Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- articles:whac-a-mole [2024/02/05 21:09] – rrandall
+++ articles:whac-a-mole [2024/02/05 21:17] (current) – [The "Human Factors" in Cause & Effect Analysis] rrandall
@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 ===== The "Human Factors" in Cause & Effect Analysis =====
-While we're on the topic of "Human Errors", these are very much prevalent in the Cause & Effect Analysis process.
+While we're on the topic of "Human Errors", these are very much prevalent in the Cause & Effect Chain Analysis process.
-First, the individual(s) performing the Cause & Effect Analysis have their own bias for what the "cause(s)" should be. Like it or not, a "Blame Game" often occurs during this process. No individual or manager wants to be the target of that "negative" perception. So "finger pointing" often ensues.
+First, the individual(s) performing the Cause & Effect Chain Analysis have their own bias for what the "cause(s)" should be. Like it or not, a "Blame Game" often occurs during this process. No individual or manager wants to be the target of that "negative" perception. So "finger pointing" often ensues.
 Another important "Human Factor" is that humans have evolved to "think" in a linear fashion. Consequently, people have difficulty making sense of non-linear events that have branches and/or parallel causes/effects. Read any Corrective Action Report and you will see a linear story detailing the events in a sequence... omitting any parallel causes/effects.
-Sadly, most Quality Professionals have not been taught that every event must have at least one condition and one action. Similarly, most Quality Professionals have also not been taught that upon identifying a "Cause - Effect" relationship, the "Effect" now becomes the "Cause" for the next step in the analysis. In other words, whether something is a "Cause" or "Effect" depends upon the analyst's perspective.
+Sadly, most Quality Professionals have not been taught that every event must have at least one condition and one action (i.e., "[[https://www.amazon.com/Apollo-Root-Cause-Analysis-Thinking/dp/1883677114|Apollo Root Cause Analysis]]"). Similarly, most Quality Professionals have also not been taught that upon identifying a "Cause - Effect" relationship, the "Effect" now becomes the "Cause" for the next step in the analysis. In other words, whether something is a "Cause" or "Effect" depends upon the analyst's perspective.
-Also, the simple "5 Whys" method only goes to the point of the analyst's "ignorance"... NOT the "Root Cause" (sic). In other words, the analyst asks "Why?" until he cannot answer the question. Out of ideas, he assumes that is the "Root Cause" (sic)... when in reality, the analyst(s) has merely reached their "Point of Ignorance". While the analyst could continue the analysis by obtaining participation from one or more people (Subject Matter Experts) who can answer that question, they too would eventually encounter their "Point of Ignorance".
+Also, the simple "5 Whys" method only goes to the point of the analyst's "ignorance"... NOT the mythical "Root Cause". In other words, the analyst asks "Why?" until he cannot answer the question. Out of ideas, he assumes that is the "Root Cause"... when in reality, the analyst(s) has merely reached their "Point of Ignorance". While the analyst could continue the analysis by obtaining participation from one or more people (Subject Matter Experts) who can answer that question, they too would eventually encounter their "Point of Ignorance".
-Consequently, one could easily argue that identifying the true "root cause" of any event is impossible.
+Consequently, the "5 Whys" method leads to untrained analysts ignoring multiple links in the cause-and-effect chain... many of which would prevent the recurrence of the nonconformity.
 ===== Conclusion =====