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:

Names and Faces

Most of us feel recognized, respected, and acknowledged when others use our names. And many of us have difficulty remembering the names of others, especially those we don't know well. How can we get better at connecting names and faces?

Problem-Solving Ambassadors

In dispersed teams, we often hold meetings to which we send delegations to work out issues of mutual interest. These working sessions are a mix of problem solving and negotiation. People who are masters of both are problem-solving ambassadors, and they're especially valuable to dispersed or global teams.

Pet Peeves About Work

Everybody has pet peeves about work. Here's a collection drawn from my own life, the lives of others, and my vivid imagination.

The Limits of Status Reports: I

Some people erroneously believe that they can request status reports as often as they like, and including any level of detail they deem necessary. Not so.

The Artful Shirker

Most people who shirk work are fairly obvious about it, but some are so artful that the people around them don't realize what's happening. Here are a few of the more sophisticated shirking techniques.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming April 24: Big, Complicated Problems

Big, complicated problems can be difficult to solve. Even contemplating them can be daunting. But we can survive them if we get advice we can trust, know our resources, recall solutions to past problems, find workarounds, or as a last resort, escape. Available here and by RSS on April 24.

And on May 1: Full Disclosure

The term "full disclosure" is now a fairly common phrase, especially in news interviews and in film and fiction thrillers involving government employees or attorneys. It also has relevance in the knowledge workplace, and nuances associated with it can affect your credibility. Available here and by RSS on May 1.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenDMXTORuVwrkGsXHener@ChacaCPqFaBhgKyQKBSUoCanyon.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, USD 11.95)
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)

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 6:00 PM June 29 (Eastern Time), Monthly Webinar, Technobility Webinar Series. You can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.