For TapRooT® Users, this article supplies the evidence you need to defend the good practices that TapRooT® and the Root Cause Tree® are based on when you are faced with the argument that “categorization” is a problem.TapRooT® and the Root Cause Tree® have extensive testing and field use that proves the Root Cause Tree® does not limit the thinking of investigators…. Thus when using TapRooT®, investigators are often better prepared to find root causes and less likely to jump to conclusions than they are when they use systems based primarily on cause-and-effect (which doesn’t have these built in information collection tools).Second, very few investigators have the broad knowledge, training, and experience in all of the fields needed to use cause-and-effect to analyze a complex accident…. Hamann (Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, “The Neural Bias of Motivated Reasoning: an fMRI Study of Emotional Constraints on Political Judgment During the U.S. Presidential Election of 2004,” 2006)Thus, experienced investigators trying to confirm a hypothesis (the method used when building a fault tree or implied in the deductive reasoning used in most applications of 5-Why’s and cause-and-effect), will not have an “unbiased analysis” that they hope to achieve by avoiding categorization…. Therefore, they have developed a weak straw man to make their system look superior in comparison to a purposefully chosen weak system – a simple pick list.Our research and experience, in addition to independent research on confirmation bias, shows that the structure and categorization used in the Root Cause Tree® doesn’t need to be apologized for.
Copy and paste this URL into your WordPress site to embed
Copy and paste this code into your site to embed