Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • About Us
    • Colophon
    • Survey
  • Reliability.fm
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • NoMTBF
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • ASQR&R
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Maintenance Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • RCM Blitz®
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Field Reliability Data Analysis
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability by Design
      • Reliability Competence
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
      • Reliability Knowledge
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Institute of Quality & Reliability
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Statistical Methods for Failure-Time Data
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Glossary
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinar Sources
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • Your Courses
    • Live Courses
      • Introduction to Reliability Engineering & Accelerated Testings Course Landing Page
      • Advanced Accelerated Testing Course Landing Page
    • Integral Concepts Courses
      • Reliability Analysis Methods Course Landing Page
      • Applied Reliability Analysis Course Landing Page
      • Statistics, Hypothesis Testing, & Regression Modeling Course Landing Page
      • Measurement System Assessment Course Landing Page
      • SPC & Process Capability Course Landing Page
      • Design of Experiments Course Landing Page
    • The Manufacturing Academy Courses
      • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Statistics
      • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
      • Quality Engineering Statistics
      • FMEA in Practice
      • Process Capability Analysis course
      • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
      • Return on Investment online course
    • Industrial Metallurgist Courses
    • FMEA courses Powered by The Luminous Group
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • How to be an Online Student
    • Quondam Courses
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
  • Barringer Process Reliability Introduction Course Landing Page
  • Upcoming Live Events
You are here: Home / Articles / Qualitative Assessments: 3 Bad Examples That Will Improve Your Effectiveness

by JD Solomon Leave a Comment

Qualitative Assessments: 3 Bad Examples That Will Improve Your Effectiveness

Qualitative Assessments: 3 Bad Examples That Will Improve Your Effectiveness

Opinion-based data is the foundation of qualitative assessments. Qualitative assessments are used in various applications, including asset management, risk management, human reliability analysis, and customer surveys. The usefulness of any qualitative assessment is a function of design, analysis, and administration. This article provides three examples of poor qualitative analysis to avoid and, in turn, improve the effectiveness of your work.

Qualitative Assessment Scales

Likert scales are five-point ordinal scales where participants select a label (or numerical value) that equates to an opinion or attitude. Labels are paired (i.e., agree-disagree, strongly agree-strongly disagree) symmetrically around a neutral center. Today, we see 5-, 7-, and 9-point versions of Likert scales in everything from customer surveys to risk assessments.

Example 1

The first example comes from an evaluation conducted by a professional engineering association, which suspected it was not positioned correctly in the eyes of regulators, the public, and elected officials. Survey questions were developed and analyzed by a public relations firm and reviewed by licensed engineers.   However, the data were treated as continuous and the mean (average), extended to two decimal places, was used to reach sweeping conclusions. 

By way of example, a question was asked to most members of the state assembly (elected officials) concerning the opinion of numerous professions on a 5-point Likert scale. The analysis yielded the following results: physicians (4.47); educators (4.33), research scientists (4.28), engineers (4.24), accountants (4.22); architects (4.21), home builders (4.05); contractors (3.91), and attorneys (3.60).

Example 1 Analysis

The conclusion was the higher score indicated a more favorable impression. Therefore, engineers were better regarded than certain professions when analyzing averages reported to two decimals.

However, after examining the data using the median rounded to the whole number, all professions except attorneys received a favorable score of four. Remember, no one provided an answer to a decimal place.  

Example 1 Design

When reviewing the individual responses, the validity of the line of the questions is also of concern – none of the politicians seemed to dislike any profession, as indicated by few individual scores of 1 or 2. The politicians also seemed to have had a favorable impression of all professions since each profession clustered around 4, or favorable.

The assessment design did not reflect that most politicians are not inclined to degrade any particular profession. To understand how politicians actually feel about a particular profession, different and more layered questions would need to be incorporated into the assessment design.

Example 1 Consequence

A series of action items to improve the scores was errantly developed to improve the profession’s standing. Once again, the survey design was poor and heavily relied on analysis to two decimal places. The leaders of the organization blindly followed the flawed recommendations. The result was over $80,000 of expended resources on a public relations campaign to address problems that did not exist.

Example 2

An international technical services company began conducting a 5-point Likert scale for customer service. The results in all categories were impressive, with customers indicating that they were “satisfied,” or 4. 

Example 2 Initial Analysis

The company’s analysis used the mean (average) rounded to two decimal places. An erroneous conclusion was drawn about the top three areas of needed improvement compared to other areas. In reality, rounded to the whole number (or even to one decimal place), there was no significant difference in the top 8 areas of potential improvement. Resources were wasted in the name of continual improvement.

Example 2 Subsequent Analysis

Subsequent surveys were compared to the original survey. Trend analysis was performed to two decimal places rather than properly considering the ordinal data clustered around “4”. 

Example 2 Consequences

Conclusions of progress and backsliding were drawn over several years, which the data when properly analyzed did not support. More corporate resources were expended to address areas of perceived risk and needed improvement that did not exist. Only one person questioned the assessment tool’s design, analysis, or administration.

Example 3

A regulatory-mandated management performance survey of a public utility was conducted every five years. The management consulting firm that conducted the survey measured the current and desired states of management practices using a 5-point Likert scale using the mean rounded to 3 decimal places.

Example 3 Analysis 

Ten categories were identified as needing improvement for nineteen performance categories related to operations and maintenance practices. After two years of expending resources for improvement and seeing limited results, a third party was retained for a second opinion.

Example 3 Consequences

The third-party review indicated the following.

  1. The categories of the assessment were consistent with industry practice.
  2. The assessment design was appropriately done.
  3. The assessment administration was appropriately done.
  4. The assessment analysis was poorly done.

When analyzed using clustering techniques and rounding results to the whole number, the areas of needed improvement dropped from ten to seven. The seven areas of improvement were consistent with opinion and evidence, both before and after the initial assessment. The three other areas were de-emphasized to allow resources to be shifted to the seven areas that needed better performance.

Applying It with FINESSE

Qualitative assessments are cost-effective and highly flexible tools. However, using Likert-type questionnaires as a principal evaluation test must be accompanied by the appropriate analysis. Keeping it simple and consistent with good practices for ordinal data is the best approach for facilitators and most technically trained professionals.


Founded by JD Solomon, Communicating with FINESSE is a not-for-profit community of technical professionals dedicated to being highly effective communicators and facilitators. Learn more about our publications, webinars, and workshops. Join the community for free.

This article also appears on www.substack.com.

Filed Under: Articles, Communicating with FINESSE, on Systems Thinking

About JD Solomon

JD Solomon, PE, CRE, CMRP provides facilitation, business case evaluation, root cause analysis, and risk management. His roles as a senior leader in two Fortune 500 companies, as a town manager, and as chairman of a state regulatory board provide him with a first-hand perspective of how senior decision-makers think. His technical expertise in systems engineering and risk & uncertainty analysis using Monte Carlo simulation provides him practical perspectives on the strengths and limitations of advanced technical approaches.  In practice, JD works with front-line staff and executive leaders to create workable solutions for facilities, infrastructure, and business processes.

« Getting Started
Value Of Life »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headshot of JD SolomonArticles by JD Solomon
in the Communicating with FINESSE article series

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Posts

  • Gremlins today
  • The Power of Vision in Leadership and Organizational Success
  • 3 Types of MTBF Stories
  • ALT: An in Depth Description
  • Project Email Economics

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy