Root cause analysis: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}A management technique designed to systematically identify the cause of problems on an established manufacturing process. From the little I know about it, involves behaving like a five-year-old and asking the same question — “why?” over and over again. | {{g}}A management technique designed to systematically identify the cause of problems on an established manufacturing process. From the little I know about it, involves behaving like a five-year-old and asking the same question — “why?” over and over again. | ||
This makes some sense in a production-line context, where there are defined inputs and outputs, and one has already reduced the world to a [[nomological machine]]. It works less well when you are a pioneer, fighting through jungle thickets, seeking the Indies via a western route, or rolling in your wagon train into the salted deserts of what is now, but wasn’t then, Utah. | This makes some sense in a production-line context, where there are defined inputs and outputs, and one has already reduced the world to a [[nomological machine]]. These are [[Simple system|simple]] and [[complicated system]]s. | ||
It works less well when you are a pioneer, fighting through jungle thickets, seeking the Indies via a western route, or rolling in your wagon train into the salted deserts of what is now, but wasn’t then, Utah. These are complex systems. Accident investigation theory from {{author|Sidney Dekker}} has the following observation: | |||
:''We think there is something like ''the'' cause of a mishap (sometimes we call it the [[root cause]] or the [[primary cause]]), and if we look in the rubble hard enough, we will find it there. The reality is that there is no such thing as ''the'' cause, or [[primary cause]] or [[root cause]]. Cause is something we construct, not find.''<ref>{{fieldguide}}, 33.<ref> | |||
Wikipedia gives the following, somewhat implausible example: | Wikipedia gives the following, somewhat implausible example: | ||
Revision as of 14:50, 26 October 2020
|
|
A management technique designed to systematically identify the cause of problems on an established manufacturing process. From the little I know about it, involves behaving like a five-year-old and asking the same question — “why?” over and over again.
This makes some sense in a production-line context, where there are defined inputs and outputs, and one has already reduced the world to a nomological machine. These are simple and complicated systems.
It works less well when you are a pioneer, fighting through jungle thickets, seeking the Indies via a western route, or rolling in your wagon train into the salted deserts of what is now, but wasn’t then, Utah. These are complex systems. Accident investigation theory from Sidney Dekker has the following observation:
- We think there is something like the cause of a mishap (sometimes we call it the root cause or the primary cause), and if we look in the rubble hard enough, we will find it there. The reality is that there is no such thing as the cause, or primary cause or root cause. Cause is something we construct, not find.<ref>Sidney Dekker’s The Field Guide to Human Error Investigations, 33.<ref>
Wikipedia gives the following, somewhat implausible example:
An example of a problem is: The vehicle will not start.
- Why? – The battery is dead.
- Why? – The alternator doesn’t work.
- Why? - The alternator belt has broken.
- Why? – The alternator belt was worn out and not replaced.
- Why? – The vehicle was not maintained according to the recommended service schedule. (the root cause!)
Notice the industry here: to reduce all problems to a fundamental breach of a process: a heuristic or algorithm designed to defend against the intractable messiness of the universe.
See also
- Toyota Production System and the seven wastes