The cost of poor quality in successive questioning analysis is rarely visible in any single budget line. Most defects in this part of quality and productivity management are designed in long before they are detected. Participants apply the wider quality and productivity management agenda to their own operating process throughout, so the output is directly usable. It treats successive questioning analysis as an operating discipline and equips participants to run it as one. Post-incident reviews keep identifying weaknesses in the quality and productivity management discipline that were visible long before the incident. Participants who influence this aspect of quality and productivity management without directly controlling it will find the content directly usable. Participants gain a clear basis for measuring what successive questioning analysis has actually achieved. A common pattern is strong design of the practice within quality and productivity management paired with weak follow-through. Participants finish with a short, specific brief on the quality and productivity management capability ready to put in front of a decision maker.
Expected Learning Outcomes
✓
Estimate what successive questioning analysis costs to run properly, and what is lost when it is not.
✓
Test the organisation's response to successive questioning analysis under conditions that are less than ideal.
✓
Translate policy on successive questioning analysis into procedures that hold up under day-to-day pressure.
✓
Build capability in root cause analysis across the team handling successive questioning analysis.
✓
Build a continuous improvement routine around successive questioning analysis that survives busy periods.
✓
Map the process behind successive questioning analysis as it is actually performed.
