1E9Ct5D

information is that they will find that differing styles and methods may lead to differingconclusions for the same set of circumstances. In effect, when one is looking for blackand white answers, one will learn that the process of root cause analysis may oftenyield a gray response, affected by bias, habit, incomplete analysis or insufficientresources to truly reach the “bottom line” of the cause. It is advisable to have a workingknowledge of root cause analysis and its potential benefits and drawbacks so that areasoned decision can be made whether (and when) to conduct one. This paper willnot attempt to sway the reader in any direction; rather, it will simply introduce at leastone view of the process 2 , provide alternate resources for differing methodologies, andgenerally discuss some perceived issues with root cause analysis as a practice.I. What is Root Cause Analysis?Although the term “root cause analysis” seems direct, there is not one generallyaccepted definition or methodology to capture it. Much like Justice Potter Stewart’s oftquotedreference to hard core pornography – “…I know it when I see it…” 3– theconcept of root cause analysis is immediately recognizable to most companies, yet hardto define. At its core, root cause analysis is “a structured investigation that aims toidentify the true cause of a problem and the actions necessary to eliminate it.” 4Even inthis “definition”, one can easily see how differing approaches and methods can satisfythe description of a root cause analysis, yet involve vastly different tasks, yielding2 The concepts discussed in this article have been heavily influenced by the works of Duke Okes, a wellknown expert in the area of quality management. See, Duke Okes, ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS: THE COREOF PROBLEM SOLVING AND CORRECTIVE ACTION (2009).3 Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 174, 197 (1964) (Potter, J., concurring).4 Bjørn Anderson & Tom Fagerhaug, ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS, SIMPLIFIED TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES 12 (2 nd ed.2006).3