This is an older presentation that I gave at an ASQ, but the topic is just as valid today as it was yesterday. To reduce Ishikwawa Diagram user variability., contact as at www.taproot.com
Santa Barbara Agile: Exploratory Testing Explained and ExperiencedMaaret Pyhäjärvi
Exploratory Testing Explained and Experienced
- Exploratory testing is an approach to software testing that involves dynamically testingsoftware without a fixed plan, using the results of previous tests to determine subsequent tests.
- It is a disciplined approach that finds unknown unknowns and helps testers examine software from different perspectives to uncover more bugs. Tests are performances rather than fixed artifacts.
- Exploratory testing requires testers to be able to strategically choose and defend their test approaches, explain what they have tested, and determine when they are done testing rather than just finding bugs randomly. It is a more systematic approach than unplanned testing.
Software engineering practitioners often spend significant amount of time and effort to debug. To help practitioners perform this crucial task, hundreds of papers have proposed various fault localization techniques. Fault localization helps practitioners to find the location of a defect given its symptoms (e.g., program failures). These localization techniques have pinpointed the locations of bugs of various systems of diverse sizes, with varying degrees of success, and for various usage scenarios. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether practitioners appreciate this line of research. To fill this gap, we performed an empirical study by surveying 386 practitioners from more than 30 countries across 5 continents about their expectations of research in fault localization. In particular, we investigated a number of factors that impact practitioners’ willingness to adopt a fault localization technique. We then compared what practitioners need and the current state-of-research by performing a literature review of papers on fault localization techniques published in ICSE, FSE, ESEC-FSE, ISSTA, TSE, and TOSEM in the last 5 years (2011-2015). From this comparison, we highlight the directions where researchers need to put effort to develop fault localization techniques that matter to practitioners.
Operations management practical problem ii flow charting a procesPOLY33
This document discusses two major project failures: Healthcare.gov and the Denver Airport Baggage System project. Healthcare.gov failed due to an overly aggressive schedule and not meeting customer needs, as the site could not handle the high volume of users. The Denver Airport Baggage System was a $1.1 million per day failure over a 16 month delay, as the complex automated system was plagued by architectural issues, lack of expertise, and was unable to detect problems. Both projects suffered from issues like poorly defined scopes, unrealistic schedules, lack of requirements and testing, and inexperienced teams. The document emphasizes learning from such failures to effectively manage projects.
Why Localization Standards Fail (TAUS User Conference 2013)Chase Tingley
Slides of my presentation from the TAUS User Conference in Portland, October 2013. This was a 10-minute talk as part of the session on localization standards. The talk looked at the difficulties experienced with adopting successful standards in the localization industry in the context of broader issues of standards failure. It also briefly proposed some approaches to help improve the situation in the future.
This document discusses how various process improvement methodologies like Lean/Six Sigma, TapRooT, and proactive improvement can be used together effectively. It provides examples of how TapRooT root cause analysis can identify waste in processes and be tied to cost savings goals. The document also addresses challenges like different terminologies used and provides mapping between methodologies to improve communication. Overall, it advocates that combining methodologies allows addressing risks and problems more holistically.
The document provides an overview of the fishbone diagram, also known as the Ishikawa diagram. It is an analysis tool that systematically looks at effects and their potential causes. The diagram is drawn with a central problem or effect and major categories of causes branching out like bones of a fish skeleton. Teams use the diagram to brainstorm and categorize all possible causes of a problem in an organized way to identify root causes. The document outlines the basic steps to construct a fishbone diagram including defining the problem, labeling categories, identifying factors and sub-factors within each category, analyzing results to find most likely causes, and prioritizing those causes.
The document discusses various techniques for requirements elicitation including interviews, workshops, brainstorming, storyboards, use cases, role playing and prototyping. It provides guidelines for each technique and discusses common challenges in requirements elicitation such as dealing with stakeholder objections and unknown future requirements. The key is to employ multiple techniques, collect requirements from different perspectives, and iterate elicitation over time to discover additional needs.
Santa Barbara Agile: Exploratory Testing Explained and ExperiencedMaaret Pyhäjärvi
Exploratory Testing Explained and Experienced
- Exploratory testing is an approach to software testing that involves dynamically testingsoftware without a fixed plan, using the results of previous tests to determine subsequent tests.
- It is a disciplined approach that finds unknown unknowns and helps testers examine software from different perspectives to uncover more bugs. Tests are performances rather than fixed artifacts.
- Exploratory testing requires testers to be able to strategically choose and defend their test approaches, explain what they have tested, and determine when they are done testing rather than just finding bugs randomly. It is a more systematic approach than unplanned testing.
Software engineering practitioners often spend significant amount of time and effort to debug. To help practitioners perform this crucial task, hundreds of papers have proposed various fault localization techniques. Fault localization helps practitioners to find the location of a defect given its symptoms (e.g., program failures). These localization techniques have pinpointed the locations of bugs of various systems of diverse sizes, with varying degrees of success, and for various usage scenarios. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether practitioners appreciate this line of research. To fill this gap, we performed an empirical study by surveying 386 practitioners from more than 30 countries across 5 continents about their expectations of research in fault localization. In particular, we investigated a number of factors that impact practitioners’ willingness to adopt a fault localization technique. We then compared what practitioners need and the current state-of-research by performing a literature review of papers on fault localization techniques published in ICSE, FSE, ESEC-FSE, ISSTA, TSE, and TOSEM in the last 5 years (2011-2015). From this comparison, we highlight the directions where researchers need to put effort to develop fault localization techniques that matter to practitioners.
Operations management practical problem ii flow charting a procesPOLY33
This document discusses two major project failures: Healthcare.gov and the Denver Airport Baggage System project. Healthcare.gov failed due to an overly aggressive schedule and not meeting customer needs, as the site could not handle the high volume of users. The Denver Airport Baggage System was a $1.1 million per day failure over a 16 month delay, as the complex automated system was plagued by architectural issues, lack of expertise, and was unable to detect problems. Both projects suffered from issues like poorly defined scopes, unrealistic schedules, lack of requirements and testing, and inexperienced teams. The document emphasizes learning from such failures to effectively manage projects.
Why Localization Standards Fail (TAUS User Conference 2013)Chase Tingley
Slides of my presentation from the TAUS User Conference in Portland, October 2013. This was a 10-minute talk as part of the session on localization standards. The talk looked at the difficulties experienced with adopting successful standards in the localization industry in the context of broader issues of standards failure. It also briefly proposed some approaches to help improve the situation in the future.
This document discusses how various process improvement methodologies like Lean/Six Sigma, TapRooT, and proactive improvement can be used together effectively. It provides examples of how TapRooT root cause analysis can identify waste in processes and be tied to cost savings goals. The document also addresses challenges like different terminologies used and provides mapping between methodologies to improve communication. Overall, it advocates that combining methodologies allows addressing risks and problems more holistically.
The document provides an overview of the fishbone diagram, also known as the Ishikawa diagram. It is an analysis tool that systematically looks at effects and their potential causes. The diagram is drawn with a central problem or effect and major categories of causes branching out like bones of a fish skeleton. Teams use the diagram to brainstorm and categorize all possible causes of a problem in an organized way to identify root causes. The document outlines the basic steps to construct a fishbone diagram including defining the problem, labeling categories, identifying factors and sub-factors within each category, analyzing results to find most likely causes, and prioritizing those causes.
The document discusses various techniques for requirements elicitation including interviews, workshops, brainstorming, storyboards, use cases, role playing and prototyping. It provides guidelines for each technique and discusses common challenges in requirements elicitation such as dealing with stakeholder objections and unknown future requirements. The key is to employ multiple techniques, collect requirements from different perspectives, and iterate elicitation over time to discover additional needs.
Cause and Effect Analysis is a technique for identifying all the possible causes (inputs) associated with a particular problem / effect (output) before narrowing down to the small number of main, root causes which need to be addressed.
Root cause analysis training for beginnersBryan Len
Root cause analysis training for beginners.For what reason Do You Need Root Cause Analysis Training?
On the off chance that you are associated with critical thinking, at any level, in your organization:
To begin with, you have to figure out how to get to the base of every issue to dispose of them forever.
You would likewise need to figure out how to build up a viable restorative activity design and preventive arrangement for every issue or occurrence keeping in mind the end goal to evade a similar issue from happening once more
Root Cause analysis training for beginners shows all of you the above in addition to gives you the chance to hone what you realized on genuine situations in class to guarantee you are prepared to backpedal and apply your insight and abilities at working environment.
Audience :
TONEX root cause analysis training for beginners is a 2-day course designed for:
Quality personnel
R&D team
Production engineers and managers
Design team
All the individuals whose job involve problem solving, safety, reliability, quality control, operations and logistics, and production
Root cause analysis training for beginners course covers the devices and methods to follow issues down to the root cause. Such "in reverse" looking system is helpful particularly in the conditions where there is in excess of one noteworthy cause related with an issue. Some of the time the numerous causes are autonomous of each other, while now and again they all connected together and consequently expelling one cause can bring about settling the entire issue. Root cause analysis training for beginners hands-on workshop will show you how to distinguish every one of the causes, find their association with each other, their consequences for the framework, expel them for all time, and set up preventive activities to keep away from them from happening again in future.
Learn more about Root cause analysis training for beginners
https://www.tonex.com/training-courses/root-cause-analysis-training-for-beginners/
In many cases, we choose solutions to problems without sufficient analysis of the underlying causes. This results in implementing a cover-up of the symptoms rather than a solution to the real underlying problem. When we do this, the problem is likely to resurface in one disguise or another, and we may mishandle it again—just as we did initially. Getting to the root of the problem is the better way to solve the current problem, and save time and money in the future. Alon Linetzki identifies and explains a number of root cause analysis techniques widely used in the industry, gives examples of how to apply them in software testing, demonstrates how to implement them, and discusses how to connect them to our day-to-day testing context. Alon shares how root cause analysis can be an effective tool in defect prevention.
This document provides guidance on conducting a usability study. It outlines the schedule, expectations for participants, and guidelines for running test sessions. Participants will be divided into groups of 3, with one person acting as the user and two observing. As a user, they will complete tasks while thinking aloud, and observers will take notes on successes, obstacles, and areas of confusion. After each task the group will switch roles. The goal is to evaluate the design and identify ways to improve the user experience.
The document discusses various tools that can be used for continuous improvement, including problem-solving cycles, brainstorming, cause and effect diagrams, checksheets, flow diagrams, and policy deployment. It provides brief explanations and examples of how to use each tool, with the problem-solving cycle presented as a multi-step model for identifying problems, defining them, exploring solutions, selecting options, implementing changes, and evaluating results.
- Root cause analysis (RCA) seeks to identify the underlying cause of a problem by tracing actions back through their effects. This helps determine what happened, why, and how to reduce future recurrence.
- Key techniques for RCA include the five whys analysis, fishbone diagram, Pareto chart, and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). These help structure the analysis and identify multiple contributing causes.
- Proper RCA requires focusing on systems and processes, not just symptoms, to fully address the root causes and prevent problems from recurring.
This document provides guidance on how to effectively ask questions to gather user feedback. It discusses identifying goals and assumptions, engaging the right participants, formulating good open-ended questions, using follow-up questions and considering question format. Effective listening is also covered, including remaining neutral, engaging with participants and allowing silence. The overall aim is to facilitate discussions that prepare teams for gathering insightful client and user feedback.
The document discusses corrective and preventive actions (CAPA) for recurring problems. It explains that CAPA is a structured process required by ISO 9001 to investigate nonconformities, determine appropriate corrections and actions, and measure effectiveness. The CAPA process involves defining the problem, investigating the root cause, developing solutions, verifying the solutions address the root cause, and checking effectiveness. Root cause analysis tools discussed include 5 whys, cause-and-effect diagrams, IS/IS NOT analysis, and the 8D (eight disciplines) approach. The document emphasizes finding facts over fault to properly solve problems.
The document discusses effective training techniques for the construction industry. It outlines Bloom's Taxonomy for learning objectives and ANSI standards for training programs. It also provides examples of engaging training methods like storytelling, simulations, and identifying master trainers. OSHA resources for construction training and compliance assistance are also referenced.
Skipping the discovery phase: How to design a wrong solution for the wrong pr...Kaja Toczyska
The presentation from my talk at “Let’s talk about UX” event organized by Women in Technology, Women Techmakers and GDG Kraków. The presentation is about the discovery phase - a crucial part of the design process.
Slides from a product management training workshop with our partners at the Department of the Interior's Office of Natural Resources Revenue as a part of work together on revenuedata.doi.gov
Bioscience Laboratory Workforce Skills - part IIbio-link
This document discusses developing core skill standards for bioscience laboratory work. It provides examples of existing skill standard formats and proposes a new format. The new format includes critical work functions, key activities, and performance criteria for each activity. It also suggests developing authentic assessments that require students to complete real-world tasks instead of just knowing information. Groups are asked to brainstorm assessments for sample laboratory tasks. The goal is to develop a consensus skill standard format and identify assessments that ensure students gain the essential skills for bioscience laboratory careers.
The document summarizes the first day of an AUX bootcamp. Participants learned about the design thinking process and product design sprints. They were split into groups and guided through an exercise where they interviewed each other about wallet usage, developed personas, and sketched wallet prototypes addressing an identified problem. The document outlines the typical 5 day product design sprint process of understanding the problem on day 1, diverging with ideas on day 2, deciding on a solution on day 3, prototyping on day 4, and validating with user tests on day 5.
Designing a Successful Eye-Tracking Study UPA 2008Andrew Schall
The document discusses how to design a successful eye tracking usability study. It covers topics such as planning study objectives and tasks, designing the test, recruiting participants, conducting the study session with techniques like think-aloud, and analyzing the large amount of raw eye tracking data collected. The key aspects emphasized are having clear study goals, piloting the test procedures, focusing analysis, and obtaining enough participants for statistically significant and reliable results.
Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is a technique used to identify the underlying cause of problems. It has five steps: (1) define the problem, (2) collect relevant data, (3) identify possible contributing factors, (4) determine the root cause(s), and (5) recommend and implement solutions. The goal of RCA is to find not just the obvious surface causes, but the deeper, less obvious root causes of issues.
The Beanbag Project aimed to determine whether people could distinguish between beanbags filled with different amounts of beans through a user study. While a simple concept, testing people's perceptions in this way presents a novel approach. The project addressed issues of waste and pollution by considering bean fill amounts. Any challenges were likely minor as the experiment mainly required procuring beanbags and conducting user surveys.
8D Problem Solving WorksheetGroup NumberGroup Member Nam.docxransayo
8D: Problem Solving Worksheet
Group Number:
Group Member Names:
Date:
8-D is a quality management tool and is a vehicle for a team to articulate thoughts and provides scientific determination to details of problems and provide solutions. Organizations can benefit from the 8-D approach by applying it to all areas in the company. The 8-D provides excellent guidelines allowing us to get to the root of a problem and ways to check that the solution actually works. Rather than healing the symptom, the illness is cured, thus, the same problem is unlikely to recur.
Step
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Action
The Planning Stage
Establishing the Team
Problem Definition / Statement & Description
Developing Interim Containment Action
Identifying & Verifying Root Cause
Identifying Permanent Corrective Actions (PCA)
Implementing & Validating PCA
Preventing Recurrence
Recognizing Team Efforts
0
The Planning Stage:
The 8-D method of problem solving is appropriate in "cause unknown" situations and is not the right tool if concerns center solely on decision-making or problem prevention. 8-D is especially useful as it results in not just a problem-solving process, but also a standard and a reporting format. Does this problem warrant/require an 8D? If so comment why and proceed.
Is an Emergency Response Action Needed?
(If needed document actions in Action Item Table)
1
Establishing the Team: (Your group is the team)
Establish a small group of people with the process/ product
knowledge, allocated time, authority and skill in the required technical disciplines to solve the problem and implement corrective actions.
Team Goals:
Team Objectives:
First and Last Name (put an asterisk * after the name of the team leader)
Current Job Position
Skills (related to the problem)Years of Hospitality Work Experience
2A
Problem Definition
Provides the starting point for solving the problem. Need to have “correct” problem description to identify causes. Need to use terms that are understood by all.
Sketch / Photo of Problem
Product(s):
Customer(s):
List all of the data and documents that might help you to define the problem more exactly?
Action Plan to collect additional information:
Prepare Process Flow Diagram for problem
use a separate sheet if needed
2B
IS
IS NOT
Who
Who is affected by the problem?
Who first observed the problem?
To whom was the problem reported?
Who is not affected by the problem?
Who did not find the problem?
What
What type of problem is it?
What has the problem (food, service, etc)?
What is happening with the process & with containment?
Do we have physical evidence of the problem?
What does not have the problem?
What could be happening but is not?
What could be the problem but is not?
Why
Why is this a problem (degraded performance)?
Is the process stable?
Why is it not a problem?
Where
Where was the problem observed?
Where does the problem occur?
Where could the problem be located but is not?
Where else could .
Evaluating Flow Cytometry Hardware - Advice for making the right choice.Ryan Duggan
Slide set presented Monday, May 19th at #CYTO2014 as part of the Workshop "Strategic Planning: Embracing the Business Side of SRL Management." Co-chaired by Sherry Thornton and Monica DeLay - Cincinnati Children's Hospital.
The document outlines a training on problem solving and establishes a standard process for resolving problems efficiently and effectively while minimizing business impact. It discusses definitions of problem management, roles in the process, and common mistakes to avoid. The core of the training is a 6-step problem solving process: 1) identifying the problem, 2) analyzing the problem, 3) generating potential solutions, 4) selecting and planning solutions, 5) implementing solutions, and 6) evaluating solutions. Key aspects covered include properly defining problems, using tools to thoroughly analyze root causes, considering multiple solutions, and planning for tradeoffs.
Specific ServPoints should be tailored for restaurants in all food service segments. Your ServPoints should be the centerpiece of brand delivery training (guest service) and align with your brand position and marketing initiatives, especially in high-labor-cost conditions.
408-784-7371
Foodservice Consulting + Design
Cause and Effect Analysis is a technique for identifying all the possible causes (inputs) associated with a particular problem / effect (output) before narrowing down to the small number of main, root causes which need to be addressed.
Root cause analysis training for beginnersBryan Len
Root cause analysis training for beginners.For what reason Do You Need Root Cause Analysis Training?
On the off chance that you are associated with critical thinking, at any level, in your organization:
To begin with, you have to figure out how to get to the base of every issue to dispose of them forever.
You would likewise need to figure out how to build up a viable restorative activity design and preventive arrangement for every issue or occurrence keeping in mind the end goal to evade a similar issue from happening once more
Root Cause analysis training for beginners shows all of you the above in addition to gives you the chance to hone what you realized on genuine situations in class to guarantee you are prepared to backpedal and apply your insight and abilities at working environment.
Audience :
TONEX root cause analysis training for beginners is a 2-day course designed for:
Quality personnel
R&D team
Production engineers and managers
Design team
All the individuals whose job involve problem solving, safety, reliability, quality control, operations and logistics, and production
Root cause analysis training for beginners course covers the devices and methods to follow issues down to the root cause. Such "in reverse" looking system is helpful particularly in the conditions where there is in excess of one noteworthy cause related with an issue. Some of the time the numerous causes are autonomous of each other, while now and again they all connected together and consequently expelling one cause can bring about settling the entire issue. Root cause analysis training for beginners hands-on workshop will show you how to distinguish every one of the causes, find their association with each other, their consequences for the framework, expel them for all time, and set up preventive activities to keep away from them from happening again in future.
Learn more about Root cause analysis training for beginners
https://www.tonex.com/training-courses/root-cause-analysis-training-for-beginners/
In many cases, we choose solutions to problems without sufficient analysis of the underlying causes. This results in implementing a cover-up of the symptoms rather than a solution to the real underlying problem. When we do this, the problem is likely to resurface in one disguise or another, and we may mishandle it again—just as we did initially. Getting to the root of the problem is the better way to solve the current problem, and save time and money in the future. Alon Linetzki identifies and explains a number of root cause analysis techniques widely used in the industry, gives examples of how to apply them in software testing, demonstrates how to implement them, and discusses how to connect them to our day-to-day testing context. Alon shares how root cause analysis can be an effective tool in defect prevention.
This document provides guidance on conducting a usability study. It outlines the schedule, expectations for participants, and guidelines for running test sessions. Participants will be divided into groups of 3, with one person acting as the user and two observing. As a user, they will complete tasks while thinking aloud, and observers will take notes on successes, obstacles, and areas of confusion. After each task the group will switch roles. The goal is to evaluate the design and identify ways to improve the user experience.
The document discusses various tools that can be used for continuous improvement, including problem-solving cycles, brainstorming, cause and effect diagrams, checksheets, flow diagrams, and policy deployment. It provides brief explanations and examples of how to use each tool, with the problem-solving cycle presented as a multi-step model for identifying problems, defining them, exploring solutions, selecting options, implementing changes, and evaluating results.
- Root cause analysis (RCA) seeks to identify the underlying cause of a problem by tracing actions back through their effects. This helps determine what happened, why, and how to reduce future recurrence.
- Key techniques for RCA include the five whys analysis, fishbone diagram, Pareto chart, and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). These help structure the analysis and identify multiple contributing causes.
- Proper RCA requires focusing on systems and processes, not just symptoms, to fully address the root causes and prevent problems from recurring.
This document provides guidance on how to effectively ask questions to gather user feedback. It discusses identifying goals and assumptions, engaging the right participants, formulating good open-ended questions, using follow-up questions and considering question format. Effective listening is also covered, including remaining neutral, engaging with participants and allowing silence. The overall aim is to facilitate discussions that prepare teams for gathering insightful client and user feedback.
The document discusses corrective and preventive actions (CAPA) for recurring problems. It explains that CAPA is a structured process required by ISO 9001 to investigate nonconformities, determine appropriate corrections and actions, and measure effectiveness. The CAPA process involves defining the problem, investigating the root cause, developing solutions, verifying the solutions address the root cause, and checking effectiveness. Root cause analysis tools discussed include 5 whys, cause-and-effect diagrams, IS/IS NOT analysis, and the 8D (eight disciplines) approach. The document emphasizes finding facts over fault to properly solve problems.
The document discusses effective training techniques for the construction industry. It outlines Bloom's Taxonomy for learning objectives and ANSI standards for training programs. It also provides examples of engaging training methods like storytelling, simulations, and identifying master trainers. OSHA resources for construction training and compliance assistance are also referenced.
Skipping the discovery phase: How to design a wrong solution for the wrong pr...Kaja Toczyska
The presentation from my talk at “Let’s talk about UX” event organized by Women in Technology, Women Techmakers and GDG Kraków. The presentation is about the discovery phase - a crucial part of the design process.
Slides from a product management training workshop with our partners at the Department of the Interior's Office of Natural Resources Revenue as a part of work together on revenuedata.doi.gov
Bioscience Laboratory Workforce Skills - part IIbio-link
This document discusses developing core skill standards for bioscience laboratory work. It provides examples of existing skill standard formats and proposes a new format. The new format includes critical work functions, key activities, and performance criteria for each activity. It also suggests developing authentic assessments that require students to complete real-world tasks instead of just knowing information. Groups are asked to brainstorm assessments for sample laboratory tasks. The goal is to develop a consensus skill standard format and identify assessments that ensure students gain the essential skills for bioscience laboratory careers.
The document summarizes the first day of an AUX bootcamp. Participants learned about the design thinking process and product design sprints. They were split into groups and guided through an exercise where they interviewed each other about wallet usage, developed personas, and sketched wallet prototypes addressing an identified problem. The document outlines the typical 5 day product design sprint process of understanding the problem on day 1, diverging with ideas on day 2, deciding on a solution on day 3, prototyping on day 4, and validating with user tests on day 5.
Designing a Successful Eye-Tracking Study UPA 2008Andrew Schall
The document discusses how to design a successful eye tracking usability study. It covers topics such as planning study objectives and tasks, designing the test, recruiting participants, conducting the study session with techniques like think-aloud, and analyzing the large amount of raw eye tracking data collected. The key aspects emphasized are having clear study goals, piloting the test procedures, focusing analysis, and obtaining enough participants for statistically significant and reliable results.
Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is a technique used to identify the underlying cause of problems. It has five steps: (1) define the problem, (2) collect relevant data, (3) identify possible contributing factors, (4) determine the root cause(s), and (5) recommend and implement solutions. The goal of RCA is to find not just the obvious surface causes, but the deeper, less obvious root causes of issues.
The Beanbag Project aimed to determine whether people could distinguish between beanbags filled with different amounts of beans through a user study. While a simple concept, testing people's perceptions in this way presents a novel approach. The project addressed issues of waste and pollution by considering bean fill amounts. Any challenges were likely minor as the experiment mainly required procuring beanbags and conducting user surveys.
8D Problem Solving WorksheetGroup NumberGroup Member Nam.docxransayo
8D: Problem Solving Worksheet
Group Number:
Group Member Names:
Date:
8-D is a quality management tool and is a vehicle for a team to articulate thoughts and provides scientific determination to details of problems and provide solutions. Organizations can benefit from the 8-D approach by applying it to all areas in the company. The 8-D provides excellent guidelines allowing us to get to the root of a problem and ways to check that the solution actually works. Rather than healing the symptom, the illness is cured, thus, the same problem is unlikely to recur.
Step
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Action
The Planning Stage
Establishing the Team
Problem Definition / Statement & Description
Developing Interim Containment Action
Identifying & Verifying Root Cause
Identifying Permanent Corrective Actions (PCA)
Implementing & Validating PCA
Preventing Recurrence
Recognizing Team Efforts
0
The Planning Stage:
The 8-D method of problem solving is appropriate in "cause unknown" situations and is not the right tool if concerns center solely on decision-making or problem prevention. 8-D is especially useful as it results in not just a problem-solving process, but also a standard and a reporting format. Does this problem warrant/require an 8D? If so comment why and proceed.
Is an Emergency Response Action Needed?
(If needed document actions in Action Item Table)
1
Establishing the Team: (Your group is the team)
Establish a small group of people with the process/ product
knowledge, allocated time, authority and skill in the required technical disciplines to solve the problem and implement corrective actions.
Team Goals:
Team Objectives:
First and Last Name (put an asterisk * after the name of the team leader)
Current Job Position
Skills (related to the problem)Years of Hospitality Work Experience
2A
Problem Definition
Provides the starting point for solving the problem. Need to have “correct” problem description to identify causes. Need to use terms that are understood by all.
Sketch / Photo of Problem
Product(s):
Customer(s):
List all of the data and documents that might help you to define the problem more exactly?
Action Plan to collect additional information:
Prepare Process Flow Diagram for problem
use a separate sheet if needed
2B
IS
IS NOT
Who
Who is affected by the problem?
Who first observed the problem?
To whom was the problem reported?
Who is not affected by the problem?
Who did not find the problem?
What
What type of problem is it?
What has the problem (food, service, etc)?
What is happening with the process & with containment?
Do we have physical evidence of the problem?
What does not have the problem?
What could be happening but is not?
What could be the problem but is not?
Why
Why is this a problem (degraded performance)?
Is the process stable?
Why is it not a problem?
Where
Where was the problem observed?
Where does the problem occur?
Where could the problem be located but is not?
Where else could .
Evaluating Flow Cytometry Hardware - Advice for making the right choice.Ryan Duggan
Slide set presented Monday, May 19th at #CYTO2014 as part of the Workshop "Strategic Planning: Embracing the Business Side of SRL Management." Co-chaired by Sherry Thornton and Monica DeLay - Cincinnati Children's Hospital.
The document outlines a training on problem solving and establishes a standard process for resolving problems efficiently and effectively while minimizing business impact. It discusses definitions of problem management, roles in the process, and common mistakes to avoid. The core of the training is a 6-step problem solving process: 1) identifying the problem, 2) analyzing the problem, 3) generating potential solutions, 4) selecting and planning solutions, 5) implementing solutions, and 6) evaluating solutions. Key aspects covered include properly defining problems, using tools to thoroughly analyze root causes, considering multiple solutions, and planning for tradeoffs.
Similar to GOOD RCA and the Family Secret: “The Un- balanced Ishikawa Diagram (20)
Specific ServPoints should be tailored for restaurants in all food service segments. Your ServPoints should be the centerpiece of brand delivery training (guest service) and align with your brand position and marketing initiatives, especially in high-labor-cost conditions.
408-784-7371
Foodservice Consulting + Design
A presentation on mastering key management concepts across projects, products, programs, and portfolios. Whether you're an aspiring manager or looking to enhance your skills, this session will provide you with the knowledge and tools to succeed in various management roles. Learn about the distinct lifecycles, methodologies, and essential skillsets needed to thrive in today's dynamic business environment.
Employment PracticesRegulation and Multinational CorporationsRoopaTemkar
Employment PracticesRegulation and Multinational Corporations
Strategic decision making within MNCs constrained or determined by the implementation of laws and codes of practice and by pressure from political actors. Managers in MNCs have to make choices that are shaped by gvmt. intervention and the local economy.
Ganpati Kumar Choudhary Indian Ethos PPT.pptx, The Dilemma of Green Energy Corporation
Green Energy Corporation, a leading renewable energy company, faces a dilemma: balancing profitability and sustainability. Pressure to scale rapidly has led to ethical concerns, as the company's commitment to sustainable practices is tested by the need to satisfy shareholders and maintain a competitive edge.
Comparing Stability and Sustainability in Agile SystemsRob Healy
Copy of the presentation given at XP2024 based on a research paper.
In this paper we explain wat overwork is and the physical and mental health risks associated with it.
We then explore how overwork relates to system stability and inventory.
Finally there is a call to action for Team Leads / Scrum Masters / Managers to measure and monitor excess work for individual teams.
Public Speaking Tips to Help You Be A Strong Leader.pdfPinta Partners
In the realm of effective leadership, a multitude of skills come into play, but one stands out as both crucial and challenging: public speaking.
Public speaking transcends mere eloquence; it serves as the medium through which leaders articulate their vision, inspire action, and foster engagement. For leaders, refining public speaking skills is essential, elevating their ability to influence, persuade, and lead with resolute conviction. Here are some key tips to consider: https://joellandau.com/the-public-speaking-tips-to-help-you-be-a-stronger-leader/
GOOD RCA and the Family Secret: “The Un- balanced Ishikawa Diagram
1. 4/14/2011
1
A Family Secret: “The Un-
balanced Ishikawa Diagram”
Christopher Vallee
TapRooT® (System Improvements, Inc.)
2011 World Conference on Quality and
Improvement
Session M08
Objectives: Learn and have fun
1. Recognize that the limitations of the Ishikawa
(Fishbone) Diagram come from its users …
by that I mean us!
2. Learn ways to overcome the limitations that
we can use today after this lecture
3. Stop solving problems before we have the
facts
2. 4/14/2011
2
Agenda: Learn and have fun
1. Review the secret and a few bad examples
2. Review the general guidelines that we all
learned and identify the current gaps in our
use
3. Learn some perspectives that you can use
today to standardize the process
4. See an alternative industry best practice
5. Questions and Answers
The Secret?
• Unbalanced “Completed” Ishikawa Diagrams
• Starving bone branches visible… other bones
well fed
• Starts with a blank tool and premature
problem scope
• An incomplete problem analysis
• Teach, use it and know this but never talk
about it
3. 4/14/2011
3
A website training example…
note: same type of training I received from another company
http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/cause-analysis-tools/overview/fishbone.html
A website training example…
note: same type of training I received from another company
7 13
6
3
4
20
http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/cause-analysis-tools/overview/fishbone.html
4. 4/14/2011
4
Is it just a training example? No
Reducing
Process
Wire Loss
Is it just a Training Example? No
Reduce
Package
Handling
Defects
5. 4/14/2011
5
Your Example?
Let’s share a few
examples from our own
Repertoire.
Just a Training Example? No
Where did the tool go wrong?
We might say that the wrong family of P’s, M’s or
other Evolved Family Categories were selected for
the industry being analyzed.
Quiz Time (Write Down your Answers; no looking around ☺)
1. What are the 4 M’s?
2. What are the 6 M’s?
3. What are the 8 P’s?
4. What are the 4 S’s?
5. What do you normally use?
6. 4/14/2011
6
Were you close? Was I close?
1. 4 M’s: Machine, Method, Material, Man Power
2. 6 M’s: Machine, Method, Material, Man Power,
Money, Milieu (Environment)
3. 8 P’s: Product, Price, Place, Promotion, People,
Process, Physical Evidence, Productivity, and
Quality
4. 4 S’s: Surroundings, Suppliers, Systems, Skills
Where did the tool go wrong?
Quiz Time (A Group Discussion)
1. What goes under the “People” Category?
2. What goes under the “Method” Category?
Now a test on something we should all agree
on…
Point North with your left finger
7. 4/14/2011
7
Where did we go wrong?
The Fishbone Diagram does not “go
wrong”…….
It starts out as a skeleton with no assumptions
or different frames of reference.
We as the Quality Improvement Facilitators
introduce the variability!
“Path and source of the variability”
It starts with the
Motivated Broke-
Fixer… Also known
as Quality
Assurance!
After all, you have to
be motivated to do
this job or just crazy!
8. 4/14/2011
8
Curse of the Motivated Broke-Fixer
• Motivated to fix the problem…
• Takes Charge (no one else would)…
• Often recognized as the “fire fighter”…
• Fix is sometimes never implemented, short
lived or things get worse…
• Rest of the world says Quality Improvement
tools just do not work….
• Many Bosses yell at you….
• No more motivation to broke-fix or fix
anything!
“Path and source of the variability”
note: same type of training I received from another company
1. When to Use a Fishbone Diagram
• When identifying possible causes for a
problem
• Especially when a team’s thinking tends to
fall into ruts.
http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/cause-analysis-tools/overview/fishbone.html
9. 4/14/2011
9
2. How to do make a Fishbone Diagram
• Agree on a problem statement (effect).
• Write it at the center right of the flipchart
or whiteboard.
• Draw a box around it and draw a
horizontal arrow running to it.
http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/cause-analysis-tools/overview/fishbone.html
“Path and source of the variability”
note: same type of training I received from another company
3. Brainstorm the major categories of
causes of the problem.
• If this is difficult use generic headings:
–Methods, Machines (equipment), People
(manpower), Materials, Measurement,
Environment
http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/cause-analysis-tools/overview/fishbone.html
“Path and source of the variability”
note: same type of training I received from another company
10. 4/14/2011
10
4. As each idea is given, the facilitator
writes it as a branch from the
appropriate category.
• Again ask “why does this happen?” about each
cause.
• Write sub-causes branching off the causes.
Continue to ask “Why?” and generate deeper
levels of causes. Layers of branches indicate
causal relationships.
http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/cause-analysis-tools/overview/fishbone.html
“Path and source of the variability”
note: same type of training I received from another company
Starting to see the Variability Source?
note: same type of training I received from another company
“Why does this happen?”
STOP… STOP... STOP… STOP… STOP… STOP
It is not how many Why’s you ask, but what you ask.
11. 4/14/2011
11
Robust Root Causes/ Absent Best Practices
(Assumptions and “Best Guesses Need Not Apply)
• Who are the best problem solvers in the world?
• As problem solvers get more experience they
filter out what type of evidence to get to the true
problem?
• What happens when we brainstorm based on our
experience and frame of reference only?
What we have essentially done at this point
is fill in the blanks with our own frames of
reference…….
Sort of like giving everyone a blank ruler and
saying, “fill in your own notches and
numbers.”
http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/cause-analysis-tools/overview/fishbone.html
“Path and source of the variability”
note: same type of training I received from another company
13. 4/14/2011
13
1. Understand what really happened the day the
incident or defect occurred. (can not be done in
a Brainstorming Session).
2. Note: The original Fishbone Guidelines stated
to go investigate areas that we were not familiar
with, not ignore them.
3. Standardize the Fishbone Tool with set
definitions.
4. Force Improvement Facilitators to use more
than just their experience to troubleshoot the
defect.
There is still hope! How?
Observe and Map out the task or
process that needs to be analyzed
(Reactively or better yet, Proactively
before an Incident or Defect.)
Before you even start a Fishbone
Step 1: GOAL – Go Out And Look
(Brainstorming not allowed)
14. 4/14/2011
14
Good, bad or ugly certain behaviors have to come
together to allow an Incident/Defect to occur or to
increase the probability of one to occur….
These ARE NOT ROOT CAUSES!
Before you even start a Fishbone
Step 2: Identify Equipment, People or
Process Behaviors (Brainstorming not
allowed)
Before you even start a Fishbone
Step 3: Determine a Standardized Set of
Fishbone Categories that can be used for all
industries and process (some suggestions
below)
Procedures Training
Work Direction Communications
Quality Control Human Engineering
Management Systems
15. 4/14/2011
15
Starting a Fishbone
Step 4: Start your Fishbone Analysis looking
at only one behavior in question at a time.
NOT the larger defect!
For Example:
Lathe Operator used the incorrect
speed setting which caused the part
to overheat
Starting a Fishbone
Step 5: Have your expert for each category
ask detailed questions about the behavior in
question.
Procedures Training
Work Direction Communications
Quality Control Human Engineering
Management Systems
16. 4/14/2011
16
Show of Hands in this Room
Who is an expert in each of the specific
categories?
Procedures Training
Work Direction Communications
Quality Control Human Engineering
Management Systems
Nobody raised their hand for all
categories; what now?
At this point, what have we accomplished?
1. Identified our limitations in the current use
of the Fishbone Diagram.
2. Started an analysis process based on
facts not assumptions or brainstorming
using GOAL.
3. Set Standardized Fishbone Category list
that can fit any process or industry.
Just these items alone can improve your
process immensely.
17. 4/14/2011
17
Taking the Fishbone to the next level
…. A look at a multi-industry investigative
analysis tool that I integrate with my
previous quality training today.
Action 1 Action 3Action 2 IncidentError
You must clearly understand the sequence
of events that lead to an incident or defect.
TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis
What Happened? (The same as GOAL)
18. 4/14/2011
18
What is a
Root Cause?
TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis
How an Error Causes an Incident or Defect
Hazard Target
Failed Safeguard
Error (Causal Factor)
Specific Root Causes
Generic Root Causes
TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis
Implementing good practices can stop or reduce error:
Good Procedures Good Training
Good Work Direction Good Communications
Good QC Good Human Engineering
Good Management Systems
The absence of best practices/EXPERTS leads to
human, equipment or process error.
Let’s look at the
TapRooT® model
for Procedures
19. 4/14/2011
19
TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis
Definition of "Root Cause"
A Root Cause is the absence of best
practices or the failure to apply
knowledge that would have prevented
the problem.
TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis
Should Guide the Investigator just like any
other examining/measuring tool…
Successfully tested ideas:
1.Tree "Branching" Format…
2.Expert System to Guide Analysis…
3.Definitions in Dictionary…
20. 4/14/2011
20
TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis
Result - A Root Cause Expert System
TapRooT® Root Cause Tree®
TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis
Result - A Root Cause Expert System
Question and Answers Session
21. 4/14/2011
21
Take Home and Action Plan
No more Quality Family Secrets…
1. Share our lessons learned
2. Go Out And Look (GOAL) before we
troubleshoot
3. Dig into areas where there are fish bones
with nothing on them
4. Invite the missing experts to the table
when performing root cause analysis