Author Archives: Per Ohstrom

The world’s most modern Navy struggles with outdated culture

Posted: September 6th, 2017 in Accidents, Current Events, Root Cause Analysis Tips

To students of safety and accident prevention, the recent collisions involving the guided missile destroyers USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) and USS John S. McCain (DDG 56) seem strange. How can this happen with top shelf modern warships, equipped with state-of-the-art electronics, radar and GPS? Hint: look for human performance issues, and a culture of blame and punishment.

These are tragic accidents, with unnecessary loss of lives. The Navy’s immediate response was a 24-hour “safety stand down,” and a 60-day review of surface fleet operations, training, and certification. Perhaps more significantly, the Seventh Fleet commander Vice Admiral Aucoin was fired, due to a “loss of confidence in his ability to command.”

And this is where the problems start. To an outside observer, the Navy culture of “firing those responsible” seems very old fashioned. Not only do we waste money on repairing ship damage that should never have happened, we also voluntarily get rid of a large investment in recruiting and training with each officer let go.

A better answer is to analyze what happened in each case, find the root causes and put in place corrective actions to prevent the same accidents from happening again. The Navy investigation results are classified, but let me offer up two possible causes:

1. Guided missile destroyers are smaller, leaner and meaner than the conventional destroyers they replaced. They sail with a smaller crew and fewer officers. However, there is still the same amount of horizon to scan, so to say, so officers will have larger spans of responsibility and fewer opportunities to rest. Fatigue is a powerful influence on human performance.

2. The world is a dangerous place, and getting worse. A shrinking Navy is deployed on the same number of missions around the world, not allowing enough time in between for maintenance of ships and systems. Training and development of crews also suffers.

Our long experience in root cause analysis tells us that no matter how sophisticated systems or equipment are, they need maintenance to work properly. There is also always human factors involved. Human performance is fickle, and influenced by many factors such as fatigue, alertness, training, or layout of control panels. It is better to do a thorough RCA to identify causal factors and fix them, than to fire people up and down the chain of command and still have the same issues again later.

#TapRooT_RCA

Six Sigma: Better Root Cause Analysis and Corrective Actions

Posted: June 22nd, 2017 in Performance Improvement, Quality, Root Cause Analysis Tips

I remember first learning about root cause analysis during Six Sigma training. The main methods we used were 5 Whys and Fishbone diagrams, but somehow we had a hard time arriving at good corrective actions. It took time and testing to get there, and still the fixes were not always robust.

Since then, I have learned a lot more about RCA. Unguided deductive reasoning tools like 5 Whys or Fishbones rely heavily on the knowledge and experience of the investigator. Since nobody can be an expert in every contributing field, this leads to investigator bias. Or, as the old adage goes: “If a hammer is your only tool, all your problems will start looking like nails”.

Other issues with deductive reasoning are investigations identifying only single causes (when in reality there are several), or ignorance of generic root causes that have broader quality impacts. Results will also be inconsistent; if several teams analyze the same issue, results can be wildly divergent. Which one is correct? All of them? None?

This is where the TapRooT® methodology has benefits over other tools. It is an expert system that guides investigators to look at a range of potential causal factors, like human engineering, management systems and procedures. There are no iterations of hypotheses to prove or disprove so investigator bias is not a problem.

The process is repeatable, identifies all specific and generic causes and guides the formulation of strong corrective actions. It is centered on humans, systems and processes, and the decisions they make every day.

The supporting TapRooT® Software is designed to enable investigators to keep efforts focused and organized:

  1. define the problem in a SnapCharT®
  2. identify Causal Factors and Root Causes with the Root Cause Tree®, and
  3. formulate sustainable corrective actions using the Corrective Action Helper® module

The TapRooT® process avoids blame, is easy to learn and quickly improves root cause analysis outcomes.

In Six Sigma parlance, the SnapCharT® is used for problem definition (Define), the Root Cause Tree® and trending for root cause identification (Measure and Analyze), and the corrective action process to define effective fixes (Improve).

#TapRooT_RCA

Construction Safety: Human Cost, OSHA Fines and Lawsuits…

Posted: June 5th, 2017 in Accidents, Human Performance, TapRooT, Training

Knowing that each year about 900 construction workers do not come home to their families after work, safety on construction work sites must be taken seriously.

AGC, the Associated General Contractors of America recently published a study together with Virginia Tech, “Preventing Fatalities in the Construction Industry”. There are some interesting findings:

  • Dangerous Lunch Hour: construction site fatalities peak at noon, and are much lower on Fridays than Monday through Thursday
  • Small Contractors (less than 9 employees) are overrepresented in the statistics, with a fatality rate of 26 per 100,000 workers
  • Fully 1/3 of fatalities are from falls, and about 29% from Transportation incidents with e.g trucks or pickups
  • More experienced workers are not safer: fatalities start increasing after age 35 and keep growing so that 65 year olds are at the highest risk
  • Industrial projects are the most dangerous, followed by Residential and Heavy construction projects

The consequences of a fatality are devastating. There is a great human cost where families will have to deal with grief as well as financial issues. For the company there may be OSHA fines, law suits and criminal investigations. There really is no excuse for a builder not to have an active safety program, no matter how small the company.

Basic safety activities include providing and checking PPE and fall protection, correct use of scaffolding and ladders, on- going safety training, check- ins and audits. It is also a good idea to actively promote a safety culture, and to use a root cause analysis tool to investigate accidents and near misses, and prevent them from happening again.

The TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis methodology is a proven way of getting to the bottom of incidents, and come up with effective corrective actions. Focus is on human performance, and how workers can be separated from hazards like electricity, falls or moving equipment.

We can organize on- site training, or start by signing up for a public course. We offer the 5-Day TapRooT® Advanced Root Cause Analysis Team Leader Training as well as the introductory 2-Day TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Training class.

Be proactive, do not let preventable accidents catch up with you… call us today!

#TapRooT_RCA #safety

Building a Safety Culture

Posted: May 26th, 2017 in Medical/Healthcare, Performance Improvement, TapRooT

A Safety Culture can be defined as “the sum of what an organization is and does in the pursuit of safety”. Managing company culture is a task of the corner office; top management needs to embrace the safety mindset -that every employee and customer is free from harm.

In the health care field The Joint Commission (an accreditation organization for hospitals) takes patient safety very seriously. Their document, “11 Tenets of a Safety Culture” (https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/6/SEA_57_infographic_11_tenets_safety_culture.pdf) contains a lot of wisdom that can be applied in continuous safety improvement everywhere:

  1. Apply a transparent, nonpunitive approach to reporting and learning from adverse events, close calls and unsafe conditions.
  2. Use clear, just, and transparent risk-based processes for recognizing and distinguishing human errors and system errors from unsafe, blameworthy actions.
  3. CEOs and all leaders adopt and model appropriate behaviors and champion efforts to eradicate intimidating behaviors.
  4. Policies support safety culture and the reporting of adverse events, close calls and unsafe conditions. These policies are enforced and communicated to all team members.
  5. Recognize care team members who report adverse events and close calls, who identify unsafe conditions, or who have good suggestions for safety improvements. Share these “free lessons” with all team members (i.e., feedback loop).
  6. Determine an organizational baseline measure on safety culture performance using a validated tool.
  7. Analyze safety culture survey results from across the organization to find opportunities for quality and safety improvement.
  8. Use information from safety assessments and/or surveys to develop and implement unit-based quality and safety improvement initiatives designed to improve the culture of safety.
  9. Embed safety culture team training into quality improvement projects and organizational processes to strengthen safety systems.
  10. Proactively assess system strengths and vulnerabilities, and prioritize them for enhancement or improvement.
  11. Repeat organizational assessment of safety culture every 18 to 24 months to review progress and sustain improvement.

A formal safety culture statement like this is a good start. To avoid it becoming a “flavor of the day” initiative, it is important to put in place a robust root cause analysis method like TapRooT®. This lends immediate support to Tenets 1. and 2. above.  It is also important to empower employees at every level to stop risky behavior.

Every organization benefits from an objective and impersonal way of investigating or auditing safety incidents, that gets to the root causes. Instead of blaming, re-training or firing individuals more effective corrective actions can be implemented, and safety issues dealt with once and for all.

#TapRooT_RCA

Connect with Us

Filter News

Search News

Authors

Angie ComerAngie Comer

Software

Barb PhillipsBarb Phillips

Editorial Director

Chris ValleeChris Vallee

Human Factors

Dan VerlindeDan Verlinde

VP, Software

Dave JanneyDave Janney

Safety & Quality

Garrett BoydGarrett Boyd

Technical Support

Ken ReedKen Reed

VP, Equifactor®

Linda UngerLinda Unger

Co-Founder

Mark ParadiesMark Paradies

Creator of TapRooT®

Per OhstromPer Ohstrom

VP, Sales

Shaun BakerShaun Baker

Technical Support

Steve RaycraftSteve Raycraft

Technical Support

Wayne BrownWayne Brown

Technical Support

Success Stories

Prior to implementing TapRooT in 1993, we performed incident investigations but we often stopped…

ExxonMobil

In this short period of time interesting problems were uncovered and difficult issues were…

Huntsman
Contact Us