What is a GUT matrix
A GUT matrix is a prioritization tool that scores each problem for Gravity (severity), Urgency and Tendency (growth) from 1 to 5 and multiplies the three. The product, from 1 to 125, builds the ranking: the highest score gets tackled first.
It is usually credited to Charles Kepner and Benjamin Tregoe and works when there are more problems than people and time to solve them. On the shop floor it is the fastest way to turn a list of complaints into an order of attack the team can defend.
GUT matrix visual map
The map shows the scoring scale, the G × U × T formula and the ranking of the worked example in this article.
Formula and scoring scale
GUT score = Gravity × Urgency × Tendency
- Gravity (G): how big the damage is if nothing is done (safety, quality, cost, customer).
- Urgency (U): how much time is left before the damage happens.
- Tendency (T): what happens if the problem is left alone: does it stay stable or get worse?
| Score | Gravity | Urgency | Tendency |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | No gravity | Can wait | Will not get worse |
| 2 | Slightly serious | Low urgency | Gets worse in the long term |
| 3 | Serious | As soon as possible | Gets worse in the medium term |
| 4 | Very serious | Urgent | Gets worse shortly |
| 5 | Extremely serious | Immediate action | Gets worse quickly |
Because the calculation is a product, a 1 in any dimension drags the score down. A problem can be severe (G = 5), but if urgency and tendency are 1 it scores 5 and goes to the end of the queue.
Worked example: plastic packaging plant
Fictional example. The team at a packaging plant listed six problems and, in a meeting with production, quality and maintenance, agreed on these scores:
| Rank | Problem | G | U | T | G × U × T |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Customer complaint about damaged packaging | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 × 4 × 5 = 100 |
| 2 | Unplanned stops on injection machine 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 × 4 × 4 = 80 |
| 3 | Late raw-material deliveries | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 × 3 × 5 = 60 |
| 4 | Scrap at finishing | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 × 4 × 3 = 48 |
| 5 | Tools out of place during mold changeover | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 × 3 × 3 = 18 |
| 6 | Poor lighting in the shipping area | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 × 2 × 2 = 8 |
The scores add up to 100 + 80 + 60 + 48 + 18 + 8 = 314. The top three total 240, or 76% of the sum. That is where the team focuses its action plan.
| Rank | Problem | Points | Cumulative % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Customer complaint about damaged packaging | 100 | 32% |
| 2 | Unplanned stops on injection machine 3 | 80 | 57% |
| 3 | Late raw-material deliveries | 60 | 76% |
| 4 | Scrap at finishing | 48 | 92% |
| 5 | Tools out of place during mold changeover | 18 | 97% |
| 6 | Poor lighting in the shipping area | 8 | 100% |
Note that the customer complaint (5 × 4 × 5) ranks above the injection machine stops (5 × 4 × 4) only because of tendency: an unhappy customer gets worse quickly, while the machine problem develops more slowly.
How to build the matrix in 5 steps
- List the problems as concrete statements, without a solution built in. Use the gemba, the metrics and customer complaints; see the area's visual management boards.
- Define the scale and write down what each score from 1 to 5 means before scoring, so everyone uses the same ruler.
- Score as a group, with people who know the process. Everyone proposes a score and differences are discussed, not averaged blindly.
- Multiply and sort from the highest product to the lowest.
- Turn the top into action: for the first items, build a 5W2H action plan or an A3 report, and revisit the matrix when the situation changes.
GUT, Pareto and FMEA: when to use each
The Pareto chart ranks by measured data (defect counts, downtime minutes, cost). GUT ranks by team judgment and fits when reliable data does not exist yet, when problems are of different natures (safety, delivery, quality) or when a quick decision is needed. The best approach is to combine them: Pareto where there is data, GUT to compare items that do not fit on the same chart. For process or product risks scored on severity, occurrence and detection, the right tool is FMEA. For the other basic tools, see the 7 quality tools.
Common mistakes and limitations
- Scores from one person only. The manager scores alone and the matrix becomes a justification for a decision already made.
- Undefined scale. Without written criteria, "4" means something different to everyone.
- Problems at different levels, such as "lack of training" next to "machine 3 stoppage". List facts at the same level.
- Ties. When two items have the same score, break the tie with gravity or the cost of waiting.
- Treating the number as exact. GUT is qualitative: the gap between 60 and 64 is not meaningful.
- Never updating it. Urgency and tendency change; redo the matrix each cycle.
Frequently asked questions
What does GUT stand for?
Gravity, Urgency and Tendency: the three dimensions used to score each problem.
How do you calculate a GUT matrix?
Give G, U and T a score from 1 to 5 and multiply them. The result runs from 1 to 125; the higher, the higher the priority.
What is the difference between gravity, urgency and tendency?
Gravity is the size of the damage, urgency is the time before it happens, and tendency is how the problem evolves if nothing is done.
Does the GUT matrix replace Pareto analysis?
No. Pareto uses measured data; GUT uses team judgment. They complement each other.
How many problems fit in a GUT matrix?
Usually 5 to 15. Beyond that, group similar problems or split by area before scoring.
Who should do the scoring?
A small group that knows the problem first-hand: operations, quality, maintenance and the area leader.
Sources
- KEPNER, C. H.; TREGOE, B. B. The Rational Manager. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
- SLACK, N.; BRANDON-JONES, A.; JOHNSTON, R. Operations Management. Pearson.
- TAGUE, N. R. The Quality Toolbox. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press.
Want the tools ready to use?
Download the free "Problem Solving Kit" e-book, with PDCA, A3, 5 Whys and Ishikawa.
Download the e-book
About the author
Lean Manufacturing & Behavioral Management Specialist
Over 20 years in the automotive and metalworking industries (GM and Dana), Lean Manufacturing practitioner since 2006. SENAI instructor and mentor in Brazil’s Brasil Mais Produtivo program, delivering consulting, training and audits for 50+ companies, combining quality, productivity and people development.
