How can you conduct root cause analysis quickly?

Choosing the right RCA methodology is the key to being able to conduct an effective and timely analysis. There are varying depths of detail required for each method which results in varying degrees of effort & investment to seek. Starting with a clearly defined problem statement is critical as this will highlight how many knowns & unknowns you have. The 5W2H method is excellent for this. You can then use that to drive a simple brainstorming session, or you could provide structure to this through the Ishikawa Fishbone. Continue forward with potential causes by following the path(s) down a 5 Why’s, and don’t forget to understand the realistic stopping point here. You could also go much more in depth and apply Lean Six Sigma DMAIC.

Done right, the 5 Whys should track all the causes and relationships. You don't want to track a single path through your event, but every possible path. "Why did the server crash" "Why was the crash detected slowly", etc. It should answer (to the final why) every single question which could be asked about the event. 5 Whys is just the beginning, but it could easily be 70 Whys for big (complex) events.

1. 5W1H (Who, What, Where, When, Why, How) is a quick method of asking questions about a process or a problem taken up for improvement. 2. four of the (Who, What, Where and When) and the one H is used to comprehend for details, anlalyze interferences and judgment to get to the fundamental facts and guid statement to get to the abstraction. 3. The las W(Why) is often asked five times so the one can drill down to get to the core of problem. This 5W1H of Six Sigma explains the approach to be followed by exactly understanding and anlayzing the process, project or problem for improvement. 4. FMEA is effective way of finding the Root Cause quickly.

RCA is important as it helps to ensure reduce if not eliminate reoccurence of the problem. It is not important as to which of the diagonosis tools is deployed to find the answer to the problem what is important is entire team is involved and the outcomes are documented so that it can me be referred in future and teams dont have to reinvent the wheel everytime they face similar nature of problem.

Choosing the methodology for an RCA is perhaps the most important step. Before selecting one, I start by defining what the problem is and what kind of solutions or outputs are needed, by when, by who. I see RCA methodologies as tools in the tool box. For equipment failures where there is a clear failure mode identified, 5 Whys is the most straight forward. But when equipment or process problems are present without a clear root cause, my favorite if Fault Tree (FTA), or Logic Tree, which provide an excellent clear path for troubleshooting and/or Fault Finding Tasks or collection of evidence.

Ensuring the quality and relevance of data is vital. Garbage in, garbage out—using inaccurate or irrelevant data can lead to erroneous conclusions. The process of data validation, ensuring data integrity, and cross-referencing information from multiple sources helps in building a robust foundation for the analysis. Going beyond the surface-level details is crucial. While it's important to know when, where, how, and why a problem occurred, considering broader context factors such as organizational culture, external influences, and long-term trends can provide more comprehensive understanding of the root causes. RCA requires a combination of structured methodology, reliable data, interdisciplinary collaboration, and commitment to improvement

The most time consuming part of RCA is determining what happened - the development of a detailed list of actions/events that preceded the incident and information under each action/event giving the applicable supporting data as to why that action/event occurred. The faster you can do this the faster your analysis will be, but you cannot say WHY something happened until you know WHAT happened. Next, identify all of the mistakes made on that timeline, which, had they not happened, the incident would not have occurred. Analyze each mistake for the underlying causes - communication issues, procedural issues, training issues, supervision, etc.

Data provides the empirical foundation upon which the entire RCA process hinges. It enables analysts to move beyond assumptions and conjecture, offering a factual basis to identify patterns, trends, and aberrations. By compiling data from various sources, such as process logs, performance metrics, and incident reports, analysts can pinpoint deviations and anomalies that might otherwise remain obscured. Moreover, relevant evidence serves as the building blocks for constructing a credible narrative of the event or issue under investigation. Inaccurate or incomplete evidence can lead to misguided conclusions and ineffective solutions. Ensuring the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of the evidence collected is thus of paramount importance

The first step to conduct a successful RCA is the choice of the data sources. In the most part of the cases there are multiple sources and it is fundamental to cross the data coming from the different sources to verify the reliability of the information, sometimes certain sources can be discarded if the information provided differs too much from the other sources. This first step allows to restrict the area of interest in a short amount of time.

In the realm of RCA, data isn't just numbers or facts; it's the narrative of what went wrong. By delving deep into varied sources, from firsthand observations to detailed reports, one can stitch together the story behind the problem. But like any good detective, it's essential to scrutinize every piece of evidence, ensuring its authenticity and relevance. This rigorous approach not only narrows down the root cause but also fortifies the credibility of the analysis. Remember, in RCA, it's not about how much data you have, but how well you use it.

Involving the wrong people is a sure way to not have an effective RCA. People who have the perspective of "working in" the event scenario and people from the outside can all lend valuable input to the analysis. I have found more meaningful conversations come from not having the management in the room as well.

Involve the right people and the right tools to get an RCA that will bring to a result. It seems simplicistic but there are skilled people that are comfortable in front of a dashboard to brainstorm and other that can give the best results analyzing the data in a quiet and solitary environment. Based on the nature of the problem you have to assign the right tool for the analysis taking in consideration the attitude of the people you want to help you.

While collaboration thrives on spontaneity, structure enhances efficiency. Dividing roles and responsibilities within the RCA team optimizes efforts and ensures that each task is managed by competent individual. Facilitator guides the process, maintaining focus and facilitating discussions. The recorder captures insights, discussions, and findings, ensuring nothing is lost in the shuffle. The analyst delves into data and evidence, dissecting complex information. The implementer ensures that the proposed solutions are executed effectively. This division not only accelerates the analysis process but also allows team members to capitalize on their strengths. Clarity in role diminishes confusion, streamlines discussions and consolidates efforts

A successful root cause analysis is hardly ever and individual effort - best done as a team involving key steak holders including the assets that are at the core of the operation. Of course there needs to be a strong sense of security and trust in the organization to promote frank forthcoming self criticism.

I like to use solutions such as Confluence Whiteboards or Miro to engage the people on the RCA. In that way, people can collaborate during the RCA.

Structured can take on many forms. Learning team events are another "structured" way to conduct an RCA. I use quotes because the only thing that is structured is using paper to write down all the ideas from those in the room. From there it is open conversation and development of theme's or root causes.

I've found that not everyone thinks in the same analytical way to break down a problem. This could be as basic as a checklist which breaks down your thinking process to help other team members understand and repeat their actions predictably for each issue, which is why you need a structured process.

In a world where interconnectedness shapes success, RCA shines as a beacon of collaborative prowess. The art of collaborating in RCA magnifies insights, fosters innovation, and molds a solution-focused approach. It's a testament to the collective's potential to surmount challenges, transforming them into stepping stones towards progress. Through collaboration, RCA becomes a journey of discovery, learning, and growth, redefining problems as opportunities to unite strengths and generate lasting impact.

Sharing the RCA findings outside of your site or location can often lead to even better solutions. I have been part of an organization that fails at this step and it proves costly in the long run because events repeat themselves.

For better analysis of root causes I prefer the following: 1) Deeper data analysis. Digging deeper to customer-customer analysis or product-product analysis considering Pareto rule. 2) Observations. 3) Discussing with key stakeholders.

Many problems do not require a complex or even a thorough process. If you know the cause and the solution because of immediate observation, then don’t think you must select a tool, gather abundant data, involve others, and use a complicated means of analysis. Solve it, and implement your counter measure to prevent it from happening in the future. The object of RCA is to improve, it is not to hold dogmatically to a process. Always consider whether your actions are value adding, non-value adding but necessary, or wasteful. If the elaborate RCA does not add value or is even wasteful, don’t do it. Get better every day.

One point to consider is to keep focus. RCA takes time and it is very easy to get distracted by operational topics instead of continuing to investigate on the RCA. That is also why it should be quick, otherwise it may get buried. A side point to highlight is the importance of RCA. It is very difficult to make any progress without analysing in depth what happen. This has some management consequences: the management should not be searching for the guilty one but instead seeking for transparency and valuating RCA as it should

The goal of conducting an RCA quickly is not to rush through the process, but to streamline it without compromising the quality of analysis. Prioritise critical thinking, collaboration, focus on uncovering the true root cause, asking “why” repeatedly and finding a long term solution.

No rush! How fast? It is depend on what deep of information you have, what level of trouble we face and what is the result we are really looking for