LECTURES／Foundational Thinking／№12

│ Supplementary course

Analytical Skill

A toolbox of analysis for decision-making

Based on Masatake Ushiro's "The Technique of Analysis for Decision-Making." Use the five frames — 80/20, sensitivity analysis, MECE comparison, gap analysis, and process-leak analysis — across Ph.1 / Ph.3 / Ph.4.

─ ARTICLE COVER

Foundational Thinking ／ Supplementary course

§I ─ POSITION

Where this course fits

A supplementary course of the DX-project curriculum (a cross-cutting toolbox). A set of frames that activate in every setting of data analysis, issue decomposition, and TO-BE evaluation.

§II ─ TAKEAWAYS

What you will learn

Use the five analysis frames appropriately to decide from both quantitative and qualitative sides

Judge the activation trigger (which frame to use in which setting)

Escape the state of "feeling like you've analyzed" and produce implications too

§III ─ EXCERPT

Excerpt from the course

¶ 01

Quick reference of activation triggers

Memorize the triggers — "when you hear this, use this frame" — and you can activate them on the spot in a discussion.

When you hear this	Frame to activate
"Too many SKUs to keep up with"	The 80/20 rule
"Multiple moves to make and torn on priority"	Sensitivity analysis
"Want to evaluate multiple options from many angles"	MECE comparison
"Don't understand the reason for the gap from the industry average"	Gap analysis
"Can't see the cause from the result"	Process / leak analysis

¶ 02

Card A: The 80/20 rule

The basis for narrowing the target of concentrated investment and tidying up the lower tier. INPUT: a list of targets and a metric. OUTPUT: a three-rank split of top 20% / middle / bottom, plus a share table. Pitfall: cutting on one axis (amount only) makes you overlook strategic items. Don't instantly decide to "scrap the whole lower tier" (evaluate the impact after scrapping separately).

¶ 03

Card B: Sensitivity analysis

Evaluate multiple moves side by side and decide priority. INPUT: candidate moves (3–5) with their improvement target, improvement range, and difficulty. OUTPUT: a summary table of improvement range × impact × difficulty. Score it as "impact ÷ difficulty." Pitfall: looking only at impact and ignoring difficulty / writing the improvement range as a wished-for value.

¶ 04

Card C: MECE comparison

Evaluate multiple options without omission. INPUT: a list of comparison targets. OUTPUT: a MECE-lens × target matrix. Derive the lenses by asking "what do we look at to decide?" three times. Pitfall: skewed lenses (choosing on price and lead time only) / starting to build the table while skipping MECE verification.

¶ 05

Card D: Gap analysis

Structure the difference between ideal and current. Decompose the gap from the industry average, competitors, or your own targets into elements to pinpoint the cause. Example: gross margin is 5pt below the industry average → decompose into the difference in raw-material ratio / the difference in SG&A ratio / the difference in price pass-through rate.

¶ 06

Card E: Process / leak analysis

When you can't see the cause from the result, look at the yield per step. Example: measure counts at each step of order → shipment → revenue recognition to pinpoint where the leak is. Note both the "leak rate" and the "reason for the leak" for each step.

¶ 07

Where gap analysis shines: cutting away "unfillable gaps"

Gap analysis comes into its own when you MECE-decompose the gap from the industry average or a leading company by factor and decide "where to concentrate your moves." In the classic ¥45-billion gap decomposition from Masatake Ushiro's "The Technique of Analysis," the profit gap between one's own company (Company A) and a leading company (Company B) was split into five factors.

Factor	Contribution	Move
Difference in revenue (scale)	¥15B	✗ Can't be changed in the short term
Overhead ratio (organization)	¥8B	○
Difference in selling price (pricing)	¥12B	○
Difference in manufacturing cost (process)	¥6B	○
Difference in admin cost (indirect)	¥4B	○

¶ 08

The strength of being able to decide "scale can't be filled"

The value of the decomposition above lies in being able to decide: "the scale gap can't be filled, but the other four factors (worth ¥30B) have moves." Act on a measure seeing only "there's a gap from the industry average" without gap analysis, and you'll spend time on hard-to-realize moves like "scaling up." It's MECE decomposition that makes the decision to cut things away possible.

¶ 09

The biggest trap in supplier comparison

When designing lenses in a MECE comparison, the most common failure is lining things up on "price and lead time only." Price fluctuates, but quality can't be brought back. For a supplier comparison, the starting point is to MECE-design on five lenses: price / quality / lead-time stability / BCP / substitutability. "Deciding on price alone and having one supplier collapse" is a judgment error at the requirements-definition level.

¶ 10

A classic of process analysis: the pigeons of Hibiya Park

Looking at "why did the pigeons increase?" from the result alone tells you nothing. But trace the steps in sequence — egg-laying → hatching → chick survival → adulthood → reaching breeding age — and look at the rate at each stage, and you can pinpoint which stage's rate rose. It's the same in operations. Measure the counts (and dwell times) at each step of order → confirmation → allocation → shipment → acceptance → billing → payment, and "where it's leaking / where it's clogged" becomes visible.

─── Continue in the download edition ───

§∞ ─ DOWNLOAD

Get the full materials, exercises and answers
in the download edition.

─ EXERCISE

Exercises Q1–Q5 plus a 90-minute practical test (Marumi Baking). With a 4×4 rubric, you can grade whether your analysis "produces implications." Each card × hands-on exercise is built using the Azika Foods case, so you can apply it to your own work the day after the training.

Lecture slides

Every slide of the course

Cheat sheet

Quick reference for the field

Exercises

With answers and grading

Advanced / test

Hands-on plus rubric

INCLUDED PDFS ─ 7files

Open this course on the learning sitelecture.iplot.jp →Discuss in-house training→ CONTACT

§IV ─ RELATED

Related courses

│ Supplementary course

Bird's-Eye Thinking

A "thinking method that exhausts the combinations of conditions," usable in every setting — operational design, system design, decision-making. Internalize the template with three worked examples (operations / CRUD / status transitions).

READ⟶

│ Supplementary course

Ideation Skill

Based on Kenichi Ohmae's "Ideation Power: 15 Ways to Create 0 to 1." Use the six ideation methods — SDF, idle economy, time-axis shifting, RTOCS, lateral expansion, and fixed-cost contribution — when you're stuck on TO-BE workflow design.

READ⟶

│ Supplementary course

Hypothesis Thinking

Master the thinking skill of setting a "tentative answer" before over-gathering information and evolving it through verification. A foundational skill that activates in every setting from Ph.0 to Ph.7.

READ⟶

← BACK TO LECTURES INDEX

Analytical Skill

Where this course fits

What you will learn

Excerpt from the course

Quick reference of activation triggers

Card A: The 80/20 rule

Card B: Sensitivity analysis

Card C: MECE comparison

Card D: Gap analysis

Card E: Process / leak analysis

Where gap analysis shines: cutting away "unfillable gaps"

The strength of being able to decide "scale can't be filled"

The biggest trap in supplier comparison

A classic of process analysis: the pigeons of Hibiya Park

Get the full materials, exercises and answersin the download edition.

Related courses

Bird's-Eye Thinking

Ideation Skill

Hypothesis Thinking

Get the full materials, exercises and answers
in the download edition.