I recently attended a ThinkReliability training course titled Cause Mapping II: Facilitiation and Documentation. (I have also reviewed their level 1 workshop on effective RCA.)

In both back-to-back courses Aaron Cross, the course instructor, did an excellent job running the workshops. Presentation of the materials was effective, he was able to answer questions and think on his feet, and he was good about making rounds and staying engaged during exercises.

In this workshop, we reviewed the fundamentals of cause mapping from the first workshop, then discussed some of the roadblocks and frustrations facilitators of cause analysis face.

In the facilitation portion, the workshop focused on 20 “tips,” from defusing defensiveness to managing massive lists of “follow-ups” to revealing additional causes. Material presented offered realistic solutions to many of the most common problems experienced by facilitators.

We also spent time “speeding up” facilitation in Excel by creating shortcuts and arranging toolbars. Whether this is needed will generally depend upon the demographic of the participant. Some people in my class could have benefitted from even more reinforcement, and some were already completely comfortable with Excel. This kind of skill difference always creates inefficiency in a classroom and the workshop was no exception.

The examples we worked were quite true-to-life. Experienced analysts should experience deja vu with many of them, especially those involving unclear communications. For example, when a mechanic tells an operator that they “are done,” does the operator take that to mean they are just going home for the day? Or that the process is complete and all checks have been done? Would most operators ask for clarification or make an assumption?

A different example, a hypothetical car accident, is shown below to demonstrate the combination of different elements into the diagram—including a diagram of the intersection, an analysis outline, and a photograph of the car (click for full size):

A similar document done using PROACT, for example, would have had a logic tree on one page, and data preservation, hypothesis verification, etc. in separate sections. The ability to consolidate cause, evidence, and solution one one “map” will be beneficial to communication.

Advantages

Some of the advantages and disadvantages were covered in the previous review. However, with the additional exposure, I can add a few more observations.

• The Cause Map is very flexible when compared to a PROACT logic tree. There have often been times when following the PROACT process that I wished I could make lines outside the strict hierarchy I was restricted to.
• Graphic communication of the analysis is very easy with Excel and Cause Mapping. Unlike the PROACT module in Meridium, which I have depended upon in the past, I can make a poster-sized cause map and add relevant information and diagrams next to the cause boxes. PROACT keeps data preservation and verification logs strictly separate from the logic tree, and only file links can be attached to the report, rather than actual contents. This software limitation might be fine for government reporting requirements, but is not effective for clear communication to people who will implement solutions.

Drawbacks

• The analysis depends upon asking “why,” and “why is a vague question. PROACT, which asks “how could,” is much better for generating hypotheses or possible causes. With the emphasis the Cause Map places on semantics and specificity, the method should include a more detailed, more specific questioning process. However, PROACT or Kepner-Tregoe could be effective supplements to Cause Mapping for hypothesis generation.
• Layout out Cause Maps in Excel can be messier than doing so in Visio. If Cause Maps were done in Visio, the autolayout features, and the ability to add text to a connector would make it much easier to make everything line up. Obviously, this is a fairly minor drawback.

Key Takeaways

The key points from the workshop that I found most helpful are:

• As facilitator, you do not need to begin an analysis with 20 people in a room for hours on end. To facilitate means to make the process easier. Usually, the best way to do this is to build the map by getting the right people involved as individuals or small groups only as their knowledge is needed. If a large meeting is needed, it should generally come after the analysis is complete or has made significant progress. (See also: Facilitation Doesn’t Always Require a Meeting)
• Document your uncertainties with question boxes.
• People who are good at troubleshooting think and speak specifically. “When the hydraulic cylinder moves slowly, that means that the volume flow rate generated by the pump was not high enough.” People who carp and complain think and speak in generalities. “Everyone knows that Mike is no good.”
• Anyone can offer a cause. Post-It notes can help by allowing people to do this without permission. (Of course, using Post-Its makes it difficult to move blocks of causes around.)
• When you are struggling to advance the analysis, get more specific. Going to the process map can help with this, especially in cases of “procedure not followed.” For example, “Gate agent escorted minor to wrong plance” is more specific—and helpful—than “procedure not followed.”
• When information is not forthcoming from someone involves in the incident, moving from cause-effect to process flow can be a productive change in the discussion.
• Be comfortable with not implementing all solutions. Not all solutions are equally valuable. To prioritize solutions, it can help to map them on an x-y plot of cost/effort vs. benefit/payback.
• Always begin the analysis with a complete map with all causes as specific as possible. Then, if the map is very large, smaller, simpler versions can be added in different Excel tabs for executive summaries.

Topics Covered

Although much time was spent in the second course working examples and student problems, the “lecture” portion followed the book fairly close.

• Chapter 1: Cause Mapping Review
• Chapter 2: Complete Investigation
• Chapter 3: Facilitation
• Chapter 4: Documentation
• Chapter 5: Excel 2003 Notes
• Chapter 6: Excel 2007 Notes
• Appendix A: Exercises & Examples
• Appendix B: After the Workshop

Because participants all used Excel 2007, we did not cover very much Excel 2003 except to highlight a few differences.

Related posts:

1. Cause Mapping I Workshop Review
2. How to Set up Excel 2007 Commands for Quick Cause Mapping