Is the workflow completely documented?.Workflow Tasks (i.e., the term “workflow” is used here since it is referencing to a specific process).Can the existing system be extended to eliminate delays in the process?.Do existing system interactions execute valid business rules?.Can the usability of an existing system be improved?.Is there new technology that can enhance the process?.Can tasks be accomplished more efficiently with primary users interacting with a system?.Are there control advantages for the process to be worked by a single team or by a single case manager?.Are there advantages for distributed or centralized resources?.Are there control advantages for the process to be worked within a single function (department)?.Once the initial fishbone is drawn, the group then describes the problem. For example, a credit process sometimes results in a customer application approval in error (i.e., Process Error). The investigation group now needs to determine what areas to investigate the number of areas is subjective (i.e., 1 or more). The group can brainstorm to identify the areas and related questions. In this article, there are 10 areas along with possible questions to pursue. Note the questions that are highlighted in redare used in the follow-on example. The diagram is the shape a fish skeleton. At the fish’s head, the problem is described. Also, at the tip of each fish spine, the group states an area to investigate. In Figure 1, the fish head is on the far right but, the fish head can be drawn at either end. The spines are then drawn the number of spines can vary depending on the number of areas the group wants to investigate note, there is no order to the spines. The key to doing this is to have a method that leads a group to alternate areas for possible causes and promote a consensus on what is the root cause (first domino). With the root cause identified, the group can then determine all the corrective actions. Seldom is there a single corrective action there can be a corrective action for each succeeding falling domino. The purpose of the combined Fishbone/Five Whys, is to provide a structured approach (i.e., the fishbone it is not a process model – no flow) on seeking out the source of a problem in a service process or a product defect. This source is called, “the root cause,” in that problems typically are due to a falling domino effect. To effectively remove the problem, you must trace back to the first falling domino so the problem does not reoccur (i.e., a permanent correction). In other words, provide a cure rather than a band aid. This motivated me to write an article on root cause analysis using the combo method along with a short example. I was teaching a business analysis course recently and noted that few students had used a Fishbone Diagram along with the Five Whys for root cause analysis.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |