, a sample of a fully deliberated hiring decision is presented in “GETTING IT RIGHT: Employee Hiring & Retention”.
Filling in the Decision Analysis Template
Mandatory means that any candidate must meet these criteria without exception in order to be considered for a position.
Desirable means that once the candidate has met the Mandatory Objectives then he/she can be viewed and rated as to how well he/she meets the Desirable Objectives, which have been prioritized on a 1-10 (Low- High) scale.
As each voter will have their own MUSTS and WANTS, feel free to revise the template accordingly. Some might even switch a WANT with a MUST and vice-versa.
Instructions for the MUST CRITERIA Section
Change your must criteria (A) as needed.
Type “Yes” if the criteria is met.
Type “No” if the criteria is not met.
Type “?” if the information is not available.
Instructions for the WANTS Criteria Section
Change your criteria (A) as needed.
Change your weight factor (B) as needed.
Make sure all weight factors are in the range 1 to 10; 1 to 10; 1 as lowest, 10 as highest
Fill in the raw score = 1 to 10; 1 as lowest, 10 as highest.
Computing the Weighted Scores
The weighted score is the product of a Desired Criteria’s weight and the raw score given by the evaluator.
When all the Desired Criteria has been scored, the evaluator can now compare the total points of each candidate.
The candidate who meets all the MUST criteria and has the highest score is the logical choice.
Have fun separating the BS from the dung!
p.s. Share your matrix! :)
Popularity: 7% [?]
“As requested” – who did?
In any event, time to throw to the trash bin the earlier blog as a mere scrap of paper – ‘scratch’. Decide if this new piece deletes the old one.
Don’t come up with a 3rd blog over the same topic as readers might get bored. Please evolve a mature piece so we don’t accumulate more tabulations than necessary.
Primer, BongV already presents his ideas here. Why don’t you jump off from all the great ideas presented so far and come up with your own “evolved” version just as I am working on one myself based on a lot of what the most innovative FV contributors here are producing nowadays — BongV with his matrices, BenK with his Blanco-for-President campaign, Cocoy with his articulated (all GNU-licensed) proposals, etc.
But then again, just looking at the consistent incoherence of what you write, I doubt if you possess the structure of thinking required to come up with much.
:-D
No benigno, I never thought for any moment coming up with benchmarks/matrix templates such as your brand of ‘structured thinking’ that over-flooded your GetReal thing and over-spilled all over FV in split dispatch.
You are better left to your own devices but then again, it is easy enough to just throw sweeping comments bereft of any valid proof. Well, you defend bongV in much the same zeal that he defends you. Why do people always come in pair, that really amazes me?
At the very least, it must be you who are totally lacking in analysis. Your worldviews are rigidly tied on some mere linguistic ropes. Idea-wise? I doubt it.
Just write your own style, Primer.
I presume that you want others to vote eventually for Fernando (I mean, Fernando right now is at the bottom of the pack, so you and other BF-loyalists have to work to get others into the BF-camp).
Write down the reasons which convinced you why Fernando is your 2010-Malacanang horse and share with others (goal: that a few do conclude BF’s the guy!) Use your own format. If you don’t want a spreadsheet or a list, use a piechart or a Mobius strip or a Gordian Knot.
I encourage you to write, I urge you to write well and clearly.
This is a proven test for decision making and problem solving in a business or corporate management however it may not work well in an organization where everyone is not actively participating. A U.S.-based decision-making style are different from the decision-making styles in other cultures due to differences in the use of participative decision making and orientation toward problem solving. Kepner Tregoe decision making sets up a conclusion as well as how precisely it should be accomplished. This is often troublesome considering that the candidates often have other plans. We can have one or the other, not usually both. It may also take considerable time to get through this process. Much patience and determination may be required but for Philippines candidates lacking managerial skills? i have doubts that they are all familiar or experience with Kepner. This process is a troubleshooter not a process to find and elect the right candidates. Although the model can be copied but candidates must have some kind of management degree in the International arena… not Philippines.
This is only one of the many decision making tools and techniques available for business type decisions NOT POLITICAL. And Kepner Tregoe decision making is not considered to be how PINOYS OR humans naturally do their decision making…
Somebody in the current administration has to decide the relative importance of the objectives of this test not the other way around.
Leytenian,
Good point. I appreciate the methodology, but how do you get the simple point across broadly, that people perpetuate poverty when they sell their vote rather than vote principle.
Joe
to JoeAmerica: how to get a point across broadly is done one person at a time, if it needs to. And there is no need to convince 100% (not even 80%) of voters to follow a certain pattern-of-thinking when they choose who to vote for.
Thought should also be given to that tidbit of wisdom in the Bible : step into a community to sway them, but not linger too long. When still being resisted after effort, then to leave, shaking off the dust and sand from one’s sandals as necessary.
the point is being made – however it needs to be made to a wider audience. there is no one way of getting the point across – rather one uses a blend of communication channels based on which is more accessible to the target audience.
trapos, however, don’t want the point to be communicated across because it lessens their chances of buying votes.
leytenaian:
are you saying Pinoys are incapable of structured decision-making? :)
and therefore they shouldn’t try it?
Pinoys in Davao are using it – have been using it for years :)
hindi pa dumating ang KT sa Marikina?
I did not suggest incapability of the people but the incapability of our leaders. Going back to our discussion about participative democracy? Administrators have been encouraging voters to participate by buying their votes and enticing/ bribing them to sell their votes. Stopping this requires an active participation of a legislative body as it’s primary role. Then supplement it with education.
Well, when the matrix reveals the incapability of the leader – what has the voter got to do? Vote for the incapable leader?
Incapable voter and incapable leaders deserve each other don’t you agree? :)
COMELEC may copy some of the method and instruct the people to actively participate. This department should be more aggressive in organizing a campaign PRIOR to the election.
Not just COMELEC, also:
* NAMFREL
* Civic Associations
* Religious Groups
* Chambers of Commerce
* Labor Unions
* Phil Medical Society
* Phil Nurses Association
* Professionals’ Associations
*
Well bong comelec’s employees are paid by the people’s tax. Legally, it is expected to perform a higher level degree of public duty. But I agree with you, others can supplement the overpaid comelec who probably have no clue of what we as a people demand.
but bong thank you, i got your point. i’m not being negative but this process is time consuming for people who are not technologically savvy and lacking understanding of ” VOTING right”.
If the current governing body is desirous to hand down a legacy of a guiltless 2010 election, then they must ACT now and gather all the department heads to start directing, guiding and educating the people.
leytenian:
there’s always another option – have no criterias and just say – Erap is it.. or Fernando is it..
thats kinda brainless don’t you think?
Well, apparently, pro-Legarda outnumber the pro-B.Fernando by 14-to-1.
———–
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:24:00 07/23/2009
Filed Under: Opinion surveys, Politics, Elections, Eleksyon 2010
Escudero, Roxas, Legarda
. . . . Sen. Loren Legarda at fifth place with 15 percent.
Legarda received 14 percent in May and 25 percent in February.
Lacson down, Binay up
The other perceived presidential aspirants got single digits.
Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson scored 7 percent (down from 12 percent in May and 14 percent in February) and Makati Mayor Jejomar C. Binay obtained 4 percent (up from 2 percent in May and 1 percent in February).
Sen. Richard Gordon, Metro Manila Development Authority Chair Bayani Fernando and Ms Arroyo scored 1 percent each.
The others scored below a percentage point—Sen. Francis N. Pangilinan, Jesus Is Lord leader Bro. Eddie C. Villanueva, Defense Secretary Gilberto C. Teodoro Jr., detained Sen. Antonio F. Trillanes IV, Pampanga Gov. Ed T. Panlilio, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, an unspecified “Estrada,” and Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla
Fernando is inarticulate –
paano yan, pag nasa UN general Assembly,
baka mapagkamalan pa siyang waiter …
he’ll just wave his hands like Erap,
(hmmm… kaya pala pinili ni Primer)
At bottom, for the presidentiables, there is really nothing to benchmark or calibrate in terms of ‘units of measure or value”. But we certainly can do matrix provided however one is fully conversant on how to measure performance (as something already in existence) and not something merely hypothetical (as in a token platform).
So after throwing caution to the wind, it seems that finally, leytenian her offered the more enlightened notion of it all.
Thanks leytenian.
don’t have benchmark and just vote for Erap or Fernando..
just because you say so? that’s the brainless way
and you reap what you saw… Erap Erap Erap Erap :)
“…the point of the entire exercise is to have a benchmark.” – Bong V.
Benchmarking is merely a tool that one may choose to utilize to help him in making a selection or decision.
This model is a bit better than the previous one because, at least, it incorporated a system of scoring. But then again, like the previous matrix model, the set of criteria is dependent on or subject to the priorities of the person doing the evaluation.
By its nature, decision making is subjective. Personal preferences (biases) cannot be completely isolated from the process. Therefore, the idea of establishing a benchmark to promote objective issue-oriented evaluation of presidential aspirants is rather as subjective as having no benchmark at all. But for one who may be interested in making an informed decision/selection, it helps to put one’s set of preference/priorities on papers.
Just a thought:
Is it possible for FV to solicit sets of benchmarking criteria from its panel of bloggers (and maybe also from its readers)?
The sets of criteria collected will then be deliberated by a team from among themselves and then prioritized, categorized, and ordered and then posted for the readers to comment. This may impact some voters — and maybe the presidential aspirants themselves.
Few observations can be made if we operate on the principle of “out of sight, out of mind”:
1. A yes or no or ? is a kind of black-and-white dichotomy that cannot be applied if one is to derive meaningful comparisons by “units of value”.
A yes is the presence of the “trait” and no the absence of the same. A ? is undefined variable.
2. It escapes comprehension why under the category, ‘not tainted with corruption’, yes goes to Panlilio and another yes to Roxas and yet to all the rest, a ?. Roxas, just like Escudero and Villar came from the House of Representatives before they are Senators. Where is the virus?
3. What explains why only Escudero among the pack has not been given a yes for executive experience when again, Villar received a yes?
4. How in the world that only Villar and Gordon have been assigned a yes for ‘good grasp of foreign and domestic issues’ with Escudero getting a bloody red of ‘no’?
5. This train of thought flows all the way down to the other table on ‘desired criteria’.
6. The all-too-unclear raw points scored by Gordon, Villar, and Teodoro with everyone else in the pack receiving “0″ as in zero point is tantamount to effect a clear case of “biased trending” that poll circuits are accused as guilty of.
ALL TOLD, this entire presentation is kaput. There is nothing even from commonly shared knowledge of facts that would validate these “assignments” as true and capable of validation.
The word mandatory as defined immediately contradicts what we read from the tabulation. This means that since Escudero has three “?s” under the mandatory criteria, then logically he cannot be considered for the position.
Is bong equipped to defend that, in any event?
One should undertake to define “?” since this should be unacceptable in a tabulation. If you don’t know the information, why tabulate in the first place to the prejudice of “subjects” arbitrarily assigned those “?s”?
From where I sit, I can only conclude that this whole presentation is rather unstudied, not well-thought out. Please don’t delete this comment in the interest of fairness and accept my thanks.
“?” means you don’t have information, and therefore you have to go look for it – do due diligence.
The template is incomplete – filling in the information requires the evaluator do his homework. why in the world will i show my work to you – para mangopya ka? hahahahaa
all told – primer is intellectually incapable of using Kepner Tregoe methodology – and that’s not surprising – he can’t even discern a 1×1 matrix. :)
This is just the kind of bogus piece that finds no necessity of being patterned after much less used to help in the ‘scientific calibration’ of fitness to the presidency.
There are certainly better models presumably already available from their authors.
Primer:
use Kepner-Tregoe methodology:
Present your MUSTs.
Present your WANTs.
Rate accordingly.
and between Kepner-Tregoe methodology versus Primer Pagunuran’s methodology (Erap Erap Erap)… bwa hahahahaa
if all Filipinos behaved like Primer, walang pag-asa ang Pilipinas :)
On the contrary, Primers displays his world-class ignorance – and obviosuly Primer lives in a rock or in a cave –
Kepner-Tregoe improves the business performance of clients worldwide using proven management methods. It is the ‘gold standard’ in organizational issue resolution – from tactical troubleshooting to strategic decision making. For over 50 years KT has collaborated with clients to optimize their business environments and manage business challenges.
Here is Primer’s better model:
* Tingnan yung etsas kung aling side dumapo ang langaw – it dumapo sa left side – vote for Erap, if dumapo sa right side, vote for Fernando. so one morning, while Primer was having etsas and trying to discern, tiningnan nya yung etsas niya and kung saan dumapo yung langaw. and so he now votes for Fernando
:)
Worlds apart – business and politics.
Don’t try to apply a model that you yourself apparently do not really understand.
You can’t even supply answers to the questions raised? What gives?
Decision making is universal – whether it is in business or in politics.
The methodology is applicable whether in business or politics and does not have anything to do whether business and politics are worlds apart or not.
Oh the answers are there, they are flying over your head – as usual :)
you, primer, are the poster boy of the Peter Principle.
I rest my case and I feel I have sufficiently made my position clear. Thank you for your indulgence.
You have no case :)
So the drama – typical vacuous radio soap opera
Kindly make your Tabulation Analysis simpler and easy to understand.
People like us, will not be interested in such analysis.
We would rather prefer Erap. Distributing rice, noodles, tuyo, etc…
for our votes. Manna from Heaven for your votes.
Ahmadinahjad of Iran won the Iranian election by fraud and by
distributing potatoes.
The simpler your explanations, the better. Most of us, common people
did not even reach college.
Hyden –
Can’t have the cake or eat it too.
It’s like you are asking a surgeon who is performing an appendectomy to skip an intermediate step like not administering anaesthesia.
There is a price you have to pay for doing things right – you either pay the price or you don’t – and of course, meet the consequences of your choices.
Agree with you on this one, BongV. Though it’s going to be a tough job doing an exact analysis of the persona of a candidate since the true nature of politicians are tricky most times, the method you are proposing sounds good and might help us in finding the desired candidate that can deliver the goods for our people and country.
It is good to cultivate that healthy sense of competition.
Bong says KT is yet to come to Marikina. Well so be it.
And in Davao, the thing is controlling, meaning it is something already in application.
I have been in Davao for a good almost 4 years back in the mid 80s but I wouldn’t know now how great it has become.
I hope it is true that DC is much more improved than MC in every level of comparison. And he sounds like a ‘local influential” so let it be left that way.
We pretend to forget about the vigilante phenomenon for a while.
This bong will end up saying, despite all these nonsensical matrix or benchmark, that:
“LIKE PEOPLE, LIKE GOVERNMENT”.
In the final analysis, what is the whole point of a KT? Maybe he can design a post-election KT. And by then, he would have been really able to “connect all the dots”.
In its present form, his KT operates on “guesswork” and the ignorance of political realities is very telling.
people who make good informed choices = good government
people who make uninformed choices = bad government
KT does not operate on guess work, on the contrary it removes the guesswork. A good description is provided in http://www.decision-making-confidence.com/kepner-tregoe-decision-making.html –
****
Defining the Criteria
For example, a study on the how the poor votes provides baseline data on the criteria being used – the http://www.pcij.org/stories/2004/poorvote.html
The study shows that the factors used by the poor in choosing a leader are:
1 – May pinagaralan (Educated)
2 – Karanasang mamuno (Experience)
3 – May plataporma (Platform)
4 – Marangal (Decent)
5 – Tulong sa bayan (Helps the people)
6 – Mabait (Good)
7 – Mahusay makisama (People skills)
8 – Responsable (Responsible)
9 – Kamaganak (Relatives)
THAT is a POLITICAL REALITY
Influencers
the study further observed that “Indeed, the report shows that overall, the most import sources of influence in the choice of candidates among the poor are, in declining order: the media, the family, the church, political parties. Surveys come in last on the list. The much-vaunted influence of the established churches may therefore be overstated, even though poor voters value piety (makadiyos) among their leaders.
Urban voters rated the media as the most crucial in influencing their vote while rural voters tended to give slightly more importance to family and church.
The media were seen as crucial in providing information about candidates even before the campaign period, such as what incumbent officials have accomplished. ”
9 Factors as Compulsory Criteria
The 9 factors presented above can be grouped under the Compulsory Criteria. It can be the criteria on which there is a near-universal agreement given that the DE groups compose 93% of the voting population
Who are the poor?
According to official statistics, 39.5 percent of Filipinos, or more than five million families, lived below the poverty threshold in 2000.
Survey organizations, however, refer to lower-income groups as belonging to “D” and “E” classes that are estimated to make up as much as 93 percent of some 43 million Filipino voters.
According to the Social Weather Stations (SWS), the D class, which makes up 60 percent of all voters, comprises lower-middle class households “who have some comfort and means but basically thrive on a hand-to-mouth existence.”
The E class, comprising 33 percent of households, is the extremely lower class “who evidently face great difficulties in meeting their basic survival needs.”
The monthly income of a Class D household is P8,000 to P14,999 if living in Metro Manila and P4,000 to P9,999 elsewhere.
That of a Class E household is below P8,000 if living in Metro Manila and below P4,000 outside the capital. .
But the poor think they do not get enough information from the media, especially on candidates running for national positions. As one woman resident of an urban poor community said, “News reveals only what candidates did the particular day of the campaign and not what they want to do, what they have already done, what they have accomplished or want to accomplish.” – That, is the political reality.
****
KT methodology precisely does that – it forces the evaluator to take stock, to review the candidates, to find out more information, to do research, to verify and validate information about the candidates:
1 – what they want to do
2 – what they have already done
3- what they have accomplished
4 – want to accomplish.
and score accordingly.
***
Thus, I disagree on your statement that KT operates on guesswork and the ignorance of political realities is telling. On the contrary, KT removes the guesswork and the political realities are weighed in accordingly.
93% of the voters “basically thrive on a hand-to-mouth existence.”
That is an astounding statistic for we pampered Americans with our pension plans, social security, IRA’s, car in the garage, house full of goodies claimed at the mall, inheritances, pantry stocked with a month’s supply of food. . .
I think the Philippine government would do well to re-define SECURITY to be inclusive of domestic plight, not simply rebels or exterior threats. Indeed, the SECURITY of the nation is under attack in SULU, not because of rebel fighting, but because of government negligence and malfeasance . . .
Security is found when and where there is food on the table . . . then the guns remain tucked on the upper shelf of the closet gathering rust . . .
Pogo for president . . .
Joe
First, let me thank UPn for granting me permission to “publish” here the reasons why I bat for BF, allowing me in fact to present it according to my desired format.
But that is just UPn saying so although bong has the same overtures of me obliging myself now to make my matrix presentation.
In both cases, I hasten that this is not possible in so far as it has seeped down to the ‘collective consciousness’ at FV (just here) that I am really for BF, more so now, than before on account of these personal attacks. I would have thought they really “shoot” BF than they shoot me on just every kind of criticism they can lay their hands (or minds) to but failed to do so.
That was the whole exercise, in fact. Everyone has been given fair chance.
Now back to this Kepner-Trego & RP election thing.
Let me shoot straight. THIS is even less than a ‘cognitive map’. Bong is saying that we can in fact change the critera in both A or B matrix.
As we know, Criteria A deals on the mandatory, meaning every candidate should possess them. And Criteria B deals on the desired which should be graded in a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being highest.
Offhand I say, the first Tabulation (or Criteria A), and by bong’s own admission, would not have been necessary aside from the fact that this ‘yes-no-? configuration’ are assigned no scores or values. In that Table 1 alone, I am already ‘impressed’.
More to the point. This is what we do in Tabulation 2. We have set the criteria, we have set weight factor, and then we have set the scoring (scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the lowest). In here we take one end of the rope loop it (figuratively) to the other end to come up with this gordian knot of a weighted score. What results we now rather euphemestically adopt into the “DECISION ANALYSIS” template.
We have finally decided based on Table 2 and the criteria that we would have assigned in Column 1 in relation to Column B (the proposed 1 to 10 scale). We can even forget about the weight factor, them being constant.
In conclusion, I find this Kepner-Trego not an intellectual stimulant to objective computation of a voter’s guide to decision making. Of course, others are entitled to their own opinions as much as I am.
I hope that the foregoing last comment of Bong are written in his words in case it has come from a source. It occurred to me that in my early days at FV, this guy is known as the “copy-paste” technician.
I sure know my “Kepner” but if I would oblige to presented a matrix for my candidate, I do know how hurt Ding would be as to accuse me of having been co-opted and making FV my ‘carrier’. I don’t wish that happens again.
Primer:
YOU don’t know your kepner :)
puro ka lang dada – wala ka pa ring criteria :)
where’s BF’s platforms … you chickening out? cluck cluck cluck cluck
where is your alternative evaluation framework? nada? your rambling sentenceas that try to pass itself off as an essay? you gotta be kidding :)
You are what you speak and that is self-deprecating for a guy who appears to project a BIG HEAD
Your matrix or benchmark, having been limited to a Mandatory table and a Desired table do not give justice to Kepner-Tragoe. You ought to have embarassed the authors of this business model.
So far as the rather uncharacteristically incomplete and incomprehensive ‘seminal’ work of yours shows – kepner or no-kepner – hardly provides any kind of guide to decision analysis.
Kaput.
having a mandatory and desired table is what KT is all about.
oblivious.. hahahahaha
By the way bong. don’t fool yourself into believing that just because 1 or 2 more commenters seem to agree with your point, that therefore the whole reading universe, did in fact, agree.
That kind of myopia is really absurd and it is looking like at FV, there are only 4 to 8 people in the room discussing developments in all spheres.
yeah.. that’s what the pope told Galileo