When we commonly hear about Root
Cause Analysis (RCA), we hear about it being used to analyze
a specific incident. While this is the “sharp end” of
the process, is there more to it in order to be successful?
The PROACT Approach views RCA
as a comprehensive system requiring organizational
support, assimilation with existing initiatives
and culture, specific well-rounded knowledge
and skill sets of the RCA Principal Analysts
(PA), and a lessons learned feed back
system about RCA results.
Oftentimes the reason
for the “failure” of any
RCA effort will be attributed to the RCA approach itself.
In reality, the “root cause(s)” of the RCA effort’s
failure will be embedded
in organizational support system flaws.
Keep reading to learn the essential elements
of a successful RCA approach.
Reliability Center, Inc. (RCI) was part of a recent survey
about Root Cause Analysis (RCA) successes and pitfalls in
manufacturing. The survey results indicated the most significant
drawback to successful Root Cause Analysis was a lack of
support by management. The survey indicates the RCA process
will not deliver its full potential unless people are dedicated
to the RCA effort, funding is available for validation of
hypotheses, and time to perform the analyses are approved
prior to implementation.
As a result of this survey RCI has created a PROACT Performance
Process (P3) Model for successful root cause analysis initiatives.
The model is based on what has been successful in past RCA
efforts. The model has demonstrated significant payback to
companies that have embraced RCA as a key performance tool
for their bottom-line results.
The P3 Model focuses on the overall process needed for a
successful RCA initiative. This model has also performed
well under conditions where management support is minimal
due to a reactive culture. The P3 Model is designed to provide
maximum effectiveness in performing RCA. The model is made
up of four parts:
1. Management Support
The first component is the management
support needed for successful implementation
of an RCA process. The management’s responsibility is not only
to provide financial support but
to create and approve management systems to insure landmarks are
set and met for implementation progress, RCA projects are moving forward
and countermeasures are implemented
and tracked.
2. PROACT Methodology
The second component is learning to use
RCI's PROACT RCA method and the individual’s internal
ability to use the method effectively.
This is accomplished by giving the
RCA analyst internal capabilities to read and interpret
mechanical and electrical messages left behind in the failed
parts (Reliability Physics) This piece of the RCA P3 model
insures effective failure scene investigation. This will
eliminate the need for the analyst to send out 80% of the
parts in question for professional external analysis minimizing
the cost and time to perform RCA. It will also get each
investigation started with key relevant data which is essential
for a successful root cause analysis (Effective RCA must
have the right data).
3. Prioritization of
Failure Candidates for RCA
The third component is designed to move
toward a proactive approach of identifying
the best candidates for RCA using Opportunity Analysis methods. The
P3 Model identifies RCA candidates using focusing tools as opposed
to triggers (Proactive Approach to
Focus). By performing an Opportunity Analysis or “modified Failure
Mode & Effects
Analysis (FMEA)”, RCA candidates can be identified
and prioritized from most significant
losses to least significant losses.
This is a more effective approach
for focusing than triggers because it
is like surgical strikes that give
the investigator a known payback
before the problem is solved. Triggers
are more like carpet bombing, hoping
the right target is hit during a barrage of
fire.
The lessons learned from completed RCA projects will provide
proactive countermeasures from the latent system roots identified
in the analysis. By addressing the latent roots of a problem
such as training deficiencies in identified work areas, the
implemented countermeasure will have an exponential effect
on the Reliability of the entire area. The P3 Model has identified
some of the repeating system issues such as human error.
Many managers see human
error as a problem that is only solved using disciplinary
measures for corrective action. Human error can be managed
much like a safe work environment can be managed. Procedures
can be confusing to the reader by
having instruction that needs interpretation by the reader
such as, “turn valve B as needed”. This is considered
a human error trap because the interpretation is left to
the reader “As needed” can be interpreted differently
by each individual reader. Another area
where human proaction can be utilized
is within supervision. Many system roots identified have
revealed supervision was not adequate, in some cases leaving
the employee to guess what to do next or to cut corners in
order to meet a perceived deadline, such as pressure to start
up. This can cause a poor decision to occur.
4. Trending Results
The forth component of the model is trending
the analyses looking for trends where
Reliability can be improved. Looking at areas that have a lot of
bearing failures due to alignment issues may flag an RCA project for improvement.
Failures due to purchasing decisions
to change vendors may direct a company to alter systems for purchasing
to include the input of maintenance or production before a
change of vendor is approved. The
trends produced from solid RCA analyses can raise a company’s facilities
to an unprecedented level of Reliability.
The positive results
of the P3 Model are dependent on the confidence of the
analyst to perform the RCA method, knowing the roots will
be uncovered and actions will be taken on recommendations.
The support given by the analyst’s
management is necessary for exceptional
performance. The P3 Model requires
mentoring until confidence is obtained.
Contact:
Mark Latino, 804-458-0645 x303, mlatino@reliability.com
or
Bob Latino 804-458-0645 x302, blatino@reliability.com
Mark and Bob will be happy to walk you
through this results proven process. Contact them when you're
ready to roll!
Current RCI Workshops
PROACT® Root
Cause Analysis Methods
PROACT® Human Error
Reduction Strategies (HER)
Basic Failure Analysis
Failure Scene Investigation Techniques
PROACT® Lead Investigator Series
The Manufacturing Game / PROACT® RCA
Methods
Current International Workshops
Overview and Sales Contact
Workshop Schedules
Learn More About PROACT®
PROACT® Suite Software Training
PROACT® FAQ
PROACT Press Release
PROACT® System Requirements
LEAP Basic Opportunity Analysis
Reliability Quick Links for Resources
PROACT® Suite
for Industry - Software Training Overview