Talk:Kepner-Tregoe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Neutrality?
The whole article smells of a sales pitch! In fact the first part is almost identical to the blurb of one of their books. Don't get me wrong, I think their methods are fine, but this is perhaps not a properly encyclopaedic article. Matt Whyndham 14:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
"Not dependent on a specific culture, technology, education level, or other factor, KT processes are flexible tools that provide enduring value in today’s rapidly changing world."
This is meaningless corporate-speak in the context of an encylopedic article. No doubt the whole article war either written by Kepner Tregoe sales department or copied straight over from thier website. The problem is that noone is likely to know or care enough about this company to write a neutral summary. - Agent032125 09 May 2007
I added a POV tag to this article, I strongly agree with the above two posters. However as Agent032125 points out, this company is probably too insignificant for anyone to ever update the article properly. I think it's still worth having the tag there as a warning, though.
I also added a disputed tag to the history section. It contains many weasal words such as "at the forefront", "thousands of organizations", "millions of people". Even with the little information they do provide needs citations (presumably "thousands" means at least two thousand, etc). 'The first to introduce the "train-the-trainer" concept' is another dubious part of this section. Were they the first people to think of education studies? That idea has been about for a little longer than 50 years...
Section 2 is particularly disappointing in its lack of content. Everything except the table in overview is just fluff. It wasn't until I saw the version from 21:55, 16 October 2006 that I realised that Kepner-Tregoe could actually be a kind of technique and not just marketing hype for a management consultancy. Unfortunately that page requires a lot of work to be brought up to a reasonable standard (which I'm not prepare to invest). It would probably make a better starting point for an article than the current text though, since it does appear to contain some concrete information. Quietbritishjim 16:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is dreadful: pretentious marketing. Every consulting company has some sort of similar methodology yet this basic one here is being presented as if it were profound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.87.108.130 (talk) 18:15, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
I hope this article is now seen as more neutral.Fadge2007 (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Big Reversion
Anyone object to just reverting to the version from 21:55, 16 October 2006 then? It's only a stub, but at least it's not just marketing bull. The current article has zero useful content as far as I am concerned, expect perhaps the first half of the first sentence. Note: this would change the meaning of the article from the Kepner-Tregoe company to the Kepner-Tregoe technique Quietbritishjim 13:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I was bold and reverted the page like I suggested. Here are some reasons why the article immediately before my reversion had to go:
- The article was about the company, when the technique seems to be far more notable. If the company deserves an article at all (and I don't think it does), then that should be a separate page under Kepner-Tregoe (company) or similar.
- The edit that changed this from technique->company removed a lot of useful information for no good reason.
- And that edit didn't actually add any (useful) information.
- The company-based article contained a lot of non-free copywrited material from the company's website.
- The company-based article contained many many unsourced and some blatently factually inaccurate statements (see me above comment in the Neutrality section).
- The article presented the company in highly positively light, violating Wikipedia's no point of view policy.
Just google for non-wikipedia articles about this subject - there is some good information out there, so the previous wikipedia article was a real embarrassment. I'm not sure why that fateful edit on 31 October 2006 wasn't treated as vandalism; if someone puts that marketing rubbish back I'll treat it as such unless all my points above are addressed.
That being said, while the current page is better than nothing (and all credit to Keilinw for copying it there from German wikipedia), it really needs a lot of work. However I don't care enough about this topic to do it myself (I only care about Wikipedia not being abused by men in grey), so I've left it in its current state with a cleanup-rewrite tag.
Quietbritishjim 14:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] But now the article is just plain wrong
Quietbritishjim, I can see why you'd want to defend the nature of wikipedia, and I 100% agree that if there is to be entries for Kepner Tregoe, there should be a company entry and a technique entry. Right now, with only one entry I can also slightly see why this copy from the German Wikipedia appears at first glance to be 'better' - it looks like it's got more quality than the marketing materials that were here. The trouble is that the current text is just plain wrong: factually incorrect on pretty much every line, it would be quicker to cite the accurate content...
No, actually, looking at it, there is actually no factual information on any of the lines in the current form. It does not in any way reflect accurately any of the techniques that Kepner Tregoe present.
So something should be done to accurately reflect Kepner Tregoe's processes, or can we completely delete the entry? The only reason that employees got involved with Wikipedia is because Wikipedia suddenly was and now continues to misrepresent Kepner Tregoe's core processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.31.3 (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how true that is, since on the face of it the current text appears to agree with other websites that talk about the technique rather than the company e.g. http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_kepner-tregoe_matrix.html and others (just from a quick google). I suspect that the technique that Kepner-Tregoe originally developed is different from the one that has evolved from it in the company, hence the confusion. However if that's not true feel free to be bold as I was and correct the article - so long as the text is unbiased, accurate and not copyrighted (even with the permission of the copywrite holder that would be illegal unless licensed under GFDL). As I mentioned earlier I certainly don't care enough about this technique to actually write an article myself, and judging by the lack of activity it appears no-one else outside the company does either. If you would rather the article deleted please browse through the wikipedia policy pages for how to instigate that yourself. Quietbritishjim (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I didn't see the article that was labelled as marketing guff but having undertaken a number of Kepner-Tregoe courses from both a user and facilitation perspective and the current article in no way depicts what Kepner-Tregoe is about - neither the company nor the technique. I will happily attempt to provide a more accurate representation on the topic. Fadge2007 (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] More Detail Required
I have updated the topic to what I believe, in brief, are the key concepts associated with the Kepner-Tregoe topic. I deliberately kept the company section short as there are no doubt more knowledgeable people that me who are in a position to update it (as long as it doesn't turn into a marketing blurb).
I have also kept the main content brief, restricting it to the key definitions with examples so as not to unwittingly share the company's intellectual property in this forum. I have informed my key contact within the Australian arm of the company as to this update, and will leave it up to him as to whether or not he wishes to share any further (detailled) information on this site.
Can all the above discussion points now be removed? (Neutrality, Big Reversion, and But now this article is just plain wrong)
Fadge2007 (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Fadge2007, in my opinion you have represented Kepner Tregoe well in your article. The thing I do not know how to do is remove the entry which is found whe searching on 'kepner tregoe' which points to the page Kepner-tregoe (lower case 't'). If that page is removed, and the page called Kepner-Tregoe remains, then this is an accurate representation, and I'll get citations for the points that you have created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.232.250 (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy Deletion Contested
I think that there is a matter of style that we need to get right. When I look at the entry for Accenture I can see that many of the things that are written about KT are also in the Accenture entry, but worded in a different way.
I think I am beginning to understand how to write for wikipedia and will take a short time to get the history of KT, the incorporation location and date, and so on plus the verifiable sources in order to represent the company in an encyclopaedic style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.74.186 (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
