Talk:MECE principle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is this? Needs work or deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.28.249 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 1 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a stub in serious need of expansion and linking. For instance this is a core method of McKinsey & Company and is described in The McKinsey Way. Of course, the fact it is of documented use in business and sciences does not mean it is safe from the deletionists in here. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.72.197 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a 'core method' of McKinsey. It is an logical grouping principle, which is used in a lot of analysis work. I'm not sure this even originates from McKinsey, but we'd need a reference to validate that. I do think this is a valid entry in wikipedia because it is a often applied grouping / ordering principle. 217.166.53.82 (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Some potential references for your consideration

  • An analysis of MECE by Tim Van Gelder of the University of Melbourne
  • The McKinsey Way book where the method and its application at McKinsey is described in detail
  • Barbara Minto's book 'The Pyramid Principle' covering the subject

Also here is an early academic article on the topics. Not sure of it is the first though. On Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive Properties of Demand Functions Malachy Carey Economica New Series, Vol. 48, No. 192 (Nov., 1981), pp. 407-415 (article consists of 9 pages) Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science and The Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2553697 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigwbrown (talk • contribs) 18:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Van Gelder's article, I think it

  1. is funny
  2. makes valid points but
  3. unfairly undermines the power of MECE thinking as a tool.

The argument Van Gelder makes, that MECE is not collectively exhaustive

  1. is irrelevant to the function of MECE
  2. encourages the layman to resist using it
  3. has little practical value as it could be leveled to some degree at any thinking tool except Unambiguous and Complete Instructions to Using Your Brain, which doesn't exist.

I hope this justifies removing the reference or adding clarification. 60.52.66.151 (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McKinsey[edit]

I added some references to the McKinsey Way series but these were deleted. Please add your thoughts here. Please don't only put them in the edit comments and my talk page as you did here . The reason is I'm going to ask for a WP:3O so I need to point the third opinion editor to this section. Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declining WP:3O request as premature. For my opinion to be the third opinion, that would mean that there has to be two people discussing the topic already. Please try to work out this issue with the other editor; if a good faith effort to resolve the issue doesn't work, then start searching out dispute resolution forums like WP:3O. —SW— express 15:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


OK Will do. Woz2 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your contribution here because it was only a list of books without any information about the topic. This is an article about MECE, not about books. As I recommended on your talk page, please add content about MECE from the books and use them as sources. Thanks. Jojalozzo 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also replaced content that was removed without an edit comment. Jojalozzo 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article to Pyramid Principle[edit]

As the article states, MECE is just a concept within the broader idea of Minto’s Pyramid Principle. With that in mind, I propose renaming the article to ‘Pyramid Principle’.

Can anyone propose a good idea NOT to do this? ollee (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

cottywong|—SW—]] express 15:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC) OK Will do. Woz2 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I removed your contribution here because it was only a list of books without any information about the topic. This is an article about MECE, not about books. As I recommended on your talk page, please add content about MECE from the books and use them as sources. Thanks. Jojalozzo 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I also replaced content that was removed without an edit comment. Jojalozzo 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[edit]

I added some references to the McKinsey Way series but these were deleted. Please add your thoughts here. Please don't only put them in the edit comments and my talk page as you did here . The reason is I'm going to ask for a WP:3O so I need to point the third opinion editor to this section. Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declining WP:3O request as premature. For my opinion to be the third opinion, that would mean that there has to be two people discussing the topic already. Please try to work out this issue with the other editor; if a good faith effort to resolve the issue doesn't work, then start searching out dispute resolution forums like WP:3O. —SW— express 15:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


OK Will do. Woz2 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your contribution here because it was only a list of books without any information about the topic. This is an article about MECE, not about books. As I recommended on your talk page, please add content about MECE from the books and use them as sources. Thanks. Jojalozzo 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also replaced content that was removed without an edit comment. Jojalozzo 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC) 39.56.136.99 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MECE_principle&oldid=1217934402"