FEATURED BLOG

Many of us have them. The invisible “graveyard” where good intentions (AKA – corrective actions from your root cause analysis investigation) went to die.

How do they end up there? 

We all know that all the time and money spent on a root cause analysis investigation and identifying solutions is worthless if the solutions are not implemented. An investigation can usually be done within a week but solutions can take much longer to implement. They sometimes require the involvement of multiple teams or departments, regulatory agencies, engineering, planning, budgeting, and the list goes on and on. For these reasons, it can be challenging to stay on top of all the corrective actions you identified in your investigation, who’s responsible, and the status of an action item at any given time.

We can offer a few basic tips that will give you a head start in tracking action items effectively:

• Be clear about who is responsible for each corrective action. You don’t want to create the opportunity for people to be able to pass the buck with “I thought Bob was going to do it”.
• Have a mechanism in place by which the implementation of corrective actions can be tracked.
• Give ownership of a solution to an individual, not a group or department.
• Assign a due-date for each corrective action.
• Support people in their efforts to implement corrective actions.
• Make sure you follow up on each corrective action – check back with the individual responsible to make sure that progress is being made.

But even these “basics” are easier said than done.

In reality, most likely you come out of your root cause analysis investigation with a list of action items for which various people are responsible. Then everyone goes about their regular workdays and may or may not remember to follow through on any additional tasks they were assigned. Even if you have an appointed person to follow up with the action items and make sure they’re on track, it can be difficult to keep up with who has done what. Many managers rely on an Excel spreadsheet to manually track what has and hasn’t been done, due dates, and so forth. But this puts a lot of pressure on one person to keep up with everything – to manually send reminders to folks who haven’t completed their tasks and to enter the information properly when it has been done.

Even when the Excel file has been carefully kept up-to-date, it often lives locally on the manager’s hard drive, and other members of the team don’t have any visibility as to what has and hasn’t been done.

Sound familiar?

If your RCA program is starting to mature it may be time to consider an enterprise solution to help you better manage all your investigations.

Corrective action tracking inside of an enterprise RCA tool can help you maintain visibility and accountability by tracking the status of action items and assigned solutions. Team members get sent automatic reminders of incomplete or overdue action items and they can easily update the status of their assigned tasks, instantly informing everyone when a task has been completed. You can also create personalized dashboards with reports showing open, completed, or overdue corrective actions.

In addition to effective action tracking, an enterprise RCA solution can more broadly help your company implement and manage an effective overall root cause analysis program.

Here are some of the main features to look for:

Remember, in order to resurrect your RCA investigation corrective actions, start with the basics that we listed at the beginning of this article. But also keep in mind – the more mature your RCA program becomes, or the larger and more complex your organization, the larger and more complex your problems become. So when you’re ready to alleviate this pain point altogether, consider whether an enterprise RCA solution might be the next step in your program’s development.

“How long should an RCA take?”

This question is similar to how long is a piece of string?

I have heard one manager in a plant that has stipulated a maximum of two hours for an RCA to be conducted in his organisation. Another expects at least “brainstormed” solutions before the conclusion of day one – within 6 or 7 hours.  It is not uncommon for a draft report to be required within 48 hours of the RCA.

The following three tips may assist to meet tight deadlines and when time expectations are short. One advantage of the Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology is that it is a fast process but the “driver” has to be on the ball to achieve the desired outcomes – effective solutions.

Tip #1 You Define The Problem

Imagine the RCA has been triggered by an unplanned incident or event which falls into any of the safety, environment, production, quality, equipment failure or similar categories. You have been appointed as the facilitator by a superior/manager who is responding to the particular event. Your superior/manager may understand the trigger mechanism and may well nominate the problem title.

For example, “upper arm laceration”, “ammonia spill”, “production delay” and so forth could be the offering you make to the team as the starting point for the analysis. Typically, as facilitator you will have gathered some of the “facts” from first responder reports, interviews, data sheets, photographs and so on.  So a good first step is to draft a problem definition statement, including the significance reflected by the consequences or impacts. The team then has a starting point to commence the analysis, albeit the problem statement may change as more detail is provided.

Ideally, you will have already created a file in RealityCharting™ and the Problem Definition table can be projected onto a screen or even onto the clear wall where your charting will be done with the Post-It™ notes. The team members’ information ought to have been entered and can be confirmed quickly in this display. You might even show the Incident Report format and focus on the disclaimer option you have selected deliberately: Purpose: To prevent recurrence, not place blame.

This preparatory work could save at least 20 minutes of the team members’ time and enable an immediate launch into the analysis phase. 

Important: Save yourself hours of re-work and potential embarrassment by saving the file as soon as this first process is complete, if you haven’t already done so, and thereafter on a regular basis. Maintain some form of version control so that the evolution of the chart in the following day/s can be tracked if necessary.

If you are particularly well-resourced the chart development might be recorded on the software simultaneously as the hard copy is created on the wall space. A small team might choose to create the chart directly via the software and a decent projection medium.

 Tip #2 Direct The Analysis 

It is critical that your initiative in preparing the problem definition is not considered by the team members as disenfranchising them. The analysis step whereby all have an opportunity to contribute should ensure that they feel they have “ownership” of the problem.

To reinforce this, it is advisable to choose a sequence of addressing each member, typically from left to right or vice-versa depending on the seating arrangements. This establishes the requirement that one person is speaking at a time, secondly, that each and every statement will be documented and thirdly, that every person has equal opportunity. Your prompt and verbatim recording of each piece of information will provide the discipline required to minimise idle chatter which can waste time because it distracts focus. When you have a series of “pass” comments from team members because the process has exhausted their immediate knowledge of events, launch the chart creation. 

It is worthwhile reminding the team that each information item that has been recorded and posted in the parking area, may not appear in their original form on the chart or at all, in some cases. Because the information gathering is a widespread net to capture as much knowledge regarding what happened, when and why, there will be no particular focus. But because they are coming from people with experience and expertise or initimate knowledge of events and
circumstances, they have some value. The precise value will be determined by where the information sits in the cause and effect logic that starts at the problem and is connected by “caused by” relationships. 

Important: Cause text should be written in CAPITAL LETTERS. It will be easier to read/decipher for the team at the time and perhaps from photographs of the chart later. Similarly using caps in the software itself means that projection of the chart is more effective and the printing of various views is enhanced.

 Tip #3 The "How and If" of Creating a RealityChart

Many proponents tap the existing understanding of the event by capturing as many of the action causes as possible. These may arrive via a 5 WHYS process, for example, which starts at the Primary Effect.

            Plant Stopped (Problem or Primary Effect)

            Why? Feed pump not pumping

            Why? Broken Coupling

            Why? Motor Bearing Seized

            Why? Bearing race Collapsed

            Why? Fatigue

The Apollo RCA method requires use of the expression “caused by?” to connect cause and effect relationships. Understanding that there must be at least one action and one condition helps  reveal the “hidden” causes and especially the condition causes which do not come to mind initially.

To support this expression and the essential “why”, consider asking “how”. This may be  employed initially by the most impartial member of your team who has been engaged specifically because of his/her lack of association with the problem and can sincerely ask the
supposedly “dumb” questions. Invariably these questions generate more causes or a more precise arrangement of the existing causes. A “How does that happen exactly?” question can drive the team to take the requisite “baby steps”.  This also often exposes differences between “experts” and the resolution of these differences is always illuminating.

The facilitator needs to be aware of the need to softly “challenge” the team’s understanding while ensuring the application of sufficient rigour to generate the best representation of causal relationships. This can be done in a neutral manner by using the “IF” proposition.

Given that every effect requires at least two causes, you can then address the team with the proposition: “If ‘one exists’ and ‘three exists’ (two conditions) then with ‘four added’ (the action) will the effect be “eight” every time?”. Using this technique on each causal element will generate the clarity and certainty being sought to understand the causes of the problem. If every “equation” (causal element) in the chart is “real” and the causes themselves are “real”
(substantiated by evidence) then the team is well-placed to consider the types of controls it could implement to prevent recurrence of the problem.

The more causes which are revealed the more opportunities the team has to identify possible solutions.

 Summary

To speed up the RCA process,

Step 1 Facilitator gathers event information and fills out Problem Definition Statement.

Step 2 Facilitator directs the Information gathering casting a wide net and systematically requests information from participants.

Step 3 Use information gathered to build a RealityChart™ with actions based on what happened then looking for other causes such as conditions which may initially be hidden. Use how and If to help validate that causal relationships are logical.

With a completed chart the solution finding step can begin.

Creating a common reality is a part of the foundation of the Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology.  It is important that language and definitions are consistent among all parties involved. When the Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology is applied correctly everyone who participates truly understands the value of the problem, what the solutions are and how they will affect the problem.

Just as individuals apply their own unique perspective when conducting specific RCAs, companies apply their unique organizational culture when implementing an RCA process.  Establishing company standards by defining an RCA champion with clear expectations and implementation procedures in place will keep your organization on the path to RCA success.

Another way to stay at the top of your game is to learn from the experiences of industry peers.  Here we take a look at a conversation between Tom, an Engineering Team Lead and RCA champion and Jack, an expert Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology instructor. 

Tom (Engineering Team Lead): 

I have found that sometimes engineers and technicians do not have a real understanding of the meaning of “root cause.” They tend to think of it as a single poor design feature or failure like a “loose nut” or a single cause of the issue or failure. They seemed to be surprised when I recently identified ten root causes on the last job. They were confused and could not get their heads around having ten root causes. They said, “But what was the real single root cause?”

Jack (RCA Instructor):

You are so right. Many people have preconceived idea that there can only be one root cause. They are driven by this perception to that end. It is quite a limiting concept for those people. They can become quite tunneled in their thinking, offering a close-minded approach to their problems rather than an all-embracing search for knowledge and information that could lead to enlightenment. Some anecdotal information even suggests that this mind frame is taught and it quite difficult to rattle their cages and try to shift their paradigms. How do you define root cause?

Tom:

I define root cause as an opportunity for improvement. A single root cause cannot exist on its’ own, there must also be at least one condition. Here, I cannot come across as too much of a know-it-all or people roll their eyes, so I need a quick snappy go to response that is quick and brief and simple and does not come across as a nerd or a geek. That’s just where I work, as there are no formal RCA people in this division – we all share the work on investigations and most are engineering failure investigations that I do out of my own volition, and share with my team.  In your experience, what are the major setbacks you have seen with people applying the RCA process? I’d like to get better and avoid these mistakes.

Jack:  

You are doing a great job, persevere. Changing peoples’ perspectives takes time especially if you are the only one flying the flag. A major key to success is making sure you are asking enough questions and following a process that demands these questions be asked. Sometimes people take shortcuts to speed up the process…less to think about…less time…must be better! And they can still argue that they have a solution. For simple problems this may even work and they could achieve a satisfactory result, but for complex problems this approach simply doesn’t come close to being comprehensive enough. The lack of knowledge and training in this area now comes back to bite them and their problems invariably don’t go away. Without a solid RCA foundation and process in place the structures within the company they work for won’t raise any red flags that something may be incorrect or ineffective in any way….so the end product of a subpar RCA (the report) is accepted.  If management doesn’t embrace the change then reverting to old acceptable habits is just easier. The key to avoiding these major failures lies in overcoming the resistance to change.  Involving your team in the RCA process and sharing your successes with management is a great way to gain support.

Tom:

I got into the habit of now actually doing an initial draft RCA live in front of my team. I draft the RCA in a bound book which I have dedicated to this purpose and follow the cause and effect pathways like the software. I feel like this approach is more relatable with my team and I am able to get their input quickly. We are usually able to identify half a dozen possible causes in just a few minutes.  Afterwards I go to the software and expand on it. Then I formalize and save the RCA in the software which checks all my work.  

Hope you are in Sydney sometime soon, Jack. Your teaching techniques really work and I liked your style. I think in 20 years of taking training your lessons are the ones that have stuck the most with me.

If you have questions or ideas to share and would like to connect with people who have been trained in the Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology with ARMS Reliability join our Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology discussion group on LinkedIn. 

By Kevin Stewart

Many of the Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology training instructors often get asked the same question – “how long should it take to do a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) investigation?”  This is a difficult question to answer due to the variables associated with each individual RCA.   It’s a lot like asking someone, “How long will the trip take?”  How do you begin to answer that? Some questions that come to mind are – to where? Or how will you be traveling? Or what route will you take?  Or will you be stopping anywhere? And so on.

If it is so variable, how can we even talk about whether an RCA should take several days or not?  There are two general paths in the utilization of the Apollo methodology, let’s call them “long” and “short.” Since this article is about RCAs not taking several days, let’s focus on the short one. 

Most people envision the Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology as a large group of people in a conference room for several days as a necessary means to finding a valid solution.  It is true that many RCA investigations do take four to five solid, eight-hour days to determine an appropriate solution, but these should be problems that have a large significance where information may not be readily available.

I always point out to my students that not only is it possible to do an Apollo Root Cause Analysis in a short time, but I have personally done several that took less than a day.  How? 

The Apollo Root Cause Analyisis process involves a specific methodology of asking “why?” or “caused by ____?” and then identifying an appropriate answer, writing it down, and then asking “why” again.  You do this until you are stymied with no answers or reach a point where it doesn’t make sense to ask “why” anymore.  This process does not change regardless of the type or the size of the problem, or for any other reason. 

Many of you may have heard of the “Five Whys” as an RCA process.  This was designed for small problems experienced by operators on the line at Toyota facilities.  These little RCAs were done in the moment by people involved in the incident.  If you’re familiar with both the Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology and Five Whys process you may notice that they are very similar. Many times I point out to students that you can see several “Five Whys” branches inside any Apollo RCA chart. So it stands to reason that the Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology can be used in a similar fashion to the Five Whys.

Here’s an example.  I was responsible for the reliability of a production area of a plant during my career.  It was not uncommon to find me walking around looking for problems, and during one such time I discovered some people working hard to unplug a jammed conveyor.  It was plugged with a 1,000-pound solid carbon block wedged in between some posts, and there was no good access to the block with a crane or other lifting device.  When they spotted me I got an earful; apparently this had been happening on a regular basis.  The specific frequency was unknown, but the emotion of the operator told me that it was at least once per shift.  I promised to fix it for him and he calmed down, they got the unit unplugged and back on line, and he went back to his job just downstream of the jam.

Since I promised to fix this, I decided to spend some time at the unit to see if I could observe what was causing the jam.

The Apollo Root Cause Analysis process went like this:

If you start the RCA chart in your mind, you quickly get to a dead end because no one could see why the jam had happened.  The operator in the area was busy doing his job, which required constant attention—pouring molten metal into a small cavity to “glue” a copper rod to the top of an anode.   This was done while the line was moving; he poured one about every 15 seconds so he really couldn’t be looking around.  There were not a lot of other spare personnel in the area that could spend the time looking, so I decided that was my job. 

These blocks where pushed onto an automated system by a large pusher that had a paddle hanging down from a cylindrical steel piece with a bushing, since the paddle was designed to float.  It seemed pretty obvious that the pusher had something to do with it… but how?  After they started up the system, it worked like a charm just as designed, no glitches.  Intermittent problems are some of the hardest to fix because you need to be there when things go awry or gather data to identify the causes.

So there I was with one cause on my box – “Block jammed caused by ____?” I thought perhaps if I watched it I’d get lucky enough to catch the issue.  So I stood there, and stood there, and stood there for perhaps an hour. Nothing.  I didn’t want to leave quite yet but it did seem like a waste of time, so I decided to check out other items in the area.  I spent an hour or so away from the machine and then went back. Upon returning to the unit there didn’t seem to be anything obviously out of order.  However, something seemed different, though I couldn’t put my finger on it.

After spending another hour away and then coming back again, this time I noticed what appeared to be a difference: slight, but I was pretty sure it was happening.  One more hour away and then back and sure enough something was happening over a long period of time.

Now I just needed to verify my suspicions.  Believing I knew the cause, I figured I had enough time to go to lunch and do some more office work before returning to the unit to check my theory and gather evidence.  I was correct.

The cause of the issue was that the paddle was rotating counter-clockwise on the shaft ever so slightly with every push.  It was taking more than six hours for it to rotate enough to push on the corner of the block, shove it sideways off the conveyor, and cause the jam.  So my chart looked like this after about six to seven hours:

At this point I alerted everyone to the issue, and the maintenance personnel came over and safely moved the paddle back so the shift could finish.  Our facility had a swing shift crew that worked in the area after the production was done, so they were assigned the task of fixing the unit.

That evening they removed the unit, checked everything against the drawings and specifications, and found that the tolerance on the bushing was incorrect.  It was close, but the tolerance was tight enough that each push that was not exactly dead-on caused a slight twisting force, moving the paddle off course and eventually causing a jam. The team fixed the tolerance issue and put it back in place by the next shift start. 

So my chart now looked like this:

This whole process took less than eight hours to complete but was spread out over two days.  If you look at my total time involvement it was perhaps four hours. (I am not charging the process with time that I was multitasking by doing other things.)

So as you can see, an RCA investigation doesn’t always have to take days.  Of course, some will take several days and you could stretch even a simple investigation into a longer process if you wish. But if you are close to the problem, get accurate information, act quickly, and stick with the process, you can do an RCA quickly and get an effective solution.

Author: Kevin Stewart

 
This question was posed to a discussion group and it got me thinking how do you grade an investigation?

The overall success will be whether the solution actually prevents recurrence of the problem.  One definition of Root Cause Analysis is: “A structured process used to understand the causes of past events for the purpose of preventing recurrence.” So a reasonable assessment of the quality of the analysis would be to determine whether the RCA addressed the problem it set out to fix by ensuring that it never happens again (this may be a lengthy process to prove if the MTBF of the problem is 5 years, or has only happened once). 


Are there some other tangibles that can help you assess the quality of an RCA?  RCAs use some sort of process to accomplish their task. If this is the case then it would stand to reason that there will be some things you can look for in order to gauge the quality of the process followed. While this is no guarantee of a correct analysis, ensuring that due diligence was followed in the process  would lend more credibility to the solutions.


What are some of these criteria by which you can judge an analysis?

• Are the cause statements ‘binary’? By this we mean unambiguous or explicit. A few words only and precise language use without vague adjectives like “poor” since they can be very subjective.

• Are the causes void of conjunctions? If they have conjunctions there may be multiple causes in the statement. Words such as: and, if, or, but, because.

• Is there valid evidence for each cause? If causes don't have evidence they may not belong in the analysis or worse yet solutions may be tied to them and be ineffective.

• Does each cause path have a valid reason for stopping that makes sense? It is easy to stop too soon and is sometimes obvious. For example, if a cause of “no PM” has no cause for it so that the branch stops, it would seem that an analyst in most cases would want to know why there was no PM.

• Does the structure of the chart meet the process being used? If it is a principle-based process then it should be easy to check the causal elements to verify that they satisfy those principles. These might be causal logic checks or space time logic checks or others that were associated with the particular process.

• Is the chart or analysis completed? Does it have a lot of unfinished branches or questions that need to be answered or action items to complete?

• Is the chart or analysis completed? Does it have a lot of unfinished branches or questions that need to be answered or action items to complete?

• Are the solutions SMART (Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Relevant, and Timely)? Or do they include words like: investigate, review, analyze, gather, contact, observe, verify, etc.

• Do the solutions meet a set of criteria against which they can be judged?

• Do the solutions address specific causes or are they general in nature?  Even though they may be identified against specific causes if they don’t directly address those causes then it may still be a guess.

• If there is a report, is it well written, short, specific and cover just the basics that an executive would be interested in? Information such as cost, time to implement, when will it be completed, a brief causal description and solutions that will solve the identified problem are the requisites.

By Kevin Stewart

With all the preparation work (Honing your Facilitation Skills: Part 1) behind you, you’re now ready to start facilitating an Apollo Root Cause Analysis. Follow the steps below to ensure a smooth process and successful outcome.

  
Step 1. Introductions  

First, do some simple introductions and housekeeping. Cover things like:  

• Introductions all around
• The meeting guidelines: when to take breaks, phone and email policy, and so on
• The objective: we’re here to fix the problem, not appoint blame
• A review of the Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology for those who may not be familiar with it (spend 15 – 45 minutes depending on the audience)
• Your role as facilitator: you may need to ‘direct traffic’ or change the direction of discussions to help them discover more causes or to reach effective solutions

Step 2. Timeline

It’s now time to capture the ‘story’. What has happened that brought you all here? Get several people to provide a narrative, and develop a timeline of events as you go.  

This timeline will prove very useful. It should reveal the event or issue that becomes your primary effect or starting point – and ensures that all the items beyond this starting point capture the group’s issues.    

In the example below, if I start from T1 I’ll discover why I left my iPad in the bathroom.  However if I start at T7 I will also discover why my check process didn’t function as desired.

While the time that each event occurs is important, it might not always be known. In these instances, you can represent the time sequence as simply T1, T2 and so on.

Step 3. Define the problem

You’re now ready to define the problem. Often, the problem definition comes out easily and everyone agrees. However, sometimes you’ll find that the group can’t arrive at a Primary Effect. In this case, as facilitator, it’s your job to regroup and ask some questions about why everyone is interested. Often, it’s about money.

One thing you don’t want to do is get stuck trying to find the perfect starting point. I’m reminded of a saying I heard once:

Dear Optimist and Pessimist,

While you were trying to decide if the glass was half empty or half full, I drank it!

Sincerely,

The Realist

The Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology is robust enough to handle an imperfect starting point. If the problem changes or evolves as you go, just put it down as the new starting point, adjust the chart and go on!

Now that you have a defined problem, with its significance well understood, you’re now ready to start the charting process. The team should also know by now why they’re here, and how much time and money can be spent on the investigation. 

If you missed Part 1 of this article, you can read it here.

Would you like to learn more about the Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology? Our 2 Day Root Cause Analysis Facilitators course is perfect for anyone needing to understand fundamental problem solving processes and how to facilitate an effective investigation.

By Ned Callahan

“How long should an RCA take?”

This question is similar to how long is a piece of string?

I have heard one manager in a plant that has stipulated a maximum of two hours for an RCA to be conducted in his organisation. Another expects at least “brainstormed” solutions before the conclusion of day one – within 6 or 7 hours.  It is not uncommon for a draft report to be required within 48 hours of the RCA.

The following three tips may assist to meet tight deadlines and when time expectations are short. One advantage of the Apollo Root Cause Analysis method is that it is a fast process but the “driver” has to be on the ball to achieve the desired outcomes – effective solutions.

1. YOU DEFINE THE PROBLEM

Imagine the RCA has been triggered by an unplanned incident or event which falls into any of the safety, environment, production, quality, equipment failure or similar categories. You have been appointed as the facilitator by a superior/manager who is responding to the particular event. Your superior/manager may understand the trigger mechanism and may well nominate the problem title.

For example, “upper arm laceration”, “ammonia spill”, “production delay” and so forth could be the offering you make to the team as the starting point for the analysis. Typically, as facilitator you will have gathered some of the “facts” from first responder reports, interviews, data sheets, photographs and so on.  So a good first step is to draft a problem definition statement, including the significance reflected by the consequences or impacts. The team then has a starting point to commence the analysis, albeit the problem statement may change as more detail is provided.

Ideally, you will have already created a file in RealityCharting™ and the Problem Definition table can be projected onto a screen or even onto the clear wall where your charting will be done with the Post-It™ notes. The team members’ information ought to have been entered and can be confirmed quickly in this display. You might even show the Incident Report format and focus on the disclaimer option you have selected deliberately: Purpose: To prevent recurrence, not place blame.

This preparatory work could save at least 20 minutes of the team members’ time and enable an immediate launch into the analysis phase.

NB: 
Save yourself hours of re-work and potential embarrassment by saving the file as soon as this first process is complete, if you haven’t already done so, and thereafter on a regular basis. Maintain some form of version control so that the evolution of the chart in the following day/s can be tracked if necessary.

If you are particularly well-resourced the chart development might be recorded on the software simultaneously as the hard copy is created on the wall space. A small team might choose to create the chart directly via the software and a decent projection medium.

2.    DIRECT THE ANALYSIS

It is critical that your initiative in preparing the problem definition is not considered by the team members as disenfranchising them. The analysis step whereby all have an opportunity to contribute should ensure that they feel they have “ownership” of the problem.

To reinforce this, it is advisable to choose a sequence of addressing each member, typically from left to right or vice-versa depending on the seating arrangements. This establishes the requirement that one person is speaking at a time, secondly, that each and every statement will be documented and thirdly, that every person has equal opportunity. Your prompt and verbatim recording of each piece of information will provide the discipline required to minimise idle chatter which can waste time because it distracts focus. When you have a series of “pass” comments from team members because the process has exhausted their immediate knowledge of events, launch the chart creation. 

It is worthwhile reminding the team that each information item that has been recorded and posted in the parking area, may not appear in their original form on the chart or at all, in some cases. Because the information gathering is a widespread net to capture as much knowledge regarding what happened, when and why, there will be no particular focus. But because they are coming from people with experience and expertise or initimate knowledge of events and
circumstances, they have some value. The precise value will be determined by where the information sits in the cause and effect logic that starts at the problem and is connected by “caused by” relationships. 

NB. Cause text should be written in CAPITAL LETTERS. It will be easier to read/decipher for the team at the time and perhaps from photographs of the chart later. Similarly using caps in the software itself means that projection of the chart is more effective and the printing of various views is enhanced.

3.    THE “HOW AND IF”  OF  CREATING A REALITYCHART™

Many proponents tap the existing understanding of the event by capturing as many of the action causes as possible. These may arrive via a 5 WHYS process, for example, which starts at the Primary Effect.

            Plant Stopped (Problem or Primary Effect)

            Why? Feed pump not pumping

            Why? Broken Coupling

            Why? Motor Bearing Seized

            Why? Bearing race Collapsed

            Why? Fatigue

The Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology requires use of the expression “caused by?” to connect cause and effect relationships. Understanding that there must be at least one action and one condition helps  reveal the “hidden” causes and especially the condition causes which do not come to mind initially.

To support this expression and the essential “why”, consider asking “how”. This may be  employed initially by the most impartial member of your team who has been engaged specifically because of his/her lack of association with the problem and can sincerely ask the
supposedly “dumb” questions. Invariably these questions generate more causes or a more precise arrangement of the existing causes. A “How does that happen exactly?” question can drive the team to take the requisite “baby steps”.  This also often exposes differences between “experts” and the resolution of these differences is always illuminating.

The facilitator needs to be aware of the need to softly “challenge” the team’s understanding while ensuring the application of sufficient rigour to generate the best representation of causal relationships. This can be done in a neutral manner by using the “IF” proposition.

Given that every effect requires at least two causes, you can then address the team with the proposition: “If ‘one exists’ and ‘three exists’ (two conditions) then with ‘four added’ (the action) will the effect be “eight” every time?”. Using this technique on each causal element will generate the clarity and certainty being sought to understand the causes of the problem. If every “equation” (causal element) in the chart is “real” and the causes themselves are “real”
(substantiated by evidence) then the team is well-placed to consider the types of controls it could implement to prevent recurrence of the problem.

The more causes which are revealed the more opportunities the team has to identify possible solutions.

SUMMARY

To speed up the RCA process,

Step 1 Facilitator gathers event information and fills out Problem Definition Statement.

Step 2 Facilitator directs the Information gathering casting a wide net and systematically requests information from participants.

Step 3 Use information gathered to build a RealityChart™ with actions based on what happened then looking for other causes such as conditions which may initially be hidden. Use how and If to help validate that causal relationships are logical.

With a completed chart the solution finding step can begin.

RCA DISCUSSION

What are your thoughts on conducting an RCA facilitation and how much time have you spent preparing the analysis?  Do you have a successful tip worth sharing or discussing? We look forward to reading your feedback and perspective via comments below or let’s connect on our LinkedIn Group – ARMS Reliability - Apollo Root Cause Analysis for further discussion.

Our latest eBook gives you access to all our top tips for conducting better root cause analysis investigations.

We've covered root cause analysis from start to finish:

• Gathering information

• Assembling the team

• Conducting the RCA

• Implementing the solutions

• Measuring the success of the corrective actions

• Advertising your successes

• Plus, a whole section of tips for the RCA facilitator

By Jack Jager

Understanding the root cause of a problem is the purpose of many or all investigations. However, the concept of “root cause” suggests that there is only one, singular cause that is at the “root” of any problem.

The root cause concept and how it is applied often leads to this perception of a singular cause. For example, the statement “What is the root cause of the problem?”

So what is “root cause” and how is it defined? It can be difficult to find a clear and precise definition. The following  well-defined description reveals something very simplistic;  “Root Cause can be described as that cause, which if it were controlled or eliminated would make the problem go away. Therefore it may be considered a root cause”.

This is an interesting concept as it can be applied to a number of causes within a cause and effect chart, therefore, it can be said that there are many “root causes”.

Cause and Effect analysis and Reality charting indicates that a problem doesn’t occur from a single cause, but for any problem there can be many cause and effect relationships that can trigger a problem. Therefore how do we know which of these causes is the root cause?

If you were to ask this question to various people, there may be a number of different answers.  One person may think the root cause is one thing, while another would consider the root cause to be something else. Each party may in fact be right. So how can a “root cause” be assigned unless we are certain that a solution will prevent the problem from recurring?

What are the causes of a fire? For a fire to occur there must be certain conditions present. Each of these conditions are a contributing cause of the fire.

• There must be oxygen present (a conditional cause)
• Fuel to burn (a conditional cause)
• An ignition source, such as a match or lighter (also a conditional cause)

All of these causes can exist in harmony with each other and can do so for some time.

It is only when an “action” cause occurs, such as the lighting of a match that the fire will actually occur.

So what is the “root cause” here?

If we apply the definition provided above for “root cause” here, then by eliminating the oxygen, there would be no fire. Therefore “oxygen” is a root cause of the fire.

If you were to remove the combustible material, fuel, then this too will satisfy the definition requirement. The problem would not reoccur. Therefore “fuel” is also the root cause of the fire.

If you were to also remove all of the ignition sources, then there would be no possibility of a fire. This too satisfies the definition requirements. Therefore the “ignition source” is the root cause of the fire.

If no match was to be lit, then there would be no fire. Therefore “the lighting of the match” must be the root cause of the fire as well.

Based on this example, there are potentially four root causes and each of them satisfies the root cause definition. This can be quite confronting in a sense to recognise that there are many potential root causes for a problem. It is, however, liberating too because now you have many potential corrective actions rather than just one.

How often have you heard someone ask “What is the root cause of the problem?” and “you can’t control the problem until you have identified what the root cause is”.

How do we determine which causes to control? In the fire example, who will determine the control or controls to put into place? It’s unlikely that oxygen will be eliminated, as this can be a very costly and difficult process (although we do use this concept in confined spaces).

Can we control the combustible material? If we were to eliminate the fuel then would we have an effective control? This is possible in some cases but not in others.

What about the ignition sources? If there were no lighters or matches present or available, then there would be no fire. Do we have the ability to remove these?

If we could stop the persons action from occurring then we would also have controlled the possibility of a fire happening.

Based on these rationales, which of these controls should be implemented? Is this decision governed by certain criteria? And then the question about what we can control also comes into play.

So what criteria can we use to determine our choices?

• Money - it needs to be cost effective
• Safety - it needs to be safe
• Easy - if possible it should be easy to do
• Quick - being able to do it quickly has merit
• Doesn’t cause other problems – at least not unacceptable problems
• Is an ongoing fix – and is not a band-aid. The solution will fix the problem for today and tomorrow, as well as next week and next year.

and other criteria may also be considered.

The above criteria are taken into consideration when making the decision about which solutions to implement. At the end of the day, it is important to have an understanding of the problem and how many of the causes you need to control to prevent recurrence.

Did the notion or understanding of what the “root cause” is come into consideration when making the decision about which solutions to implement?  No, therefore what is the value of identifying “root cause”?

In my mind, it is the concept of “root cause” that is important. Applying this concept requires us to understand the problem as completely as possible, before we make decisions about corrective actions. If we do this, then we are in the best possible position to make good decisions about which corrective actions to implement. 

The decision of which solutions to implement is a choice. It is a choice we make according to a set of criteria. It is based on the answers you acquire when applying the criteria questions that allow you to be objective in your decision making process to find the best solution.

In Summary

In many ways the concept of “root cause”, whilst being important in the broader application, is often a misnomer when used to describe the critical cause for a unique incident. It is not the only cause. Other causes must also exist.  

At the end of the day it is your choice about which causes you wish to control. Therefore it is important to remain objective in this decision making process, via utilising a set of criteria, and applying them to all possible solutions. Let the answers to the criteria questions determine what the best solutions are, and that will determine what you consider to be the “root cause” of the problem.

By Jack Jager

If you are investigating an incident using Root Cause Analysis (RCA), what are the critical skills that you should possess as an RCA facilitator?

Here are five key skills that will help to make you a more effective facilitator.

1. Value all ideas equally

First of all, it is important to acknowledge all ideas – nothing is unimportant. Something that seems trivial now may hold a great deal of value later in the process. Discourage any negative feedback from the group. This, too, is a disincentive to proffer suggestions or ideas.

The goal of information gathering is to capture everything known about a problem, no matter where it fits into cause and effect relationships. Just by watching you write a comment on a yellow “stickie” or type into the holding area, the participants can see that you are acknowledging what they know. Later, if it fits in the cause and effect chart then it has value; if it doesn’t, then it will naturally fall off the chart.

Secondly, value each and every response, regardless of where it comes from. First and foremost, this will encourage a positive flow of information from participants. If the facilitator starts saying “No, that’s not right”, then people may think before speaking and slow the whole process down. They may even stop contributing to the discussion, censoring the information in their own minds and preventing it from being evaluated on its own merits. Similarly, if someone offers a suggestion which is ignored then participants can switch off – you have to be able to work rapidly or say, “Hold that thought while I finish writing this one”.

So remember … no put-downs allowed, from you or any other member of the group. Positive affirmation is the mode for the facilitator to get a productive session.

2. Be dynamic

As facilitator, you need to guide the direction of the group and yet still be alert for other cause paths that may crop up. You are the prime mover, controlling the focus of the group. Don’t be a bystander to the process. You are the conduit through which the group is interacting.

Ask questions that are as precise as possible. This will elicit better, more concise responses which make it easier to identify causes. Good questioning will also eliminate unnecessary discussion and storytelling from the group.

Once the information has been recorded, get the group to help you organise the information and then challenge the logic of the way that information is linked together. Your cause and effect chart needs to make sense – or it risks being challenged and disregarded by those who look at it.

Remember … being dynamic may not come easy or naturally, but it’s important to give it a go. In this mode, you should continually ask “why” questions.

3. Keep the analysis moving

Don’t let the investigation get bogged down in detail too soon. Get the first pass of the chart out and then refine it. If the first pass is a linear connection of causes, then so be it. Remember, this is the start of the cause and effect chart, not the finish.

A timeline is often a good place to start – ordering key events according to “when” they happened. Such a timeline does not address the question of “why”, but it could certainly initiate a more comprehensive search for causes.

Do not waste time at this point trying to judge or evaluate each cause. Simply ask “why” immediately after placing the cause on the chart to keep people focused and moving down a productive path.

Try not to allow individuals to dominate the analysis. Everyone is there for a purpose, and has information to contribute to the investigation. Ensure that all people have the opportunity to speak. Keep redirecting and asking for other inputs. If one group member is dominant, set some ground rules – try giving each participant a chance to say what they know in turn, working your way around the group.

Remember … adding the finer detail can happen later, but then the devil is always in the detail. The onus is therefore still on you to do this.

4. Be a good listener

Attentive listening skills are critical. You need to be able to hear more than one response at a time. Your ears should be like radar, picking up on all signals. Don’t miss a response while recording another. You need to record everything.

Being a good listener means keeping an open mind, suspending judgment, and maintaining a positive bias.

It also requires the efforts of the whole group – ask the group not to have discussions on the side, as they might come up with causes that should be included but may not be shared with the group. This will also help you to hear all responses more clearly.

Remember … delegating the recording of information could be useful if it will help you to listen more effectively.

5. Don’t profess to be an expert

Don’t profess to be the expert about the problem at hand. You were appointed to be the facilitator, an independent guide, without a vested interest in the outcome. Ask the others in the group to explain what they know so that everyone can follow and understand it. That is why they are there. Remember … you don’t hold all the answers. That isn’t why you are the facilitator or it shouldn’t be. A good facilitator plays dumb whilst still directing traffic and working the cause and effects paths to a reasonable stop point.

Conclusion

Every incident comes with its own challenges. Each time you facilitate, you will no doubt come up against a range of human behaviours, which you will have to manage.

It’s a great idea to debrief the process and your role in it with some of the people involved. They will no doubt provide valuable feedback that will help you improve.

Finally, have faith in the RCA process, and learn from each experience to build on your skills as a facilitator.

Read about the key steps in preparing for RCA success.