Category: Performance Improvement

How Many Industries and How Many Countries is Your Root Cause Analysis System Used In?

October 17th, 2017 by

NewImage

I was talking to someone in the medical industry recently and they asked: “How many people in the medical industry use TapRooT®?”

I gave them several examples of major healthcare systems that use TapRooT® (including perhaps the worlds largest) but I thought … They asked the WRONG question.

The true value of a root cause analysis system is really proven is how many different places it is being used SUCCESSFULLY.

Note that this is not the same as if the system is used in a particular industry. It must be used successfully. And if it is used successfully in many other industries and many countries, that proves even more that the system is useful and will probably be useful when applied at your company.

Where is TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis applied successfully?

All over the world. On every continent but Antartica (we’ve never done a course there yet).

In what kind of industries? Try these:

  • Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
  • Refining
  • Chemical Manufacturing
  • Healthcare (Hospitals)
  • Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
  • Nuclear Power / Nuclear Fuels
  • Utilities
  • Auto Manufacturing
  • Aggregates
  • Mining (Iron, Gold, Diamonds, Copper, Coal, …)
  • Aluminum
  • Aviation (airlines and helicopters)
  • Shipping
  • Cosmetics
  • Construction
  • Data Security
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Research Laboratories
  • Mass Transit
  • Regulatory Agencies
  • Prisons
  • Pulp & Paper
  • Engineering
  • Food & Drinks
  • Alchohol
  • Security
  • Recycling
  • Aerospace Manufacturing
  • Space Exploration
  • Pipelines
  • Agricultural Commodities
  • Steel
  • Forestry
  • City Government
  • General Manufacturing
  • Telecommunications
  • Airport Management

And that’s only a partial list.

Where can you read about the successful application of TapRooT® in some of these industries? Try these Success Stories:

http://www.taproot.com/archives/category/success-stories?s=

 You will see examples of companies that saved lives, save money, prevent injuries, improved service, made work more productive, and stopped the cycle of blame and punishment.

The reason that TapRooT® is used by industry leaders is that it works in such a wide variety of industries in such a wide variety of countries.

But don’t just believe the industry leaders. Attend one of our GUARANTEED courses. Guaranteed? That’s right. Here is our guarantee:

  • Attend the course. Go back to work, and use what you have learned to analyze accidents, incidents, near-misses, equipment failures, operating issues, or quality problems. If you don’t find root causes that you previously would have overlooked and if you and your management don’t agree that the corrective actions that you recommend are much more effective, just return your course materials and we will refund the entire course fee.

It’s that simple. Try to find a money-back guarantee like that anywhere else. We are so sure of your success that we guarantee it.

Don’t wait. Register for one of our root cause analysis courses today. For a list of upcoming public courses, see:

http://www.taproot.com/store/Courses/

Why do people jump to conclusions?

October 10th, 2017 by

I see examples of people jumping to conclusions all the time. Instead of taking the time to analyze a problem, they suggest their favorite corrective action.

Why do they do this? I think it is because thinking is so hard. As Henry Ford said:

“Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it.”

Did you know that when you think hard, your brain burns more calories? After a day of hard thinking you may feel physically exhausted.

Neuroscientific research at Cal Tech has shown that the more uncertainty there is in a problem (a cause and effect relationship), the more likely a person is to use “one-shot” learning (jumping to conclusions). This simplification saves us lots of work.

What’s the problem with jumping to conclusions?

NewImage

And even more important than saving effort in the analysis is that if you jump to a conclusion, you get to recommend the corrective action that you wanted to implement all along. Skip all that hard work of proving what the cause was and the details of developing effective fixes. Just do what you wanted to do before the problem ever happened!

The next time you are tempted to jump to a conclusion … THINK!

Yes, real root cause analysis and developing effective fixes is harder than just implementing the fix that you have been wanting to try even before the accident, but getting to the root (or roots) of the problem and really improving performance is worth the hard work of thinking.

Why is Root Cause Analysis Applied Reactively More Than Proactively?

October 3rd, 2017 by

I attended an interesting talk on the brain yesterday and had a different perspective on why so many managers are reactive rather than being proactive.

What do I mean by that? Managers wait to start improvement efforts until after something BAD happens rather than using a constant improvement effort to avoid accidents before they happen.

What about “human nature” (or the brain or neuropsychology) makes us that way? It has to do with the strongest human motivators.

Dr. Christophe  Morin said that research shows that the most recognizable human emotions expressed in facial expressions are:

  • Fear
  • Sadness
  • Disgust
  • Anger
  • Surprise
  • Trust
  • Joy
  • Anticipation

What draws our attention the most? Fear and Anger.

It seems that fear and ager catch our eye because they could indicate danger. And avoiding danger is what our primitive brain (or reptilian brain) is wired to do. Before we have any conscious thought, we decide if we need to run or fight (the fight or flight reaction).

What does this have to do with root cause analysis and reactive and proactive improvement?

What happens after an accident? FEAR!

Fear of being fired if you did the wrong thing.

Fear of looking bad to your peers.

Fear of lower management getting a bad review from upper management if your people look bad.

And even fear of consequences (lower earnings and lower stock price and a reaction from the board) for upper management if the accident is bad enough and gets national press coverage.

Even senior managers may get fired after a particularly disastrous accident.

NewImage

NewImage

So fear drives behavior in many cases.

Management is much more likely to spend valuable resources when they are afraid (after an accident) than before the accident when the fear is much less and the promise of improvement through proactive improvement may bring joy or the anticipation of success.

Thus, management focuses on root cause analysis for accidents and incidents rather than applying it to assessments, audits, and peer reviews.

Can your management overcome human nature and apply root cause analysis before an accident happens or do they have to wait for a disaster to learn? That may be the difference between great leaders and managers waiting to be fired.

Don’t wait. Start applying advanced root cause analysis – TapRooT® – today to prevent future accidents.

Attend one of our public 5-Day TapRooT® Advanced Root Cause Team Leader Courses to learn how to apply TapRooT® reactively and proactively.

Root Cause Audits Prevent Environmental Excursions

September 27th, 2017 by

All too often we hear stories about sewage spills and overflows, causing environmental damage and costing utilities and operators large fines. Sometimes the causes are catastrophic, like hurricanes. Unfortunately most of the time the reason is human performance and equipment malfunctions.

King County in Washington state recently had to pay a $361,000 fine for spilling 235 M gallons of sewage into the Puget sound. An investigation found the causes to be inadequate maintenance, reliability issues and lack of backup equipment. There was also a lack of employee training. Besides the fine, the county has to better monitor emergency bypasses, improve the reliability of equipment and upgrade alarm features in the plant control system.

A closer look reveals an inexpensive float switch was at the core of the issue. In the past this type of switch has repeatedly clogged, jammed and failed. To keep operations going, employees would bend the rod back in place instead of replacing it. All in all direct plant damage is $35M. This is the fourth environmental excursion since 2000, a cost which is not quantified, but large.

Another example is a recent 830,000 gallon sewage release into the Grand River in Ottawa County, Michigan, due to a power outage. Six months ago a broken 45 year old pipe caused a 2 M gallon spill at the same location. Replacement cost of the pipe is $5 M, funds are not available so the utility is patching and hoping for the best.

These are just two recent cases that would have benefited from doing a root cause audit. The methodology is similar to a root cause analysis, except of course it is done before any incident, and aims to find and fix the most impactful risks.

Steps in a root cause audit

Planning for and doing an audit typically follows the following pattern:

  1. Plan the audit, determine the process flow of problems that could turn into significant issues
  2. Perform the audit and record the findings
  3. Define the significant issues (similar to causal factors in a root cause analysis)
  4. Use the Root Cause Tree to analyze each significant issue
  5. Analyze any generic causes for each root cause
  6. Develop preventive fixes
  7. Get approvals, and implement the plan

When done, take a moment to recognize the people that helped, and do not forget to celebrate! To make things easier, it is worthwhile to learn from those that came before you!

We have long experience with investigations and corrective actions that work. A new book by Paradies, Unger & Janney “TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis for Audits and Proactive Performance Improvement” has practical check lists and advice on auditing and implementing corrective action. Read more and order your personal copy here: http://www.taproot.com/store/TapRooT-and-reg-for-Audits-Book-Set.html

Per Ohstrom is Vice President of Sales at System Improvements, Inc. #TapRooT_RCA

Generic Cause Analysis of the Navy’s Ship Collision/Grounding Problems

September 26th, 2017 by

NewImage

First, let me state that the reason I seem to be carried away by the failures of the Navy to implement good root cause analysis is that I spent seven years in the Navy and have compassion for the officers and sailors that are being asked to do so much. Our sailors and officers at sea are being asked to do more than we should ask them to do. The recent fatalities are proof of this and are completely avoidable. The Navy’s response so far has been inadequate at best.

NewImage

What should the Navy being doing? A thorough, advanced root cause analysis and generic cause analysis of the collisions and grounding in the 7th Fleet. And if you know me, you know that I think they should be using TapRooT® to do this.

NewImage

In TapRooT®, once you complete the analysis of the specific causes of a particular accident/incident, the next step is to identify the Generic Causes of the problems that caused that particular incident. Generic Causes are:

Generic Cause

The systemic cause that allows a root cause to exist.
Fixing the Generic Cause eliminates whole classes of specific root causes.

The normal process for finding generic causes is to look at each specific root cause that you have identified using the Root Cause Tree® and see if there is a generic causes using a three step process. The three steps are:

  1. Review the “Ideas for Generic Problems” section of the Corrective Action Helper® Guide for the root causes you have identified.
  2. Ask: “Does the same problem exist in more places?
  3. Ask: “What in the system is causing this Generic Cause to exist?”

It is helpful to have a database of thoroughly investigated previous problems when answering these question.

TapRooT® Users know about the Root Cause Tree® and the Corrective Action Helper® Guide and how to use them to perform advanced root cause analysis and develop effective corrective actions. If you haven’t been trained to use the TapRooT® System, I would recommend attending the 5-Day Advanced TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Team Leader Training or reading the TapRooT® Essentials & Major Investigations Books.

NewImage

Unfortunately, we don’t have all the data from the recent and perhaps still incomplete Navy investigations to perform a TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis. What do we have? The press releases and news coverage of the accidents. From that information we can get a hint at the generic causes for these accidents.

Before I list the generic causes we are guessing at and discuss potential fixes, here is a disclaimer. BEFORE I would guarantee that these generic causes are accurate and that these corrective actions would be effective, I would need to perform an in-depth investigation and root cause analysis of the recent accidents and then determine the generic causes. Since that is not possible (the Navy is not a TapRooT® User), the following is just a guess based on my experience…

GENERIC CAUSES

1. INADEQUATE NUMBER OF SHIPS FOR THE USA FOREIGN POLICY COMMITMENTS

2. INADEQUATE STAFFING OF THE SHIPS WE HAVE

3. INADEQUATE TRAINING OF THE CREWS OF THE SHIPS WE HAVE

4. INADEQUATE WATCH SCHEDULES AND PRIORITIZATION OF TASKS FOR UNDERWAY REQUIREMENTS

5. INAEQUATE CREW TEAMWORK AND CREW TEAMWORK TRAINING

Some of these problems should be fairly easy to fix in six months to two years. Others will be difficult to fix and may take a decade if there is the will to invest in a capable fleet. All of the problems must be fixed to significantly reduce the risk of these types of accidents in the future. Without fixes, the blood of sailors killed in future collisions will be on the hands of current naval leadership.

POTENTIAL FIXES

5. INAEQUATE CREW TEAMWORK AND CREW TEAMWORK TRAINING

  • Establish a crew teamwork training class oriented toward surface ship bridge watch operations that can be accomplished while ships are in port.
  • Conduct the training for all ships on a prioritized basis.
  • Integrate the training into junior officer training courses and department head and perspective XO and CO training.
  • Conduct underway audits to verify the effectiveness of the training, perhaps during shipboard refresher training and/or by type command staffs.

4. INADEQUATE WATCH SCHEDULES AND PRIORITIZATION OF TASKS FOR UNDERWAY REQUIREMENTS

  • Develop a standard watch rotation schedule to minimize fatigue.
  • Review underway requirements and prioritize to allow for adequate rest.
  • Allow daytime sleeping to reduce fatigue.
  • Minimize noise during daytime sleeping hours to allow for rest.
  • Review underway drills and non-essential training that adds to fatigue. Schedule drills and training to allow for daytime sleeping hours.
  • Train junior officers, senior non-commissions officers, department heads, XOs, and COs in fatigue minimization strategies.
  • Implement a fatigue testing strategy for use to evaluate crew fatigue and numerically score fatigue to provide guidance for CO’s when fatigue is becoming excessive.

3. INADEQUATE TRAINING OF THE CREWS OF THE SHIPS WE HAVE

This corrective action is difficult because a through training requirement analysis must be conducted prior to deciding on the specifics of the corrective actions listed here. However, we will once again guess at some of the requirements that need to be implemented that are not listed above.

a. SEAMANSHIP/SHIP DRIVING/STATION KEEPING

Driving a ship is a difficult challenge. Much harder than driving a car. In my controls and human factors class I learned that it was a 2nd or 3rd order control problem and these types of problems are very difficult for humans to solve. Thus ship drivers need lots of training and experience to be good. It seems the current training given and experience achieved are insufficient. Thus these ideas should be considered:

  • A seamanship training program be developed based on best human factors and training practices including performing a ship driving task analysis, using simulation training, models in an indoor ship basin, and developing shipboard games that can be played ashore or at sea to reinforce the ship handling lessons. These best practices and training tools can be built into the training programs suggested below.
  • Develop ship handing course for junior officers to complete before they arrive at their first ship to learn and practice common ship handling activities like man overboard, coming alongside (replenishment at sea), station keeping, maneuvering in restricted waters, contact tracking and avoidance in restricted waters.
  • Develop an advanced ship handing corse for department heads that refreshes/tests their ship handling skills and teaches them how to coach junior officers to develop their ship handling skills. This course should include simulator training and at sea ship handling practice including docking scenarios, anchoring, restricted waters, and collision avoidance.
  • Develop an advanced ship handling course for COs/XOs to refresh/test their ship handling skills and check their ability to coach junior officers ship handling skills. This course should include simulator training and at sea ship handling practice including docking scenarios, anchoring, restricted waters, and collision avoidance. The course should also include training on when the CO should be on the bridge and their duties when overseeing bridge operations in restricted waters including when to take control if the ship is in extremis (and practice of this skill).
  • Develop a simulator test for junior officers, department heads, XOs, and COs to test their ship handing and supervisory skills to be passed before reporting to a ship.
  • Develop bridge team training to be carried out onboard each ship to reinforce crew teamwork training.

b. NAVIGATION

  • Perform a task analysis of required navigation shipboard duties including new technology duties and duties if technology fails (without shipboard computerized aids).
  • Develop a navigation training program based on the task analysis for junior officers, department heads, XOs, and COs. This program should completed prior to shipboard tours and should include refresher training to be accomplished periodically while at sea.

c. ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS

  • Develop a department head leadership program to teach advanced root cause analysis for shipboard incidents.
  • Develop a junior officer root cause analysis course for simple (lower risk) problem analysis.
  • Develop a senior officer root cause analysis training program for XOs, COs, and line admiralty to teach advanced root cause analysis and review requirements when approving root cause analyses performed under their command. (Yes – the Navy does NOT know how to do this based on the current status of repeat incidents.)

2. INADEQUATE STAFFING OF THE SHIPS WE HAVE

  • Develop a senior officer (Captain and above) training program to teach when a CO or line responsible admiral should “push back” when given too demanding an operational schedule. This ability to say “no” should be based on testable, numerically measurable statistics. For example, shipboard fatigue testing, number of days at sea under certain levels of high operating tempo, number of days at sea without a port call, staffing levels in key jobs, …
  • Review undermanning and conduct a root cause analysis of the current problems being had at sea and develop an effective program to support at sea commands with trained personnel.

1. INADEQUATE NUMBER OF SHIPS FOR THE USA FOREIGN POLICY COMMITMENTS

  • Develop a numerically valid and researched guidance for the number of ships required to support deployed forces in the current operating tempo.
  • Use the guidance developed above to demonstrate to the President and Congress the need for additional warships.
  • Evaluate the current mothball fleet and decide how many ships can be rapidly returned to service to support the current operating tempo.
  • Review the mothballed nuclear cruiser and carrier fleet to see if ships can be refueled, updated, and returned to service to support current operating tempo and create a better nuclear surface fleet carrier path.
  • Establish a new ship building program to support a modern 400 ship Navy by 2030.
  • Establish a recruiting and retention program to ensure adequate staff for the increased surface fleet.

Note that these are just ideas based on a Generic Cause Analysis of press releases and news reports. Just a single afternoon was spent by one individual developing this outline. Because of the magnitude of this problem and the lives at stake, I would recommend a real TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis of at least the last four major accidents and a Generic Cause Analysis of those incidents before corrective actions are initiated.

Of course, the Navy is already initiating corrective actions that seem to put the burden of improvement on the Commanding Officers who don’t have additional resources to solve these problems. Perhaps the Navy can realize that inadequate root cause analysis can be determined by the observation of repeat accidents and learn to adopt and apply advanced root cause analysis and support it from the CNO to the Chiefs and Junior Officers throughout the fleet. Then senior Navy officials can stand up and request from Congress and the President the resources needed to keep our young men and women safe at sea.

NewImage

Is punishment the best way to improve performance in the Navy?

September 20th, 2017 by

NewImage

In my decades of root cause analysis, less than 2% of incidents are caused by some sort of willful action that does not have a system cause. However, in many incident responses, companies discipline people for mistakes that were caused by system problem. This unwarranted punishment leads to:

  • Covering up problems.
  • Lying about what people did.
  • Morale issues when people are punished for things that were not their fault.
  • Mystery incidents that no one seems to know anything about (no one will talk).
  • Poor performance because the root causes of the problems are not being addressed.

Thus, I was disappointed when I saw the US Navy resort to discipline before the root cause analysis was completed after the collision of the USS Fitzgerald. Then again more discipline was used (this time against an Admiral) after the collision of the USS John S. McCain.

I wrote several articles about the collisions:

What is the Root Cause of the USS Fitzgerald Collision?

US Navy 7th Fleet Announces Blame for Crash of the USS Fitzgerald

USS Fitzgerald & USS John S McCain Collisions: Response to Feedback from a Reader

Several senior naval officers and others that discipline was needed for Navy personnel when a mission fails or a ship collides with another.

This brought to mind two sayings that I learned in the Navy. The first is:

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

The second is:

Why be fair when you can be arbitrary.

Do people in the Navy really respond to random discipline? The kind of discipline that’s been proven not to work in the civilian world?

I spent 7 years in the US Navy and have had close contacts with many people in the Navy since I left to start my civilian career. What I can tell you is this:

  1. Being at sea is different than working in a civilian job
  2. The Navy generally has a stricter set of operating rules than a civilian workforce does.
  3. There is a wider range of disciplinary actions that are available in the Navy than in the civilian word. (Although flogging and keel-hauling have been eliminated.)
  4. You can’t quit in the Navy if you have a bad boss.
  5. It’s difficult to fire someone that works for you if they are incompetent (you are stuck with those who you are assigned to lead).
  6. People ARE NOT different. They don’t become some sort of robot just because they joined the Navy.

Why did I include point #6 above? Because I’m often told that discipline is needed in the Navy to improve performance (One Admiral told me that it “sharpens the Commanding Officers game”).

It seems that some believe that senior naval officers (people commanding Navy ships – the Commanding Officers or COs) would try less hard, be less alert, and have worse performance if they didn’t have the threat of being relieved of command if they run into another ship or run aground.

Yes – the CO is ultimately responsible. Therefore, how could it NOT be the CO’s fault? They have ultimate authority on their ship … don’t they?

Let’s look at a an example. What if:

  • A ship was assigned a rigorous operational schedule of demanding technical missions.
  • The ship had several key pieces of equipment that that had been reported as broken (because of lack of time, parts, and money to perform maintenance).
  • The ship had many junior, barely qualified personnel serving in key positions because of the Navy’s planned rotation of officers and enlisted personnel and planned reduction of ashore training before new personnel arrived for their tour of duty.
  • The ship was undermanned because new ships were designed with new, smaller, crews but still had the same work to be performed as on older ships with 20-30% more people. This saved the Navy budget money – especially in the time of sequester.
  • The ship had several key personnel left ashore – with no replacement – because they were pregnant.
  • The CO was new to the ship and had little experience with this type of ship because he was assigned wartime duties ashore in Iraq during the Gulf Wars and missed an Executive Officer and a Department Head tours that would have provided more applicable experience and knowledge for this assignment.
  • People were fatigued after several tough evolutions but still had to drive the ship through a narrow, busy straight to get to their next assigned mission.

Is any of this under the CO’s control? Don’t these circumstances contribute to a mission failure if one occurs (like a collision). Would discipline make any of these factors change?

Does telling the CO that you are going to punish him (or her) if he or his crew makes a mistake make ANY difference?

Please leave me your comments. I’d be interested in what you have to say.

NewImage

Root Cause Analysis for the FDA

September 13th, 2017 by

RootCauseAnalysis

What does the FDA want when you perform a root cause analysis?

The answer is quite simple. They want you to find the real, fixable root causes of the problem and then fix them so they don’t happen again.

Even better, they would like you to audit/access your own processes and find and fix problems before they cause incidents.

And even better yet, they would like to arrive to perform a FDA 483 inspection and find no issues. Nothing. You have found and fixed any problems before they arrive because that’s the way you run your facility.

How can you be that good? You apply root cause analysis PROACTIVELY.

You don’t want to have to explain and fix problems found in a FDA 483 inspection or, worse yet, get a warning letter. You want to have manufacturing excellence.

TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis can help you reactively find and fix the real root causes of problems or proactively improve performance to avoid having quality issues. Want to find out how? Attend one of our guaranteed root cause analysis courses. See:

http://www.taproot.com/courses

I’d suggest one of our public 5-Day TapRooT® Advanced Root Cause Analysis Team Leader Courses to get started. Then have a course at your site to get everyone involved in improving performance.

Want more information before you sign up for a course? Contact us by CLICKING HERE.

Why is getting the best root cause analysis training possible a great investment?

August 23rd, 2017 by

NewImage

Why do you train employees to investigate accidents, incidents, quality problems, equipment failures, and process upsets? Because those events:

  • Cost Lives
  • Cause Injuries
  • Ruin the Reputation of Your Product and Company
  • Cause Regulatory Issues (and Big Fines)
  • Cause Expensive Downtime
  • Cause Missed Schedules and Delayed Shipments

You want to learn from past problems to prevent future issues. Its even better if you can learn from small problems to prevent big accidents.

Therefore, you invest in your employees education because you expect a return on your investment. That return is:

  • No Fatalities
  • Reduced Injuries (Better LTI Stats)
  • A Reputation for Excellent Product Quality
  • Good Relations with Your Regulators and Community
  • Excellent Equipment Reliability and Reduced Corrective Maintenance Costs
  • Work Completed on Schedule
  • Shipments Go Out On Time and On Budget

When you think about your investment in root cause analysis training, think about the results you want. Review the diagram below (you’ve probably seen something like it before). Many managers want something for nothing. They want fast, free, and great root cause analysis training. But what does the diagram say? Forget about it! You can’t even have fast-great-cheap (impossible utopia). They usually end up with something dipped in ugly sauce and created with haste and carelessness! (Does 5-Why training ring a bell?)

NewImage(from Len Wilson’s blog)

What should you choose? TapRooT® Training. What does it do for you? Gives you guaranteed return on your investment.

What? A guarantee? That’s right. Here is our TRAINING GUARANTEE:

Attend a course, go back to work, and use what you have learned to analyze accidents, incidents, near-misses, equipment failures, operating issues, or quality problems. If you don’t find root causes that you previously would have overlooked and if you and your management don’t agree that the corrective actions that you recommend are much more effective, just return your course materials/software and we will refund the entire course fee.

How can we make such an iron-clad guarantee? Because we have spent almost 30 years developing the world’s best root cause analysis system that has been tested and reviewed by experts and used by industry leaders. Over 10,000 people each year are trained to use TapRooT® to find and fix the root causes of accidents, quality problems, and other issues. Because of this extensive worldwide user base, we know that TapRooT® will help you achieve operational excellence. Thus, we know your investment will be worthwhile.

Plus, we think you will be happy with the investment you need to make when you see the results that you will get. What kind of results? That depends on the risk you have to mitigate and the way you apply what you learn, but CLICK HERE to see success stories submitted by TapRooT® Users.

Don’t think that the return on investment has to be a long term waiting game (although long term investments are sometimes worthwhile). Read this story of a FAST ROI example:

One of the students in a 5-Day TapRooT® Advanced Root Cause Team Leader Course came up to me on day 3 of the course and told me that the course had already paid for itself many times over.

I asked him what he meant. He said while we were teaching that morning, he identified a problem in some engineering work they were doing, and the savings he had avoided, (he had immediately called back to the office), totaled over $1 million dollars.

That’s a great return on investment. A $2500 course and a $1,000,000 payback. That’s about a 40000% instant ROI.

How much value can you achieve from your investment in great root cause analysis? Consider these issues:

  • How much is human error costing your company?
  • If the EPA fines you $100,000 per day for an environmental permit violation, how much could it cost?
  • What is your reputation for product quality worth?
  • How much is just one day of downtime worth to your factory?
  • How much would a major accident cost?

NewImage

I’m not asking you to take my word for how much great root cause analysis training (TapRooT® Training) will help your company. I’m just asking you to give it a try to see how much it can help your company.

Just send one person to one of our 2-Day or 5-Day TapRooT® Courses. Then see how they can help solve problems using the TapRooT® Techniques. I know that you will be pleased and I’ll feel good about the lives you will save, the improvements in quality that you will make, and the improved bottom line that your company will achieve when you get more people trained.

See the list of upcoming public TapRooT® Training being held around the world:

http://www.taproot.com/store/Courses/

 Or contact us for a quote for a course at your site:

http://www.taproot.com/contact-us

US Navy 7th Fleet Announces Blame for Crash of the USS Fitzgerald

August 18th, 2017 by

USS Fitzgerald

The Navy has taken the first action to avoid future collisions at sea after the crash of the USS Fitzgerald. The only question that remains is:

Why did it take Rear Admiral Brian Fort two months to determine who the Navy would punish?

After all, they knew who the CO, XO, and Command Master Chief were and they could just check the watch bill to see who was on the bridge and in CIC. That shouldn’t take 60 days. Maybe it took them that long to get the press release approved.

The Navy’s Top Secret root cause analysis system is:

Round up the usual guilty parties!

Here is what the Navy press release said:

“The commanding officer, executive officer and command master chief of the guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) were relieved of their duties by Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, Commander, 7th Fleet Aug, 18. 

Additionally, a number of officer and enlisted watch standers were held accountable. 

The determinations were made following a thorough review of the facts and circumstances leading up to the June 17 collision between Fitzgerald and the merchant vessel ACX Crystal.”  

Yet here is a part of the announcement from the Navy’s PR Officer:

“It is premature to speculate on causation or any other issues,” she said. “Once we have a detailed understanding of the facts and circumstances, we will share those findings with the Fitzgerald families, our Congressional oversight committees and the general public.”

The emphasis above was added by me.

It is premature to speculate on causes BUT we already know who to blame because we did a “thorough review of the facts.”

Now that all the BAD sailors have been disciplined, we can rest easy knowing that the Navy has solved the problems with seamanship by replacing these bad officers and crew members. There certainly aren’t any system causes that point to Navy brass, fleet-wide training and competency, or fatigue.

As I said in my previous article about this collision:

“Of course, with a TapRooT® investigation, we would start with a detailed SnapCharT® of what happened BEFORE we would collect facts about why the Causal Factors happened. Unfortunately, the US Navy doesn’t do TapRooT® investigations. Let’s hope this investigation gets beyond blame to find the real root causes of this fatal collision at sea.”

With blame and punishment as the first corrective action, I don’t hold out much hope for real improvement (even though the Navy has a separate safety investigation). Perhaps that’s why I can’t help writing a scathing, sarcastic article because the Navy has always relied on blame after collisions at sea (rather than real root cause analysis). Our young men and women serving aboard Navy ships deserve better.

I won’t hold my breath waiting for a call from the Navy asking for help finding the real root causes of this tragic accident and developing effective corrective actions that would improve performance at sea. This is just another accident – much like the previous collisions at sea that the Navy has failed to prevent. Obviously, previous corrective actions weren’t effective. Or … maybe these BAD officers were very creative? They found a completely new way to crash their ship!

My guess is that Navy ships are being “ridden hard and put up wet” (horse riding terminology).

My prediction:

  1. The Navy will hold a safety stand down to reemphasize proper seamanship. 
  2. There will be future collisions with more guilty crews that get the usual Navy discipline.

That’s the way the Navy has always done it since the days of “wooden ships and iron men.” The only change … they don’t hang sailors from the yard arm or keel haul them in the modern Navy. That’s progress!

Bless all the sailors serving at sea in these difficult times. We haven’t done enough to support you and give you the leadership you deserve. Senior naval leadership should hang their heads in shame.

ACE – How do you find the root causes?

August 16th, 2017 by

Ace clipart four aces playing cards 0071 1002 1001 1624 SMU

First, for those not in the nuclear industry …

What is an ACE?

An ACE is an Apparent Cause Evaluation.

In the nuclear industry management promotes official reporting of ALL problems. The result? Many problem reports don’t deserve a full root cause analysis (like those performed for major investigation).

So how do nuclear industry professionals perform an ACE?

There is no standard method. But many facilities use the following “system” for the evaluation:

  1. Don’t waste a lot of time performing the evaluation.
  2. Make your best guess as to the cause.
  3. Develop a simple corrective action.
  4. Submit the evaluation for approval and add the corrective actions into the tracking and prioritization system.

That’s it.

How does that work? Not so good. Read about my opinion of the results here:

The Curse of Apparent Cause Analysis

That article is pretty old (2006), but my opinion hasn’t changed much.

So what do I recommend for simple incidents that don’t get a full investigation (a full investigation is described in Using TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis for Major Investigations)? I describe the process fully in:

Using the Essential TapRooT® Techniques to Investigate Low-to-Medium Risk Incidents

Here’s a flow chart of the process…

SimpleProcess

For all investigations you need to find out what REALLY happened. Then you make an important decision …

Is there anything worth learning here?

Many investigations will stop here. There is nothing worth spending more time investigating OR fixing.

The example in the book is someone falling while walking on a sidewalk.

If you decide there IS more to learn, then a simplified TapRooT® Process is used.

This process includes identifying Causal Factors, finding their root causes using the Root Cause Tree® Diagram, and developing fixes using the Corrective Action Helper® Guide.

That’s it. No Generic Cause Analysis and no fixing Generic Causes.

Want to learn more? Read the book. Get your copy here:

http://www.taproot.com/store/TapRooT-and-reg-investigation-Essentials-Book-set.html

Can Regulators Use TapRooT® Investigation Tools?

August 15th, 2017 by

Regulator Inspection Investigation

I had a question recently from one of our friends who works as a regulator in his country. He was wondering about the advantages of using TapRooT® as a regulator as opposed to an industry user. I think this is a great question.  We often think about doing incident investigations for ourselves, but how do you help those you oversee as a regulating body?

As a government agency, you have great potential to affect the safety and health of both your employees and those you oversee.

  • Just attending the TapRooT® training will give your staff the basic understanding of true, human-performance based root causes.  It gives your team a new perspective on why people make poor decisions, and just as importantly, why people make good decisions.  This understanding will guide your thinking as to why problems occur.   Once this perspective is clear, your team will no longer be tempted to just blame the individual for problems.  They will think more deeply about the organizational issues that are causing people to make bad decisions.
  • The training will give you the tools to perform accurate, consistent investigations.  You can have confidence in knowing that your team has discovered not one or 2 issues, but all the problems that led to an incident.
  • Your investigations and investigation report reviews using TapRooT® will be based on human performance expertise, helping to eliminate your team’s biases.  EVERYONE has biases, and using TapRooT® helps keep you focused on the true reasons people make mistakes.
  • You will also have the tools to be able to more accurately assess the adequacy of the investigations and corrective actions that are submitted to you by those you oversee.  You can see where they are doing good investigations, and where they probably need to improve.  The corrective actions that are suggested by those you oversee are often poorly written and do not address the real reasons for the incident.  The TapRooT® training will ensure you are seeing effective corrective actions.
  • If your agency conducts trending of the their results, you’ll be able to produce consistent, trendable data from your investigations.  If you ensure your industry constituents are also using TapRooT®, the data you receive from them will also allow for more accurate trending results.
  • Finally, you can use the TapRooT® tools learned during the course to perform proactive audits of your industry partners.  When you perform onsite inspections, you can ensure you are looking for the right problems, and assigning effective corrective actions for the problems encountered.  Instead of just looking for the same problems, the tools allow you to look deeper at the processes you are inspecting to find and correct potential issues before they become incidents.

TapRooT® gives you confidence that the results of your investigations, and those of those you oversee, result in fixable root causes and effective corrective actions.

How to Be A Great Root Cause Facilitator (Part 1)

August 2nd, 2017 by

In this new series, Benna Dortch and Ken Reed discuss the most important and valuable traits of a great root cause facilitator. Take note and implement them at work to be a more effective investigator. There is always room for improvement!

How to Be a Great Root Cause Facilitator (Part 1) from TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis on Vimeo.

A great facilitator also has great training. Register for a TapRooT® Advanced Root Cause Analysis Team Leader Training course.

Can bad advice make improvements more likely?

July 12th, 2017 by

Here is what a consultant recently wrote in a blog article that was republished on LinkedIn:

“The 5 WHY analysis is a simple and very effective technique.”

What do I think about 5 Whys? It is simple but it is NOT effective. Proof of the lack of effectiveness is all over the place. See these articles to find out just some of what I’ve written about the effectiveness of 5 Whys in the past:

 An Example of 5 Whys – Is this Root Cause Analysis? Let Me Know Your Thoughts…

What’s Fundamentally Wrong with 5-Whys?

Teruyuki Minoura (Toyota Exec) Talks About Problems with 5-Whys

Under Scrutiny (page 32)

If your root cause analysis is having problems, don’t double down on 5 whys by asking more whys. The problem is the root cause analysis system (5 Whys) and not your ability to ask why effectively.

The problem is that the techniques wasn’t designed with human capabilities and limitations in mind.

What system was developed with a human factors perspective? The TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis System. Read more about how TapRooT® was designed here:

http://www.taproot.com/products-services/about-taproot

Or get the book that explains how TapRooT® can help your leadership improve performance:

TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Leadership Lessons

Are you a member of the LinkedIn Group: TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Users and Friends?

July 11th, 2017 by

Screen Shot 2017 07 06 at 5 15 37 PM

Sometimes people ask me what TapRooT® Users are doing about a particular issue. I recommend they ask the question on the LinkedIn Group: TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Users and Friends.

There are over 3000 group members and it’ a great place to post a question or your opinions.

To join the group, see: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2164007

 

What happens when root cause analysis becomes too simple? Six problems I’ve observed.

July 5th, 2017 by

I’ve had many people explain to me that they understand that for serious incidents, they need robust root cause analysis (TapRooT®) because … finding effective fixes is essential. But for simple incidents, they just can’t invest the same effort that they use for major investigations.

I get it. And I agree. You can’t put the same level of effort into a simple incident that you put into a major accident. But what happens when the effort you put into a simple incident is too little. What happens when your simple investigation becomes too simple?

Here are the results that I’ve observed when people perform “too simple” investigations.

1. The first story heard is analyzed as fact.

People doing simple investigations often take the first “story” they hear about a simple incident and start looking for “causes”. The shortcut – not verifying what you hear – means that simple investigations are sometimes based on fairy tales. The real facts are never discovered. The real root causes are unknown. And the corrective actions? They are just ideas based on a fantasy world.

The result? The real problems never get fixed and they are left in place to cause future incidents. If the problems have the potential to cause more serious accidents … you have a ticking time bomb.

2. Assumptions become facts.

This is somewhat similar to the first issue. However, in this case the investigator fills in holes in the story they heard with assumptions. Because the investigator doesn’t have time to collect much info, these assumptions become facts and become the basis for the root cause analysis and corrective actions.

The result? Just like the first issue, real problems never get fixed. The real, undiscovered problems are left in place to cause future incidents. If the problems have the potential to cause more serious accidents … you have a ticking time bomb #2.

3. Skip root cause analysis and go straight to the fixes.

When you don’t have time for the investigation, why not just skip straight to the fixes? After all … we already know what caused the incident … right?

This is a frequent conclusion when people THINK they already know the answers and don’t need to bother with a troublesome investigation and root cause analysis to fix a “simple” problem.

The problems is that without adequate investigation and root cause analysis … you don’t really know if you are addressing the real issues. Do you feel lucky? Well do ya punk? (A little Clint Eastwood imitation.)

NewImage

The result? You are depending on your luck. And the problem you may not solve may be more powerful than a .44 magnum … the most powerful handgun in the world.

OK … if you want to watch the scene, here it is …

4. The illusion of progress.

Management often thinks that even though they don’t give people time to do a good investigation, simple investigations are better than nothing … right?

Management is buying into the illusion of progress. They see some action. People scurry around. Fixes are being recommended and maybe even being implemented (more training). So things must be getting better … right?

NO!

As Alfred A. Montapert said:

Do not confuse motion and progress.
A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress
.”

The result? If people aren’t finding the real root causes, you are mistaking the mistake of assuming that motion is progress. Progress isn’t happening and the motion is wasted effort. How much effort does your company have to waste?

5. Complacency – Just another investigation.

When people in the field see investigators make up facts and fixes, they know the real problems aren’t getting fixed. They see problems happening over and over again. They, too, may think they know the answers. Or they may not. But they are sure that nobody really cares about fixing the problems or management would do a better job of investigating them.

The result? Complacency.

If management isn’t worried about the problems … why should I (the worker) be worried?

This contributes to “the normalization of deviation.” See this LINK is you are interested.

6. Bad habits become established practice.

Do people do more simple investigations or major investigations?

If your company is like most, there are tons of simple investigations and very few major investigations. What happens because of this? The practices used in simple investigations become the practices used in major investigations.

Assumptions, shortcuts, made up fixes and more become the standard practice for investigators. The things they learned in a root cause analysis class aren’t what they practice. What gets practiced (the bad practices) becomes the standard way that business is done.

The result? The same poor standards that apply to simple investigations infect major investigations. Major investigation have the same poor root cause analysis and corrective actions seen in the simple investigations.

DON’T LET BAD PRACTICES INFECT YOUR CULTURE.

Would you like to see good practices for performing simple investigations? Here are two options:

1. Attend a TapRooT® 2-Day Root Cause Analysis Course. See the the dates and location of upcoming public courses here:

http://www.taproot.com/store/2-Day-Courses/

2. Read the new book: Using the Essential TapRooT® Techniques to Investigate Low-to-Medium Risk Incidents. Get your copy here:

http://www.taproot.com/store/TapRooT-and-reg-investigation-Essentials-Book-set.html

Now perform your Basic and Major investigations with TapRooT®

June 27th, 2017 by

TapRooT® is a robust root cause analysis system. When you have those major accidents and need an effective and thorough investigation, TapRooT® is the go-to solution. But what about those smaller, simpler, less complex incidents? Is it worth applying such a complex system for such a simple problem? Well, we think all problems are worth a thorough investigation, but we also realize you can only give up so much time on seemingly less serious incidents. Which is why the folks at TapRooT® decided to make a simpler version of our root cause analysis process so that you can still get the best results in less time.

Check out this video of Ken Reed, TapRooT® instructor and expert, to learn more.

 

7 Traits of a Great Root Cause Analysis Facilitator

June 27th, 2017 by

NewImage

After decades of teaching TapRooT® and being consulted about many investigations, I’ve met lots of root cause analysis facilitators. Some were good. Some were not so good. Some were really superior. Some were horrible. Therefore, I thought it might be interesting to relate what I see that separates the best from the rest. Here are the seven traits of the BEST.

1. They don’t jump to conclusions. The worst investigators I’ve seen think they know it all. They already have their minds made up BEFORE the first interview. They START the investigation to prove their point. They already know the corrective action they are going to apply … so all they have to do is affirm that the causes they already have assumed ARE the cause they find.

What do the best investigators do? They start by seeing where the evidence leads them. The evidence includes:

  • Physical evidence,
  • Paper evidence (documentations),
  • People evidence (interviews), and
  • Recordings (videos/pictures/tapes/computer records).

They are great at collecting evidence without prejudice. They perform “cognitive interviews” to help the interviewee remember as much as possible. (See the new book TapRooT® Evidence Collection and Interviewing Techniques to Sharpen Investigation Skills to learn more about cognitive interviews. The book should be released in August. Get the book with the course being held in November in Houston.)

The best investigators may have some technical knowledge, but they know when they need help to understand what the evidence is telling them. Therefore, they get technical experts when they need them.

2. They understand What before Why. The worst investigators start by asking WHY? Why did someone make a mistake? Why did the part fail? Why didn’t the guilty party use the procedure? These “why” questions tend to put people on the defensive. People start justifying what they did rather than sharing what they know.

The best investigators start with what and how. They want to understand what happened and how those involved reacted. What did they see as the problem? What were the indications they were observing? Who did they talk to and what did they say? What was happening and in what order did it happen?

People don’t get defensive about what and how questions. They are much more likely to share information and tell the truth. And these questions help develop an excellent SnapCharT® that helps the root cause analysis facilitator develop a “picture” of what happened.

3. They are not looking for the single root cause. The worst investigators are always looking for THE root cause. The smoking gun. The one thing that caused the problem that can be corrected by a simple corrective action. THE root cause that they are looking for.

The best investigators know that most accidents have multiple things that went wrong. They facilitate their team to understand all the causal factors and how these causal factors came together to cause that particular incident.

These root cause facilitators use their SnapCharT® and Safeguard Analysis to show how the problems came together to cause the incident. This can help show management how latent condition are hidden traps waiting to produce an accident that previously seemed impossible.

4. They dig deeper to find root causes. The worst investigator stop when they identify simple problems. For the worst investigators, HUMAN ERROR is a root cause.

The best investigators know that human error is just a starting point for a root cause analysis. They go beyond equipment failure and beyond human error by using effective investigative techniques that help them go beyond their own knowledge.

For example, if there is an equipment failure they consult the Equifactor® Troubleshooting Tables to find out more about the failure. This helps them get to the bottom of equipment problems. They often find that equipment failures are caused by human error.

For human performance related causal factors they use the Human Performance Troubleshooting Guide of the Root Cause Tree® to help them determine where they need to dig deeper into the causes of human error.

The best investigators don’t accept false stories. They have a good BS detector because false stories seldom make a sensible SnapCharT®.

5. They find root causes that are fixable. The worst investigators find root causes that management really can’t do anything to prevent. For example, telling people to “try harder” not to make a mistake IS NOT an effective corrective action to stop human errors.

The best investigators know that their are many ways to improve human performance. They understand that trying harder is important but that it is not a long-term solution. They look for human factors related fixes that come from human performance best practices. They know that the Root Cause Tree® can help them find problems with:

  • Procedures
  • Training
  • Quality Control
  • Communications
  • Management Systems
  • Human Engineering
  • Work Direction

And that by implementing best practices related to the root causes they identify, they can reduce the probability of future human errors.

6. They recommend effective corrective actions. The worst investigators recommend the three standard corrective actions for almost every problem:

  1. MORE TRAINING
  2. COUNSELING (tell them to be more careful and fire them if they get caught making the mistake again)
  3. If you are desperate, WRITE A PROCEDURE

That’s about it.

The best investigators start by understanding the risk represented by the incident. Higher risk incidents deserve higher order corrective actions. The highest order is to remove the Hazard. Other corrective actions may be related to strengthening the Safeguards by implementing human performance best practices. Sometimes these corrective actions may include training and procedures but that is seldom the only corrective actions recommended.

7. They know what they are doing. The worst investigators don’t really know what they are doing. They haven’t been trained to find root causes or the training they had was superficial at best. (Can you ask “Why?” five times?)

The best investigators are accomplished professionals. They’ve been in advanced root cause analysis training and have practiced what they have learned by performing many simple investigations before they were asked to jump into a major investigation. Even if they have several major investigations under their belt, they continue to practice their root cause analysis skills on simple investigations and on proactive audits and assessments.

Beyond practicing their skills, they attend the only worldwide summit focused on root cause analysis and investigation facilitation – The Global TapRooT® Summit. At the Summit they benchmark their skills with other facilitators from around the world and share best practices. Think of this as steel sharpening steel.

GOOD NEWS. The knowledge and skills that make the best investigators the best … CAN BE LEARNED.

Where? Have a look at these courses:

http://www.taproot.com/courses

And then plan to attend the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit in Knoxville, Tennessee, on February 26 – March 2 to sharpen your skills (or have those who work for you sharpen their skills).

NewImage

Six Sigma: Better Root Cause Analysis and Corrective Actions

June 22nd, 2017 by

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

Troubleshooting and Root Cause Analysis Issues Keep Military from Finding and Fixing the Causes of Oxygen Issues on Military Aircraft

June 15th, 2017 by

NewImage

Let me start by saying that when you have good troubleshooting and good root cause analysis, you fix problems and stop having repeat incidents. Thus, a failure to stop problems by developing effective corrective actions is an indication of poor troubleshooting and bad root cause analysis.

Reading an article in Flight Global, I decided that the military must have poor troubleshooting and bad root cause analysis. Why? Because Vice Admiral Groskiags testified to congress that:

“We’re not doing well on the diagnosis,” Grosklags told senators this week.
“To date, we have been unable to find any smoking guns.”

 What aircraft are affected? It seems there are a variety of problems with the F/A-18, T-45, F-35. F-22, and T-45. The article above is about Navy and Marine Corps problems but Air Force jets have experience problems as well.

Don’t wait for your problems to become operation critical. Improve your troubleshooting and root cause analysis NOW! Read about our 5-Day TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Team Leader Course HERE.

Are you using the latest TapRooT® Tools and do you have the latest TapRooT® Books?

June 6th, 2017 by

Over the past three years, we’ve been working hard to take everything we have learned about using TapRooT® in almost 30 years of experience and use that knowledge (and the feedback from thousands of users) to make TapRooT® even better.

So here is the question …

Do you have the latest TapRooT® Materials?

How can you tell? Look at the copyright dates in your books.

If you don’t have materials that are from 2016 or later, they aren’t the most up to date.

Where can you get the most recent materials?

First, if you have not yet attended a 5-Day TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Course, I’d recommend going. You will get:

Or, you can order all of these by CLICKING HERE.

NewImage

I think you will find that we’ve made the TapRooT® System even easier to use PLUS made it even more effective.

We recently published two other new books:

The TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Leadership Lessons book helps management understand how to apply TapRooT® to achieve operational excellence, high quality, and outstanding safety performance.

The TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis for Audits and Proactive Performance Improvement book explains how to use the TapRooT® Tools proactively for audits and assessments.

To order the books, just click on the links above.

And watch for the releases of the other new books we have coming out. Shortly, you will see the new books on:

  • Interviewing and information collection
  • Implementing TapRooT®
  • Troubleshooting and finding the root causes of equipment problems

That’s a lot of new information.

We have plans for even more but you will here about that at the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit that is being held in Knoxville, Tennessee, on February 26 – March 2. The Summit agenda will be posted shortly. (Watch for that announcement too!)

Monday Motivation: Modify your dreams or magnify your skills!

June 5th, 2017 by

  You must either modify your dreams or magnify your skills. – Jim Rohn

“Dream big,”” they say.

“If you can dream it, you can become it,” they say.

It’s the season of high school and college graduations, and success clichés are in the air.  And, to be fair, there is a certain amount of vision that can be gleaned from inspirational quotes.  But there is more to reaching success in your career than simply having a dream.  Don’t settle and modify your dreams.  You can bridge the gap of where you are now to where you want to be by magnifying your skills.

We can help you do just that!

If you want to magnify your leadership skills, read the TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Leadership Lessons book.

If you want to magnify your skills of conducting fast simple investigations, read the Using the Essential TapRooT® Techniques to Investigate Low-to-Medium Risk Incidents book or attend our 2-day TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Training.  We have made major strides in making TapRooT® easy to use. We even have a new five step process for doing a low-to-medium risk incident investigation.

If you want to magnify your skills of conducting major investigations, learn the whole TapRooT® process and tools for investigating high potential and high risk incidents by reading the TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis for Major Investigations book or attending our 5-day TapRooT® Advanced Root Cause Analysis Team Leader Training.  The book and course explain the entire 7-step TapRooT® System and all the TapRooT® Tools.

If you want to get ahead of accidents, incidents, and quality issues, then magnify your proactive/audit skills by reading the TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis for Audits and Proactive Performance Improvement book.

Don’t settle for less than what you want to do with your career.  Magnify your skills!

Time for Advanced Root Cause Analysis of Special Operations Sky Diving Deaths?

May 31st, 2017 by

Screen Shot 2017 05 31 at 1 20 19 PM

Click on the image above for a Navy Times article about the accident at a recent deadly demonstration jump over the Hudson River.

Perhaps it’s time for a better root cause analysis of the problems causing these accidents?

Simple 5-Whys becomes complex 5-Whys – Why not use TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis?

May 31st, 2017 by

This video doesn’t really address the problems with 5-Whys but it sure does make it more complex.

They suggest that you can brainstorm root causes. You can’t brainstorm what you don’t understand.

For a more complete discussion of why people have problems with 5-Whys, see:

An Example of 5 Whys – Is this Root Cause Analysis? Let Me Know Your Thoughts…

And for a better way to find root causes see:

About TapRooT®

To get a book that will help you understand how to really find the root causes of low-to-medium risk problems, see:

http://www.taproot.com/store/TapRooT-and-reg-investigation-Essentials-Book-set.html 

Root Cause Tip: “Enforcement Needs Improvement” – You Can’t Train Obedience/Compliance/Positive Behavior

May 26th, 2017 by

This is a quick clarification to stop a definite no-no in poorly developed corrective actions.

You find evidence during your root cause analysis to support the root cause “Enforcement NI” based on the following statements from your Root Cause Tree® Dictionary for a particular causal factor:

  • Was enforcement of the SPAC (Standards, Policies, Administrative Controls) seen as inconsistent by the employees?
  • Has failure to follow SPAC in the past gone uncorrected or unpunished?
  • Did management fail to provide positive incentives for people to follow the SPAC?
  • Was there a reward for NOT following the SPAC (for example: saving time, avoiding discomfort).
  • When supervisors or management noticed problems with worker behavior, did they fail to coach workers and thereby leave problems similar to this causal factor uncorrected?

But then if you create a corrective action to retrain, remind, and reemphasize the rules, directed at the employee or in rare occasions the immediate supervisor, your investigation started on track and jumped tracks at the end.

Now, I am okay with an alert going out to the field for critical to safety or operation issues as a key care about reminder, but that does not fix the issues identified with the evidence above. If you use Train/Re-Train as a corrective action, then you imply that the person must not have known how to perform the job in the first place. If that were the case, root causes under the Basic Cause Category of “Training” should have been selected.

Training covers the person’s knowledge, skills and abilities to perform a specific task safely and successfully. Training does not ensure sustainment of proper actions to perform the task; supervision acknowledgement, reward and discipline from supervision, senior leadership and peers ensure acceptance and sustainment for correct task behaviors.

Don’t forget, it is just as easy for supervision to ignore unsafe behavior as it is for an employee to deviate from a task (assuming the task was doable in the first place). Reward and discipline applies to changing supervision’s behavior as well.

Something else to evaluate. If the root cause of Enforcement NI shows up frequently, make sure that you are not closing the door prematurely on the Root Cause Tree® Dictionary Near Root Causes of:

  • Oversight/Employee Relations (Audits should be catching this and the company culture should be evaluated).
  • Corrective Actions (If you tried to fix this issue before, why did it fail?).

Remember, you can’t train obedience/compliance/positive behavior. Finally, if you get stuck on developing a corrective active for Enforcement NI or any of our root causes, stop and read your Corrective Action Helper®.  

Learn more by attending one of our upcoming TapRooT® Courses or just call 865.539.2139 and ask a question if you get stuck after being trained.

Connect with Us

Filter News

Search News

Authors

Angie ComerAngie Comer

Software

Barb CarrBarb Carr

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

We initially started using TapRooT® in 2002 in order to improve the quality…

OCEANEERING

The healthcare industry has recognized that improved root cause analysis of quality incidents…

Good Samaritan Hospital
Contact Us