Category: Video

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

July 5th, 2017 by

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

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

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

1. The first story heard is analyzed as fact.

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

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

2. Assumptions become facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NewImage

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

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

4. The illusion of progress.

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

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

NO!

As Alfred A. Montapert said:

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

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

5. Complacency – Just another investigation.

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

The result? Complacency.

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

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

6. Bad habits become established practice.

Do people do more simple investigations or major investigations?

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

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

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

DON’T LET BAD PRACTICES INFECT YOUR CULTURE.

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

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

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

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

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

Technically Speaking – Optional Techniques to Direct Investigations

June 29th, 2017 by

Utilizing the Root Cause Tree® early when building a SnapCharT® helps focus and drive questions to better determine causal factors and ultimately reveal the Root Cause.

Technically Speaking is a weekly series that highlights various aspects of the TapRooT® VI software and occasionally includes a little Help Desk humor.

Remember, just because it’s technical, doesn’t mean it has to be complicated!

Now perform your Basic and Major investigations with TapRooT®

June 27th, 2017 by

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

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

 

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

May 31st, 2017 by

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

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

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

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

And for a better way to find root causes see:

About TapRooT®

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

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

Ready for an On-Line Risk Assessment?

May 9th, 2017 by

Have you ever watch NAPO videos? Here is one about an on-line risk assessment tool …

Get more information at:

https://oiraproject.eu/en

CSB Video of Torrance Refinery Accident

May 3rd, 2017 by

CSB Releases Final Report into 2015 Explosion at ExxonMobil Refinery in Torrance, California

Press Release from the US CSB:

May 3, 2017, Torrance, CA, — Today, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) released its final report into the February 18, 2015, explosion at the ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, California. The blast caused serious property damage to the refinery and scattered catalyst dust up to a mile away from the facility into the nearby community. The incident caused the refinery to be run at limited capacity for over a year, raising gas prices in California and costing drivers in the state an estimated $2.4 billion.

The explosion occurred in the refinery’s fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit, where a variety of products, mainly gasoline, are produced. A reaction between hydrocarbons and catalyst takes place in what is known as the “hydrocarbon side” of the FCC unit. The remainder of the FCC unit is comprised of a portion of the reaction process and a series of pollution control equipment that uses air and is known as the “air side” of the unit.The CSB’s report emphasizes that it is critical that hydrocarbons do not flow into the air side of the FCC unit, as this can create an explosive atmosphere. The CSB determined that on the day of the incident a slide valve that acted as a barrier failed. That failure ultimately allowed hydrocarbons to flow into the air side of the FCC, where they ignited in a piece of equipment called the electrostatic precipitator, or ESP, causing an explosion of the ESP.

CSB Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland said, “This explosion and near miss should not have happened, and likely would not have happened, had a more robust process safety management system been in place. The CSB’s report concludes that the unit was operating without proper procedures.”

In its final report, the CSB describes multiple gaps in the refinery’s process safety management system, allowing for the operation of the FCC unit without pre-established safe operating limits and criteria for a shut down.  The refinery relied on safeguards that could not be verified, and re-used a previous procedure deviation without a sufficient hazard analysis of the current process conditions.

Finally, the slide valve – a safety-critical safeguard within the system – was degraded significantly. The CSB notes that it is vital to ensure that safety critical equipment can successful carry out its intended function. As a result, when the valve was needed during an emergency, it did not work as intended, and hydrocarbons were able to reach an ignition source.

The CSB also found that in multiple instances leading up to the incident, the refinery directly violated ExxonMobil’s corporate safety standards. For instance, the CSB found that during work leading up to the incident, workers violated corporate lock out tag out requirements.

In July 2016, the Torrance refinery was sold by ExxonMobil to PBF Holdings Company, LLC, which now operates as the Torrance Refining Company. Since the February 2015 explosion, the refinery has experienced multiple incidents.

Chairperson Sutherland said, “There are valuable lessons to be learned and applied at this refinery, and to all refineries in the U.S.  Keeping our refineries operating safely is critical to the well-being of the employees and surrounding communities, as well as to the economy.

The CSB investigation also discovered that a large piece of debris from the explosion narrowly missed hitting a tank containing tens of thousands of pounds of modified hydrofluoric acid, or MHF. Had the tank ruptured, it would have caused a release of MHF, which is highly toxic.  Unfortunately, ExxonMobil, the owner-operator of the refinery at the time of the accident, did not respond to the CSB’s requests for information detailing safeguards to prevent or mitigate a release of MHF, and therefore the agency was unable to fully explore this topic in its final report.

Chairperson Sutherland said, “Adoption of and adherence to a robust safety management process would have prevented these other incidents.  In working with inherently dangerous products, it is critical to conduct a robust risk management analyses with the intent of continually safety improvement.”

The CSB is an independent, non-regulatory federal agency charged with investigating serious chemical incidents. The agency’s board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.

Visit our website, www.csb.gov, for more information or contact Communications Manager Hillary Cohen, cell 202-446-8094 or email public@csb.gov. 

 

Technically Speaking – TapRooT® VI User Settings Menu

April 20th, 2017 by

Here is a quick video highlighting the new User Settings menu in TapRooT® VI.

Technically Speaking is a weekly series that highlights various aspects of the TapRooT® VI software and occasionally includes a little Help Desk humor.

Remember, just because it’s technical, it doesn’t mean it has to be complicated!

Are You Writing the Same Corrective Actions?

April 17th, 2017 by

Repeating the same corrective actions over and over again defeats the purpose of a quality root cause analysis investigation. If you spend the time investigating and digging deeper to find the REAL root cause, you should write the most effective corrective actions you can to ensure it was all worth the resources put into it. Instructor & Equifactor® and TapRooT® Expert, Ken Reed, talks about corrective actions and how to make them new and effective for each root cause.

 

Take a TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis course today to learn our effective and efficient RCA methodology. 

Technically Speaking – TapRooT® VI Exporting Trending Data

April 13th, 2017 by

Here is a quick video highlighting the Export Trending Data feature in TapRooT® VI.

Technically Speaking is a weekly series that highlights various aspects of the TapRooT® VI software and occasionally includes a little Help Desk humor.

Remember, just because it’s technical, it doesn’t mean it has to be complicated!

How to Interpret Body Language In Your Incident Investigation Interviews

April 10th, 2017 by

TapRooT® Instructor and Non-Verbal Communication Expert, Barb Phillips, explains how to interpret common body language cues with an example investigative interview. Watch here for some investigative interviewing tips!

Want to know more? Take a TapRooT® Effective Interviewing and Evidence Collection course.

Technically Speaking – TapRooT® VI New Features

March 30th, 2017 by

*NOTE that Audit logging and Customizing Equifactor ® are features only available for TapRooT® VI Enterprise.  Contact sales@taproot.com to get Enterprise Software.

These enhancements are considered the 6.2.0 release.

Technically Speaking is a weekly series that highlights various aspects of the TapRooT® VI software and occasionally includes a little Help Desk humor.

Remember, just because it’s technical, doesn’t mean it has to be complicated!

Case Study: Using Dye Packs to Locate Leaks

March 16th, 2017 by

Watch as Brian Tink discusses how his company used dye packs to help them isolate the location of a pipe leak.

Technically Speaking – TapRooT® VI Notifications Feature

March 9th, 2017 by

Here is a quick video highlighting the new notifications system in TapRooT® VI.

Technically Speaking is a weekly series that highlights various aspects of the TapRooT® VI software and occasionally includes a little Help Desk humor.

Remember, just because it’s technical, it doesn’t mean it has to be complicated!

Technically Speaking – TapRooT® VI Attachments

February 23rd, 2017 by

Here is a quick video highlighting the Attachment Tab and how to upload files in TapRooT® VI.

Technically Speaking is a weekly series that highlights various aspects of the TapRooT® VI software and occasionally includes a little Help Desk humor.

Remember, just because it’s technical, it doesn’t mean it has to be complicated!

Top 3 Reasons for Bad Root Cause Analysis and How You Can Overcome Them…

February 7th, 2017 by

NewImage

I’ve heard many high level managers complain that they see the same problems happen over and over again. They just can’t get people to find and fix the problems’ root causes. Why does this happen and what can management do to overcome these issues? Read on to find out.

 

1. BLAME

Blame is the number one reason for bad root cause analysis.

Why?

Because people who are worried about blame don’t fully cooperate with an investigation. They don’t admit their involvement. They hold back critical information. Often this leads to mystery accidents. No one knows who was involved, what happened, or why it happened.

As Bart Simpson says:

“I didn’t do it.”
“Nobody saw me do it.”
“You can’t prove anything.”

Blame is so common that people take it for granted.

Somebody makes a mistake and what do we do? Discipline them.

If they are a contractor, we fire them. No questions asked.

And if the mistake was made by senior management? Sorry … that’s not how blame works. Blame always flows downhill. At a certain senior level management becomes blessed. Only truly horrific accidents like the Deepwater Horizon or Bhopal get senior managers fired or jailed. Then again, maybe those accidents aren’t bad enough for discipline for senior management.

Think about the biggest economic collapse in recent history – the housing collapse of 2008. What senior banker went to jail?

But be an operator and make a simple mistake like pushing the wrong button or a mechanic who doesn’t lock out a breaker while working on equipment? You may be fired or have the feds come after you to put you in jail.

Talk to Kurt Mix. He was a BP engineer who deleted a few text messages from his personal cell phone AFTER he had turned it over to the feds. He was the only person off the Deepwater Horizon who faced criminal charges. Or ask the two BP company men who represented BP on the Deepwater Horizon and faced years of criminal prosecution. 

How do you stop blame and get people to cooperate with investigations? Here are two best practices.

A. Start Small …

If you are investigating near-misses that could have become major accidents and you don’t discipline people who spill the beans, people will learn to cooperate. This is especially true if you reward people for participating and develop effective fixes that make the work easier and their jobs less hazardous. 

Small accidents just don’t have the same cloud of blame hanging over them so if you start small, you have a better chance of getting people to cooperate even if a blame culture has already been established.

B. Use a SnapCharT® to facilitate your investigation and report to management.

We’ve learned that using a SnapCharT® to facilitate an investigation and to show the results to management reduces the tendency to look for blame. The SnapCharT® focuses on what happened and “who did it” becomes less important.

Often, the SnapCharT® shows that there were several things that could have prevented the accident and that no one person was strictly to blame. 

What is a SnapCharT®? Attend any TapRooT® Training and you will learn how to use them. See:

TapRooT® Training

NewImage

2. FIRST ASK WHAT NOT WHY

Ever see someone use 5-Whys to find root causes? They start with what they think is the problem and then ask “Why?” five times. Unfortunately this easy methods often leads investigators astray.

Why?

Because they should have started by asking what before they asked why.

Many investigators start asking why before they understand what happened. This causes them to jump to conclusions. They don’t gather critical evidence that may lead them to the real root causes of the problem. And they tend to focus on a single Causal Factor and miss several others that also contributed to the problem. 

How do you get people to ask what instead of why?

Once again, the SnapCharT® is the best tool to get investigators focused on what happened, find the incidents details, identify all the Causal Factors and the information about each Causal Factor that the investigator needs to identify each problem’s root causes.

NewImage

3. YOU MUST GO BEYOND YOUR CURRENT KNOWLEDGE

Many investigators start their investigation with a pretty good idea of the root causes they are looking for. They already know the answers. All they have to do is find the evidence that supports their hypothesis.

What happens when an investigator starts an investigation by jumping to conclusions?

They ignore evidence that is counter to their hypothesis. This problem is called a:

Confirmation Bias

It has been proven in many scientific studies.

But there is an even bigger problem for investigators who think they know the answer. They often don’t have the training in human factors and equipment reliability to recognize the real root causes of each of the Causal Factors. Therefore, they only look for the root causes they know about and don’t get beyond their current knowledge.

What can you do to help investigators look beyond their current knowledge and avoid confirmation bias?

Have them use the SnapCharT® and the TapRooT® Root Cause Tree® Diagram when finding root causes. You will be amazed at the root causes your investigators discover that they previously would have overlooked.

How can your investigators learn to use the Root Cause Tree® Diagram? Once again, send them to TapRooT® Training.

THAT’S IT…

The TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis System can help your investigators overcome the top 3 reasons for bad root cause analysis. And that’s not all. There are many other advantages for management and investigators (and employees) when people use TapRooT® to solve problems.

If you haven’t tried TapRooT® to solve problems, you don’t know what you are missing.

If your organization faces:

  • Quality Issues
  • Safety Incidents
  • Repeat Equipment Failures
  • Sentinel Events
  • Environmental Incidents
  • Cost Overruns
  • Missed Schedules
  • Plant Downtime

You need to be apply the best root cause analysis system: TapRooT®.

Learn more at: 

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

And find the dates and locations for our public TapRooT® Training at:

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

NewImage

Technically Speaking – Creating a Paperless Report (Part 3)

December 29th, 2016 by

Here is the finale of our three-part series detailing the steps to take a paper report and re-create it in the TapRooT® VI software.

Here are: Part 1 Part 2

Technically Speaking is a weekly series that highlights various aspects of the TapRooT® VI software and occasionally includes a little Help Desk humor.

Remember, just because it’s technical, it doesn’t mean it has to be complicated!

Technically Speaking – Creating a Paperless Report (Part 2)

December 15th, 2016 by

Here is part two of our three part series detailing the steps to take a paper report and re-create it in the TapRooT® VI software.

You can find Part 1 here: Part 1

Technically Speaking is a weekly series that highlights various aspects of the TapRooT® VI software and occasionally includes a little Help Desk humor.

Remember, just because it’s technical, it doesn’t mean it has to be complicated!

How Far Away is Death?

December 4th, 2016 by

Teenagers seem to have no concept of how far away from death that they are. Very few over 25 would do this…

Technically Speaking – Creating a Paperless Report (Part 1)

December 1st, 2016 by

I wanted to introduce you to a short three part series detailing the steps to take a paper report and re-create it in the TapRooT® VI software.

Technically Speaking is a weekly series that highlights various aspects of the TapRooT® VI software and occasionally includes a little Help Desk humor.

Remember, just because it’s technical, doesn’t mean it has to be complicated!

Monday Accident & Lessons Learned: Remembering The Concord Crash

November 21st, 2016 by

Found this TV show about the crash and thought it was interesting … What can you learn?

 

Connect with Us

Filter News

Search News

Authors

Angie ComerAngie Comer

Software

Barb CarrBarb Carr

Editorial Director

Chris ValleeChris Vallee

Human Factors

Dan VerlindeDan Verlinde

VP, Software

Dave JanneyDave Janney

Safety & Quality

Garrett BoydGarrett Boyd

Technical Support

Ken ReedKen Reed

VP, Equifactor®

Linda UngerLinda Unger

Co-Founder

Mark ParadiesMark Paradies

Creator of TapRooT®

Per OhstromPer Ohstrom

VP, Sales

Shaun BakerShaun Baker

Technical Support

Steve RaycraftSteve Raycraft

Technical Support

Susan Napier-SewellSusan Napier-Sewell

Marketing & Communications Strategist

Wayne BrownWayne Brown

Technical Support

Success Stories

Fortunately, I had just been introduced to a system for incident investigation and root cause analysis…

Enmax Corporation

TapRooT® is a key part of our safety improvement program that has helped us stop injuries and save lives.

Canyon Fuel Company
Contact Us