Some Limits of Root Cause Analysis

Root Cause Analysis (RCA) was developed to resolve defects in manufacturing. When the error rate of a production process is too high, we use RCA to discover why and fix it. In manufacturing, RCA works pretty well. Sometimes it even works with software development and other processes that generate non-physical outputs. But when we try to apply RCA to problems among people, trouble appears.

We're usually unaware of RCA thinking. Some indicators are questions and statements like these:

• Who started this trouble?
• She's the common factor in all these problems.
• I did Y, but only because she did X.
• If we send Jeff to communication training, everything will get better.

Sometimes, RCA thinking does lead to noticeable improvement, but too often, it ends in exasperation or exacerbation.

We can understand why if we remember that RCA makes two critical assumptions. First, it assumes that we'll find causes that have no internal structure. Second, it assumes that these "atomic" causes are independent, adjustable forces. The very term "root cause" captures these two ideas.

In human systems, both assumptions can be invalid, and often are. For instance, consider the assumption of atomic causes. A simple example: our project is late because we keep changing things; so we add resources to speed it up; but adding resources is a change; that change further delays the project.

Because these so-called "causality loops" violate the assumption that we can always find atomic causes, people have extended the method to deal with this situation. But in organizational applications, the term causality loop doesn't quite capture the complexity of the difficulty — causality web is more accurate.

In seeking organizational
improvement, changing just
a few things rarely worksWhen we encounter causality webs, process repair can entail broad organizational change — a process so daunting that we convince ourselves that changing "just a few things" will do the trick. Often, when we do make changes, the web does break temporarily — until the elements we chose not to address can restore its structure.

Assuming independent, adjustable forces also fails from time to time. For instance, in a business unit troubled by toxic, destructive conflict, an objective application of RCA might find causes such as manipulative management, oppressive schedules, or human resource policies that lead to high turnover. Since such environments rarely allow even discussion of these factors, adjusting them is often precluded.

In many cases, even though these causes are independently adjustable, the structure of organizational power can prevent their adjustment. Unable to deal with what everyone can see and nobody can acknowledge, the organization sometimes falls into "analysis paralysis."

It's useful to remember that we seek not the cause of organizational failures, but their elimination. Confusing the two objectives is a cause — if not a root cause — of the misapplication of root cause analysis.  Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Coincidences Do Happen

When we notice similarities between events, or possible patterns of events, we often attribute meaning to them beyond what we can prove. Sometimes we guess right, and sometimes not. How can we improve our guesses?

When We Need a Little Help

Sometimes we get in over our heads — too much work, work we don't understand, or even complex politics. We can ask for help, but we often forget that we can. Even when we remember, we sometimes hold back. Why is asking for help, or remembering that we can ask, so difficult? How can we make it easier?

Assumptions and the Johari Window: II

The roots of both creative and destructive conflict can often be traced to the differing assumptions of the parties to the conflict. Here's Part II of an essay on surfacing these differences using a tool called the Johari window.

The Focusing Illusion in Organizations

The judgments we make at work, like the judgments we make elsewhere in life, are subject to human fallibility in the form of cognitive biases. One of these is the Focusing Illusion. Here are some examples to watch for.

Wacky Words of Wisdom: VI

Adages, aphorisms, and "words of wisdom" seem valid often enough that we accept them as universal and permanent. Most aren't. Here's Part VI of a collection of widely held beliefs that can be misleading at work.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Critical Thinking at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming August 19: Motivated Reasoning

When we prefer a certain outcome of a decision process, we risk falling into a pattern of motivated reasoning. That can cause us to gather data and construct arguments that lead to the outcome we prefer, often outside our awareness. And it can happen even when the outcome we prefer is known to threaten our safety and security. Available here and by RSS on August 19.

And on August 26: Motivated Reasoning and the Pseudocertainty Effect

When we have a preconceived notion of what conclusion a decision process should produce, we sometimes engage in "motivated reasoning" to ensure that we get the result we want. But when we do this in relation to a chain of decisions in the context of uncertainty, trouble looms. Available here and by RSS on August 26.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   
• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   

Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?

Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 24, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   
• A recording of a program presented June 24, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.