PROACT® Performance Process [P³] Model:

A Results Proven Process Exclusively Available from Reliability Center, Inc.

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.

As a result of a survey regarding RCA successes and pitfalls in manufacturing, 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 the PROACT RCA as a key performance tool for their bottom-line results.

RCI can implement this process in your facility via consulting, training and software - Give us a call Today! (804) 458-0645 or Email: Info@Reliability.com

Defining the Process:

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 pro-action 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!