Data Analysis Core Competencies

15 16 17 18 19 20

Data Analysis Techniques Descriptive Statistics Inf erential Statistics Graphing Data Aff inity Diagram Delphi Technique

21
22 23
EMRA, 1998

Fishbone (Cause-and-Effect)Diagram
Force Field Analysis Pareto Diagram

PART 4 : Data Analys is Core Com petenc ies

Section 21:
Overview
Introduction

Fis hbone (Cause-a nd-Effect) Diagram

CONTENTS
PAGE

Steps a nd Proce dures

1 Assemble a Team to Carry Out the Diagramming Process

PAGE

Figure 1: Basic Structure of a Fishbone Diagram Figure 2: Categorical Patterns for a T ypical Production Process

Purposes of Fishbone Diagram Advantages and Limitations of Fishbone Diagram

Figure 3: Advantages and Limitations of Fishbone Diagram

Identify and Clearly State the Need

Figure 4: Affinity Diagram Example

Draw the Structure of a Fishbone Diagram

Figure 5: Fishbone Diagram Example (Phases 1 and 2)

Identify Major Cause Categories and Connect Them to the Backbone of the Fish

Brainstorm Causes for Each of the Major Categories

11

Place Each Brainstormed Cause in Its Appropriate Category

Figure 6: Fishbone Diagram Example (Phase 3)

11

Identify Potential Root Causes

11

General Discussion of the Fishbone Diagram

Figure 7: Fishbone Diagram Completed Example (Phase 4)

13

Logistical and Follow-Up Activities

13

Legend:
Refer enc es to parts of the han dbook an d othe r ide as. Num ber ed steps a nd Proce dur es

Refer enc e not es and s up ple ment al inform atio n on opp osite pa ge.

Important points, hints and ideas.

Key Poi nts an d Ideas

Adva ntag es

Limit atio ns

21 - 1

PART 4: Data Analysis Core Competencies

FISHBONE (CAUSE-AND- EFFECT) DIAGRAM

NOTES AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

OVERVIEW

Figure 21.1: Basic Structure of a Fishbone Diagram

Cause (factors)

Effect

Figure 21.2: Categorical Patterns for a Typical Production Process

Machine

Operator

Env ironment

Too much scrap in production

Material

Method

21 - 2

EMRA, 1998

PART 4: Data Analysis Core Competencies

FISHBONE (CAUSE-AND- EFFECT) DIAGRAM
OVERVIEW

Intr oduction
The Fishbone Diagram is an easy to use and effective cause-and-effect technique developed by Kaoru Ishikawa (1982). It is also referred to as an Isikawa diagram or a characteristics diagram, referring to its use in identifying the causes of various quality characteristics, including problems (Ozeki & Asaka, 1990). The late Dr. Ishikawa was a quality expert who used this diagramming strategy to help Japanese business personnel in organizing those factors that influence a business or manufacturing process. The diagram has a cause side and an effect -- problem or opportunity -- side. It graphically represents the causes of a related need or problem. On the effect side of the diagram, the effect under analysis can be either a current work problem that needs to be corrected or a desired quality characteristic. On the cause side of the diagram are the factors that influence the stated effect or characteristic. Categorical examples of some of the cause factors are equipment, people, environment, materials, and procedures. The strength of the technique lies in using a diagram to analyze causal relationships in structured ways focusing attention beyond symptoms to root, or primary, causes (Swanson, 1995).

Figure 21.1 shows the basic structure of a Fishbone Diagram.

Figure 21.2 shows a Fishbone Diagram with standard categorical patterns for a typical production process.

Purposes of Fis hbone Diagram

The Fishbone Diagram technique was originally developed for analyzing the factors that influence the process of developing quality products. However, it can be used as a tool for analyzing information related to a needs analysis and selecting alternative interventions for performance improvement. Used in these ways, the Fishbone Diagram will help to generate ideas about the possible causes of problems and identify the components in the process that are responsible for the existing problems. It can also be used to plan new processe s to meet quality improvement initiatives or new business opportunities. Typically you will see a Fishbone Diagram used in the following ways:
A Fishbone Diagram is a useful method for clarifying the causes of a problem.

To identify major or minor reasons for a specific problem of performance. To identify root causes, or key drivers, contributing to some effect or measurable outcome (a performance indicator). To identify key causes for which additional data are required (Swanson, 1995).
21 - 3

EMRA, 1998

PART 4: Data Analysis Core Competencies

FISHBONE (CAUSE-AND- EFFECT) DIAGRAM

NOTES AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

OVERVIEW

Figure 21.3: Advantages and Limitations of Fishbone Diagram*

Advantage s of Fi shbone Diagram

Fishbone Diagramming is adaptable to analyzing causes of problems in a variety of settings. It has been used successfully in business and industry. Groups find the method enjoyable. They can usually complete the work in a session lasting 1 to 2 hours. There is a strong sense of involv ement in resolv ing problems and in ownership of results. Facilitators need little training to implement the procedure. No special equipment is needed. The technique results in a graphic representation of the relationships that exist betw een effects and their causes.

Limitations of Fi shbone Diagram

Although groups can quickly determine potential causes, Fishbone Diagramming does not usually clarif y sequences of causes. The magnitude and probability of a cause contributing to a need are not established as part of the technique. The causes identif ied require verific ation of some kind.

*Adapted from Planning and Conducting Needs Assessments by Witkin and Altschuld -- pg.. 248

21 - 4

EMRA, 1998

PART 4: Data Analysis Core Competencies

FISHBONE (CAUSE-AND- EFFECT) DIAGRAM
OVERVIEW

Adva ntages and Lim itations of Fishbone Diagram

Identifying the primary or root causes of a problem can be difficult. The Fishbone Diagram process is useful. It has advantages and some limitations, and a needs analyst must be familiar with these prior to employing the technique. Before incorporating the information into a major needs analysis study, the results of more than one Fishbone Diagramming analysis using different, but comparable groups, should be made and compared in order to ensure the validity and reliability of the results.

Fishbo ne Diagram Advantages Limitations

Further Readings
Arcaro, J. S. (1995). Quality in education: An implementation handbook. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie. Swanson, R. C. (1995). The quality improvement handbook: Team guide to tools and techniques. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie. Witkin, B. R., Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs asse ssment: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

EMRA, 1998

21 - 5

PART 4: Data Analysis Core Competencies

FISHBONE (CAUSE-AND- EFFECT) DIAGRAM

NOTES AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

STEPS AND PROCEDURES

Figure 21.4: Completed Example of an Affinity Diagram

Perform ance Problem : Too many burrs on calipers resulting in high rates of caliper discard.

High Caliper Discard

Environment Issues

Problems with Machinery and/or Equipment

Operator Error

Problems with Materials

Methods not Appropriate

Shop floor is too small

Old machines

No time to practice doing the job Borrowed from other assembly lines T ask better for a left handed a worker T ools are not good for the deburring job

Alloy mixture not constant

Grinder is too fast

Poor use of space

No regular maintenance

Sand forms are rough

Debur tool is too short to reach inside Belt from the grinder is too fast Collection tray is too small

Unreliable fork-lift

Scrap metal is poor quality

Cooling process not correct

No Fit

New hires can not ID all kinds of burrs

Quality parameters too high Customer complaints

Not enough breaks

Literacy skills need improvement

21 - 6

EMRA, 1998

PART 4: Data Analysis Core Competencies

FISHBONE (CAUSE-AND- EFFECT) DIAGRAM
STEPS AND PROCEDURES

Using Fishbone Diagramming in Needs Analysis

It yields a cause-and-effect diagram which identifies possible causes of a problem (need) or barriers to actualizing a business opportunity. The structured way in which a Fishbone Diagram is developed using categories of causes often leads to the identification of root causes. It is a relatively easy way to take an in-depth look at an expressed need to seek out probable causes and contributing factors.

USE THE FOLLOWING 9 STEPS TO CARRY OUT A FISHBONE DIAGRAM

1
It may be useful to review the brainstorming guidelines on page 22.6 or Section 19 on the Affinity Diagram.

Assemble a Team to Carry Out the Diagramming Process

Identify and select team participants that: Have expertise and experience related to the identified need Represent various groups and perspectives impacted by need Are viewed as credible by managers and workers who are impacted by the need being addressed Arrange for a team meeting. Allow up to 3 hours for each diagram to be completed Brief the team as to the purposes of the meeting and explain the procedures to be followed.

1-1

1-2

1-3

2
2-1
Figure 21.4 shows the output from an example Affinity Diagram.

Identify and Clearly State the Need

Explain to the group how the need was identified. Present data collected about the need from the needs analysis. Use available data to specify the need Identify as much as possible about the what, where, when, and how much of the need Question each team member to be certain that the need is clearly understood by all team members.

2-2

2-3

EMRA, 1998

21 - 7

PART 4: Data Analysis Core Competencies

FISHBONE (CAUSE-AND- EFFECT) DIAGRAM

NOTES AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

STEPS AND PROCEDURES

Figure 21.5: Fishbone Diagram Example (Phases 1 and 2)

Phase 1

Performance Problem: Too many burrs on calipers resulting in high rates of caliper discard.

High caliper discard

Too many burrs on calipers

Phase 2

High caliper discard

Machine

Operator

Too many burrs on calipers

Material

Method

21 - 8

EMRA, 1998

PART 4: Data Analysis Core Competencies

FISHBONE (CAUSE-AND- EFFECT) DIAGRAM
STEPS AND PROCEDURES

3
3-1 3-2 3-3

Draw the Structure of a Fishbone Diagram

Use flipchart sheet, butcher paper, or a large while board (paper is preferable because the diagram can be moved and saved). Write the need in a box at the right side of the paper (in the head of the fish). Draw a line across the middle of the paper (the spine of the fish connected to its head). Provide enough space to diagram causal factors and their relationships in handwriting that is legible Diagram symmetry and the shape of the fish are NOT prime considerations -- realistic information that is clear in meaning and easily interpreted are the goals

4
4-1
Figure 21.5 presents a Fishbone Diagram example (Phases 1 and 2).

Identify Major Cause Categories and Connect Them to the Backbone of the Fish
Have the group list categories of factors causing the need (problem). These will serve as headings of the major bones of the fish They should be logical and inclusive Check the list against the following standard patterns: Typical production process categories Machines -- facilities and equipment Methods -- how work gets done Materials -- components or raw materials People -- the human factor Typical service process categories Policies -- higher-level decision rules Procedures -- steps in a task Plant -- equipment and space People -- the human factor Other typical categories Environment -- work culture, organizational structure, logistics

4-2

Measurement -- calibration and data collection

4-3 Check the fishbone diagram for omitted factors Compare to data from the needs analysis Use a consensus process with the group to assure complete input by all team members

EMRA, 1998

21 - 9

PART 4: Data Analysis Core Competencies

FISHBONE (CAUSE-AND- EFFECT) DIAGRAM

NOTES AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

STEPS AND PROCEDURES

Figure 21.6: Fishbone Diagram Example (Phase 3)

Phase 3

High caliper discard

Machine
o N

Operator
P r oo g in in tra

Company Owned equi pment U nr Shop floor too s mall el ia P bl oo e r fo us rk e -li of ft sp ac e

fa st

Alloy mi x not exac t

Gr in de rt

oo

m ar ul g re

Borrowed from other lines temporarily Left handed

Material

Method

c an en nt ai e

Too many burrs on calipers

Debur tool too s hort

Belt too fast

n io ct le ol ll C ma s a tr yt oo

21 -10

EMRA, 1998

PART 4: Data Analysis Core Competencies

FISHBONE (CAUSE-AND- EFFECT) DIAGRAM
STEPS AND PROCEDURES

5
5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4

Brainstorm Causes for Each of the Major Categories

Use the major cause categories as catalysts for analysis. Ask: What in the materials category is causing...? Repeat step 5-2 for each major category. For each identified cause, ASK: Why does it happen? What could happen?

6
6-1

Place Each Brainstormed Cause in Its Appropriate Category

Draw as many bones, sub-bones, and sub-sub-bones as necessary to reflect the relationships of related cause factors. Each major bone or cause may have sub-bones and even sub-sub-bones. Label each bone and sub-bone and draw the head of an arrow at the end of each bone to indicate its contribution to the bigger bone which it impacts. List causes related to multiple bones in all appropriate locations. Check against the needs analysis data to be certain that all causes and sub-causes have been identified. Review the diagram to see if it needs restructuring -- make changes until group consensus is reached.

6-2

Figure 21.6 presents a Fishbone Diagram example (Phase 3).

6-3 6-4 6-5

7
7-1

Identify Potential Root Causes

Have the team discuss factors that strongly affect a factor. Causes that are repeated on the diagram are often ones that need to be analyzed further Use additional brainstorming and review needs analysis data and related information to verify root causes Circle each factor that strongly affects the problem or opportunity. Check for group consensus concerning: The list of items that are included in the diagram which may be causing dispersion The proper illustration of their relationships The diagram is complete.

7-2 7-3

7-4

EMRA, 1998

21 -11

PART 4: Data Analysis Core Competencies

FISHBONE (CAUSE-AND- EFFECT) DIAGRAM

NOTES AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

STEPS AND PROCEDURES

Figure 21.7: Fishbone Diagram Completed Example (Phase 4)

Phase 4

Perform ance Problem : Created: Participants: Method:

Too many burrs on calipers resulting in high rates of caliper discard. April 2, 1998 Manufacturing Quality Team Plant 1: G. Smith, R. Lee, A. Jones, S. Perkins, and F. Beck Brainstorming session to identify major causes of performance problem. Data analysis using a Fishbone Diagram process.

High caliper discard

Machine

Operator
P

Company Owned equi pment

o N e bl ia el nr U

r oo g in in tra

Shop floor too s mall

P r oo

m ar ul g re

Borrowed from other lines temporarily Left handed

-li rk fo

fa st

Alloy mi x not exac t

Gr in de rt

oo

Material :

e us s of ce pa

c an en nt ai

ft

Method

Too many burrs on calipers

Debur tool too s hort

Belt too fast

n io ct le ol ll C ma s a tr yt oo

21 -12

EMRA, 1998

PART 4: Data Analysis Core Competencies

FISHBONE (CAUSE-AND- EFFECT) DIAGRAM
STEPS AND PROCEDURES

8
8-1

General Discussion of the Fishbone Diagram

Discuss the completed fishbone diagram. Select the most important sub-factors that contribute to the main causal factors Suggest intervention(s) to meet the need or the business opportunity Have the group compare and contrast the findings reflected in the Fishbone Diagram with their overall judgments about the need and its causes.

8-2

9
Figure 21.7 presents a completed Fishbone Diagram example (Phase 4).

Logistical and Follow Up Activities

Re-do the diagram to make it graphically appealing. Write in information detailing: The identification of the need Date of creation Participants How and why it was created If, validity and reliability are of concern: Conduct two or three more Fishbone Diagramming sessions with similar groups under similar circumstances Compare and contrast the results from the multiple Fishbone Diagram analyses Incorporate the major causal findings from the Fishbone Diagramming process into the findings portion of the needs analysis report.

9-1 9-2

9-3

9-4
See Section 7 on Reporting Results.

EMRA, 1998

21 -13