Category: Performance Improvement

Why do people try to make root cause analysis so difficult?

January 17th, 2018 by

NewImage

I read a comment string on LinkedIn about root cause analysis. People made the concepts and techniques so hard to understand.

First, there was an argument over what is a root cause. One person argued that there was no such thing because EVERY cause had another deeper cause. Someone else argued that there wasn’t a root cause because most incidents had multiple causes. Someone else introduced the idea of root causes, contributing causes, causal factors, and initiating events. Someone else brought up the concept of latent causes and Swiss cheese.

If that wasn’t enough disagreement, another side argument started over what was an incident, and accident, a near-miss, and a significant incident. This lead to a discussion of what needed investigation and how good an investigation was good enough.

At SI, we too had discussions about these topics 30 years ago. However, in the TapRooT® System, these arguments are settled and the terminology is either settled or irrelevant.

Perhaps it is my engineering and Nuclear Navy training that lead me away from philosophical discussions and turned me toward practical solutions to problems.

Perhaps it was my human factors training that made it easy to see why people made mistakes and what we could do to prevent them.

Perhaps it is my ability to take complex subjects and make them understandable that lead to the development of a systematic, practical, repeatable system to find the root causes of problems – the TapRooT® System.

So, if you are tired of debate and just want a system that has been proven around the world to find and fix the root causes of safety, quality, equipment, and production issues, learn about TapRooT® and save lot’s of time by avoiding needless arguments.

CLICK HERE to find out more about our 2-Day and 5-Day TapRooT® Training.

CLICK HERE to see where our upcoming public TapRooT® Training is being held.

Or CLICK HERE to contact us about having a course at your site.

Why are the SMARTEST people going to the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit?

January 17th, 2018 by

SummitHands

About three Summits ago, I had a Summit attendee come up to me and say:

Mark, it is amazing the quality of speakers and topics you put together for the Summit.
But even more amazing is the networking. The people at this Summit are some of
the smartest people working on real life performance improvement in industry!
I just wanted to tell you thanks for making this happen.

 How do we get such high quality attendees? That’s the kind of people who use TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis to stop accidents, improve quality, reduce risk, and improve equipment reliability.

If you haven’t registered for the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit yet, GET HOT! Visit the Summit web site and get registered TODAY!

Don’t Miss the TapRooT® Family Reunion

January 17th, 2018 by

NewImage

The Global TapRooT® Summit was almost named the TapRooT® Family Reunion. Why? Because that’s the way it feels.

Friendly folks getting together to say hello and get reacquainted.

Unless you belong to a dysfunctional family, you know what I mean.

This family has a common goal. They to share best practices and learn how to achieve outstanding performance. TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis is a part of that effort. But there is so much more to learn and share at the reunion (Summit). And that’s why we sponsor the Summit and spend lavishly on speakers.

We want to provide the opportunity for our best clients to meet face to face, develop relationships, and get new ideas to make safety, quality, equipment reliability, patient and process safety, and productivity even better. And leave the Summit inspired to go back home and make performance great.

The learning that takes place is one of the reasons that we require Certified TapRooT® instructors to attend the Summit at least once every two years. We think that keeping up to date on the latest improvement ideas is that important.

So don’t miss the reunion (the Summit) and your chances to make your performance improvement efforts that much better. Register for the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit (February 26 – March 2, Knoxville, TN) TODAY by CLICKING HERE.

Why does your site need someone (or a team) at the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit?

January 10th, 2018 by

MarkatSummit2

Since there are so many high-quality conferences and events put on each year, you really need to think about which ones you should go to. If you haven’t signed up for the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit yet, here are four top reasons to attend.

REASONS TO ATTEND THE SUMMIT

1. SAVE MONEY

You can’t afford a major accident, a fatality, a serious quality defect, a sentinel event or an unexpected equipment failure.

The TapRooT® Summit is a unique gathering of people intent on improving performance. They share ideas across companies, disciplines, and continents. The sharing of new ideas and best practices will help you develop ideas to stop accidents, fatalities, quality issues, sentinel events, and equipment failures.

What you may not have thought of is how much money this could save your company. Do you know the costs of human errors that occurred at your site? What were your workman’s comp costs? How much does unexpected downtime and lost production cost your site? What were the costs of legal issues due to mistakes and the resulting lawsuits? You will be far ahead financially if you stop just ONE major issue.

2. GET A PROMOTION

What will happen to your career is you are seen as an essential problem solver that leads the sites improvement efforts?

But where will you get the skills and ideas to lead improvement at your site? That’s easy. Attend the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit.

When we plan the Summit we take the lessons we learn from teaching root cause analysis around the world and build sessions that we know will help solve frequently occurring issues that we have observed at courses. You will be surprised how many people face issues similar to the ones that you face and how there are people who have figured out how to improve performance and stop those problems. Don’t reinvent the wheel. Attend the Summit and learn from the success of others.

3. GET FIRED UP!

Improving performance requires constant attention. Working hard to constantly improve performance can wear you down. Where do you get the motivation to continually challenge the status quo? Attend the TapRooT® Summit!

Most people we talk to before the Summit say that they are attending to learn new skills and get new ideas and best practices to help their site improve performance. And after the Summit they agree that they learned valuable information well worth the time and expense of attended. But they are surprised that they got an unexpected benefit that was even more valuable. They left the Summit FIRED UP to go back to work and make things happen.

Why is motivation so valuable? Because an unmotivated person is unlikely to have the stamina to see an improvement effort through to completion. They get started but they don’t get things done.

We understand motivation and making improvements happen and that’s why we know that motivation is important. That’s why we build in events to motivate you throughout the Summit. Attend the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit and go back to work CHARGED UP to make improvement happen.

4. HAVE FUN

What? How can fun be an important reason to attend the TapRooT® Summit? We have learned that people learn more, retain more, and bring more and better ideas back to work from the Summit if they have fun learning and sharing.

After all, who says that work and learning have to be dull and boring? We have discovered how to make the Summit an activity that you will find valuable and ENJOYABLE every time you attend.

ONE MORE IDEA…

Have you ever noticed how an effective team accomplishes much more than a single motivated individual?

That’s why we recommend that a site truly interested in achieving excellence send an improvement team to the TapRooT® Summit.

A team can spread out across the various sessions (there are tracks with various topics to pick from). Someone might attend the Safety Track while someone else attends the Quality Track, while someone else attends the Human Factors Track, while someone else attends the Asset Optimization Track. See the schedules for the various tracks by CLICKING HERE.

GUARANTEE

We know that you will find the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit a valuable experience. We know that you will have a great return on your investment of time and money. And we provide you with this guarantee:

Attend the Summit and go back to work and use what you’ve learned. If you don’t get at least 10 times the return on your investment, simply return the Summit materials and we’ll refund the entire Summit fee.

So don’t wait. REGISTER TODAY!

Want to see what people who attend the Summit have to say after they attend? Here’s a video I made a few years ago and it sure is a blast from the past that still applies today…

Sorry, we won’t be having golf at this Summit (the first week in March in Tennessee just doesn’t work) but we will have a great reception and a lot of sharing.

Why Should I get the New TapRooT® Books?

January 9th, 2018 by

When someone calls me for help with an investigation, I often ask them what color TapRooT® Book they have. Sometimes they want to know..

What difference does it make what color my book is?

The answer is that it let’s me know how long ago they took TapRooT® Training and what version of the TapRooT® System they are using.  It is always sad to see people struggling with an issue we solved by improving TapRoot® and they just don’t know about the improvement.

Over the almost three decades that we have been developing TapRooT®, we have made major improvements. If you are still using the system that came in three-ring binders, you are back in the 1996 version of the system.

You might think that NOBODY would be using that outdated a version of the system but someone sent me a review of TapRooT® that they read and … sure enough … the review was of the 1996 book. So to people still using the three-ring binders: Update your documentation to the newest version and you will be shocked.

If you have the green book, you are working from the 2000 revision. You are working from a system from the same millennia. Update to the new version and you will jump ahead 16 years.

If you have the thick black book, you are working from the 2008 version. You too will be pleasantly surprised by what we have learned in the last eight years and how we have improved the usefulness of the TapRooT® Books.

And what is the latest version? These books are also black but there are  smaller and there are eight of them (currently book five and eight are still in production).

What do these books look like and how are they an improvement over the older 2008 book?

BOOKS 3 & 4

NewImage

Above is the Investigation book set. It includes:

These are the books that cover using TapRooT® to find the root causes of everything from small/minor incidents to major accidents.

How are they an improvement over the older 2008 TapRooT® Book? Well … we took everything we have learned in the last eight years and used it to improve our documentation. And the first things we learned is … LESS IS MORE. That’s why we broke the books up into separate topics. You can just read what is applicable to what you are doing. But how specifically is the investigation set improved over the old book?

  • The set includes the latest Root Cause Tree® and Dictionary that make the system even better with improved definitions in the Dictionary and an new category (language) in the Communication Basic Cause Category.
  • The Essentials Book is a an easy read (only 100 pages long). It guides you through a new 5 step process that makes TapRooT® easy to use for simple investigations. This improves your simple investigations while saving time.
  • The Major Investigations Book explains the whole TapRooT® System and includes the traditional 7-Step Investigation Process. The book includes improved TapRooT® Techniques, detailed examples of each technique, and even better ideas to help you identify your Causal Factors before you start analyzing their root causes.
  • The set also references the latest TapRooT® Software (Version VI).

The ideas we have for improving low-to-medium risk investigations alone are worth buying the new set.

Book 3: Using the Essential TapRooT® Techniques to Investigate Low-to-Medium Risk Incidents, is included in the 2-Day TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Training. The 5-Day TapRooT® Advanced Root Cause Analysis Team Leader Training include Book 4: Using TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis for Major Investigations, and Book 3.

But that’s just two (Books 3 & 4) of the new books. What else is there and what new information is in the other six books? Read on…

NewImage

BOOK 1

Until Book 1: TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Leadership Lessons was written, we really didn’t have a book that explained the concepts of TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis to management. Now we have produced a concept book that is just 70 pages long (think of it as a bedtime story for management). When management asks what they need to know about TapRooT®, Book 1 is the place to start.

Of course, we would like leaders to learn much more about a tool that should be in their leadership tool kit but Book 1 is a starting point to get management to understand the basis for TapRooT® and how it will help them improve safety, quality, productivity, and environmental compliance.

To learn more about this book, CLICK HERE, or order your copy at: http://www.taproot.com/store/TapRooT-R-Philosophy.html.

NewImage

BOOK 2

Book 2: TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Implementation, is for those in charge of an improvement program. It explains how TapRooT® can be used to improve an already existing program or part of a completely new improvement effort.

Making this a separate book (89 pages long) helps the right people get the right information to make their improvement program much more effective.

What’s in the book?

  • The “Just Do It!” method of getting started.
  • How to add TapRooT® Root Cause analysis to an existing 6 Sigma, Lean, 8-D, Process Safety, Behavior-Based Safety, or other improvement initiative.
  • Building a best-in-class improvement initiative.
  • A checklist to evaluate your improvement efforts.

If you are serious about improvement and in charge of a program to make improvement happen … this book is for you. Order it HERE.

Book 5

This book is close enough to finished that I can explain what you will find in it when it comes out. If you are interested in equipment troubleshooting and root cause analysis, this is the book for you.

Book 5: Using Equifactor® Troubleshooting Tools and TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis to Improve Equipment Reliability, explains how to use TapRooT® and Equifactor® to solve equipment problems. The new book explains the techniques and includes a paper version of the equipment troubleshooting tables from the TapRooT® VI Software all in one book. That makes this a much handier reference.

We expect this book to be available in the 1st half of 2018. Watch our newsletter for more information.

NewImage

Book 6

Book 6: TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis for Audits and Proactive Performance Improvement, explains how to build TapRooT® root cause analysis into your audits and proactive improvement efforts. It’s only 57 pages long and is a great compliment to books 3 and 4.

It describes the 7-step process for using TapRoot® in an audit and how to build TapRooT® techniques into your proactive improvement efforts.

When you order the book HERE, you will also get the latest:

  • TapRooT® Root Cause Tree®
  • TapRooT® Root Cause Tree® Dictionary
  • TapRooT® Corrective Action Helper® Guide

What’ new about book 6? It is the latest information about using TapRooT® to audit performance. It can be used for safety or quality audits. It’s a very fast read.

This book is included in the course materials for the pre-Summit TapRooT® for Audits Course.

NewImage

Book 7

Book 7: TapRooT® Evidence Collection and Interviewing Techniques to Sharpen Investigation Skills, is all about information collection. We’ve never had a book specifically about this topic. In the past you had to find some of the information provided here buried in the steps of the old 2008 TapRooT® Book.

But this book is more than just a rehash of the information about interviewing and evidence collection. In  addition to information about planning your evidence collection, emergency response and scene management, and the TapRooT® investigation process, it includes:

  • The 3 P’s and an R of evidence collection. (People, Paper, Physical, and Recordings)
  • The TapRooT® 12-Step Interview Process (Cognitive Interviewing)
  • Decoding non verbal behavior
  • Building your investigation kit
  • An initial observation form
  • An interview preparation form
  • An evidence log
  • How to use Change Analysis and CHAP as part of an interview/evidence collection process

That’s a lot to pack into a 93 page book! Buy this book by CLICKING HERE.

Book 8

This book is also still in production but is also expected in the first half of 2018. Book 8: TapRooT® Performance Measures and Trending for Safety, Quality, and Business Management, explains the state-of-the-art in performance measurement and trending.

If you have ever wondered how you can prove that you have improved or if a “negative” trend is actually significant, this is the book for you.

In addition, the book explains what management should know about trends. This information can keep them from being misled by false trends and how to use trends to manage improvement initiative.

The math involved isn’t complicated, but it is beyond some of the common “trending” graphs that you may be using now.

This book is included in the pre-Summit Advanced Trending Techniques Course. Watch our newsletter for more information on when the book will be available.

KEEP UP TO DATE! If you don’t have the latest TapRooT® Books that apply to your work, order them today!

Resolve to Improve!

January 2nd, 2018 by

NewImage

On New Year’s Eve, did you make a resolution? According to the data company, iQuanti, here were the top seven resolutions made:

  1. Get healthy.
  2. Get organized.
  3. Live life to the fullest.
  4. Learn new hobbies.
  5. Spend less/save more.
  6. Travel.
  7. Read more.

Are you surprised by any of the above? Nothing earth shattering there.  Outside personal improvements, there is a way to truly make a difference in your own life as well as the lives of others. The one resolution not on the top seven list that you shouldn’t overlook is a work-related resolution.

Here are some work-related resolutions to consider…

  • Eliminate the blame environment when someone makes a mistake.
  • Stop problems from happening over and over again.
  • Save time and get better results when you perform an incident investigation.
  • Learn best practices to make your workplace safer and more productive.
  • Become better at your job by applying state-of-the-art root cause analysis.

How do you do these things?

TapRooT®

Start by attending TapRooT® Training. See our upcoming courses here:

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

Then make sure that you are at the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit to learn best practices from around the world. That’s the best place to learn best practices from industry leaders from around the world. The Summit is in Knoxville, TN, on February 26 – March 2. See the Summit schedule here:

http://www.taproot.com/taproot-summit/summit-schedule

And register here:

http://www.taproot.com/taproot-summit/register-for-summit

The knowledge you will gain will help you make 2018 the best year ever.

Are you interested in improving human performance? Try this four step plan!

December 19th, 2017 by

Plan4

Is discipline the main way you “fix” human error problems?

Are you frustrated because people make the same kind of mistakes over and over again?

Have you tried “standard” techniques for improving human performance and found that they just don’t get the job done long term (they have an impact short term but not long term)?

Is management grasping for solutions to human error issues?

Would you like to learn best practices from industry human performance experts?

Try this four step plan:

DSC084

1. Attend a 5-Day TapRooT® Advanced Root Cause Analysis Course.

The TapRoot® System is made to reactively and proactively help you solve human performance issues. It has built in human factors expert systems that guide you to the root causes of human errors and help you develop effective fixes. The 5-Day TapRooT® Course is the best way to learn the system and get started fixing human performance issues.

See the upcoming course schedule here: http://www.taproot.com/store/5-Day-Courses/

NewImage

2. Attend the Understanding and Stopping Human Error Course

At this two day class, Dr. Joel Haight, a human factors and safety improvement expert and industrial engineering professor at the University of Pittsburg (where he is the Director of the Safety Engineering Program) shares the reasons why people make mistakes and what you can do to understand the problems and fix them.

Joel is an expert TapRooT® User having extensive experience apply TapRooT® to fix human factors problems at a Chevron refinery and in the oil field in Kazakhstan. He is also an expert in applying other human performance analysis and improvement techniques. He brings this knowledge to the 2-Day Understanding and Stopping Human Error Course.

It is best if you have already attended at least a 2-Day TapRooT® Course prior to attending this course. See the course description here: http://www.taproot.com/taproot-summit/pre-summit-courses#HumanError

DSC260

3. Attend the Human Factors Track at the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit

Once a year we put together a track at the Global TapRooT® Summit that is designed to share best practices and the latest state-of-the-art techniques to improve human performance. That’s what you get at the Human Factor Track at the Summit. What are the sessions at the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit?

  • TapRooT® Users Share Best Practices – This is a workshop designed to promote the sharing of investigation, root cause analysis, and human performance best practices from TapRooT® Users from around the world. Every year I attend this session and get new ideas that I share with others to help improve performance. Many say this is the best session at the Summit because they get such great ideas and develop new, helpful contacts from many different industries.
  • Top 5 Reasons for Human Error and How to Stop Them – Mark Paradies, President of System Improvements and a human factors expert, shares his deep knowledge of the top five reasons that he see’s for people making “human errors.” For each of these he shares his best ideas to stop the problems in their tracks.
  • Stop Daily Goofs for Good – Kevin McManus, a TapRooT® Instructor and performance improvement expert, shares systematic improvement ideas s to prevent human error and improve cognitive ergonomics on the job.
  • Using Wearables to Minimize Daily Human Errors – Using “wearables” is a technological approach to error prevention. Find out more about how it is being used and may be applied even more effectively in the future.
  • Alarm Management, Signal Detection Theory, and Decision Making – Are people at your facility overwhelmed by alarms? Do the become complacent because of nuisance alarms? Dr. Joel Haight, Director of the University of Pittsburg Safety Engineering Program will discuss control system decisions, decision execution, alarm management, signal detection theory, and decision making theory and how it could be critical in an emergency situation.
  • The Psychology of Failing Fixes – Why do your fixes fail to prevent human error? That’s what this session is all about!
  • What is a Trend and How Can You Find Trends in the TapRooT® Data? – looking for trends in human error data is an important activity to identify generic human factors problems and take the first step to major human performance improvements. Now for the bad news. Most people really don’t understand trending. Find out what you need to know and how to put trending to work in your improvement program.
  • Performance Improvement Gap Analysis – This is the session where you put everything together. Where does your program have holes? How can you apply what you have learned to fill those holes? What are others doing to solve similar problems? Put your plan together so you are ready to hit the ground running and make improvements happen when you get back to work.

And the Best Practice Sessions outlined above are only a start. You will also see five great Keynote Speakers:

NewImage

Mike Williams will share his experience surviving the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

NewImage

Dr. Carol Gunn will share the story of the her sisters unnecessary death in a hospital and patient safety improvement.

NewImage

Inky Johnson will share his experience with a debilitating football injury and how it changed his life and helps him inspire excellence in others.

NewImage

Mark Paradies will help you get the most out of your application of TapRooT®.

NewImage

Vincent Ivan Phipps will teach yo to amplify your leadership skills and communication ability.

We know that the Summit will provide you with new ideas and the inspiration to implement them.

Start

4. Get started! Analyze your human performance issues and make improvements happen!

Just Do It! get back to work and implement what you have learned. Need more help? We can provide training at your site to get more people trained in using TapRooT® so that you have help making change happen.

Don’t wait! Get your four step plan started! Register for the courses and Summit today!

Secretary of the Navy Strategic Readiness Review – Management System Problems Broke the US Navy

December 14th, 2017 by

Yes, “Management System Problems Broke the US Navy” is my headline.

 

The report to the Secretary of the Navy is much worse than I thought. The report outlines how budget restrictions and congressional leadership made the Navy conform to the structures of the Army and the Air Force and de-emphasized the role of providing seapower. That’s how the US Navy was broken. And it will be difficult to fix. (“All the King’s horses and all the King’s men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again!” was a lesson learned in 1648 during the English civil war.)

NewImage

Many of the problems are Management System problems as outlined in a Navy Times article about the Strategic Review report to the Secretary of the Navy. The good news is … the authors of the Strategic Review get the Management System root causes pretty much right! The bad news is that it is less clear that the Navy has the ability to fix the issues because they are a result of Congressional action (funding, ship procurement, the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act, the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, and National Defense Authorization Act provisions) and the Navy’s response to congressional cutbacks (Optimum Manning, the SWOS-in-a-box, modifications to the surface warfare officer sea-shore rotations and assignments, and the 2001 Revolution in Training for enlisted personnel).

The review says that the Navy must cut back their commitments to operational requirements in “peacetime.” But that is unlikely in the near wartime footing that they Navy faces in their forward deployments.

One of the recommendations made by the Strategic Review is for the Type Commanders to implement the “Rickover Letters” that are part of the Nuclear Navy Commanding Officer reporting structure. This will only work if the Type Commanders maintain strict requirements that Admiral Rickover established in the Nuclear Navy. This has not been the culture in the conventional surface Navy – EVER. Thus this would be a dramatic cultural shift.

Navy brass in the 1980’s and 1990’s wished that sailors at sea could do more with less and that “technology” would make that possible. Unfortunately the cuts were made (Optimal Manning and Continuous Maintenance Plan) without proof of concept testing. Now, over two decades later, the chickens have come home to roost.

The USA is an island nation. We can’t exist in our modern economy without sea trade. Thus, the USA must be the premier sea power. This requirement is independent of the “War on Terror,” the “War on Drugs,” or other missions to support land forces. Somehow past Presidents and Congressional leaders have not funded the seapower mission. Thus, we find ourselves in a bind that will be hard to fix.

The people in senior Navy leadership positions have grown up in a broken system. We must now ask them to fix (restore) the system when they have never seen it work properly. The CNO in a Navy Nuke from the submarine fleet that has faced budget reductions but has not faced the same personnel and training issues. He grew up in a different culture.

By making the US Navy the “same” as the Air Force and the Army, the unique requirements of the Navy were overlooked and the Navy was broken. Can it be fixed? The recommendations of the Strategic Review could start the repair process. But it is only a start. Many uniquely “Navy” cultural and readiness issues are not addressed in the report. Plus, this report probably will not get the attention it deserves until a failure of our war-fighting ability at sea produces a major foreign policy fiasco or, even worse, economic collapse at home because our island nation is cut off from overseas supplies.

One last comment.

The Strategic Review calls for the establishment of a “learning culture.” The authors of the Strategic Review call for proactive learning instead of the current culture of punishment based reactive learning. They frequently mention the “normalization-of-deviation” as if it a relatively recent US Navy cultural problem rather than being the state of the conventional surface navy for decades (or centuries?). They should read the article about Admiral Rickover and the normalization-of-excellence to better understand the changes that are needed. Also, establishing a proactive, learning culture isn’t possible until the US Navy understands advanced root cause analysis (which current investigations and corrective actions prove that the Navy does not understand).

The recommendations of section 6.3 of the Strategic Review are putting the “cart in front of the horse.” The FIRST step in correcting the Navy’s culture is for all naval officers (senior commanders through junior officers) to understand advanced root cause analysis. Without this understanding, learning – either proactive or reactive – is impossible. We have worked with industry leaders and we know of what we speak.

I certainly hope the US Navy makes significant progress in correcting the glaring shortcomings outlined in the Strategic Review. The lives of sailors at sea depend on it. But even worse, a failure to fix the root causes of the Management System problems and the poor understanding of advanced root cause analysis will certainly lead to failures of our seapower and serious foreign policy issues that may cause tremendous economic troubles for the US. I’m old and may not see the day when we discover that under-investment in seapower was a gigantic mistake. But if this problem isn’t fixed rapidly and effectively, certainly my children and grandchildren will face an uncertain, dark future.

I would be happy to discuss the improvements in root cause analysis that are needed with any Navy leader concerned that a more effective approach is needed.

Ten Indicators that your Company may have a Safety Culture Problem

December 11th, 2017 by


What puzzle pieces do you need to put in place to improve your safety culture?

A safety culture is difficult to measure, but there are some indicators that alert us to problems.

  1. There is no visible commitment from leadership.
  2. When there are competing priorities, safety comes in second.
  3. Workers feel uncomfortable reporting safety issues to their supervisors.
  4. Safety is viewed as more of a cost than an investment.
  5. Injuries and illnesses are sometimes swept under the rug.
  6. Safety issues are dealt with in an untimely and inefficient manner.
  7. Workers do not have the power or resources to find and fix problems as they see them.
  8. Managers are never seen on the shop floor with the workers.
  9. Safety is not part of the everyday conversation.
  10. Workers are blamed for accidents.

Do any of these sound familiar? If you identify problems like those listed above, you can improve your facility’s safety culture. We’re excited to welcome Brian A. Tink and Brian W. Tink back to the Global TapRooT® Summit to share their popular 2-day Pre-Summit course, “TapRooT® Analyzing and Fixing Safety Culture Issues.”

Click here to learn more about this course.

Register now for the 2-day course only (Febuary 26 and 27)

Register now for the 3-day Global TapRooT® Summit and this 2-day course (February 26 – March 2)

My 20+ Year Relationship with 5-Why’s

December 11th, 2017 by

I first heard of 5-Why’s over 20 years ago when I got my first job in Quality. I had no experience of any kind, I got the job because I worked with the Quality Manager’s wife in another department and she told him I was a good guy. True story…but that’s how things worked back then!

When I was first exposed to the 5-Why concept, it did not really make any sense to me; I could not understand how it actually could work, as it seemed like the only thing it revealed was the obvious. So, if it is obvious, why do I need it? That is a pretty good question from someone who did not know much at the time.

I dived into Quality and got all the certifications, went to all the classes and conferences, and helped my company build an industry leading program from the ground up. A recurring concept in the study and materials I was exposed to was 5-Why. I learned the “correct” way to do it. Now I understood it, but I still never thought it was a good way to find root causes.

I transferred to another division of the company to run their safety program. I did not know how to run a safety program – I did know all the rules, as I had been auditing them for years, but I really did not know how to run the program. But I did know quality, and those concepts helped me instill an improvement mindset in the leaders which we successfully applied to safety.

The first thing I did when I took the job was to look at the safety policies and procedures, and there it was; when you have an incident, “ask Why 5 times” to get your root cause! That was the extent of the guidance. So whatever random thought was your fifth Why would be the root cause on the report! The people using it had absolutely no idea how the concept worked or how to do it. And my review of old reports validated this. Since then I have realized this is a common theme with 5-Why’s; there is a very wide variation in the way it is used. I don’t believe it works particularly well even when used correctly, but it usually isn’t in my experience.

Since retiring from my career and coming to work with TapRooT®, I’ve had literally hundreds of conversations with colleagues, clients, and potential clients about 5-Why’s. I used to be somewhat soft when criticizing 5-Why’s and just try to help people understand why TapRooT® gets better results. Recently, I’ve started to take a more militant approach. Why? Because most of the people I talk to already know that 5-Why’s does not work well, but they still use it anyway (easier/cheaper/quicker)!

So it is time to take the gloves off; let’s not dance around this any longer. To quote Mark Paradies:
“5-Why’s is Root Cause Malpractice!”

To those that are still dug in and take offense, I do apologize! I can only share my experience.

For more information, here are some previous blog articles:

What’s Wrong With Cause-and-Effect, 5-Why’s, & Fault Trees

Comparing TapRooT® to Other Root Cause Tools

What’s Fundamentally Wrong with 5-Whys?

Not Near-Misses … They Are Precursors

December 5th, 2017 by

I had an epiphany today.

Have you ever noticed how management doesn’t take near-miss incidents seriously? They don’t see them as just one step away from a fatality?

I think part of the problem may be the terminology.

Near-miss just doesn’t sound very serious. After all … it was a miss.

But what if we called these incidents PRECURSORS.

A precursor tells you that something IS going to happen unless you change.

If management saw these incidents as an indicator that something was GOING TO HAPPEN, then, maybe, they would take action.

You may have already thought of this and changed the language that you use around incidents … but I haven’t seen the words PRECURSOR INCIDENTS used very often. Now may be the time to start.

One more thing … Precursor Incidents mean that incidents that could not cause an accident ARE NOT precursors. Thus, paper cuts are not precursors of amputations.

Therefore, we can stop wasting our time investigating incidents that will never cause a serious injury.

Just a thought…

Can Your Company Afford a Second Rate Improvement Program?

November 28th, 2017 by

NewImage

Sometimes it seems like management’s only objective is to cut costs. Can you produce excellence and record profits by cost cutting alone? Your company needs a world-class improvement program!

How do you get a world-class improvement program? As George Washington Carver said:

NewImage

Start where you are with what you have.
Make something of it and never be satisfied.

Have you become satisfied? Is it time to improve?

If you have never attended TapRooT® Training, start your improvement journey with a 2-Day TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Course.

But most readers here have already learned the basics. They are ready for more. Perhaps a 5-Day TapRooT® Advanced Root Cause Analysis Team Leader Course. It’s a great place to learn to improve your skills to learn to investigate difficult, high-risk incidents.

If you are looking to go beyond just improving your own knowledge and you want to improve your company’s performance improvement initiatives, try reading our new book:

TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Implementation – Changing the Way Your Company Solves Problems

NewImage

CLICK HERE to get your copy.

That’s a great start but there is even more…

Would you like to benchmark with industry leaders and learn from improvement experts from around the world? Attend the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit. Many Summit attendees have explained that attending the Summit is a great way to learn from others and make your improvement program world-class.

People share their success and learn from others…

Many attend the pre-Summit advanced courses to get even more learning packed into their trip…

NewImage(Barb teaching the Effective Interviewing and Evidence Collection Course)

Improvement is a never ending cycle of discovery. What are you doing to move the process forward?

NewImage

Is it time to make your improvement program world-class or are you settling for second rate performance?

NewImage

How Do You Get Started Using TapRooT® to Improve Your Root Cause Analysis?

November 21st, 2017 by

NewImage

Start where you are, with what you have.
Make something of it and never be satisfied.
George Washington Carver

When someone asks me where they should start when implementing TapRooT® to improve root cause analysis, my answer is ALWAYS:

It depends on where you are.

Your company vision makes all the difference in deciding what you need to do first to implement TapRooT® as you problem solving tool of choice.

What is your corporate vision? It is one of these three:

  • Blame Vision
  • Crisis Vision
  • Opportunity to Improve Vision

If you don’t know about these three types of “Vision,” read about them in the TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Leadership Lessons book.

If your company looks for problems as an opportunity to improve, you are in luck! Your company has the Opportunity to Improve Vision and you have a high probability of success! You can begin with any of the “getting started” sections of the book, TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Implemention – Changing the Way Your Company Solves Problems.

There are three main places to start that are described in the book…

Chapter 1 describes the most frequently used way to start using the TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis System: “Just Do It.” This is a fast way to see the benefits that TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis provides.

Chapter 2 describes incorporating the TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Tools into an already existing improvement system. If you have implemented Lean, Six Sigma, TQM, RCM, TPM, ISO, Operational Excellence, Process Safety Management, Patient Safety, Behavior Based Safety, or HU, this might be the place that you choose to start implementing TapRooT®.

Chapter 3 describes a complete implementation of TapRooT® based on the best practices we have observed from TapRooT® Users from around the world. This guide to audit a “complete” implementation may seem complex. Perhaps that is why so many TapRooT® Users start with the simpler methods described in Chapters 1 and 2 and use Chapter 3 as their ultimate goal.

NewImage

Read TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Implemention – Changing the Way Your Company Solves Problems and learn more about implementing TapRooT® at your site. Or give us a call at 865-539-2139 or contact us through our web site by CLICKING HERE to discuss your options.

But whatever you do … DON”T WAIT. Problems aren’t going to get any smaller while you wait to improve your root cause analysis.

Put your root cause analysis data to use

November 20th, 2017 by

 

“Just as the introduction of electricity shifted the world’s industrialized economies into higher gear a century ago, digital technologies are fueling economic activity today. This time, however, the transformation is unfolding exponentially faster.” from Digital America: A Tale of the Haves and Have Mores, McKinsey & Company

We live in an age of information, data is collected in evermore places and shared between people and machines in the IoT. Data collection and analysis is becoming easier and easier, with apps, new devices and software.

Still, in the construction industry 30% to 60% of contractors surveyed in the recent Construction Technology Report use manual processes or spreadsheets to manage takeoff, estimating, subcontractor prequalification, bids and data collection. Fewer than half of contractors responding to the survey use mobile apps for daily reporting, worker time entry, managing safety, or tracking job performance.

When it comes to investigating issues and doing root cause analysis, the TapRooT® approach yields effective and consistent results across different industries. For several years software has been available to support teams with their investigations. Now in it’s 6th version, the TapRooT® software offers the highest productivity. Charting incidents is easy, powerful tools assist with identifying Causal Factors and Root Causes, as well as with writing Corrective Actions.

New and improved graphing tools makes it easy to plot data, and trends can be better captured, over time. Watch this short video, or read more here. Stay tuned for updates about a future smart phone App.

#taproot_RCA

Five Trends that Will Impact Companies in Environment, Health and Safety in 2018

November 17th, 2017 by

As we approach 2018, now is a good time to look at some external trends to gauge what is coming down the pike. At System Improvements we recently fired up the crystal balls, and spotted five trends that will impact companies:

  • Proactive Safety Culture,
  • Reporting Capability
  • Focus on Prevention
  • Work force changes
  • Increased Drug Use

Let’s look at each of these.

Proactive Safety Culture: Executives continue to get more involved, safety is seen as an improvement opportunity and something to be managed, rather than a liability driven by chance or “workers unsafe actions”. Preventive methods will be used more, like work site evaluations, audits, functional job analysis, and ergonomics training. Instead of having impossible goals like “Zero Harm”, companies will set improvement KPIs, then investigate, track and trend incidents and near misses and put corrective actions in place

Reporting Capability: User- friendly software like TapRooT® and Enablon is available for capturing data and carrying out analysis. Mobile apps and devices like wearable technology enables rapid collection and dissemination of findings. Training is readily available to make sense of the data collected and empower the front line

Focus on Prevention: Companies take active steps to prevent injuries and promote health and safety. We will see more fitness and wellness initiatives but also focus on “intangible” issues like stress, fatigue and mental health. Companies out of line will face ever- increasing Workers Comp costs

Work Force Changes: The age distribution and values of workers are changing, with millennials entering the workforce. The shortage of skilled workers will get worse, and there will be more contract and temp workers. It will be important to involve all these groups in the EHSQ efforts. There will also be more lone and unsupervised workers, which makes behavior- based safety much more difficult to implement

Increased Use of Illegal and Legalized Drugs:  Serious safety, quality and environmental risk. Executives will have to find ways to manage the opioids cycle where injuries drive prescriptions and workers under the influence of opioids get injured again… In some jurisdictions legalization of marijuana is disqualifying a large share of the worker pool from safely operating vehicles, machinery and equipment. In the Hotels & restaurant industry, research found up to 19% of workers using drugs on a regular basis, a clear risk in e.g. kitchen areas. Alcohol will continue to be an issue, not least in Mining and Construction where up to a fifth of workers are estimated to be affected.

A good way to prepare for these trends is to do effective Root Cause Analysis. The TapRooT® methodology helps companies identify root causes of incidents, and put effective corrective actions in place. The process is also used for proactive audits, where issues can be nipped in the bud. Click here for more information: 5-Day TapRooT® Advanced Root Cause Analysis Team Leader Training.

Is TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis a Tool or the Whole Toolbox?

November 14th, 2017 by

NewImage

I had a self-proclaimed root cause analysis expert tell me that investigators needed lots of “tools” in their root cause analysis toolbox. For most people that leads to the question:

How many tools do I need to learn?

When we started to develop TapRooT® back in the 1980’s, we thought we just needed a tool. We soon learned that we needed a toolbox. So we went to work finding, developing, and refining the best root cause analysis tools and adding them to our root cause analysis toolbox called the TapRooT® Root Cause System.

You might ask:

What’s in the toolbox?

The TapRooT® 7-Step Major Investigation Process from the book, Using TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis for Major Investigations, shows all the major tools in the right column.

SI Chart 7 StepMajorInvestigation

How can you learn these techniques and “fill your toolbox” with tools proven to be successful by TapRooT® Users from around the world? Attend one of our 5-Day TapRooT® Advanced Root Cause Analysis Team Leader Training Courses. See the locations and dates for our public courses around the world at:

http://www.taproot.com/store/5-Day-Courses/

But why should you learn these tools?

First, we spent decades of research and developing choosing, developing, and refining these techniques to make them the most successful root cause analysis toolbox in the world. See our user success stories at:

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

The research and testing we performed showed us the limitations of some common root cause analysis tools that some experts try to teach and have trouble getting their students to achieve consistent results. We based our selection of techniques on human factors principles. This makes our system robust yet easy to use.

We also decided to limit the techniques we chose to those that you would really need. Most people don’t get tremendous amounts of experience performing root cause analyses. Thus, we wanted to minimize the training and practice required to use TapRooT®. We made it so that TapRooT® can be applied to low-risk incidents (simple incidents) or medium to high-risk incidents. In that way people get experience applying TapRooT® to simple incidents so that they are practiced using the techniques when something big happens (God forbid).

Also, we built human factors experts systems (AI) into the TapRooT® System to help investigators find the root causes of human errors and equipment problems.

Finally, do other root cause analysis systems provide this course guarantee:

Attend this 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.

That’s a powerful guarantee. And we can offer it because of the hundreds of thousands of people we have trained who apply TapRooT® sucessfully. We know you, too, will be successful.

Why not create your own toolbox?

You could duplicate our efforts, spend decades researching and perfecting your own toolbox of root cause analysis tools. Then you could develop training courses to teach what you learned. But guess what … your system still wouldn’t be as good as TapRooT®. Why? Because while you were doing your research, we would be improving. We constantly make the TapRooT® Books, Training, and Software better.

Besides the feedback we get from thousands of users and from classes we hold around the world, we have a TapRooT® Advisory Board that makes suggestions and reviews improvement ideas. This helps us keep making the best even better.

And one last advantage that we have … very talented instructors. We have 50 instructors at various locations around the world that have extensive experience teaching and using the TapRooT® System. And these instructors are constantly sharpening their skills. We have a link on our blog with a few profiles of our instructors but we are way behind on keeping it updated. This gives us something to improve!

If you want to learn more about TapRooT®, attend a class. Or at least see the About TapRooT® page on our web site.

More Proof that Hospitals Need to Improve Root Cause Analysis

November 6th, 2017 by

What would you think if your hospital received a “D” in a Leapfrog hospital rating? THIS ARTICLE points out three hospitals in the Atlanta area that received the worst Leapfrog scores.

My response would be that they need better root cause analysis. With advanced root cause analysis they would be finding the causes of infections, treatable complications, unnecessary blood clots, collapsed lungs, air or gas bubbles in the blood, and other preventable errors.

Effective root cause analysis is the basis for an effective performance improvement program. Without effective root cause analysis, a hospital is doomed to repeat their errors because they are guessing at solutions.

Want to find out more about the 5-Day Advanced Root Cause Analysis Training? See:

http://www.taproot.com/courses#5-day-root

Monday Accidents & Lessons Learned: Review of a Comprehensive Review

November 6th, 2017 by

ComprehensiveReview_Final.pdfReportScreenShot

What will it take for the US Navy surface fleet (or at least the 7th Fleet) to stop crashing ships and killing sailors? That is the question that was suppose to be answered in the Comprehensive Review of Recent Surface Force Incidents. (See the reference here: Comprehensive+Review_Final.pdf). This article critiques the report that senior Navy officials produced that recommended changes to improve performance.

NewImage
If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!!
Will Rogers

The report starts with two and a half pages of how wonderful the US Navy is. The report then blames the crews for the accidents. The report stated:

In each incident, there were fundamental failures to responsibly plan, prepare and execute ship activities to avoid undue operational risk. These ships failed as a team to use available information to build and sustain situational awareness on the Bridge and prevent hazardous conditions from developing. Moreover, leaders and teams failed as maritime professionals by not adhering to safe navigational practices.

It also blamed the local command (the 7th Fleet) by saying:

Further, the recent series of mishaps revealed weaknesses in the command structures in-place to oversee readiness and manage operational risk for forces forward deployed in Japan. In each of the four mishaps there were decisions at headquarters that stemmed from a culturally engrained “can do” attitude, and an unrecognized accumulation of risk that resulted in ships not ready to safely operate at sea.

Now that we know that more senior brass, the CNO, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of Defense, the Congress, or the President (current or past) have nothing to do with the condition of the Navy, we can go on to read about their analysis and fixes.

The report states that individual root cause analysis of US Navy crashes were meant to examine individual unit performance and did NOT consider:

  • Management Systems (Doctrine, Organization, Leadership, Personnel)
  • Facilities and Material
  • Training and Education

The “Comprehensive Report” was designed to do a more in-depth analysis that considers the factors listed above. The report found weaknesses in all of the above areas and recommended improvements in:

  • Fundamentals
  • Teamwork
  • Operational Safety
  • Assessment
  • Culture

The report states:

The recommendations described in this report address the skills, knowledge, capabilities, and processes needed to correct the abnormal conditions found in these five areas, which led to an accumulation of risk in the Western Pacific. The pressure to meet rising operational demand over time caused Commanders, staff and crew to rationalize shortcuts under pressure. The mishap reports support the assertion that there was insufficient rigor in seeking and solving problems at three critical stages: during planning in anticipation of increased tasking, during practice/rehearsal for abnormal or emergency situations in the mishap ships, and in execution of the actual events. This is important, because it is at these stages where knowledge and skills are built and tested. Evidence of skill proficiency (on ships) and readiness problems (at headquarters) were missed, and over time, even normalized to the point that more time could be spent on operational missions. Headquarters were trying to manage the imbalance, and up to the point of the mishaps, the ships had been performing operationally with good outcomes, which ultimately reinforced the rightness of trusting past decisions. This rationalized the continued deviation from the sound training and maintenance practices that set the conditions for safe operations.

The report mentions, but does not emphasize, what I believe to be the main problem:

The findings in chapters four through eight and appendix 9.10 underscore the imbalance between the number of ships in the Navy today and the increasing number of operational missions assigned to them. The Navy can supply a finite amount of forces for operations from the combined force of ships operating from CONUS and based abroad; this finite supply is based both on the size of the force as well as the readiness funding available to man, train, equip and sustain that force. Headquarters are working to manage the imbalance. U.S. Navy ships homeported in the continental United States (CONUS) balance maintenance, training and availability for operations (deployments and/or surge); the Pacific Fleet is re-examining its ability to maintain this balance for ships based in Japan as well. Under the Budget Control Act of 2011 and extended Continuing Resolutions, the ability to supply forces to the full demand is – and will remain – limited.

The report does not say how many more ships the 7th Fleet or the US Navy needs.

The report also stated:

The risks that were taken in the Western Pacific accumulated over time, and did so insidiously. The dynamic environment normalized to the point where individuals and groups of individuals could no longer recognize that the processes in place to identify, communicate and assess readiness were no longer working at the ship and headquarters level.

NewImage

This could be used as a definition of normalization of deviation. To read more about this, see the article about Admiral Rickover’s philosophy of operational excellence and normalization of deviation by CLICKING HERE.

Normalization of deviation has been common in the US Navy, especially the surface fleet, with their “Git er Dun” attitude. But I’m now worried that the CNO (Chief of Naval Operation), who was trained as a Navy Nuke, might not remember Admiral Rickover’s lessons. I also worry that the submarine force, which has had its own series of accidents over the past decade, may take shortcuts with nuclear safety if the emphasis on mission accomplishment becomes preeminent and resources are squeezed by Washington bureaucrats.

NewImage

The military has been in a constant state of warfare for at least 15 years. One might say that since the peacekeeping missions of the Clinton administration, the military has been “ridden hard and put up wet” every year since that mission started. This abuse can’t continue without further detrimental effects to readiness and performance in the field.

The report summary ends with:

Going forward, the Navy must develop and formalize “firebreaks” into our force generation and employment systems to guard against a slide in standards. We must continue to build a culture – from the most junior Sailor to the most senior Commander – that values achieving and maintaining high operational and warfighting standards of performance. These standards must be manifest in our approach to the fundamentals, teamwork, operational safety, and assessment. These standards must be enforced in our equipment, our individuals, our unit teams, and our fleets. This Comprehensive Review aims to define the problems with specificity, and offers several general and specific recommendations to get started on making improvements to instilling those standards and strengthen that culture.

This is the culture for reactor operations in the Nuclear Navy. But changing a culture in the surface fleet will be difficult, especially when any future accidents are analyzed using the same poor root cause analysis that the Navy has been applying since the days of sail.

NewImage

After the summary, the report summarizes the blame oriented root cause analysis that I have previously reviewed HERE and HERE.

Another quote from the report that points out the flaws in US Navy root cause analysis is:

Leadership typically goes through several phases following a major mishap: ordering an operational pause or safety stand down; assembling a team to determine what happened and why; and developing a list of discrete actions for improvement. Causes are identified, meaningful actions taken, and there has been repeated near- term success in instilling improved performance. However, these improvements may only have marginal effect in the absence of programs and processes to ensure lessons are not forgotten. Still, all levels of command must evaluate the sufficiency of internal programs and processes to self-assess, trend problems, and develop and follow through on corrective actions in the wake of mishaps.”

Instead of thinking that the lessons from previous accidents have somehow been forgotten, a more reasonable conclusion is that the Navy really isn’t learning appropriate lessons and their root cause analysis and their corrective actions are ineffective. Of course, admitting this would mean that their current report is, also, probably misguided (since the same approach is used). Therefore they can’t admit one of their basic problems and this report’s corrective actions will also be short lived and probably fail.

The 33 people (a large board) performing the Comprehensive Review of Recent Surface Force Incidents were distinguished insiders. All had either previous military/DoD/government affiliations or had done contracting or speaking work for the Navy. I didn’t recognize any of the members as a root cause analysis expert. I didn’t see this review board as one that would “rock the boat” or significantly challenge the status quo. This isn’t to say that they are unintelligent or are bad people. They are some of the best and brightest. But they are unlikely to be able to see the problems they are trying to diagnose because they created them or at least they have been surrounded by the system for so long that they find it difficult to challenge the system.

The findings and recommendations in the report are hard to evaluate. Without a thorough, detailed, accurate root cause analysis of the four incidents that the report was based upon (plus the significant amount of interviews that were conducted with no details provided), it is hard to tell if the finding are just opinions and if the recommendations are agenda items that people on the review board wanted to get implemented. I certainly can’t tell if the recommended fixes will actually cause a culture change when that culture change may not be supported by senior leadership and congressional funding.

NewImage

One more point that I noticed is that certain “hot button” morale issues were not mentioned. This could mean that certain factors effecting manning, training time wasted, and disciplinary issues aren’t being addressed. Even mentioning an example in this critique of the report seems risky in our very sensitive politically correct culture. Those aboard ships know examples of the type of issues I’m referring to, therefore, I won’t go into more detail. If, however, certain issues won’t be discussed and directly addressed, the problems being created won’t be solved.

Finally, it was good to see references to human factors and fatigue in the report. Unfortunately, I don’t know if the board members actually understand the fundamentals of human performance.

For example, it seems that senior military leadership expects the Commanding Officer, the Officer of the Deck, or even the Junior Officer of the Deck to take bold, decisive action when faced with a crisis they have never experienced before and that they have never had training and practice in handling. Therefore, here is a simple piece of basic human factors theory:

If you expect people to take bold, decisive action when faced with a crisis,
you will frequently be disappointed. If you expect that sailors and officers
will have to act in a crisis situations, they better be highly practiced
in what they need to do. In most cases, you would be much better off to
spend time and energy avoiding putting people in a crisis situation.

My father was a fighter ace in World War II. One of the things he learned as he watched a majority of the young fighter pilots die in their first month or even first week of combat was that there was no substitute for experience in arial combat. Certainly early combat experience led to the death of some poor pilots or those who just couldn’t get the feel of leading an aircraft with their shots. But he also observed that inexperienced good pilots also fell victim to the more experienced Luftwaffe pilots. If a pilot could gain experience (proficiency), then their chances of surviving the next mission increased dramatically.

An undertrained, undermanned, fatigue crew is a recipe for disaster. Your best sailors will decide to leave the Navy rather than facing long hours with little thanks. Changing a couple of decades of neglect of our Navy will take more than the list of recommendations I read in the Comprehensive Review of Recent Surface Force Incidents. Until more ships and more sailors are supplied, the understaffed, undertrained, under appreciated,  under supported, limited surface force that we have today will be asked to do too much with too little.

That’s my critique of the Comprehensive Review. What lessons should we learn?

  • You need to have advanced root cause analysis to learn from your experience. (See About TapRooT® for more information.)
  • Blame is not the start of a performance improvement effort.
  • Sometimes senior leaders really do believe that they can apply the same old answers and expect a different result. Who said that was the definition of insanity?
  • If you can’t mention a problem, you can’t solve it.
  • People in high stress situations will often make mistakes, especially if they are fatigued and haven’t been properly trained. (And you shouldn’t blame them if they do … You put them there!)
  • Just because you are in senior management, that doesn’t mean that you know how to find and fix the root causes of human performance problems. Few senior managers have had any formal training in doing this.

Once you have had a chance to review the report, leave your comments below.

Navy Releases Reports on Recent Collisions and Provides Inadequate Information and Corrective Actions

November 2nd, 2017 by

Punish

At the end of the cold war, politicians talked of a “peace dividend.” We could cut back our military funding and staffing.

Similar action was taken by the USSR Government for the Soviet fleet. I watched the Soviet Fleet deteriorate. Ships weren’t maintained. Training was curtailed. What was the second best navy in the world deteriorated. I thought it was good news.

What I didn’t know was that our fleet was deteriorating too.

Fast forward to the most recent pair of collisions involving ships in the 7th Fleet (The USS Fitzgerald and the USS John S McCain). If you read the official report (see the link below) you will see that the Navy Brass blames the collisions on bad people. It’s the ship’s CO’s and sailors that are to blame.

Screen Shot 2017 11 01 at 4 40 39 PMUSNAVYCOLLISIONS.pdf

The blame for the ship’s leadership and crews includes (list shortened and paraphrased from the report above by me):

USS Fizgerald

  • The Officer of the Deck (OOD) and bridge team didn’t follow the Rules of the Road (laws for operating ships at sea).
  • The ship was going too fast.
  • The ship didn’t avoid the collision.
  • Radars weren’t used appropriately.
  • The lookout (singular) and the bridge team was only watching the port side and didn’t see the contacts on the starboard side.
  • The Navigation Department personnel didn’t consider the traffic separation lanes when laying out the proposed track for navigating the ship (and this should have been well known since this ship was leaving their home port).
  • The navigation team did not use the Automated Identification System that provides real time updates on commercial shipping positions.
  • The Bridge team and the Combat Information Center team did not communicate effectively.
  • The OOD did not call the CO when required.
  • Members of the Bridge team did not forcefully notify and correct others (including their seniors) when mistakes were suspected or noted.
  • Radar systems were not operating to full capability and this had become accepted.
  • A previous near-collision had not be adequately investigated and root causes identified by the ship’s crew and leadership.
  • The command leadership did not realize how bad the ship’s performance was.
  • The command leadership allowed a schedule of events which led to fatigue for the crew.
  • The command leadership didn’t assess the risk of fatigue and take mitigating actions.

NewImageFired (reassigned) CO of USS Fitzgerald

USS John S McCain

  • Then training of the helm and lee helm operators was substandard in at least part because some sailors were assigned temporarily too the ship and didn’t have adequate training on the differences in the ships rudder control systems.
  • The aft steering helmsman failed to verify the position of the rudder position on his console and made a bad situation worse.
  • Senior personnel and bridge watch standers on the USS John S McCain seemed to have inadequate knowledge of the steering control system.
  • The ship’s watch standers were not the most qualified team and Sea Detail should have been set sooner by the Commanding Officer.
  • The OOD and Conning Officer had not attended the navigation brief held the previous day that covered the risk of the evolution.
  • Five short blasts were not sounded when a collision was immanent giving the other ship a chance to avoid the collision.
  • The CO ordered an unplanned shift of the propulsion control from one station to another without clear notification of the bridge watch team. This order occurred in a shipping channel with heavy traffic.
  • Senior officers and bridge watch standers did not question the report of loss of steering by the Helmsman or pursue the issue to resolution.

NewImageCO & XO of USS John S McCain that were fired (reassigned).

That’s a significant blame list. Can you spot what is missing?

First, the factors that are listed aren’t root causes or even near-root causes. Rather they are Causal Factors and maybe a few causal categories.

Second, the report doesn’t provide enough information to judge if the list is a complete list of the Causal Factors.

Third, with no real root cause analysis, analysis of Generic Causes is impossible. Perhaps that’s why the is no senior leadership (i.e., the Brass – Admirals) responsibility for the lack of training, lack of readiness, poor material condition, poor root cause analysis, and poor crew coordination. For an idea about Generic Cause Analysis of these collisions and potential corrective actions, see: http://www.taproot.com/archives/59924.

Here is a short recreation of the USS Fitzgerald collision to refresh you memory…

The US Navy did not release the actual accident investigation report (the Command and the Admiralty investigations) because the Chief of Naval Operations, “… determined to retain the legal privilege that exists with the command Admiralty investigations in order to protect the legal interests of the United States of America and the families of those Sailors who perished.” I believe the release of the actual investigation reports has more to do with protecting Navy Admirals and an inadequate training and manning of US Navy ships than protecting the US Government legally.

It seems to me that the US Navy has sunk (no pun intended) to the same low standards that the Soviet Navy let their fleet deteriorate to after the cold war ended. Bad material condition, low readiness, and, perhaps, poor morale. And the US Navy seems to have the same “transparency” that the USSR had during the communist hay day.

But I was even more shocked when I found that these problems (Training, manning, material condition, …) had been noted in a report to senior US Navy leadership back in 2010. That’s right, military commanders had known of these problems across the fleet for seven years and DID NOT take actions to correct them. Instead, they blame the Commanding Officers and ship’s crews for problems that were caused by Navy and political policy. Here is a link to that report:

https://www.scribd.com/document/43245136/Balisle-Report-on-FRP-of-Surface-Force-Readiness

Why didn’t senior leadership fix the problems noted in the report? One can only guess that it didn’t fit their plans for reduced manning, reduced maintenance, and more automated systems. These programs went forward despite evidence of decreased readiness by ships in the fleet. A decreased state of readiness that led two ships to fatal collisions. This cutting of costs was a direct response to budget cuts imposed by politicians. Thus “supporting our troops” is too expensive.

It seems from the reports that the Navy would rather punish Commanding Officers and the ship’s crews rather than fix the fleet’s problems. No accountability is shared by the senior naval leadership that has gone along with budget cuts without a decrease in the operating tempo and commitments.

NewImageChief of Naval Operations who says these types of accidents should “never happen again.”

More blame is NOT what is needed. What is needed is advanced root cause analysis that leads to effective corrective actions. The report released by the Navy (at the start of this article) doesn’t have either effective root cause analysis or effective corrective actions. I fear the unreleased reports are no better.

What can we do? Demand better from our representatives. Our sailors (and other branches as well) deserve the budget and manning needed to accomplish their mission. We can’t change the past but we need to go forward with effective root cause analysis and corrective actions to fix the problems that have caused the decline in mission capabilities.

KISS and Root Cause Analysis

November 1st, 2017 by

I’ve heard many “experts” claim that you need to apply the KISS principle when it comes to root cause analysis. You may hear this too and I want you to understand where these experts lead many people astray.

First, what is KISS? Keep It Simple Stupid! The acronym implies that simple solutions are better solutions. And when simple solution work (are effective) KISS is a dream come true. But remember Einstein’s quote:

Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.

So let’s start with some of the reasons that these experts say you need to use simple techniques and debunk or demystify each one. Here’s a list of common expert advice.

  1. It’s a waste of time to use full root cause analysis on every problem.
  2. People can’t understand complex root cause analysis techniques.
  3. Learning simple techniques will get people to start thinking deeper about problems.
  4. Simple is just about as good as those fancy techniques.
  5. Managers don’t have time to do fancy root cause analysis and they already know what is wrong.
  6. You can apply those complicated techniques to just the most serious accidents.
  7. The data from the simple investigations will help you identify the more complex issues you need to solve.

I see these arguments all the time. They make me want to scream! Let me debunk each one and then you too can dismiss these “experts” the next time they try one or more of these arguments on your management team.

1. It’s a waste of time to use full root cause analysis on every problem.

I actually sort of agree with this statement. What I don’t agree with is the answer they arrive at. Their answer is that you should apply some “simple” root cause analysis technique (let’s just say 5-Whys as an example) to “solve” these problems that don’t deserve a well thought out answer.

NewImage

First, what do I have against their ideas of simple root cause analysis? If you’ve been reading this blog for a while you know what I’m going the explain, so just skip ahead. For those who don’t know what’s wrong with most “simple” root cause analysis techniques, I would suggest start reading from the top of the links below until you are convinced that most expert advice about “simple” root cause analysis is root cause analysis malpractice. If you haven’t been convinced by the end of the links … perhaps you are one of the experts I’m talking about. Here’s the list of links:

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

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

What’s Wrong with 5-Whys??? – Complete Article 

What’s Fundamentally Wrong with 5-Whys?

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

I believe that one of the biggest root cause analysis problems that companies face is that they are performing “root cause analysis” on problems that don’t need to be analyzed.  YES – I said it. Not every problem deserves a root cause analysis.

What problems don’t need to be analyzed? Problems that aren’t going to teach you anything significant. I call these “paper cut problems.” You don’t need to investigate paper cuts.

But some people would say that you do need to investigate every loss time injury and medical treatment case. Maybe … maybe not.

You do need to investigate an incident if it could have caused an outcome that you are trying to prevent and there are worthy lessons learned. Some medical treatment cases fall into this category. They got a cut finger but they could have lost their whole arm.

Two similar examples are provided in the book: Using the Essential TapRooT® Techniques to Investigate Low-to-Medium Risk Incidents. One is a sprained ankle and one is a sprained wrist. Both came from falling down. One was judged worthy of a full but simple root cause analysis using the essential features of the TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis System. One was judged not worthy of a full investigation after a simple SnapCharT® was developed. Interested in how this works? Read the book. It’s only 100 pages long and seeing how to judge if a root cause analysis is worthwhile is worth it. (And you will learn how to apply TapRooT® simply to low-to-medium risk incidents.)

Once you know how to do a real “simple” investigation with an effective technique, you won’t need to do bad root cause analysis with an ineffective technique.

2. People can’t understand complex root cause analysis techniques.

I don’t know every “complex” root cause analysis technique but I do know that this statement does NOT apply to TapRooT®. Why? Because we’ve tested it.

One “test” was at a refinery. The Operation Manager (a good guy) thought that TapRooT® was a good system but wasn’t sure that his operators would understand it. We decided to run a test. We decided to teach a basic class to all his union stewards. Then refinery management did a focus group with the shop stewards.

I was one of the instructors and from the course examples that they analyzed, I knew that they were really enjoying finding real root causes rather than placing blame.

They did the focus group (with us in another room). I could hear what was going on. The first question the facilitator asked was: “Did you understand the TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Technique?” One of the shop stewards said …

“If I can run a Cat Cracker I can certainly understand this! After all, it’s not rocket science!”

And that’s one of the great parts about TapRooT®. We’ve added expert systems for analysis of equipment and human performance problems, but we’ve kept the system understandable and made it easy to use. Making it seem like it isn’t rocket science (even though there is a whole bunch of science embedded in it) is the secret sauce of TapRooT®.

3. Learning simple techniques will get people to start thinking deeper about problems.

Learning to count is required before you learn calculus BUT counting over and over again does not teach you calculus.

If you don’t understand the causes of human performance problems, you won’t find the causes of the problems by asking why. And I don’t care how many times you ask why … it still won’t work.

For years we did a basic poll at the start of our 5-Day TapRooT® Advanced Root Cause Analysis Courses. We asked:

“How many of you have had any formal training in human factors or the causes of human error?”

Only about 2% of the attendees had ANY training on the causes of human error. But almost everybody that attended our training said that they had previously been assigned to find the causes of human errors. I wonder how well that went? (I can tell you from the student feedback, they said that they really DID NOT address the real root causes in their previous investigations.)

So, NO. Learning simple techniques DOES NOT get people to “think deeper” about problems.

4. Simple is just about as good as those fancy techniques.

NO WAY.

First, I’ve never seen a good example of 5-Whys. I’ve seen hundreds of bad examples that 5-Why experts thought were good examples. One “good example” that I remember was published in Quality Progress, the magazine from the American Society for Quality (ASQ). I couldn’t stand it. I had to write a reply. When I sent the letter to the editor, they asked me to write a whole article … so I did. To see the example and my article that was published in Quality Progress, see page 32 of the link below:

Under Scrutiny: A Critical Look at Root Cause Analysis.

Simple is not “almost as good” as real root cause analysis (TapRooT®). If you would like another example, see Chapter 3: Comparing the Results of a 5-Why Investigation to a Basic TapRooT® Investigation in the book, Using the Essential TapRooT® Techniques to Investigate Low-to-Medium Risk Incidents.

That’s it – Case Closed. Those “simple” techniques are NOT just about as good as TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis.

5. Managers don’t have time to do fancy root cause analysis and they already know what is wrong.

Once again, I’m reminding of a saying:

Why is there never enough time to do it right,
but there is always enough time to do it over? 

How many times have I seen managers misdiagnose problems because they didn’t find the root causes and then have bigger accidents because they didn’t fix the near-misses and small accidents?

The percentage of managers trained in the causes of human error is very similar to the statistics I previously provided (2%). This means that managers need an effective root cause analysis technique … just like investigators need an effective technique. That’s why the standard corrective actions they use don’t solve the problems and we have accidents that happen over and over again.

So if you don’t have time, don’t worry. You will make time to do it over and over again.

That reminds me of a quote from a plant manager I knew…

“If we investigated every incident, we’d do nothing but investigate incidents!”

6. You can apply those complicated techniques to just the most serious accidents.

I’ve seen companies saving their “best” root cause analysis for their big accidents. Here are the two problems I see with that.

FIRST, they have the big accidents BECAUSE they didn’t solve the precursor incidents. Why? because they didn’t do good root cause analysis on the precursor incidents. Thus, applying poor root cause analysis to the lessor incidents CAUSES the big accidents.

SECOND, their investigators don’t get practice using their “best” root cause analysis techniques because the “most serious” incidents are infrequent. Therefore, their investigators get rusty or they never really develop the skills they need by using the techniques on smaller incidents that could give them practice.

The key here is to learn to use TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis to investigate smaller problems. And that’s why we wrote a book about using TapRooT® for simple incidents: Using the Essential TapRooT® Techniques to Investigate Low-to-Medium Risk Incidents.

Don’t wait for big accidents to find and fix the causes of your biggest risks. Find and fix them when they give you warnings (the precursor incidents).

7. The data from the simple investigations will help you identify the more complex issues you need to solve.

Why do people think that analyzing lots of bad data will yield good results? I think it is the misconception about mathematics. A good formula doesn’t provide knowledge from bad data.

If you don’t really know how to analyze data, you should attend our pre-Summit course:

Advanced Trending Techniques

As W. Edwards Deming said:

“Without data, you’re just another person with an opinion.”

And if you know much about Deming, you know that he was very interested in the accuracy of the data.

If you aren’t finding the real root causes, data about your BAD ANALYSIS only tells you what you were doing wrong. You now have data about what was NOT the causes of your problems. Go analyze that!

So data from BAD simple investigations DOES NOT help you solve your more complex issues. All it does is mislead your management.

THAT’S IT. All the bad advice debunked. Now, what do you need to do?

NewImage

1. Read the book:

TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Leadership Lessons

You will learn the theory behind performance improvement and you will be well on your way to understanding what management needs to do to really improve safety, quality, equipment reliability, and operational/financial performance.

NewImage

2. Read the book:

TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Implementation

You will know how to implement a real, effective root cause analysis system for low-to-medium risk incidents as well as major accidents.

3. If you haven’t done it already, attend one of our 5-Day TapRooT® Advanced Root Cause Analysis Courses. See the list of our upcoming public 5-Day TapRooT® Courses held around the world at this link:

http://www.taproot.com/store/5-Day-Courses/

And don’t take any more bad advice from experts who don’t know what they are talking about!

PS: If you have questions or want to discuss what you read in the books, contact me (Mark Paradies) at 865-539-2139 or by e-mail by clicking HERE.

How Good is Your TapRooT® Implementation?

October 24th, 2017 by

TapRooT® provides world-class root cause analysis. But did you know that your results can vary depending upon the goodness of your implementation of the TapRooT® System?

What causes the implementation to vary? Try these factors …

  • Need to improve clearly defined.
  • Senior management support achieved.
  • Written program plan approved by senior management.
  • Proactive improvements drive improvement success.
  • Use advanced root cause analysis for both reactive and proactive investigations.
  • Improvement accomplishments being communicated successfully.
  • Adequate budget/staffing for the improvement organization.
  • Training plan implemented.
  • Employees, supervisors, managers, and contractors/suppliers willingly participate in the program.
  • Software selected, customized, and implemented.
  • Performance measures and advanced trending techniques used by management to guide the program.
  • Organizational learning occurring by effective sharing of lessons learned.
  • Plan for continuous improvement of the program is followed.
  • Leadership succession plan established.
  • Rewards program being used effectively.

This list is provided as a checklist and explained in more detail in Chapter 3 of our new book:

TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Implementation – Changing the Way Your Company Solves Problems

NewImage

CLICK HERE to order your copy.

One more idea you might want to pursue to improve your performance improvement program. Attend the 2018 TapRooT® Global Summit in Knoxville, TN, on February 26 – March 2! It’s a great place to keep up with the state of the art in performance improvement and network with industry leaders.

Start by attending one of our advanced courses on Monday & Tuesday:

  • TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Training
  • Equifactor® Equipment Troubleshooting and Root Cause Analysis
  • Advanced Causal Factor Development Course
  • Advanced Trending Techniques
  • TapRooT® Analyzing and Fixing Safety Culture Issues
  • Risk Assessment and Management Best Practices
  • Getting the Most from Your TapRooT® VI Software
  • TapRooT® for AuditsTapRooT®
  • Evidence Collection and Interviewing Techniques to Sharpen Investigation Skills
  • Understanding and Stopping Human Error

Then attend the Summit on Wednesday – Friday.

What’s on the agenda for the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit? First, there are five keynote speakers:

  • Inquois “Inky” Johnson – Honor and Legacy
  • Vincent Ivan Phillips – How to Communicate Successfully
  • Dr. Carol Gunn – When Failure Becomes Personal
  • Mark Paradies – How Good is Your TapRooT® Implementation?
  • Mike Williams – Deepwater Horizon

Then there are nine different tracks that include 8 breakout sessions each. These tracks include:

  • Safety
  • Quality
  • Human Factors
  • Asset Optimization
  • Investigator
  • Patient Safety
  • TapRooT® Software
  • TapRooT® Instructor Recertification
  • Alternatives

See the Summit schedule at: http://www.taproot.com/taproot-summit/summit-schedule.

Book 2 in the New TapRooT® Series is Out. Do You Have Your Copy?

October 24th, 2017 by

NewImage

Would you like to improve your implementation of TapRooT®? Or are you just getting started and you are trying to decide where to start implementing TapRooT® to improve your root cause analysis?

You should read our new implementation book. CLICK HERE to order yours.

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 world’s largest) but I thought … they asked the WRONG question.

The true value of a root cause analysis system 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.

Connect with Us

Filter News

Search News

Authors

Angie ComerAngie Comer

Software

Anne RobertsAnne Roberts

Marketing

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®

Michelle WishounMichelle Wishoun

Licensing Paralegal

Per OhstromPer Ohstrom

VP, Sales

Shaun BakerShaun Baker

Technical Support

Steve RaycraftSteve Raycraft

Technical Support

Wayne BrownWayne Brown

Technical Support

Success Stories

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

Huntsman

Reporting of ergonomic illnesses increased by up to 40% in…

Ciba Vision, a Novartis Company
Contact Us