In this posting we
will complete our Current Reality Tree for Dome and then talk about next steps. The Thinking Process Tools are quite dynamic
and can be used to solve a variety of system problems. The problem in many organizations is that the
symptoms that exist are often mistaken as the problem to be solved and we end
up only treating these symptoms. In
reality they are part of a chain of cause and effect relationships which
terminate with a true root cause or core problem. Herein lies the real power of the CRT…..identifying
the one or two core problems that create all or most of the negative symptoms
(UDEs) that exist within our organization.
Let’s continue on and complete our CRT, so you may want to keep our last
posting handy for reference (i.e. Focus and Leverage Part 194).
At this point it
could become possible that the next entity we are looking for might not be on
our list, especially if we look at entity 10 and 60. Let’s look at both entities, 10 and 60, and
see if there is a statement on our list that might be the effect of either one
of these. It doesn’t appear as if there
is a fit, at least for what we have listed.
If that is the case, then ask the question: “What would be the effect of
either one, or both of the entities?”
How about a statement that reads: “Some customers are unhappy with
Dome’s performance.” It wasn’t on the
list but, it is probably an entity statement that does exist. So, now we will invoke the Entity Existence
reservation from the CLR’s and determine if the some customers are really
unhappy with Domes performance. As it
turns out, this is a true statement. Why
else would they want Dome to pay a late charge?
It makes sense.
As you can see, by
adding this statement to our tree it also adds clarity to reading the tree and
adds the missing piece as to “why” on-time delivery might be affected.
1.Quality is becoming a problem.
2.New product design/ development seems slow.
Let’s
look first at “Quality is becoming a problem.”
There are two places to start.
First, ask yourself, “what caused Quality to become a problem? The second question would be, “What effect
happens because of the poor Quality?”
The most probable answer to either of these questions is not on our
remaining UDE list. Let’s work the
quality statement and see if we can figure where it fits and why. This scenario is a great opportunity to look
for any Predicted Effects (one of the CLR’s) that might come from poor
Quality. As you ask the question(s) and
look for predicted effects it is important to validate any affects you might
discover. Even though an effect might be
logical, it can only be valid if it exists in your reality. Let’s look for some predicted effects and see
if they exist.
Let’s
ask the question “What else might you expect to see if Quality was poor? We might expect to see that “many products
have been returned.” We might also
expect to see higher levels of “product rework” because of failed
inspection. In the business case
write-up, neither of these negative affects we listed. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
What we have
discovered is two predicted effects that would/should exist if Quality really
is becoming a problem. If you observe
the system, or ask the questions, to find out if these entities exist then, you
can validate the entities. If neither
one of these entities exist then, it is doubtful that Quality is a real concern
(maybe it happened once or twice, but does not occur on a regular basis). However, if one, or both, of them exist, then
the Quality problem is validated. For
the sake of discussion let’s assume that both of these entities were validated
to exist at Dome. Let’s work these into
the tree. It is possible that there is
cause-effect-cause relationship between 120 and 130, i.e., many products being
returned could cause higher levels of rework and repair. If there are higher levels of rework and,
repairs and rework take additional production time then available production
capacity is reduced doing repairs and rework.
If production capacity is reduced doing rework and repairs then, it
helps provide another causality as to “Why” on-time delivery is poor.
By adding this next
segment to the CRT the causalities for poor on-time delivery begin to
expand. Another question to ask at this
point is “Why is Quality becoming a problem?”
In other words, we see the effect but, what is that cause? If we search for the cause there could be
several possible answers. One possible
cause is that Production is trying to build too fast and is making
mistakes. Another possible cause is that
product inspection is not finding (or overlooking) the production flaws in
order to keep up with the demand. (it can happen in many companies in order to
keep pace with cash flow demands.)
There is no “and”
statement here because each entity by itself could be sufficient cause to
generate the effect. If one, or both, of
these entities exist they could be causalities for the Quality problem. If neither entity exists then, the search
continues for an applicable cause. For
our discussion, let’s assume that both do exist. Let’s take it one step further for these
entity effects and ask “Why do they exist?”
These two additional
entities (160 and 150) would make sense to cause both 140 and 141. So far this CRT has expanded greatly and
surfaced additional entities that were not part of the original UDE list. In all fairness the search for additional
entities could continue, almost to an infinite level. But, at some point you need to decide “When
is good enough – good enough?” These
lower entities were not revealed in the original business case, not because
they aren’t important, but because the people at Dome didn’t view them as
problems. Their assumption is that
efficiency is “important”, and if I push the products in they will come
out. Let’s look at the entire CRT.
The general rule when
analyzing a CRT for the root cause is to find the entity nearest the bottom
that has the most arrows coming out of it. Or, to find the entity that causes
at least 80% of the remaining entities.
The 80% rules is most typical when you have a tree configuration that
contains two distinct branches (or more) that seem to run parallel to the top.
With each branch covering basically a different subject matter. Go as deep as you can, find the one with the
most arrows coming out if it, or that causes at least 80% of the other entities
and you’ve found (most likely) what you are looking for.
There was one
additional UDE that has not been discussed yet.
The UDE was “New Product Design/Development seems Slow.” If you think about this UDE it probably does
exist but, it is outside the scope of this CRT.
It is mostly un-to-itself. The
design side would present a different subject matter than the production side. Right now we are interested in getting
products delivered on time and not necessary designing them on time – at least
not yet. With that said it would be
possible to work the “New Product Design/Development seem Slow” UDE into this
tree. However, it would add complexity
and much more time to scrutinize and develop.
With the CRT
information now in your hip-pocket and the first part of the system analysis
complete it is time to ask a question.
Based on this tree – what do you think the root cause is for Dome's problems? In the next segment we will use the Conflict
Resolution Diagram (CRD) to continue our analysis.
Bob Sproull
3 comments:
Hi Bob,
I believe that the cause and effect relationship between 100 and 60 is not correct.
100 is an effect of 20. Hence 20 may either have 3 effects - 10, 60 and 100 or it may have 2 effects - 10 and 100 with 60 being an effect of 100.
Ullas
@Ullas & @Bob
After having read again the cause & effect between 100 & 60 I agree with Ullas on the fact that 60 is no the cause for the effect 100 but the other way around
=> IF
you are unhappy with Dome's performance (due date performance)
THEN
you (may) want to have Dome pay for a late charge
=> or as Ullas suggests also, it could be an independent effect of 20, meaning that not all UNHAPPY customers will ask for LATE CHARGE.
Erik and Ullas, I'm sorry I haven't responded to your comments sooner, but I simply forgot. Both are plausible comments and I think it's probably a time sequence thing. In other words, built through the eyes of Dome it could go one way and built through the eyes of the customer it could go another way. The question is, "What's the effect of poor OTD?" (DOME) Customer's want to charge DOME a fee, therefore they are unhappy. The other question is, "What is the effect of poor OTD (CUSTOMER)?" Customers are unhappy and want to charge a fee. The question then becomes "which one will happen first in time?" It might depend on who's perspective you are looking from? DOME or the customer.
I give you both credit for good scrutiny. It could be semantics and could be argued for a very long time. 100 to 60 would work fine if that's the way they see.
Thanks again for your comments and thanks for reading our blog postings.
Bob
Post a Comment