There’s been considerable chatter in the RAM community about the demise of root-cause analysis: That it’s obsolete. That it’s been replaced by so-called “learning teams” as a part of the human-performance-investigation/analysis (HPI/HPA) process. I don’t buy it. Any of it.

HPI/HPA proponents assert that RCA is acceptable for evaluating electromechanical failures, but that it’s not appropriate for assessing the human factors of failure.  They further assert that RCA is a linear process, which is not suitable for evaluating the complex aspects of the human factors of failure.

Some suggest that the RCA process can only be employed to evaluate failures, and not drive improvement. In extreme examples, HPI/HPA proponents assert that RCA, when applied to the human factors associated with adverse events, is simply a tool for assigning blame.

There are many elements of HPI/HPA that I admire—and which should be incorporated into the analysis process. But, I strongly disagree that the HPI/HPA method renders RCA obsolete. I’ll be posting a full-fledged technical article that supports my argument on The RAM Review later.

In that upcoming article, I’ll provide a clear and simple explanation of Human Factors Analysis within the context of the RCA process, along with lists of important reference documents and resources. In most instances, the documents were written by various U.S. Government sources regarding the management of reliability in defense systems, nuclear-power plants and commercial aviation (all of them reliability-critical industries).

I’m a big fan of human-performance analysis (HPA) and analyzing and managing the human factors that lead to both failure and success. However, when the conversation turns adversarial, claiming that it’s a panacea for all that ails organizations, and that it’s time to throw out tried and true tools and techniques, I draw the line—and take a stand.  I’ve seen too many occurrences of “shiny object syndrome” to be sucked into this one.

Cause analysis is a tried and true, logical, evidence-based approach for evaluating the technical, organizational, individual and environmental artifacts of failures, successes, potential failures and or opportunities. These tools have proven their ability to drive reliability, safety, environmental performance, and energy efficiency. There is nothing about RCA to throw out.

I say there is plenty of room for people who have expertise about “people” to join the conversation and bring their special skills to the table. Let’s keep the conversation positive and cooperative in tone, though.

In my 30 years as a reliability engineer, I’ve never seen a panacea, I don’t expect to see one now. Moreover, I am not fond of chasing rainbows.

Please stay tuned for my upcoming feature article on this RCA topic. In the meantime, don’t hesitate to share your own thoughts on the matter with me via email.TRR

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Drew Troyer has 30 years of experience in the RAM arena. Currently a Principal with T.A. Cook Consultants, he was a Co-founder and former CEO of Noria Corp. A trusted advisor to a global blue chip client base, this industry veteran has authored or co-authored more than 250 books, chapters, course books, articles, and technical papers, and is popular keynote and technical speaker at conferences around the world. Among other things, he also serves on ASTM E60.13, the subcommittee for Sustainable Manufacturing. Drew is a Certified Reliability Engineer (CRE), Certified Maintenance & Reliability Professional (CMRP), holds B.S. and M.B.A. degrees, and is Master’s degree candidate in Environmental Sustainability at Harvard University. Email [email protected].

Tags: root-cause analysis, human factors, best practices, failure analysis, human-performance analysis, reliability, maintenance, availability