Root Cause Analysis

 Root Cause Analysis is the method by which you look for reasons as to why you have the problem in the first place.

Root cause Analysis runs through many methods from the simplest “Five Whys” to the “Ishikawa Fishbone” to the “Root Cause Analysis” method above.

The Five Whys is a technique where you are “why” five times. The rationale being that as you keep asking “why something happens” you gradually get to the point where you’ve found the root cause of the problem. Of course, you might get there in less than five or it might take more - please don’t stop just because you done the five prescribed!

The 5 Whys is included in Promax as part of the 5W’s + H method which has been covered in a separate blog. The difficulty with this method is that, in most practical examples, the cause and effects are much more complex than a simple linear flow. There may be lots of possible causes and these are awkward to capture without creating multiple 5 Why’s with links between them.

Another extremely common technique for root cause analysis is the Fishbone Diagram – named because the original style looked rather like a fishbone. Essential it is a branched diagram with headings for each branch under which you place the possible causes. Common headings are to use 6 M’s which stand for Management, Man, Machine, Measurement, Material, Method. I think that this method has many flaws and creates more problems than it solves because rather than asking as you do in the 5 Whys, “why something is happening”, teams just place potential faults under each heading – there isn’t a logical rationale. This means you end up with a very long list of “Issues” which may or may not be actual causes of the problem. You then need to sift through the myriad of issues to find the most pertinent ones, which is time-consuming and not at all systematic. We haven’t included a Fishbone Diagram in Promax for that reason. By all means categorise your causes after identifying them to make managing their resolution easier, but not before.

Probably the best technique for more complex problems is to use a diagramming technique. This gives the ability to create multiple routes for causes and is therefore more applicable to real-world problems.

The diagramming technique is widely used in accident scenarios where trained investigators analyse everything they can. To do this properly is not a trivial exercise and a proper analysis will take weeks if not months. They are highly trained individuals and will go to the nth degree on everything.

It is unlikely that you will have the luxury of taking many weeks to carry out a root cause analysis but it is obviously worth spending some quality time on it. After all the result of the exercise will point you in the direction of how to solve your problem!

Promax has a “root-cause” diagramming tool where you can list your causes and draw links between them. We have introduced two types of lines: a solid line indicates you have “Proof” that it is causing the problem and a dotted line indicates that it is an “Opinion” that it is the cause of the problem.

Obviously it’s up to you to decide upon the burden of proof but I would hazard a guess that just sitting in a room drawing up the diagram without any reference to some evidence will not provide for a very good analysis. This is particularly the case when dealing with managerial change issues where ideology and prejudice skew the analysis considerably. So it’s worth developing the diagram using dotted lines (opinion) and then spend some time trying to get some evidence for those opinions (where the lines can be turned to solid). If you can’t find any evidence they obviously stay dotted. If you have a diagram full of dotted lines then you’re unlikely to have a good basis for trying to solve the problem. You’ll just end up randomly trying some resolutions with no realistic idea whether they will work.

The process is as follows:

Step 1: Identify the problem
Step 2: Identify the main causes of the problem
Step 3: Identify causes of the causes
Step 4: Draw the Root Cause Analysis diagram
Step 5: Determine how the causes occur.
Step 6: Identify ideas that can resolve the problems 

Just what is Ideality?

Ideality = Benefits / (Costs + Harms)

Ideality is a concept from Triz that suggests that the “Ideal” solution is one that has everything you need but is virtually free and has zero harms. Taken at its extreme, the ideal solution is a system that carries out the required function but doesn’t actually exist. This isn’t as far fetched as it might appear since there are many systems that work very well yet are extremely cheap and generate few harms: lines painted on floors or roads to demarcate where you should or shouldn’t be; angled entries into public toilets (restrooms) rather than install doors or pencils for writing in spacecraft rather than sophisticated pens. These are all examples where the function – what it is supposed to do – is the overriding factor in the design of the system.

What this means in practice is that you need to thoroughly understand what function you need before attempting to devise a solution. Hence the emphasis in the earlier blogs of framing and problem definition.

Promax has Ideality embedded and has a number of prompts to be used to help define ideality:

1. What is the objective? That is what function are you looking for?
2. What do you need/want? That is what benefits are you expecting?
3. What don’t you want? This is nearly always cost (the lower the better and free even better) but also other harmful factors (maybe environmental impact, safety, security, etc).

 The information you collect is then used in a number of ways going forward. First, the clarification of the objective ensures you have focus on what you’re trying to achieve with your solutions. This is used in the Idea Generation stage to make sure everyone has a clear focus of the problem.

The second element is that the benefits, costs and harms are used as the criteria against which the ideas generated can be evaluated. Ideas that give the greatest benefit for the least cost and fewest harms are, by definition, closer to ideal. We carry out the evaluation in the prioritisation stage of the Cogentus Framework and a blog on this will follow in due course.

In summary:

Ideality = Benefits / (Costs) + Harms

You’ll recognise that this equation is the same as that used in traditional evaluations. It’s the same as Value For Money – the more you get for the least cost the better and this is the context that ideas (which can be new innovations or continuous improvements) can be evaluated.

It’s worth remembering though that getting as close as possible to Ideality requires a thorough understanding of what function you are trying to achieve. Hence there’s little point in demonstrating that you have a value for money solution if you’re actually providing the wrong solution!