Yearly Archives: 2014

You are browsing the site archives by year.

Con todo el trabajo de preparación (Cómo Fortalecer Sus Habilidades de Facilitador de RCA: Parte 1) detrás de usted, usted ya está listo para comenzar a facilitar un Apollo Análisis Causa Raíz™. Siga los siguientes pasos para asegurar un proceso sin problemas y un resultado exitoso. facilitation2

Paso 1. Introducciones

En primer lugar, hacer algunas introducciones y acomodar el sitio. Cubra cosas tales como:

  • Introducir a todos
  • Hablar sobre las directrices de la reunión: por ejemplo, cuándo tomar descansos, cuando atender el teléfono y política sobre el correo electrónico , etc.
  • El objetivo: estamos aquí para solucionar el problema, no para encontrar culpables
  • Una revisión del método Apollo para aquellos que no estén familiarizados con él (tomarse de 15 a 45 minutos, dependiendo de la audiencia)
  • Su papel como facilitador: puede que tenga que “dirigir el tráfico”o cambiar la dirección de las discusiones para ayudarles a descubrir más causas o para llegar a soluciones efectivas.

Paso 2. Cronología

Ahora es el momento de capturar la “historia”.  ¿Qué ha ocurrido para que todos ustedes estén aquí ahora? Obtenga varias narrativas de distintas personas, y desarrolle una cronología de los eventos conforme vaya avanzando.

Esta cronología será de gran utilidad. Debe revelar el evento o tema que se convierte en su principal efecto o punto de partida, y asegura que todos los elementos más allá de este punto de partida capturan los problemas que tenga el grupo.

En el siguiente ejemplo, si empiezo de T1 voy a descubrir por qué dejé mi iPad en el baño. Sin embargo, si empiezo a T7 voy a descubrir por qué mi proceso de verificación no funcionó como yo desee.

table2

Mientras que el tiempo que se produce cada evento es importante, puede ser que no siempre se conozca. En estos casos, puede representar la secuencia de tiempo simplemente como T1 , T2 y así sucesivamente.

Paso 3. Definir el problema

Ahora está listo para definir el problema. A menudo, la definición del problema sale fácilmente y todo el mundo está de acuerdo. Sin embargo, a veces usted encontrará que el grupo no puede llegar a un Efecto Primario. En este caso, como facilitador , es su trabajo para reagruparse y hacer algunas preguntas acerca de por qué todo el mundo está interesado en el tema. A menudo, se trata de dinero.

Una cosa que usted no desea hacer es conseguir estar atarado tratando de encontrar el punto de partida perfecto. Me recuerda un dicho que escuché una vez :

Estimados Optimista y Pesimista,

Mientras usted estaba tratando de decidir si el vaso estaba medio vacío o medio lleno, ¡yo me lo bebí!

Sinceramente,

El Realista

El método de Apollo Análisis Causa Raíz™ es lo suficientemente robusto como para manejar un punto de partida imperfecto. Si el problema cambia o evoluciona a medida que avanza, simplemente lo dejó como un nuevo punto de partida. Ajuste el gráfico y ¡continue!

Ahora que usted tiene un problema definido, con su impacto bien entendido, está listo para iniciar el proceso de los gráficos. El equipo también debe saber ahora por qué están aquí, y la cantidad de tiempo y dinero que puede ser gastado en la investigación.

Si se ha perdido la primera parte de este artículo, usted puede leerlo aquí.

¿Quiere saber más sobre el método de Apollo Análisis Causa Raíz™? Nuestro curso de 2 días para Facilitadores de Análisis de Causa Raíz es perfecto para cualquier persona que necesite entender fundamentos del proceso de como resolver un problema y cómo facilitar una investigación efectiva.

Un facilitador realizando un análisis de causa raíz usando el método Apollo realiza un papel crucial durante una investigación. Estos son algunos consejos y pasos a tener en cuenta a la hora facilitar:

Durante muchos años, he oído en varias ocasiones que “el método Apollo sólo se utiliza para grandes investigaciones serias.” Esta declaración siempre me hace sonreír – porque es completamente falso. Un análisis de causa raíz (RCA, por sus siglas en Inglés) por el método Apollo se puede realizar en cualquier problema, grande o pequeño, siempre y cuando el facilitador correcto este presente. En este artículo, primera de dos partes, explora las estrategias y procesos que un facilitador debe tener en cuenta cuando se avanza en una investigación. rca_facilitation

Quien Sea Puede Facilitar

En mis clases de entrenamiento de; método Apollo, siempre pregunto si alguien es un facilitador certificado. Yo sólo he recibido un solo “sí” de los cerca de 2.000 alumnos que han asistido a mis cursos . Esta persona se habrá capacitado en la manera de gestionar un grupo con diferentes personalidades; cómo avanzar a un grupo hacia una meta; cómo ser justo y firme; etcétera.

Sí, todas estas son habilidades valiosas para aprender. Y, en un mundo ideal, cada facilitador tendría el tiempo y los recursos para completar la formación. Pero usted puede facilitar un análisis de causa raíz usando el método Apollo sin esta certificación.

Facilitar RCAs requiere flexibilidad, sin embargo, también es necesario cumplir con un esquema estándar. Mientras que cada RCA tiene su propio camino, por lo general se adhieren a estos pasos principales:

  1. Recopilar información
  2. Definir el problema
  3. Crear un RealityChart
    1. Fase uno: Crear el RealityChart
    2. Fase dos: terminar y formalizar el RealityChart
  4. Identificar soluciones
  5. Finalizar el informe

El proceso, según lo establecido anteriormente en su formato básico, puede parecer un poco intimidante para alguien que nunca ha facilitado un RCA anteriormente. En particular, si usted está contendiendo con otros sentimientos, como estar ansioso frente a una multitud, o sentirse responsable por el resultado . Usted tendrá que hacer frente a estas últimas cuestiones a su propia manera.

Lo que puede hacerse cargo es de encontrar una manera de dar forma a un grupo de personas dispares formando un equipo altamente funcional, que compartan el objetivo común de alcanzar una solución . Siguiendo estos pasos, usted puede prepararse para un proceso de facilitación sin problemas.

PREPARANDOSE PARA UNA FACILITACIÓN

Paso 1. Familiarícese con el método Apollo.

Primero, asegúrese de que está familiarizado con el método de Apollo, después de todo, es lo que estamos tratando de facilitar . Si necesita una revisión, el centro de aprendizaje de RealityCharting  es un gran lugar para visitar para recapitular sobre lo básico. Aquí, usted puede completar un escenario simulado para realmente poner a punto su comprensión del proceso. También sería una buena idea revisar las directrices de facilitación en el manual que recibió con su entrenamiento inicial. Se da una excelente visión general de todo el proceso.

Paso 2. Reúna sus materiales.

Abastecerse de notas “post-it”  y obtener de los buenos, los súper pegajosos que permanecerán en la pared.

Le sugerimos que utilice notas “post-it” en lugar de un ordenador para realizar el análisis, ya que ayuda a mejorar la realidad común. Con notas “post-it”, todos los participantes pueden ver lo que está pasando.

Si usted piensa que el análisis tomará unos días, obtenga múltiples colores de notas “post-it” para que pueda distinguir fácilmente entre los cambios en el gráfico creado en diferentes días o en diferentes momentos.

Asegúrese de que la sala en la que se está trabajando cuente con bastante espacio en la pared. Y si las paredes no son adecuadas para las notas, pegue papel con cinta adhesiva en la pared primero  y luego pegue sus “post-its” . El uso de papel puede proporcionar la ventaja adicional de hacer el gráfico fácil de quitar y llevarse con usted. Si se trata de temas sensibles , se puede enrollar y llevar con usted al final del día.

Paso 3. Prepare a los participantes.

Asegúrese de que todos los participantes sepan qué esperar antes de comenzar un RCA. Un RCA puede requerir un compromiso de tiempo considerable, por lo que hay que dejar claro desde el principio que se puede requerir mucho de su tiempo.

Paso 4. Reuna información.

Cuanta más información se tiene desde el principio, mejor será el proceso.

Puede que ya tenga la información a la mano en forma de imágenes, correos electrónicos, informes, declaraciones de testigos, y así sucesivamente . Puede haber alguna evidencia física útil . Solicitar pruebas de las personas adecuadas, recopilar y almacenar todo en un solo archivo.

También puede optar por llevar a todo el equipo para ver la zona objeto de la investigación, de modo que todos tengan una idea clara en mente acerca de lo que está discutiendo.

Tenga en cuenta que, no importa cuánto se esfuerces, siempre faltará información.  Esto no es un problema. Usted puede llamar a alguien, investigarlo en el momento, o anotar una acción para que alguien pueda recoger la evidencia despues.

¿Quiere saber más sobre el método de Apollo? Nuestro curso de 2 días para Facilitadores de Análisis de Causa Raíz es perfecto para cualquier persona que necesite entender fundamentos del proceso de como resolver un problema y cómo facilitar una investigación efectiva.

 

Screen Shot 2014-09-25 at 4.28.39 pm

Author: Jack Jager

An effective root cause analysis process can improve business outcomes significantly. Why is it then that few organisations have a functioning root cause analysis process in place? 

Here are the top 6 sure-fire ways to kill off a Root Cause Analysis program

1. Don’t use it.

stop-hand

The company commits to the training, creates an expectation of use and then doesn’t follow through with commitment, process and resources! Now come on, how easy is it to devalue the training and deliver a message that the training was just to tick someone’s KPI box and that the process doesn’t really need to be used.

2. Don’t support it.

Success in Root Cause Analysis would be the ultimate goal of each and every defect elimination program. To achieve success however, requires a bit more than just training people in how to do it. It requires structures that initially support the training, that mentor and provide feedback on the journey towards application of excellence and thereafter have structures that delineate exactly when an investigation needs to take place and that delivers clear support in terms of time and people to achieve the desired outcome. Without support for the chosen process the expected outcomes are rarely delivered.  

3. Don’t implement solutions.

To do all of the work involved in an investigation and then notice that there have been no corrective actions implemented, that the problem has recurred because nothing has changed, has got to be one of the easiest ways to kill off a Root Cause Analysis process. What happens when people get asked to get involved in RCAs or to facilitate them when the history indicates that nothing happens from the efforts expended in this pursuit? “I’m too busy to waste my time on that stuff!”  

 

4. Take the easy option and implement soft solutions.

Why are the soft controls implemented instead of the hard controls? Because they are easy and they don’t cost much and we are seen to be doing something about the problem. We have ticked all the boxes. But will this prevent recurrence of the problem? There is certainly no guarantee of this if it is only the soft controls that we implement. We aren’t really serious about problem solving are we, if this is what we continue to do?   

5. Continue to blame people.

The easy way out! Find a scapegoat for any problem that you don’t have time to investigate or that you simply can’t be bothered to investigate properly. But will knowing who did it, actually prevent rectraining your staff urrence of the problem?

Ask a different question! How do you control what people do? You control them or more correctly their actions by training them, by putting in the right procedures and protocols, by providing clear guidelines into what they can or can’t do, by creating standard work    instructions for everyone to follow and by clearly establishing what the rules are in the work place that must be adhered to.

What sort of controls are these if we measure them against the hierarchy of controls? They are all administrative controls, deemed to be soft controls that will give you no certainty that the problem will not happen again. We know this! So why do we implement these so readily? Because it is the easy way out! It ticks all the boxes, except the one that says “will these corrective actions prevent recurrence of the problem?”

We all understand the hierarchy of controls but do we actually use it to the extent that we should?  

6. We don’t know if we are succeeding because we don’t measure anything.

You get what you measure! When management don’t implement or audit a process for completed RCAs it sends a strong message that there is no interest, or little, in the work that is being done to complete the analysis.

Tracking KPIs like, how many RCAs have been raised against the triggers set? How many actions have been raised in the month as a result and, of those actions raised, how many have been completed? If management is not interested in reviewing these things regularly along with the number of RCAs subsequently closed off in a relevant period, then it won’t be long before people notice that no one is interested in the good work being done.

The additional work done to complete RCAs will not be seen as necessary, as it’s not important enough to review and the work or the effort in doing this will then drop away until it’s no longer done at all.

measuring success

Another interesting point is that if only the number of investigations is reported, and there is no check on the quality of the analysis being completed, then anything can be whipped up as no one is looking! If a random audit is completed on just one of the analyses completed in a month then this implies that the quality of the analysis is important to the organisation. 

What message do we send if we don’t measure anything?

 

 

In closing, the first step on the road to implementing an effective and sustainable Root Cause Analysis program is to pinpoint what’s holding it back. These Top 6 sure-fire ways to kill off a Root Cause Analysis program will help you identify your obstacles, and allow you to develop a plan to overcome them. 

 

Webinar Elements to Sustain a RCA Program
 

 

 

improve-reliabilityPhilip Sage, Principal Engineer

An “unreliable” manufacturing process costs more money to operate.

Management “always says” we need to improve.

Individually, we know that “You cannot improve what you do not measure”.

So we must conclude if we want to make our process “reliable” we must measure the process reliability.

The search for measurable data that can be utilised may seem hard.  Equally hard could be a high level understanding of when a process is reliable, and what specifically must a process exhibit to be deemed reliable? Read More →

This question was posed to a discussion group and it got me thinking how do you grade an investigation?
The overall success will be whether the solution actually prevents recurrence of the problem.  One definition of Root Cause Analysis is: “A structured process used to understand the causes of past events for the purpose of preventing recurrence.” So a reasonable assessment of the quality of the analysis would be to determine whether the RCA addressed the problem it set out to fix by ensuring that it never happens again (this may be a lengthy process to prove if the MTBF of the problem is 5 years, or has only happened once).quality-blocks1

Are there some other tangibles that can help you assess the quality of an RCA?  RCAs use some sort of process to accomplish their task. If this is the case then it would stand to reason that there will be some things you can look for in order to gauge the quality of the process followed. While this is no guarantee of a correct analysis, ensuring that due diligence was followed in the process  would lend more credibility to the solutions.

What are some of these criteria by which you can judge an analysis?

  • Are the cause statements ‘binary’? By this we mean unambiguous or explicit. A few words only and precise language use without vague adjectives like “poor” since they can be very subjective.
  • Are the causes void of conjunctions? If they have conjunctions there may be multiple causes in the statement. Words such as: and, if, or, but, because.
  • Is there valid evidence for each cause? If causes don’t have evidence they may not belong in the analysis or worse yet solutions may be tied to them and be ineffective.
  • Does each cause path have a valid reason for stopping that makes sense? It is easy to stop too soon and is sometimes obvious. For example, if a cause of “no PM” has no cause for it so that the branch stops, it would seem that an analyst in most cases would want to know why there was no PM.
  • Does the structure of the chart meet the process being used? If it is a principle-based process then it should be easy to check the causal elements to verify that they satisfy those principles. These might be causal logic checks or space time logic checks or others that were associated with the particular process.
  • Is the chart or analysis completed? Does it have a lot of unfinished branches or questions that need to be answered or action items to complete?

qualifying criteria

  • Is the chart or analysis completed? Does it have a lot of unfinished branches or questions that need to be answered or action items to complete?
  • Are the solutions SMART (Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Relevant, and Timely)? Or do they include words like: investigate, review, analyze, gather, contact, observe, verify, etc.
  • Do the solutions meet a set of criteria against which they can be judged?
  • Do the solutions address specific causes or are they general in nature?  Even though they may be identified against specific causes if they don’t directly address those causes then it may still be a SWAG*.
  • If there is a report, is it well written, short, specific and cover just the basics that an executive would be interested in? Information such as cost, time to implement, when will it be completed, a brief causal description and solutions that will solve the identified problem are the requisites.

These are some of the things that I currently look at when I review the projects submitted by clients. I’d be interested to know about other things that may be added to the list.

* SWAG =  Scientific Wild Ass Guess

training_footer_ad1-resized-600.jpg

Author: Kevin Stewart

 
This question was posed to a discussion group and it got me thinking how do you grade an investigation?

The overall success will be whether the solution actually prevents recurrence of the problem.  One definition of Root Cause Analysis is: “A structured process used to understand the causes of past events for the purpose of preventing recurrence.” So a reasonable assessment of the quality of the analysis would be to determine whether the RCA addressed the problem it set out to fix by ensuring that it never happens again (this may be a lengthy process to prove if the MTBF of the problem is 5 years, or has only happened once). bigstock-Blank-checklist-on-whiteboard--68750128.jpg

Are there some other tangibles that can help you assess the quality of an RCA?  RCAs use some sort of process to accomplish their task. If this is the case then it would stand to reason that there will be some things you can look for in order to gauge the quality of the process followed. While this is no guarantee of a correct analysis, ensuring that due diligence was followed in the process  would lend more credibility to the solutions.

What are some of these criteria by which you can judge an analysis?

  • Are the cause statements ‘binary’? By this we mean unambiguous or explicit. A few words only and precise language use without vague adjectives like “poor” since they can be very subjective.

 

  • Are the causes void of conjunctions? If they have conjunctions there may be multiple causes in the statement. Words such as: and, if, or, but, because.

 

  • Is there valid evidence for each cause? If causes don’t have evidence they may not belong in the analysis or worse yet solutions may be tied to them and be ineffective.

 

  • Does each cause path have a valid reason for stopping that makes sense? It is easy to stop too soon and is sometimes obvious. For example, if a cause of “no PM” has no cause for it so that the branch stops, it would seem that an analyst in most cases would want to know why there was no PM.

 

  • Does the structure of the chart meet the process being used? If it is a principle-based process then it should be easy to check the causal elements to verify that they satisfy those principles. These might be causal logic checks or space time logic checks or others that were associated with the particular process.

 

  • Is the chart or analysis completed? Does it have a lot of unfinished branches or questions that need to be answered or action items to complete?

 

  • Is the chart or analysis completed? Does it have a lot of unfinished branches or questions that need to be answered or action items to complete?

 

  • Are the solutions SMART (Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Relevant, and Timely)? Or do they include words like: investigate, review, analyze, gather, contact, observe, verify, etc.

 

  • Do the solutions meet a set of criteria against which they can be judged?

 

  • Do the solutions address specific causes or are they general in nature?  Even though they may be identified against specific causes if they don’t directly address those causes then it may still be a guess.

 

  • If there is a report, is it well written, short, specific and cover just the basics that an executive would be interested in? Information such as cost, time to implement, when will it be completed, a brief causal description and solutions that will solve the identified problem are the requisites.

 

These are some of the things that I currently look at when I review the projects submitted by clients. I’d be interested to know about other things that may be added to the list.

describe the image

The key to efficiency is found along the shortest path between any two points.

It is remarkably simple to think of an efficient operation as one that runs in a straight line. Getting from point A to point B is rather “straight forward” they say.1

The challenge is to step back far enough from the daily nuances to be able to see the path we propose. With a clear view, we can see if it is relatively straight or if it is “remarkable” (in its curviness).

In order to travel the path of “straightness”, we need to understand each step we must take along the path. This allows us to understand which steps are then deemed as “extra steps” and are wasted energy without value. Knowing which steps we do not need helps us sharpen the focus on those we do need.
2

The “extra steps” that do not need to be taken – do not need to be taken.

They are simply wasted energy.

In Reliability circles, the Path between point A and Point B is the path between the RCM study and the fully prepared CMMS system that has delivered a new work instruction document to the technician. Arguably they contain more than just a few simple steps as I have illustrated.

This has added complexity when you are confronted with so many new technical jargons like maintenance items, schedule suppression, document information records, PRT, task lists, secondary tasks, and the like. The hidden purpose of these terms might seem like it is to simply confuse the issue, so set them aside for now, and just focus on getting from point A to point B.

The action of integrating a process for efficient action invokes a myriad of words that include “combination, amalgamation, unification, merging, fusing, meshing and blending”. The use of a consistent tool, like the Reliability Integration Tool (RIT), allows you to navigate this jargon with a simple process and traverse from point A to Point B easily.

When we integrate RCM with a leading CMMS like SAP or MAXIMO® we are faced with many additional choices. These additional choices arise because the flexibility in modern CMMS systems has evolved to service a broader spectrum of the market. The market has pushed the CMMS designer, to allow for their CMMS to fit a great many organisations easily. This means the CMMS can probably do anything, but in doing so the CMMS can also do several things you probably don’t need.

Knowing which CMMS features you need now is perhaps the most important “current issue” you will have to solve.

Key in this choice is to not install what I call a “Glass Ceiling”. A glass ceiling is an artificial barrier which limits your organisation growth, because you have configured your CMMS to accidently retard future growth. This can be avoided if you know which CMMS features you will “need in the next three years” before you lock down how your CMMS should operate today.

Today, your goal is still to get from point A to point B. Deliver into the hands of the waiting technician a fully featured professional work instruction when it is required, using the data from your RCM study.

To illustrate the point a little more clearly, let us consider we own a new large piece of equipment.

To ensure the equipment provides many years of trouble free operation, you will apply the RCM method to generate the “content” needed to prepare your initial maintenance strategy.

We can call this Point A!

It is with the application of this initial strategy and some improvement activities, you intend to operate the new asset, following the straightforward, prudent application of maintenance when it is needed, not before or later than needed. This is all considered best practice stuff – well done!

Now – let’s define Point B as the Preventative Work Instruction you will print from a CMMS work order and hand to your technician. This document is very important because it will serve as the transfer vehicle for all of your hard work. Recall you started with RCM preparing the maintenance strategy and have transitioned to the work instruction content that the technician can execute.

The challenge is of course getting the CMMS to print this document, on time, not early, and complete in the format needed by the technician.

This is not as easy as it sounds.

Understanding the underlying RCM Analysis database tables alone is complex. Aligning the RCM tables to the CMMS database tables is complex integration work that forces the data into load sheets for each CMMS table. This typically is a format that few understand well.

Factor in the requirement to produce a work instruction document using a standard template that looks like a professional work Instruction document, will generally involve a “heap” of work.

Faced with such a large amount of work, we all want an “easy” way out. What you need is a simple to use, consistently formatted set of tools that help you get from point A to point B. It is important to know that such a set of tools exist and they are easy to use. The ARMS Reliability’s Reliability Integration Tool (RIT) is the leading example of one of the tools currently available.

3

The individual toolset items take more space than that provided in this blog, so I will leave you with a teaser.

The tools do exist – and working with ARMS Reliability we can help you travel from point A to point B easily. We can help you do this without wasted steps and produce professional work instruction documents AND also load SAP, MAXIMO and most every other CMMS known to man.

To learn more:

This is just one of the many topics we will cover at the Reliability Summit 2014, October 27 to 30th. For further event details on speakers, topics, workshops, visit armsreliabilityevents.com. If you would like to discuss in further detail the Reliability Integration Tool with one of our consultants, please contact us at info@armsreliability.com

Reliability Summit Monochrome

 

By Kevin Stewart

With all the preparation work (Honing your Facilitation Skills: Part 1) behind you, you’re now ready to start facilitating an Apollo Root Cause Analysis. Follow the steps below to ensure a smooth process and successful outcome.

facilitation

  
Step 1. Introductions  

First, do some simple introductions and housekeeping. Cover things like:  

  • Introductions all around
  • The meeting guidelines: when to take breaks, phone and email policy, and so on
  • The objective: we’re here to fix the problem, not appoint blame
  • A review of the Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology for those who may not be familiar with it (spend 15 – 45 minutes depending on the audience)
  • Your role as facilitator: you may need to ‘direct traffic’ or change the direction of discussions to help them discover more causes or to reach effective solutions

Step 2. Timeline

It’s now time to capture the ‘story’. What has happened that brought you all here? Get several people to provide a narrative, and develop a timeline of events as you go.  

This timeline will prove very useful. It should reveal the event or issue that becomes your primary effect or starting point – and ensures that all the items beyond this starting point capture the group’s issues.    

In the example below, if I start from T1 I’ll discover why I left my iPad in the bathroom.  However if I start at T7 I will also discover why my check process didn’t function as desired.

Date Time Event Comment
  T1 Leave iPad in department restroom stall  
  T2 Meet wife  
  T3 Have lunch  
  T4 Return to car to leave  
  T5 Wife asks if we have everything before we leave  
  T6 Pat pocket and look, run through check list  
  T7 Head home without iPad  
  T8 Get call halfway home asking if i have iPad  

While the time that each event occurs is important, it might not always be known. In these instances, you can represent the time sequence as simply T1, T2 and so on.

Step 3. Define the problem

You’re now ready to define the problem. Often, the problem definition comes out easily and everyone agrees. However, sometimes you’ll find that the group can’t arrive at a Primary Effect. In this case, as facilitator, it’s your job to regroup and ask some questions about why everyone is interested. Often, it’s about money.

One thing you don’t want to do is get stuck trying to find the perfect starting point. I’m reminded of a saying I heard once:

Dear Optimist and Pessimist,

While you were trying to decide if the glass was half empty or half full, I drank it!

Sincerely,

The Realist

The Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology is robust enough to handle an imperfect starting point. If the problem changes or evolves as you go, just put it down as the new starting point, adjust the chart and go on!

Now that you have a defined problem, with its significance well understood, you’re now ready to start the charting process. The team should also know by now why they’re here, and how much time and money can be spent on the investigation. 

If you missed Part 1 of this article, you can read it here.

Would you like to learn more about the Apollo Root Cause Analysis methodology? Our 2 Day Root Cause Analysis Facilitators course is perfect for anyone needing to understand fundamental problem solving processes and how to facilitate an effective investigation.