DOCSLIB.ORG

A Statistical Comparison of Three Root Cause Analysis Tools by Dr

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Statistical Comparison of Three Root Cause Analysis Tools by Dr Journal of Industrial Technology • Volume 20, Number 2 • February 2004 to April 2004 • www.nait.org Volume 20, Number 2 - February 2004 to April 2004 A Statistical Comparison of Three Root Cause Analysis Tools By Dr. Anthony Mark Doggett Peer-Refereed Article KEYWORD SEARCH Leadership Management Quality Research Sociology The Official Electronic Publication of the National Association of Industrial Technology • www.nait.org © 2004 1 Journal of Industrial Technology • Volume 20, Number 2 • February 2004 to April 2004 • www.nait.org A Statistical Comparison of Three Root Cause Analysis Tools By Dr. Anthony Mark Doggett To solve a problem, one must first Spencer, 1998; Dettmer; 1997; Lepore recognize and understand what is & Cohen, 1999; Moran et al., 1990; Dr. Mark Doggett is a post-doctoral fellow and causing the problem. According to Robson, 1993; Scheinkopf, 1999; instructor at Colorado State University and is an adjunct faculty member at Aims Community Col- Wilson et al. (1993), a root cause is the Smith, 2000) lege. He is currently working on grants for the National Science Foundation in medical technol- most basic reason for an undesirable For example, Ishikawa (1982) ogy and the Department of Education in career condition or problem. If the real cause advocated the CED as a tool for and technical education. He also teaches courses in process control, leadership, and project man- of the problem is not identified, then one breaking down potential causes into agement. His research interests are decision-mak- is merely addressing the symptoms and more detailed categories so they can be ing and problem-solving strategies, technical management, theory of constraints, and opera- the problem will continue to exist. For organized and related into factors that tions system design. this reason, identifying and eliminating help identify the root cause. In contrast, root causes of problems is of utmost Mizuno (1979/1988) supported the ID importance (Dew, 1991; Sproull, 2001). as a tool to quantify the relationships Root cause analysis is the process of between factors and thereby classify identifying causal factors using a potential causal issues or drivers. structured approach with techniques Finally, Goldratt (1994) championed designed to provide a focus for identify- the CRT as a tool to find logical ing and resolving problems. Tools that interdependent chains of relationships assist groups and individuals in identify- between undesirable effects leading to ing the root causes of problems are the identification of the core cause. known as root cause analysis tools. A fundamental problem for these tools is that individuals and organiza- Purpose tions have little information to compare Three root cause analysis tools them to each other. The perception is have emerged from the literature as that one tool is as good as another tool. generic standards for identifying root While the literature was quite complete causes. They are the cause-and-effect on each tool as a stand-alone applica- diagram (CED), the interrelationship tion and their relationship with other diagram (ID), and the current reality problem solving methods, the literature tree (CRT). There is no shortage of is deficient on how these three tools information available about these tools. directly compare to each other. In fact, The literature provided detailed there are only two studies that com- descriptions, recommendations, and pared them and the comparisons were instructions for their construction and qualitative. Fredendall et al. (2002) use. The literature documented pro- compared the CED and the CRT using cesses and structured variations for previously published examples of their each tool. Furthermore, the literature is separate effectiveness while quite detailed in providing colorful and Pasquarella et al. (1997) compared all illustrative examples for each of the three tools using a one-group post-test tools so practitioners can quickly learn design with qualitative responses. and apply them. In summary, the There is little published research that literature confirmed that these three quantitatively measures and compares tools do, in fact, have the capacity to the CED, ID, and CRT. This study find root causes with varying degrees attempted to address those deficiencies. of accuracy, efficiency, and quality The purpose of this study was to (Anderson & Fagerhaug, 2000; Arcaro, compare the perceived differences 1997; Brown, 1994; Brassard, 1996; between the independent variables: the Brassard & Ritter, 1994; Cox & 2 Journal of Industrial Technology • Volume 20, Number 2 • February 2004 to April 2004 • www.nait.org cause-and-effect diagram (CED), the participant groups and did not affect process. The activity of the facilitators interrelationship diagram (ID), and the the overall perceptions or results. Also, was intended to help control the current reality tree (CRT) with regard the sample problem scenarios used in potential diffusion of treatment across to causality, factor relationships, the study were considered as having the groups. usability, and participation. The first equal complexity. To ensure consistency, each dependent variable was the perceived treatment packet was similarly format- ability of the tool to find root causes Methodology ted with the steps for tool construction and the interdependencies between The specific design was a within- and a graphical example based on causes. The second dependent variable subjects single factor repeated mea- published material. Each treatment was the perceived ability of the tool to sures with three levels. The indepen- group also received the same supplies find relationships between factors or dent variables were counterbalanced as for constructing the tools. The depen- categories of factors. Factors may shown in Table 1, where T represents dent variables were measured using a include causes, effects, or both. The the treatment, M represents the mea- twelve-question self-report question- third dependent variable was the sure, and the group observations are naire with a five-point Likert scale and overall perception of the tool’s usabil- indicated by O. The rationale for this semantic differential phrases. ity to produce outputs that were design is that it compares the treat- logical, productive, and readable. The ments to each other in a relative Procedure fourth dependent variable was the fashion using the judgments of the Participants and facilitators were perception of participation resulting in participants. In this type of comparative randomly assigned to one of three constructive discussion or dialogue. In situation, each participant serves as his groups. The researcher provided addition, the secondary interests of the or her own control making the use of simultaneous instructions about the study were to determine the average independent groups unnecessary experiment, problem scenarios, and process times required to construct (Girden, 1992). The advantage of this materials. Five minutes were allowed each tool, the types of questions or design is that it required fewer partici- for the participants to review their statements raised by participants during pants while reducing the variability respective scenarios and instructions, and after the process, and the nature of among them, which decreased the error followed by a ten minute question the tool outputs. term and the possibility of making a period. The participants were then asked Type I error. The disadvantage was that to analyze and find the perceived root Delimitations, Assumptions, and it reduced the degrees of freedom cause of the problem. The facilitators Limitations (Anderson, 2001; Gliner & Morgan, were available for help throughout the The delimitations of the study were 2000; Gravetter & Wallnau, 1992; treatment. Upon completion of the that the tools were limited to the CED, Stevens, 1999). treatment, the participants completed the ID, and CRT while participants were self-report instrument. This process was limited to small groups representing an Measures and Instrument repeated until all groups applied all authentic application of use. The Three facilitators were trained in three analysis tools to three randomized limitations of the study were grounded the tools, processes, and procedures problems. Each subsequent treatment in the statistical requirements for the before the experiment. They were was administered every seven days. General Linear Model. The experimen- instructed to be available to answer tal results reflected the efficacy of the questions from the participants about Reliability and Validity tools in the given context. While the the tools, goals, purpose, methods, or Content validity of the instrument researcher attempted to control obvious instructions. The facilitators did not was deemed adequate by group of extraneous variables during the study, provide information about the problem graduate students familiar with the participant and organizational cultural scenarios. They were also trained in research. Cronbach’s alpha was .82 for attributes, politics, and social climate observational techniques and instructed a pilot study of 42 participants. The remained outside the scope and control to intervene in the treatment process if dependent variables were also congru- of the analysis. a group was having difficulty con- ent with an exploratory principle The assumptions of the study were structing the tool or managing their component analysis. that (a) root cause analysis techniques are useful in finding root causes, (b) the identification
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Root Cause Analysis in Context of WHO International Classification for Patient Safety
    Root cause analysis in context of WHO International Classification for Patient Safety Dr David Cousins Associate Director Safe Medication Practice and Medical Devices 1 NHS | Presentation to [XXXX Company] | [Type Date] How heath care provider organisations manage patient safety incidents Incident External organisation Healthcare Patient/Carer or agency professional Department of Health Incident report Complaint Regulators Health & Safety Request Risk/complaint Request additional manager additional Healthcare information information commissioners and purchasers Local analysis and learning Industry Feed back External report Root Cause AnalysisWhy RCA? (RCA) To identify the root causes and key learning from serious incidents and use this information to significantly reduce the likelihood of future harm to patients Objectives To establish the facts i.e. what happened (effect), to whom, when, where, how and why To establish whether failings occurred in care or treatment To look for improvements rather than to apportion blame To establish how recurrence may be reduced or eliminated To formulate recommendations and an action plan To provide a report and record of the investigation process & outcome To provide a means of sharing learning from the incident To identify routes of sharing learning from the incident Basic elements of RCA WHAT HOW it WHY it happened happened happened Human Contributory Unsafe Acts Behaviour Factors Direct Care Delivery Problems – unsafe acts or omissions by staff Service Delivery Problems – unsafe systems, procedures
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance for Performing Root Cause Analysis (RCA) with Pips
    Guidance for Performing Root Cause Analysis (RCA) with Performance Improvement Projects (PIPs) Overview: RCA is a structured facilitated team process to identify root causes of an event that resulted in an undesired outcome and develop corrective actions. The RCA process provides you with a way to identify breakdowns in processes and systems that contributed to the event and how to prevent future events. The purpose of an RCA is to find out what happened, why it happened, and determine what changes need to be made. It can be an early step in a PIP, helping to identify what needs to be changed to improve performance. Once you have identified what changes need to be made, the steps you will follow are those you would use in any type of PIP. Note there are a number of tools you can use to perform RCA, described below. Directions: Use this guide to walk through a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) to investigate events in your facility (e.g., adverse event, incident, near miss, complaint). Facilities accredited by the Joint Commission or in states with regulations governing completion of RCAs should refer to those requirements to be sure all necessary steps are followed. Below is a quick overview of the steps a PIP team might use to conduct RCA. Steps Explanation 1. Identify the event to be Events and issues can come from many sources (e.g., incident report, investigated and gather risk management referral, resident or family complaint, health preliminary information department citation). The facility should have a process for selecting events that will undergo an RCA.
    [Show full text]
  • Root Cause Analysis in Surgical Site Infections (Ssis) 1Mashood Ahmed, 2Mohd
    International Journal of Pharmaceutical Science Invention ISSN (Online): 2319 – 6718, ISSN (Print): 2319 – 670X www.ijpsi.org Volume 1 Issue 1 ‖‖ December. 2012 ‖‖ PP.11-15 Root cause analysis in surgical site infections (SSIs) 1Mashood Ahmed, 2Mohd. Shahimi Mustapha, 3 4 Mohd. Gousuddin, Ms. Sandeep kaur 1Mashood Ahmed Shah (Master of Medical Laboratory Technology, Lecturer, Faculty of Pharmacy, Lincoln University College, Malaysia) 2Prof.Dr.Mohd. Shahimi Mustapha,(Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy, Lincoln University College, Malaysia) 3Mohd.Gousuddin, Master of Pharmacy (Lecturer, Faculty of Pharmacy, Lincoln University College, Malaysia) 4Sandeep kaur,(Student of Infection Prevention and control, Wairiki Institute of Technology, School of Nursing and Health Studies, Rotorua: NZ ) ABSTRACT: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that usually occur within 30 days after invasive procedures. The development of infections at surgical incision site leads to extend of infection to adjacent tissues and structures.Wound infections are the most common infections in surgical patients, about 38% of all surgical patients will develop a SSI.The studies show that among post-surgical procedures, there is an increased risk of acquiring a nosocomial infection.Root cause analysis is a method used to investigate and analyze a serious event to identify causes and contributing factors, and to recommend actions to prevent a recurrence including clinical as well as administrative review. It is particularly useful for improving patient safety systems. The risk management process is done for any given scenario in three steps: perioperative condition, during operation and post-operative condition. Based upon the extensive searches in several biomedical science journals and web-based reports, we discussed the updated facts and phenomena related to the surgical site infections (SSIs) with emphasis on the root causes and various preventive measures of surgical site infections in this review.
    [Show full text]
  • Root Cause Analysis: the Essential Ingredient Las Vegas IIA Chapter February 22, 2018 Agenda • Overview
    Root Cause Analysis: The Essential Ingredient Las Vegas IIA Chapter February 22, 2018 Agenda • Overview . Concept . Guidance . Required Skills . Level of Effort . RCA Process . Benefits . Considerations • Planning . Information Gathering • Fieldwork . RCA Tools and Techniques • Reporting . 5 C’s Screen 2 of 65 OVERVIEW Root Cause Analysis (RCA) A root cause is the most reasonably identified basic causal factor or factors, which, when corrected or removed, will prevent (or significantly reduce) the recurrence of a situation, such as an error in performing a procedure. It is also the earliest point where you can take action that will reduce the chance of the incident happening. RCA is an objective, structured approach employed to identify the most likely underlying causes of a problem or undesired events within an organization. Screen 4 of 65 IPPF Standards, Implementation Guide, and Additional Guidance IIA guidance includes: • Standard 2320 – Analysis and Evaluation • Implementation Guide: Standard 2320 – Analysis and Evaluation Additional guidance includes: • PCAOB Initiatives to Improve Audit Quality – Root Cause Analysis, Audit Quality Indicators, and Quality Control Standards Screen 5 of 65 Required Auditor Skills for RCA Collaboration Critical Thinking Creative Problem Solving Communication Business Acumen Screen 6 of 65 Level of Effort The resources spent on RCA should be commensurate with the impact of the issue or potential future issues and risks. Screen 7 of 65 Steps for Performing RCA 04 02 Formulate and implement Identify the corrective actions contributing to eliminate the factors. root cause(s). 01 03 Define the Identify the root problem. cause(s). Screen 8 of 65 Steps for Performing RCA Risk Assessment Root Cause Analysis 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Root Cause Analysis in Health Care Tools and Techniques
    Root Cause Analysis in Health Care Tools and Techniques SIXTH EDITION Includes Flash Drive! Senior Editor: Laura Hible Project Manager: Lisa King Associate Director, Publications: Helen M. Fry, MA Associate Director, Production: Johanna Harris Executive Director, Global Publishing: Catherine Chopp Hinckley, MA, PhD Joint Commission/JCR Reviewers for the sixth edition: Dawn Allbee; Anne Marie Benedicto; Kathy Brooks; Lisa Buczkowski; Gerard Castro; Patty Chappell; Adam Fonseca; Brian Patterson; Jessica Gacki-Smith Joint Commission Resources Mission The mission of Joint Commission Resources (JCR) is to continuously improve the safety and quality of health care in the United States and in the international community through the provision of education, publications, consultation, and evaluation services. Joint Commission Resources educational programs and publications support, but are separate from, the accreditation activities of The Joint Commission. Attendees at Joint Commission Resources educational programs and purchasers of Joint Commission Resources publications receive no special consideration or treatment in, or confidential information about, the accreditation process. The inclusion of an organization name, product, or service in a Joint Commission Resources publication should not be construed as an endorsement of such organization, product, or service, nor is failure to include an organization name, product, or service to be construed as disapproval. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. Every attempt has been made to ensure accuracy at the time of publication; however, please note that laws, regulations, and standards are subject to change. Please also note that some of the examples in this publication are specific to the laws and regulations of the locality of the facility.
    [Show full text]
  • An Empirical Approach to Improve the Quality and Dependability of Critical Systems Engineering
    Nuno Pedro de Jesus Silva An Empirical Approach to Improve the Quality and Dependability of Critical Systems Engineering PhD Thesis in Doctoral Program in Information Science and Technology, supervised by Professor Marco Vieira and presented to the Department of Informatics Engineering of the Faculty of Sciences and Technology of the University of Coimbra August 2017 An Empirical Approach to Improve the Quality and Dependability of Critical Systems Engineering Nuno Pedro de Jesus Silva Thesis submitted to the University of Coimbra in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2017 Department of Informatics Engineering Faculty of Sciences and Technology University of Coimbra This research has been developed as part of the requirements of the Doctoral Program in Information Science and Technology of the Faculty of Sciences and Technology of the University of Coimbra. This work is within the Dependable Systems specialization domain and was carried out in the Software and Systems Engineering Group of the Center for Informatics and Systems of the University of Coimbra (CISUC). This work was supported financially by the Top-Knowledge program of CRITICAL Software, S.A. and carried out partially in the frame of the European Marie Curie Project FP7-2012-324334-CECRIS (Certification of CRItical Systems). This work has been supervised by Professor Marco Vieira, Full Professor (Professor Catedrático), Department of Informatics Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Coimbra. iii iv “Safety is not an option!” James H. Miller Miller, James H. "2009 CEOs Who "Get It"" Interview. Safety and Health Magazine.” February 1, 2009. Accessed October 13, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Process Control, Part 5: Cause-And-Effect Diagrams
    Performance Excellence in the Wood Products Industry Statistical Process Control Part 5: Cause-and-Effect Diagrams EM 8984 • August 2009 Scott Leavengood and James E. Reeb ur focus for the first four publications in this series has been on introducing you to Statistical Process Control (SPC)—what it is, how and why it works, and then Odiscussing some hands-on tools for determining where to focus initial efforts to use SPC in your company. Experience has shown that SPC is most effective when focused on a few key areas as opposed to the shotgun approach of measuring anything and every- thing. With that in mind, we presented check sheets and Pareto charts (Part 3) in the context of project selection. These tools help reveal the most frequent and costly quality problems. Flowcharts (Part 4) help to build consensus on the actual steps involved in a process, which in turn helps define precisely where quality problems might be occurring and what quality characteristics to monitor to help solve the problems. In Part 5, we now turn our attention to cause-and-effect diagrams (CE diagrams). CE diagrams are designed to help quality improvement teams identify the root causes of problems. In Part 6, we will continue this concept of root cause analysis with a brief intro- duction to a more advanced set of statistical tools: Design of Experiments. It is important, however, that we do not lose sight of our primary goal: improving quality and in so doing, improving customer satisfaction and the profitability of the company. We’ve identified the problem; now how can we solve it? In previous publications in this series, we have identified the overarching quality prob- lem we need to focus on and developed a flowchart identifying the specific steps in the process where problems may occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Mistakeproofing the Design of Construction Processes Using Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ)
    www.cpwr.com • www.elcosh.org Mistakeproofing The Design of Construction Processes Using Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) Iris D. Tommelein Sevilay Demirkesen University of California, Berkeley February 2018 8484 Georgia Avenue Suite 1000 Silver Spring, MD 20910 phone: 301.578.8500 fax: 301.578.8572 ©2018, CPWR-The Center for Construction Research and Training. All rights reserved. CPWR is the research and training arm of NABTU. Production of this document was supported by cooperative agreement OH 009762 from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIOSH. MISTAKEPROOFING THE DESIGN OF CONSTRUCTION PROCESSES USING INVENTIVE PROBLEM SOLVING (TRIZ) Iris D. Tommelein and Sevilay Demirkesen University of California, Berkeley February 2018 CPWR Small Study Final Report 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000 Silver Spring, MD 20910 www. cpwr.com • www.elcosh.org TEL: 301.578.8500 © 2018, CPWR – The Center for Construction Research and Training. CPWR, the research and training arm of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, is uniquely situated to serve construction workers, contractors, practitioners, and the scientific community. This report was prepared by the authors noted. Funding for this research study was made possible by a cooperative agreement (U60 OH009762, CFDA #93.262) with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIOSH or CPWR. i ABOUT THE PROJECT PRODUCTION SYSTEMS LABORATORY (P2SL) AT UC BERKELEY The Project Production Systems Laboratory (P2SL) at UC Berkeley is a research institute dedicated to developing and deploying knowledge and tools for project management.
    [Show full text]
  • Extending the A3: a Study of Kaizen and Problem Solving
    VOLUME 30, NUMBER 3 July through September 2014 Abstract/Article 2 Extending the A3: A Study of References 14 Kaizen and Problem Solving Authors: Dr. Eric O. Olsen Keywords: Dr. Darren Kraker Lean Manufacturing / Six Sigma, Ms. Jessie Wilkie Management, Teaching Methods, Teamwork, Visual Communications, Information Technology, Quality Control PEER-REFEREED PAPER n PEDAGOGICAL PAPERS The Journal of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering© is an official publication of the Association of Technology, Managment, and Applied Engineering, Copyright 2014 ATMAE 275 N. YORK ST Ste 401 ELMHURST, IL 60126 www.atmae.org VOLUME 30, NUMBER 2 The Journal of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering JULY– SEPTEMBER 2014 Dr. Eric Olsen is Professor of Indus- Extending the A3: trial and Packaging Technology at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo, California. A Study of Kaizen and Problem Solving Dr. Olsen teaches Dr. Eric O. Olsen, Mr. Darren Kraker, and Ms. Jessie Wilkie undergraduate and master’s courses in lean thinking, six sigma, and operations management. Dr. Olsen had over 20 years of industry experience in engineer- ing and manufacturing management ABSTRACT before getting his PhD at The Ohio State A case study of a continuous improvement, or kaizen, event is used to demonstrate how allowing “extended” University. His dissertation compared responses to the respective sections of lean A3 problem solving format can enhance student, teacher, and the financial performance of lean versus researcher understanding of problem solving. Extended responses provide background and reasoning that non-lean companies. Dr. Olsen continues are not readily provided by the frugal statements and graphics typically provided in A3s.
    [Show full text]
  • Application of Root Cause Analysis in Improvement of Product Quality and Productivity
    doi:10.3926/jiem.2008.v1n2.p16-53 ©© JIEM, 2008 – 01(02):16-53 - ISSN: 2013-0953 Application of root cause analysis in improvement of product quality and productivity Dalgobind Mahto; Anjani Kumar National Institute of Technology (INDIA) [email protected]; [email protected] Received July 2008 Accepted December 2008 Abstract: Root-cause identification for quality and productivity related problems are key issues for manufacturing processes. It has been a very challenging engineering problem particularly in a multistage manufacturing, where maximum number of processes and activities are performed. However, it may also be implemented with ease in each and every individual set up and activities in any manufacturing process. In this paper, root-cause identification methodology has been adopted to eliminate the dimensional defects in cutting operation in CNC oxy flame cutting machine and a rejection has been reduced from 11.87% to 1.92% on an average. A detailed experimental study has illustrated the effectiveness of the proposed methodology. Keywords: root cause analysis, cause and effect diagram, interrelationship diagram and current reality tree 1. Introduction In Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is the process of identifying causal factors using a structured approach with techniques designed to provide a focus for identifying and resolving problems. Tools that assist groups or individuals in identifying the root causes of problems are known as root cause analysis tools. Every equipment failure happens for a number of reasons. There is a definite progression of actions and consequences that lead to a failure. Root Cause Analysis is a step-by-step method Application of root cause analysis in improvement of product quality and productivity 16 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Root Cause Analysis and Corrective Action
    The following slides are not contractual in nature and are for information purposes only as of June 2015. 1 ©2015, Lockheed Martin Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Corrective Action Root Cause Analysis and Corrective Action 2 ©2015, Lockheed Martin Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Overview Webinar 6: Root Cause Analysis and Corrective Action • What is Root Cause Analysis (RCA)? • Why is RCA important? • When is RCA required? • Overview of the Corrective Action Process • Root Cause Analysis Tools: The 5-Whys Ishikawa Cause & Effect (Fishbone) Diagrams Cause Mapping Failure Modes & Effects Analysis Design of Experiments 3 What is Root Cause Analysis (RCA)? Root Cause Analysis (RCA): The process of identifying all the causes (root causes and contributing causes) that have or may have generated an undesirable condition, situation, nonconformity, or failure. » IAQG – Root Cause Analysis and Problem Solving April 2014. 4 Root Cause Analysis (RCA) PROBLEM = Weed (obvious) CAUSE = ROOT Cause (not obvious) Cause 5 Why Root Cause Analysis (RCA)? • Helps prevent problems from repeating or occurring. • Focus on Continuous Improvement throughout the Enterprise. • Drives Breakthrough Performance. • Focus on improving processes that actually effect organization performance metrics. 6 When is RCA required? • Undesirable condition, defect, or failure is detected • Safety • Product strength, performance, reliability • High impact on Operations • Repetitive Problems • Customer Request • Significant Quality Management System (QMS) issues » IAQG – Root Cause Analysis and Problem Solving, April 2014 7 The Corrective Action (CA) Process Identify Problem • Objective: Identify the cause(s) of problems and initiate actions to prevent recurrence. Define Problem • Extent of corrective actions shall be proportional to the effects of the related problems.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mapping Tree Hierarchical Tool Selection and Use
    The Mapping Tree Hierarchical Tool Selection and Use 1 Session Objectives . Discuss the hierarchical linkage and transparency of mapping using this methodology. Understand how and when to apply each mapping tool and its application in the Lean tool set. Understand how mapping helps to reveal Value and Non-Value Added actions as well as Constraints in the process. 2 Why Do We Care? “Hierarchical Mapping“is necessary because: • Hierarchical mapping is critical in maintaining the organization’s strategic plan during a Lean deployment. • Hierarchical mapping is critical in achieving greater “Value to the Customer”, in revealing of wastes and improving processes. • Until we know all of the “players in the process”, we cannot begin to understand the process, its “Value to the Customer” and the impact on the strategic plan. 3 Keys To Success . Always use your team of experts for mapping exercises. Mapping in “silos” is a “design for failure”. Always follow a hierarchical procedure for mapping to root cause. Always begin at the high level first, then capture detailed maps as needed. 4 Why use the Mapping Tree methodology ? • Before any improvement exercise is undertaken, a clear definition of “what to work on” must be developed. • Without utilizing a mapping hierarchy, any attempt to attack a process for improvement effort would be just a “shot in the dark”. • We need a methodology that will link the lowest level effort to the high level organizational objectives, and do it transparently. • The hierarchical approach of the Mapping Tree helps to ensure that the lowest task efforts remain focused on the Customer requirements and support the Strategic Objectives.
    [Show full text]