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 :)

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.

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.

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

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.

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 –

Kepner Tregoe decision making is a structured methodology for gathering information and prioritizing and evaluating it. It was developed by Charles H. Kepner and Benjamin B. Tregoe in the 1960s. This is a rational model that is well respected in business management circles. An important aspect of Kepner Tregoe decision making is the assessment and prioritizing of risk.

So the idea is not to find a perfect solution but rather the best possible choice, based on actually achieving the outcome with minimal negative consequences. It is marketed as a way to make unbiased decisions in that it is said to limit conscious and unconscious biases that draw attention away from the outcome.

****

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.