Introduction
As its name says rather explicitly, the cause-and-effect diagram (CAED) is typically used to identify the connection between the factors that contributed to a particular phenomenon and the occurrence thereof (Pyzdek & Keller, 2014). Reasonably enough, the specified tool has been used primarily for resolving specific project- or entrepreneurship-related problems by locating the existing solutions and helping choose the most efficient one. However, because of the links identified between the above factors and the possible outcomes, CAED can also be adopted to plan the further steps to be taken for a specific company or the leaders of a certain project.
Because of the numerous options that it provides and the outcomes that it helps identify, the specified tool can be applied to the process of planning in the context of an aircraft organization, particularly, at an airport.
Analysis
By definition, the process of security planning implies that three key steps should be taken. First and most obvious, the isolation of the factors that can be viewed as a threat to the stakeholders involved, including the passengers and the staff, should be carried out. Afterward, the analysis of the issues located needs to be conducted. The implementation of the solutions that seem to be the most fitting has to take place.
The application of CAED must be considered at the first and the second stages of the process. Seeing that the CAED framework is used for planning, it can be utilized to locate the factor affecting the security in a positive and a negative manner. Although the framework does not permit the immediate arrangement of the found issues based on the gravity of their threat, the outcomes may be identified comparatively easily. As a result, the framework will serve as the tool for viewing every single opportunity and evaluating its outcome. Although the CAED framework does not rank the threats according to their severity or the outcomes based on their significance, it still allows viewing every single option. Therefore, the process of choosing and making a decision makes less biased. In other words, the CAE diagram can be used to isolate the solution that will help secure not only the customers but also every single stakeholder involved and take the least damage in the process (Haviland, 2004).
It would be wrong to assume that CAED is an entirely flawless system. As it has been stressed above, it does not categorize either the results or the factors, nor does it serve as the means of improving the current situation. To put it differently, the specified system is rather rigid and offers only a limited set of tools for a detailed analysis. While certain suggestions can be made based on the outcomes of the assessment, the framework itself provides a restricted number of options.
Nevertheless, the effect of applying CAED as a tool for planning is obvious. Helping identify the outcomes with an impressive amount of precision, it will serve its purpose rather well in the airport setting. CAED will help pinpoint the dents in the security system and find solutions to the problems identified.
Conclusion
Although the adoption of CAED is primarily dictated by the need to develop an elaborate plan, the tool can – and, in fact, should – be used as a method of problem-solving since it allows identifying the existing options and the following outcomes in a rather accurate manner. The diagram, therefore, creates the premises for a careful and elaborate decision-making process. As a result, the most beneficial strategy can be identified.
Reference List
Haviland, P. (2004). Analytical problem-solving. Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, 58, 273-281.
Pyzdek, T., & Keller, P. (2014). The Six Sigma handbook (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.