Concept Map 1

Concept Map

Charlie K. Pregler

Fort Hays State University

LDRS802 3/2/2018
Concept Map 2

The organization that I chose to explore was General Electric. Currently I work there, and

this gives me a great opportunity to explore one of the great many sub systems. I picked quality

control system because it has a very unique system for controlling defects per week or DPW for

short. “A system isn’t just any old collection of things. A system is an interconnected set of

elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something” (Meadows, & Wright,

2015, p. 11). In the center of the diagram there is a bubble having the main quality issue at the

center. The main quality driver, or force is “Two or less defects per unit per week”. I choose to

use a causal loop diagram to show the balancing and reinforcing behaviors in the system. It

shows forces both inside and outside the company. This helps better demonstrate the reasons

why certain actions are taken.

Looking at the chart one can start in two places. Either at the center circle for General

Electric needing two or less defects, or at the customer side. I will explain via the customer side
Concept Map 3

to tell the events in somewhat of a looping storyline. If we look at the customer we see they need

reliable products. On the loop it shows that profit is impacted by downtime. This is a driving

force behind the need to find better suppliers. Following the loop, we then see the customer

shops around and arrives at two potentials. One is the customer finds a better supplier than two

defects per week. In this case General Electric then loses the contract. The other is that they

don’t find a supplier with less than two defects per week. In which case General Electric remains

the supplier.

With that outside driving force in mind we move to the General Electric side. The causal

loop starts at the need for two or less defects per unit per week. There we branch into two

options. One is General Electric is at an acceptable range of less than two. The second is General

Electric is not in acceptable range or over two defects per unit per week. Following the option

with not being in range, we see the causal flow set in motion a circle of events. First the defect

rate of greater than two triggers the supervisor. The supervisor then has five options in

progressive order. First is to train the employee, second is to give a verbal warning, third is to

give a write up, fourth is to suspend the employee, and fifth is to dismiss the employee.

I will look at the first step for my explanation. We see the employee receives training.

This springs into two potential actions. One is the employee improves defects while the other is

the employee defect rate remains the same. If the defects remain the same the progressive actions

in step two through five are put in play.

Moving forward on the employee improving defect rate side. If defects are in range for

the week, we move into the next week. For the next week there are three potential options. One

is if the employee improves and has no defects, another is if employee remains two defects or

less, and the last is if defects were again above two.

Concept Map 4

The first option is improving to no defects. This option gets the employee a quality bonus

for the week and generates a feedback loop into the next week. The second option is if the

defects are two or less but not zero. In this case the employee doesn’t get a quality bonus and

moves the feedback loop to the next week. The third option is if the employee still has not

improved and is anything over two defects per unit per week. This option pushes the circle of

events back to the previous step of employee defect rate of greater than two. This completes the

circle of events and it continues around to the supervisor.

The system shows the relationship between the customer and General Electric the

supplier. It illustrates why a customer needs to meet certain criteria. It also shows the other side

of the story happening on the supplier side to achieve the rates. This is just one of many systems

in play. This system fits into a network of other systems in the quality control segment of

General Electric, as well as intertwined into other systems.

We can also see from this causal loop diagram that many things can be changed or

tweaked to help the situation. Currently it has sort of a carrot and stick approach to the diagram.

One flow is to reprimand the employees doing bad. While the other feedback loop awards quality

bonus for doing good. While the reprimand side does offer training for the first step it fails to do

so in future steps. This is one potential problem with the model in play currently.

If we look at an employee who is unable to maintain this strict standard, one session of

training might not be enough to get them back up to tolerance. Adding additional steps in the

chain could help this process of improvement. “The solution to almost every problem today is

innovation self-governing teams managed by dialogue and value-based leadership” (Weisbord,

2012, p. 13). For instance, in the second week if the employee hasn’t improved, a job shadowing
Concept Map 5

could occur. This would give another chance for the employee to rectify the issue. It would also

perhaps yield an answer to why they are unable to meet the DPW.

In conclusion this map provides a snapshot of one system, in one organization, at one

plant. The sheer amount of possibilities for change is almost endless. This is the exact formulas

companies utilize for competitive advantage. It is remarkable how a change in this flow can

cause major downstream events to happen.

References,
Meadows, D. H., & Wright, D. (2015). Thinking in systems: a primer. White River Junction, VT:

Chelsea Green Publishing.

Weisbord, M. R. (2012). Productive workplaces: dignity, meaning, and community in the 21st

century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.