Ctitical Thinking Techniques of Root Cause Analysis

Critical Thinking Techniques Used In Root Cause Analysis

Root cause analysis is a common term used by investigators and analysts that means different things to different people. However, in its most literal sense root cause analysis requires the performer to systematically break down a situation into individual components or processes in a search for truth that can be supported by facts (Eckhardt, 2007). This analysis should be conducted in the form of an investigation into both the apparent symptoms of a situation as well as the causes that led up to the situation being analyzed. As an example, if performed correctly, a police investigation will use root cause analysis to first determine what happened, and only after the event is understood, would the investigator begin to piece together who (if anyone) may have been responsible for the situation that transpired. A proper investigation may lead to the investigator finding that while a cause to the incident existed, no fault can be assigned to an individual.

To perform any type of root cause analysis, one must by necessity use critical thinking techniques as he or she attempts to uncover clues that would assist in a determination of what occurred. The analyst must be willing to remove all preconceived notions and consider the situation as objectively as possible to avoid contamination of the investigation. Because of the need for objectivity, critical thinking becomes a tool that can assist the user in uncovering clues and facts that will later support a conclusion. Critical thinking by its very nature requires that the thinker be flexible and willing to mold his or her conclusions around the facts that are uncovered and not vice versa (Kitzmiller, Jan-Feb 2003, p. 22). At this point, many thinkers begin to create an outcome based on what they believe and not what they uncover. This presupposition creates problems in the critical thinking process and may produce a faulty root cause analysis. The result will potentially be incorrect due to subjective reasoning that clouded the investigator’s judgment.

As one progresses through the steps required to isolate a problem, it is important to systematically review and eliminate potential factors in the same manner that an electronics technician would troubleshoot a circuit board. This action requires the analyst to have an understanding of the components involved and the process being investigated. By considering, then discarding or retaining scenarios that may have caused the situation, the analyst will be able to narrow the scope of the investigation until the source of the problem has been uncovered.

My position with my company is tasked with performing root cause analysis to uncover problems related to employee compensation and payout. To accomplish this task, I am required to have an understanding of how the compensation plan functions, what compensation rules are in place, and to maintain a working knowledge of the order writing and compensation systems and data flow.

Recently, I was tasked with determining why my organization’s data product unit sales were not accelerating at the same pace as the revenue generated from the units sold. Many factors exist that could cause this scenario, including a higher quantity of speed upgrades, more higher-end product sales, or tracking problems. My first course of action was to ensure that there had been no change in order writing procedures or tracking methodology. Once I was comfortable that there was no change in procedure or methodology, I eliminated the possibility that there were missing units by verifying that all active product codes had sales posted from each order writing system. Performing these tasks allowed me to then begin an investigation into the data flow as it related to the valuation of each product type.

Upon investigating the Quota Retirement Value (QRV) associated with each product code, I noticed that the higher-end products had seen an increase in revenue that rose more sharply than the lower-end products on a per unit basis. While this is normal to an extent due to a delta value (new QRV – old QRV = Delta QRV) being paid for product upgrades, I noticed that there seemed to be sharper inclines than