Comment identifier efficacement la cause profonde d’un problème ?

To effectively identify the root cause of a problem, it's crucial to begin by engaging with those most impacted by the issue. Oftentimes, so-called experts fall into the trap of attempting to understand and solve a problem in isolation, without direct involvement from the affected entities. This can lead to misdiagnosing symptoms or causes as the root problem itself. True problem-solving starts with listening to and involving those at the heart of the issue, ensuring a holistic and accurate understanding before devising effective solutions. #RootCauseAnalysis #ProblemSolving

RCA is crucial because it's like untangling a knotted mess of hair. We see the symptoms, the tangled mess, but the real problem lies deeper. RCA acts like a comb, systematically separating the strands, identifying the root cause, and fixing it at its core. Ignoring the root and just brushing over the surface like a quick comb-through won't permanently fix the problem. It's about preventing the tangles from forming again, not just hiding them.

For clarity, the first step is to write down the perceived problem. Next, collect on-ground data regarding the problem and analyse it. Take an inside-out as well as outside-in view of the problem. Without getting to the bottom of the 'real' problem, it is impossible to work on an effective solution.

One thing I have found helpful is using the different tools and strategies of problem solving such as "5Why´s analysis", Ishiwaka diagram or concept maps. But the more important thing to find the root cause of a problem is to define it correctly. If we do not have the problem clearly defined, we cannot attack it.

Ask many questions of as many people involved directly and indirectly to the problem being addressed. Never, never assume you understand what the root cause is at the outset, that is when you are not able to uncover the root cause because you have a preconceived answer. Once you think you know the answer, double check it numerous times!

Could you start by asking yourself why you want to solve the problem in the first place? Once you search within yourself to determine what your true motives are, then you can ask yourself if you are actually the right person, entity or department to do this work. Oftentimes, are reasons for wanting to help can be self-centered. When we do the initial root work of determining the nature of our desire to help, we oftentimes root out false humility, wishful thinking, incorrect positioning of our own strengths and weakness, whether we can accomplish this alone or need assistance, as well as useless savior complexes that can undermine the strength, resiliency, knowledge and assets of those affected by, and possibly already doing, the work.

The best way to define the problem is to say who is experiencing the problem and why and what is the available evidence to support this.

I like to think that the Problems always look like their symptoms. Although misinterpretation can be dangerous and a waste of time. It is also unproductive if we over complicate defining the problem.

It takes research to define a problem, or if there's even a problem at all. When dealing with people, the data comes in hard and soft forms--numbers that reflect human behaviors and outcomes, and words that describe opinions and personal/psychological conditions. If we collect such data, we may find there is no problem at all. For example, I worked at an art school that was experiencing flat enrollment and minimal repeat customers. We could count the enrollment numbers and decide there's a problem: not enough students! But a deeper dive, interviewing former students, seemed to reveal that the "problem" was in our imagination/aspirations: students had a great experience at the school, and just didn't feel the need to return.

Another thing that I find helpful is to ensure that the problem being looked at is the real problem. Problems can be linked to the extent that they seem confusing. In such a case, one might be addressing the wrong kind of a "problem". Contextualizing is very important in this case.

Be observant of the questions we ask. They often reflect our biases and blind spots--which may be the weaknesses that led to the problem in the first place! Note that "why not" questions are more common than "why". Organizations think things should be a certain way: rev enue should show steady growth, for example.When that is not the case, we ask "Why not?!" Sometimes there are truly external causes (e.g., a pandemic, demographic changes). Other times, the results are precisely what the organization has wrought. If a pizza joint makes good pizza and sells at the right price, it will have a reliably steady revenue stream. But should it expect growth? If it asks itself "Why aren't we growing?"--perhaps that's just the wrong question.

Asking the right questions is important but working out who needs to be asked is equally useful. For example, service users might only know part of the problem, whilst other prospective users (that are not customers yet) will have much more information about barriers to entry.

One thing I have also found to be helpful when handling social problems is the understanding that not all problems can be addressed. So, it does not mean that identifying a root cause means that the problem will be sorted. Options for identifying a problem are; 1. Mitigating/solving the problem 2. Accepting the problem 3. Transferring the risk associated with the problem.

I agree, but sometimes it’s about more than just asking the right questions. It’s about spending a lot of time with people and letting them share their stories without interruption. It also takes observation. I’ve had a lot of lessons from just visiting villages in the global south and sometimes you can see the issues and solutions by looking around public spaces and being observant.

É preciso estarmos abertos a colocar nossas pressuposições de lado, ouvir, perceber, e principalmente fazer novas questões sobre o que parece "óbvio" para os envolvidos, pois quando questionamos entendemos que pode ter diferentes sentidos, considerando que partem de olhares construídos por vivências, valores e convicções diversos.

The use of a Dashboard can help find data supporting the root cause of poor planning and also support creating some strategies to plan better. The use of technology reduces human errors of data recording but may help human centered decisions.

Data and evidence validate the problem and also determine how to monitor the response to identified solutions. Standardized data also helps in comparison across population sub groups and in predicting the future trends.

All that one needs to ensure in this case is that the data need to be based on a very objective process. If the data is biased, then identifying the root cause will be a problem.

Agreed. Data is especially helpful with nature based solutions and carbon development. It’s essential to have high quality data and is overdue in the carbon industry.

Pareto chart is the proven method for identifying the top 20% causes that contributes to 80% of the problem. Take those 20% causes and dive deep into five why's to understand the root causes.

Involving stakeholders is not a transactional transfer of information. Stakeholders should be involved not only in answering questions, but in shaping the questions asked. The earlier in the process opportunities for input are sought, and the more diverse the perspectives invited, the more effectively will enquiries develop an accurate understanding of the complexities and nuances of the situation interventions are designed to impact. Soliciting feedback on fait accompli solutions rarely engenders the buy-in critical for interventions to be adopted and sustained. Ingenuity comes from genuine engagement with those effected.

Reach out to stakeholders early in the process to build credibility and gain the access you need to implement research, facilitate programs or present solutions. Take a broad view of who qualifies as a stakeholder: Connecting with individuals and organizations who may at first glance seem peripheral to the issue can sometimes lead to surprising insights or connections to more proximate stakeholders. Once you’ve identified your base, schedule updates in appropriate formats (webcasts, meetings, texts, etc.) to informed on progress and offer a chance to provide feedback. Be mindful not to overtax them; asking for their input and advice is great, but making the process burdensome will cause you to risk losing those key contributors.

The people closest to the problems are closest to the solutions. As social impact professionals, failing to engage stakeholders, and particularly communities directly harmed by the problems you are trying to solve, is a missed opportunity and barrier to success. We need to engage people with lived experiences at the beginning of the process, when we are issue spotting. They have critical expertise regarding the problem we are trying to solve and which solutions will actually help. Create opportunities for them to help identify, iterate, and advocate for priority solutions. Involve them in implementation.

Throughout the process, whether defining the problem, gathering and analyzing data, or designing solutions based on root causes, stakeholder engagement is key. Learning directly from individuals who are facing the identified challenge as well as hearing from others who have proximity to the issue helps to ensure your process is as objective as possible. While some stakeholders may have conflicting views, it’s important to consider all perspectives to make effective decisions for the cause you are addressing.

Great point. I would also look at body language as what others are not saying may be vital. It t is additionally important to create a company culture and environment where people feel safe to share their opinions and not be judged or feel that others who disagree may seek retribution.

Mapping global system actors and social forces is the critical first step in discovering opportunities to accelerate the impact of social enterprise organizations. I prefer using the World Economic Forum (WEF) collective intelligence transformation mapping tool to complete actor and system mapping tasks. Along with gaining strategic insights for leaders, a collaborative team process of creating actor maps offers the added benefit of team empowerment. Live actor mapping sessions empower teams through the collective process of exploring current ecosystem relationships and setting the groundwork for activating future customer and partner discovery.

Stakeholder advisory committees or better yet, participatory steering councils, are critical to help guide social impact efforts so that they effectively define the problem, identify solutions that will actually help, and develop advocacy and implementation processes that will be meaningful to the communities you are charged with serving. Focus groups and listening sessions are valuable supplements to expand stakeholder input at key project stages, but are not replacements. Budget so that you can pay people with lived experiences and/or community advocates for their expertise and time.

Beware of analysis paralysis. Everyone knows or can easily look up how to conduct root cause analysis. Knowing how deep to go and what tools to use is the key.