Articulo 1

The TQM Journal
Ishikawa diagrams and Bayesian belief networks for continuous improvement

applications
Mark Rodgers, Rosa Oppenheim,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mark Rodgers, Rosa Oppenheim, (2019) "Ishikawa diagrams and Bayesian belief networks for
continuous improvement applications", The TQM Journal, Vol. 31 Issue: 3, pp.294-318, https://
doi.org/10.1108/TQM-11-2018-0184
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-11-2018-0184
Downloaded by Kean University At 15:52 26 April 2019 (PT)
Downloaded on: 26 April 2019, At: 15:52 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 75 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7 times since 2019*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:118204 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm
TQM
31,3 Ishikawa diagrams and Bayesian
belief networks for continuous
improvement applications
294 Mark Rodgers and Rosa Oppenheim
Department of Supply Chain Management, Newark Business School,
Received 27 November 2018
Revised 16 January 2019 Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey, USA
28 January 2019
Accepted 7 February 2019
Abstract
Purpose – In continuous improvement (CI) projects, cause-and-effect diagrams are used to qualitatively
express the relationship between a given problem and its root causes. However, when data collection activities
are limited, and advanced statistical analyses are not possible, practitioners need to understand causal
relationships. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach – In this research, the authors present a framework that combines cause-
and-effect diagrams with Bayesian belief networks (BBNs) to estimate causal relationships in instances where
formal data collection/analysis activities are too costly or impractical. Specifically, the authors use cause-and-
effect diagrams to create causal networks, and leverage elicitation methods to estimate the likelihood of risk
scenarios by means of computer-based simulation.
Findings – This framework enables CI practitioners to leverage qualitative data and expertise to conduct
in-depth statistical analysis in the event that data collection activities cannot be fully executed. Furthermore,
this allows CI practitioners to identify critical root causes of a given problem under investigation before
generating solutions.
Originality/value – This is the first framework that translates qualitative insights from a cause-and-effect
diagram into a closed-form relationship between inputs and outputs by means of BBN models, simulation
and regression.
Keywords Simulation, Root cause analysis, Causal networks, Probabilistic elicitation,
Probabilistic models
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
A key issue that must be addressed when initiating continuous improvement (CI) projects is
data availability. CI methodologies, such as Six Sigma, often rely on data to conduct
statistical analyses identifying causal relationships between process inputs and process
outputs (Gitlow et al., 2015). However, there are two important challenges firms may face
when executing CI projects:
(1) data collection activities can often consume valuable resources, which may have an
impact on a firm’s overall productivity (Berthelot and Latouche, 1993); and
(2) events occurring at a low frequency with high risk of severity, such as
accidents, terrorism and natural disasters, often have limited data explaining
causality (Luxhoj and Coit, 2006).
Under these circumstances, CI projects that follow the Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-
Control (DMAIC) improvement cycle would be at risk of failure in the “Analyze” phase,
where the goal is to identify, validate, and select root causes of a process issue (Gitlow et al.,
2015). This serves as a springboard for a CI team to develop a data collection plan, and is a
precursor to solution generation. However, quantitative root cause validation tools in this
The TQM Journal phase (such as histograms, hypothesis testing, regression and Pareto charts) cannot be
Vol. 31 No. 3, 2019
pp. 294-318
deployed successfully without sufficient data, thus jeopardizing the success of the project.
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-2731
Notwithstanding these concerns, CI practitioners are tasked with achieving process
DOI 10.1108/TQM-11-2018-0184 excellence, and thus require a structured framework to navigate through the “Analyze”
phase of the DMAIC process in order to transition to the “Improve” phase, where potential Ishikawa
solutions are generated, tested and implemented. diagrams
To mitigate these challenges, we propose an analytical framework to leverage cause-and- and BBNs
effect (CE) diagrams (often referred to as fishbone or Ishikawa diagrams), causal networks,
Bayesian belief networks (BBNs), and elicitation methods to derive a causal relationship
between process inputs and the process issue under investigation by a CI team in the
absence of data. CE diagrams are often used to qualitatively identify the causes of a specific 295
problem or event during the “Analyze” phase of the of the DMAIC improvement cycle
(Gitlow et al., 2015).
First, we construct a CE diagram, which identifies the potential root causes of a given
problem. Next, we translate the CE diagram into a causal network, linking root causes to the
process issue under investigation. Using probabilistic elicitation methods, we create a BBN,
with estimated probability ranges, from the causal network. This framework enables CI
practitioners to conduct scenario-based analyses, studying the impact of process inputs on
the problem under investigation.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 of this paper provides a literature survey of
CE applications and an overview of BBNs applications related to our topic. Section 3 details
the analytical framework of our approach. A numerical example is provided to demonstrate
our model in Section 4, and finally a conclusion is given in Section 5.
2. Literature survey
The literature survey presented in this section is structured as follows: Subsection 2.1
provides an overview of CE diagrams in the context of CI. Subsection 2.2 focuses on recent
BBN applications. Subsection 2.3 explains the creation of influence diagrams (IDs) and
applications. Subsection 2.4 summarizes our findings, and explicitly identifies the
contributions of this research.
2.1 Cause-and-effect diagrams

The seven basic tools of quality management, articulated in the years following the Second
World War by Kaoru Ishikawa (Ishikawa, 1985, 1991) and originally published in 1968,
address quality-related issues and process improvement, including: CE diagrams, to identify
and categorize causes of problems; check sheets, to collect and tally data; control charts, to
study a process over time and identify special, or assignable, causes of variation;
histograms, to show frequency distributions of quality characteristics; Pareto charts, to
prioritize causes of problems; scatter diagrams, to study relationships between variables;
and stratification, to classify data in order to reveal underlying patterns. In this section, we
review the literature on CE diagrams and their application to various industries and sectors.
Typically utilizing data from a brainstorming session to generate the possible causes of a
problem, CE diagrams may be used to organize the causes identified, select the most
probable cause and verify the cause-and-effect relationship between the most probable
cause and the problem or effect under study so that action can be taken to resolve it.
Typically, the myriad causes that can be associated with a problem are classified as
machines, methods, material, people, and environment, and then further classified by sub-
causes and sub-sub causes. However, these categories may be modified based on the type of
problem under investigation (Gitlow et al., 2015).
These causes are evaluated and verified by collecting data. Figure 1 illustrates this
process for long queues at banks (Makinde et al., 2017) where, because this is a service
operation, the classifications for possible causes of long queues are management, staff,
customers and process.
CE diagrams have been used to address problems in healthcare (Byers and White, 2004;
Donaldson et al., 1991; Gartlehner et al., 2017; Wong, 2011); manufacturing (Desai et al., 2015;
TQM MANAGEMENT PROCESS
31,3 Banking industry behaviors Not capturing demand
toward change in service information on a daily basis
Irregular customer demand and
service analysis
Banking industry rigid policies on Computer service and
staff planning and scheduling network breakdowns
Not developing a flexible customer Unequal distribution of
296 complaint resolution system workload
LONG QUEUES AT
BANK
Nonchalant attitude of staff
toward job description
Busy with other
Stubborn and arrogant service operations
behavior of customers Insufficient number of staff
Impatient nature of
the staff
Figure 1.
Fishbone diagram for CUSTOMERS STAFF
long queues at banks

Source: Makinde et al. (2017)
Hekmatpanah, 2011; Jayswal et al., 2011; Rahman et al., 2010); service operations
(Duckett and Nijssen-Jodan, 2012; Makinde et al., 2017); energy (Deng et al., 2013; Luo et al.,
2018); education ( Jih and Huang, 2011; Reid, 2014; Shinde et al., 2018); and other industries.
We briefly summarize some of these applications.
Healthcare. Gartlehner et al. (2017) address the problem of interpreting findings from
systematic reviews which gather, describe, synthesize and evaluate evidence on complex
topics in healthcare. As an alternative to presenting multiple summary tables for
epidemiological studies, they propose a graphical display in the form of CE diagrams which
allow readers to grasp the findings “at a glance.”
Manufacturing. Desai et al. (2015) use CE diagrams to address the supply chain
management challenges of coordinating world-wide suppliers, manufacturers, transporters,
warehouses, retailers, and customers, while minimizing risks. They consider four categories
of risk as potential effects: defective parts or product, delays in delivery, counterfeit
products, and general error, and find the technique to be helpful in identifying root causes,
areas for remediation, and responsible organizational units.
Service operations. Makinde et al. (2017) examine the problem of waiting times in the
banking industry by using CE diagrams in combination with value stream mapping, line
balancing, workshops/training, flexible and reconfigurable service operation systems,
modular and flexible banking system layout and queueing theory models to reduce
customer complaints. In identifying root causes of delays emanating from staff, customers,
procedures and management philosophies, they develop a plan to eliminate non-value added
activities, streamline the service processes and deliver services within a reasonable time at a
reasonable cost.
Energy. Luo et al. (2018) use fishbone diagrams to identify causes of gas spherical tank
leaks (which can cause serious fires and explosions) and then apply fuzzy mathematics in
risk assessment to quantify the associated probabilities and estimate the economic loss of a
leak accident.
Education. Shinde et al. (2018) analyze root causes for problems in engineering education
in India, focusing on personnel, academics, resources and universities. They demonstrate
how this can lead to feasible solutions for improvement, which are then implemented at a
local engineering school.
2.2 BBNs and probabilistic elicitation Ishikawa
A BBN is a probabilistic model representing a set of variables and their conditional diagrams
dependencies by means of a directed acyclic graph (DAG). The nodes of the DAG represent and BBNs
discrete and/or continuous variables of interest, and the arcs represent conditional
dependencies, with the direction generally indicating causality; nodes which are not
connected (i.e. there is no path from one of the variables to the other) represent variables that
are conditionally independent. 297
For example, the BBN in Figure 2 shows the relationship between the occurrence of a
traffic accident, a discrete categorical variable (true or false), shown as the root node (or
parent node), and the effect on two drivers, John and Lisa, both also discrete categorical
variables (late or not late), shown as the child nodes. The arcs represent the conditional
dependences; this is, if there is a traffic accident, this may result in John and/or Lisa being
late. Since the nodes representing John and Lisa are not connected, they are conditionally
independent.
Given the parent node probabilities and the conditional probabilities associated with
each of the child nodes, shown in the conditional probability tables (CPTs) next to each child
node, we can use Bayesian probability to calculate the likelihood of both unconditional and
conditional probabilities associated with this network.
For example, the unconditional probability that Lisa is late would be:
P ðLisa lateÞ ¼ P ðLisa latejtraffic accidentÞ P ðtraffic accidentÞ
þP ðLisa latejno traffic accidentÞ P ðno traffic accidentÞ
¼ ð0:8Þ ð0:1Þ þ ð0:1Þ ð0:9Þ ¼ 0:17:

BBNs can be used for propagation, or revising probabilities given actual observations.
For example, if we know that there was a traffic accident, the conditional probability that
Lisa will be late is 0.8, as shown in the CPT. Similarly, suppose we know that Lisa is late.
ROOT, OR Traffic Accident

PARENT NODE (Root Node)
True 0.10
False 0.90
Traffic
accident
ARC ARC
CHILD NODE CHILD NODE
John is Lisa is
late late
Conditional Traffic Conditional Traffic

Probability Accident Probability Accident Figure 2.
Table (CPT) True False Table (CPT) True False Bayesian belief
Lisa True 0.8 0.1 network for
John True 0.6 0.5
traffic accident
Late False 0.4 0.5 Late False 0.2 0.9
TQM From this evidence, we can then determine the revised probability that there was a traffic
31,3 accident, and from that, the revised probability that John is late:
P(traffic accident|Lisa late) ¼ P(Lisa late|traffic accident)×P(traffic accident)/P(Lisa
late) ¼ (0.8)×(0.1)/(0.17) ¼ 0.47. This is now our revised probability of a traffic accident:
P ðJohn lateÞ ¼ P ðJohn latejtraffic accidentÞ
P ðtraffic accidentÞþP ðJohn latejno traffic accidentÞ
298 P ðno traffic accidentÞ
¼ ð0:6Þ ð0:47Þþ ð0:5Þ ð0:53Þ ¼ 0:55:
Given the joint probabilities for root, or parent nodes, in a BBN, the calculation of the CPT is
based on Bayes Rule, as shown in Figure 2. Often, however, we do not have sufficient data to
compute the probabilities in the CPTs. BBNs can accommodate both subjective and
objective probabilities. Thus, in the commonly occurring case that we do not have reliable
and/or complete objective data, we need to employ probabilistic elicitation methods to
convert expert judgments into probabilities and/or probability distributions which can then
be used to quantify risks and predict the likelihood of future events.

The elicitation process is typically an iterative one of achieving consensus, involving the
identification of events for which probabilities must be elicited, and the selection of
appropriate “experts” or SMEs. Furthermore, this requires eliciting summaries of the
experts’ probability distributions for the random variables of interest; fitting a probability
distribution to the elicited summaries; and assessing the adequacy of the results and, if
necessary, returning to the experts to elicit further information.
BBNs have been used to address problems in supply chain management (Garvey et al.,
2015; Pai et al., 2003; Qazi et al., 2017; Amundson et al., 2014); low-probability/high
consequence events such as transportation accidents (Luxhoj and Coit, 2006; Zhang et al.,
2016; Martins and Maturana, 2013); environmental management (Pagano et al., 2018; Phan
et al., 2016; Landuyt et al., 2013); criminal law (McDermott and Aitken, 2017); healthcare
(Dmitriev et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2012; Steele et al., 2012); manufacturing (Buyukozkan et al.,
2015; Quintana, 14 September 2012); service operations (Kekolahti and Karikoski, 2013);
education (Millan et al., 2010); and other industries.
There are many examples in the literature of how to calculate, based upon a combination of
expert estimates and/or historical data, the probabilities needed for CPTs and the analysis of
BBNs, including supply chain management (Kaki et al., 2015); low-probability/high consequence
events ( Jaspersen and Montibeller, July 2015) including transportation accidents (Brooker, 2011;
Zhang et al., 2016); environmental management (Landuyt et al., 2013; Stiber et al., 2004;
Shipworth, 2006); healthcare (Higgins et al., 2014; Kazemi et al., 2017; Small, 2008); manufacturing
(Bouaziz et al., 2013; Li et al., 2013); human reliability analysis (Mkrtchyan et al., 2016; Su et al.,
2015); service operations (Aktekin and Soyer, 2012; Sherchan et al., 2013); and finance and
accounting (Kemmerer et al., 2002; Predd et al., 2008; Chesley, 1978; Wright, 1988; Crosby, 1981).
Below we summarize some of these applications to BBNs and probabilistic elicitation.
Supply chain management. Garvey et al. (2015) develop a model of risk propagation in a
supply network and derive specific risk measures to mitigate the impact of disruptions. The
network-based approach models the relationships and assessment of risk given the implicit
causal structure of the system, taking into account the inter-dependencies among different
risks. Building upon the work of Pai et al. (2003), one of the first to use a BBN to model risk
and uncertainty in supply chains, they incorporate the addition of supply chain risk
measures to respond to the increasing complexity of supply networks and resulting
cascading effects of disruptions. Kaki et al. (2015) discuss the analysis of supply chain
disruptions to mitigate risk, applying probabilistic risk assessment and simulation in
combination with expert interviews.
Transportation safety. Luxhoj and Coit (2006) address low probability/high risk events Ishikawa
which are typically ill-structured, multi-layered and characterized by pervasive diagrams
uncertainties and multiple causalities of known and often unknown risk factors.
The authors use BBNs, with the nodes representing the causal factors or precursors in
and BBNs
aircraft accidents, and the CPTs calculated based on a combination of expert judgment and
empirical data, in order to understand aircraft accident causality and to provide a
methodology for risk assessments of new aviation safety products. Martins and Maturana 299
(2013) similarly apply BBNs to the operation of an oil tanker, focusing on the risk of
collisions and determining the most likely sequence of hazardous events in order to isolate
critical activities in the operation of the ship for risk reduction. Brooker (2011) discusses
existing limits on the accuracy of risk estimates elicited from aviation experts, and examines
whether BBNs are able to make more accurate aviation risk predictions using best-expert
estimates and available data on similar events. Zhang et al. (2016) illustrate the application
of elicitation methods to maritime transportation risk assessment, and note that while BBN
is a well-suited methodology, there are problems in the elicitation of probabilities based on
expert knowledge, and discrepancies between results and experts’ qualitative judgments;
the authors cite Monte Carlo and genetic algorithms which have been used in Bayesian
updating to combine available data with new information.
Environmental management. Phan et al. (2016) review applications of BBNs to the
assessment of climate change impact on water resource management in developing
countries and tropical regions. Pagano et al. (2018) address the emergency management of
drinking water supply systems by means of BBNs and uncertainty assessment. Landuyt
et al. (2013) review the use of BBNs in ecological modeling in research on ecosystem services.
They discuss the advantages of combining empirical data with expert knowledge and the
explicit treatment of uncertainties, together with a SWOT analysis of the advantages and
disadvantages of such models and the difficulties of eliciting expert knowledge as well as
the inability to model feedback loops.
Criminal law. McDermott and Aitken (2017) demonstrate the use of BBNs in international
criminal trials to model the probabilistic relationships between hypotheses and pieces of
evidence, and establish the value of the technique in both the examination of international
criminal judgments and the processes of trial preparation and fact-finding before
international criminal tribunals. In a case study in the former Yugoslavia, they show how
BBNs can be used to strengthen judges’ confidence in their findings, to assist lawyers in
preparing for trial, and as a tool for the assessment of international criminal tribunals’
factual findings.
Healthcare. Liu et al. (2012) apply BBNs to health risk assessment of non-carcinogenic
substances; utilizing epidemiological study data and hospital attendance records, they
identify the probabilistic relationship between an air pollutant and each of its induced
diseases. Their methodology, incorporating a fusion technique of conditional probabilities,
addresses and overcomes deficiencies in estimation of health risk by a hazard quotient or a
target organ-specific hazard index. Steele et al. (2012) address the problem of Clostridium
difficile (C-Diff ) infection following colorectal resection by using machine-learned
BBNs to preoperatively provide clinicians with postoperative estimates of C-diff risk.
Using the nationwide inpatient sample national registry data set, the models were able to
produce robust estimates of postoperative infection, allowing clinicians to identify high-risk
patients and potentially implement measures to reduce the incidence and morbidity of
Kazemi et al. (2017) describe the use of BBNs and probabilistic elicitation methods to
examine patient-level factors and physician-level decisions and factors which contribute to
the risk of hospital-acquired adverse events and support hospital decisions on staffing,
length of stay and investments in safety. The models they develop have both a qualitative
TQM and quantitative aspect; experts’ assessment on parameters for which no or unreliable data
31,3 were available was elicited through multiple face-to-face interviews, and combined with
available field data.
Manufacturing. Buyukozkan et al. (2015) analyze the effect of lean manufacturing on
financial, non-financial and sustainability performance, using BBNs to define the inter- and
intra-relationship of lean factors, including the effects of combinations of lean factors under
300 changing conditions. The authors demonstrate the tangible and intangible consequences of
implementing different combinations of seven lean factors and four achievements
( flexibility, reliability, quality and time of operations) and analyze the impact on three
performance indicators, with application to the automobile industry. Bouaziz et al. (2013)
discuss risk assessment in semiconductor manufacture with respect to equipment failure
and production machine drift, using a predictive approach which allows early action to
avoid failure. The integration of expert judgment is of significant value in this environment,
in which the data uncertainty level is very high and expert knowledge is substantial.
In the same manufacturing industry, Li et al. (2013) use a fault diagnosis expert system
for knowledge acquisition, in order to diagnose possible root causes, probabilities

and suggested solutions where conditional probabilities are determined exclusively by
expert opinion.
Human reliability analysis. Mkrtchyan et al. (2016) evaluate several different methods for
building CPTs from partial expert information: functional interpolation, the Elicitation BBN,
the Cain calculator, the Fenton et al. (2007) method and the Roed et al. (2009) method. Using
these to calculate the human error probability as a function of influencing factor
assessments, they demonstrate modeling limitations in the treatment of multi-factor
interdependencies and in different degrees of uncertainty in the factor relationships.
Service operations. Kekolahti and Karikoski (2013) address the problem of determining
the probabilistic relationship between overall service usage diversity and average daily
service usage intensity in the mobile phone industry. Four analytical methods, all based on
BBNs, are used to identify patterns, variables, and relationships; visual analysis; user
segmentation analysis; node force analysis; and a combination of expert-based service
clustering and machine learning for usage diversity vs intensity analysis. They identify
service cluster pairs, in which usage of one service increases the probability of also using the
other service, and where although there is no direct relationship, usage diversity is a
mediator between them, as measured by Node Force and Direct and Total effect. Aktekin
and Soyer (2012) consider Bayesian queuing models with impatient customers, allowing
abandonment, and estimate operating characteristics and the implication on staffing
decisions. The authors use actual arrival, service, and abandonment data from call centers,
and discuss the incorporation of expert knowledge in Bayesian queues.
Education. Millan et al. (2010) apply BBNs to the design and implementation of the
student model, a key component of an adaptive tutoring system which stores all gathered
information about the student, enabling the development of personalized instruction.
Finance. Kemmerer et al. (2002) use Bayesian networks to study failures of venture
capital backed companies and to determine how decisions are made by venture capitalists
when expert knowledge is uncertain, ambiguous and/or incomplete. Proposing a procedure
in which they elicit a raw causal map based on expert opinion, preprocess the raw causal
map, and assign states to variables and probabilities to states, they use real world cases to
validate the model.
2.3 Influence diagrams

Like BBNs, IDs (also called decision networks or causal networks) are graphical
representations of a sequence of decisions and events. Specifically, an ID is a DAG,
comprised of a series of nodes and arcs, where the arcs depict a causal relationship between Ishikawa
two nodes (Clemen, 1991). However, while BBNs contain only chance nodes, representing diagrams
random variables, and the conditional probabilities of each such variable given its parents, and BBNs
IDs also contain decision nodes, representing available options, and utility nodes,
representing functions to be maximized or minimized by the selection of appropriate
strategies. Hence, BBNs are typically used in diagnostic problems, and IDs as decision-
support tools (Lacave et al., 2007). 301
IDs typically have four different node types (Lumina Decision Systems, 2018), as
depicted in Figure 3:
(1) a decision node is a controllable variable that the decision maker in a process has the
ability to modify directly;
(2) a chance node is a stochastic variable, which cannot be controlled directly due to
incomplete information;
(3) an objective (or payoff ) node is a utility variable that quantifies a metric which the
decision maker aims to either minimize or maximize; and

(4) a deterministic node is a variable that can be quantified by a known function.
Arcs are used to express relationships between nodes, as shown in Figure 4 (Terek, 2005).
There are two types of arcs, represented by solid and dashed arcs. The solid arcs,
Visual Representation Node Name
Decision
Chance
Objective
Figure 3.
Deterministic Nodal representations
for influence diagrams
A B E F
Event A directly influences the The outcome of Event E is

outcome of Event B known when making decision F
C D G H
Figure 4.
Node-arc
Decision C directly influences Decision G is made before representations
the outcome of Event D decision H
TQM which point to chance or deterministic nodes, indicate a precedence relationship.
31,3 Dotted arcs, which point to decision nodes, indicate knowledge of the outcome of the
preceding node.
IDs offer an approach to analyze key factors that may impact a desired outcome or
variable. To illustrate this concept, we consider a simple evacuation example shown in
Figure 5, representing the outcomes of the decision on whether to evacuate the city of Miami
302 based on hurricane conditions and the forecast (Clemen, 1991). The network contains two
chance nodes: “Hurricane Path” and “Forecast,” each of which has two distinct,
uncontrollable outcomes, as shown. The “Decision” node represents the choice to evacuate
or not based on the weather forecast. The “Consequence” node, which is an objective node,
has three potential outcomes based on the network configuration – “Safety, High Cost,”
“Danger, Low Cost,” and “Safety, Low Cost.”
The decision maker, in this instance, would be heavily influenced by the forecast, which
is influenced by the path of the hurricane. Unfortunately, however, weather forecast
accuracy could impact the evacuation decision. While the forecast may provide some
information about the storm, the prediction has an unknown degree of uncertainty (known
as imperfect information).
IDs have been used to address problems in supply chain management (Zheng et al., 2017;
Xiaofeng et al., 2012); environmental management (Aastrom et al., 2014); healthcare
(Fatisson et al., 2016); energy (Zhang et al., 2018); education (Anaya et al., 2013; Bez, et al.,
2012); finance (Tseng, 2006); risk assessment and analysis (Zhi and Xue-Jin, 2010; Sedki
et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2010); and other industries.
Below we summarize some of these applications to IDs.
Supply chain management. Xiaofeng et al. (2012) illustrate the use of IDs in electronic
foundries, determining supply chain risk and the consequences.
Environmental management. Aastrom et al. (2014) apply IDs to developing a decision
support framework for pluvial urban flood risk under non-stationary conditions caused by
climate change where extreme precipitation patterns change over time. They extend their
results with a cost-benefit analysis on the implementation of flood adaptation measures.
Forecast Outcomes Hurricane Outcomes

Hurricane
Will hit Miami Forecast Hits Miami
Path
Will miss Miami Misses Miami
Choices
Evacuate Decision Consequence
Stay
Hurricane
Choices Consequences
Outcomes
Hits Miami Safety, High Cost
Evacuate
Misses Miami Safety, High Cost
Hits Miami Danger, Low Cost
Figure 5. Stay
Evacuation decision Misses Miami Safety, Low Cost
influence diagram
Source: Clemen (1991)
Healthcare. Fatisson et al. (2016) use IDs to examine which factors directly influence heart Ishikawa
rate variability (HRV ), widely used as an index of health. They divide these factors into five diagrams
categories, and express the direct interrelationships between these factors and HRV in an
ID, which is used as a basis to improve daily clinical practice and design more precis
and BBNs
research protocols.
Manufacturing. Er and Lezki (2015) illustrate the use of IDs in the textile industry for a
luxury product in the face of an expected economic recession based on local inflation and 303
low commercial values. Three scenarios are considered: stable economic conditions, slightly
worse economic conditions, and severely negative economic conditions, and three decision
alternatives, export now, export in six months, and export in 12 months, are evaluated given
probability estimates of the economic scenarios.
Energy. Zhang et al. (2018) use fuzzy IDs to support the decision-making process
of electrical network maintenance and planning for tree-related electric outages. The
methodology considers complex interdependencies in modeling spatial objects’ dependencies.
Education. Anaya et al. (2013) create an ID for a collaborative learning environment,
using expert knowledge and student interactions data. Observable variables relevant for
assessing collaboration and four different scenarios identified by a SME are incorporated
and the ID analyzed using two machine learning techniques: an attribute selector, indicating
the most important attributes used to determine recommended strategies, and a decision
tree algorithm to provide a visual explanation of the recommended strategies.
Finance. Tseng (2006) discusses the use of IDs in the selection of an optimal investment
portfolio which maximizes investment returns under the constraints given by investors.
Expert opinions, news releases and economic figures are among the diverse information
sources used to build a decision support agent for selecting, accessing, filtering, evaluating,
and incorporating information, and for making final portfolio selections. The model
outperformed human portfolio managers in the period 1998–2002.
Risk analysis. Zhi and Xue-Jin (2010) demonstrate the use of IDs in safety management in
highway tunnel engineering construction, where many uncertain factors and the mutual
interactions of multiple risk factors exist. Long-term plans for risk management are
developed based on a fuzzy ID.
2.4 Summary
Given a process problem to be addressed, we have introduced the concepts of CE diagrams to
illustrate its potential causes; BBNs and CPTs to represent conditional dependencies between
the problem and its potential causes using Bayes Rule; probabilistic elicitation to incorporate,
when objective data are missing or inadequate, subjective (SME) information into the
quantification of risk and prediction of the likelihood of the problem given the potential causes;
and IDs to represent the causal relationship graphically by incorporating both available
decision options and functions to be optimized. We have cited many applications of these
techniques in the literature to supply chain management, transportation safety, environmental
management, criminal law, healthcare, manufacturing, human reliability analysis, service
operations, energy, education, finance and risk analysis.
A significant issue in the literature is the analysis of potential causes of problems in the
absence of data on associated probabilities. In the following sections, we address, using the
example of long queues depicted in the CE diagram in Figure 1, the use of a computer-based
simulation experiment to enable the computation of conditional probabilities. In Section 3,
we illustrate the construction of the causal network and the creation of the BBN and
associated CPTs. In Section 4, we illustrate, by computer simulation and regression analysis,
the identification of key root causes of long queues, enabling a transition to the Improve
phase of the DMAIC study.
TQM 3. Methodology
31,3 Figure 6 details the sequence of activities involved in creating our model. As previously
stated, this proposed framework serves as a surrogate for a portion of the data collection
and analysis activities for CI projects that follow the DMAIC cycle. The combination of
objective and subjective information about potential root causes of long queues is critical in
developing a model that is indicative of the problem domain.
304 The first step in this framework is to build a causal network. To accomplish this, the process
improvement team constructs a fishbone diagram to qualitatively identify potential root causes
of a specified problem. Using Figure 1 as an example, the root causes are categorized into four
distinct categories, per the consensus of the group: management, customers, process and staff.
Upon identifying root causes from the CE diagram, the team constructs a causal
network. Each of the root causes from the fishbone exercise is represented as a node in the
network. As shown in Table I, these root causes are organized based on the categories
selected from the fishbone diagram. Each node in the network has two states: a desirable
state (DS), which is the preferred state of the node; and an undesirable state (UDS), which is
the state of a node that may exacerbate the problem under investigation. The problem under
investigation is designated as an outcome node, or node O1.
1 2 3
Construct a Causal Approximate the
Network from a Probability of Problem Identify Vulnerabilities
Fishbone Diagram Occurring
Collaborate w/SMEs Bayesian Belief

Simulation
to construct fishbone Network (BBN)
Translate it into a
Figure 6. Probabilistic Determine network
directed acyclic graph
Model framework Elicitation vulnerabilities
(Casual Network)
overview
Table I.
Nodal taxonomy Note: a Denotes undesirable state
Using the nodal taxonomy in Table I, the process improvement team constructs a causal Ishikawa
network, shown in Figure 7, linking the binary-state root cause nodes to the outcome node. diagrams
More specifically, we limit each child node to at most two parent nodes. This causal network and BBNs
serves as the foundation of the BBN.
After creating the causal network, using the elicitation scale in Table II (Witteman and
Renooij, 2003), the process improvement team populates the associated CPTs for the BBN.
For illustrative purposes, we present the CPT for node S3 in Figure 8. S3 has two 305
states – present and absent; and its parent nodes, S1 and S4, have similar state designations.
Using the elicitation scale, the CPT for node S3 is populated with a range of possible
numerical probabilities, and the midpoints of these ranges shown in the CPT on the right of
Figure 8. This exercise is repeated for all nodes in the network.
Lastly, after building a BBN, the process improvement team can use these probabilities to
conduct various statistical analyses to understand the impact of each of the root causes of the
outcome node. For this example, the process improvement team is interested in identifying
which root causes will negatively impact the probability of queue lengths increasing.
P4 P1
P2
M3 S4
M2 S2 S3 C1 O1
P3 S1
Figure 7.
M1 Causal network
Probability (%)
Category Min. (%) Max. (%)
Certain (Almost) 85 100

Probable 75 85
Expected 50 75 Table II.
Fifty-Fifty 50 Probabilistic
Uncertain 25 50 Elicitation Scale
Improbable 15 25 (Witteman and
Impossible (Almost) 0 15 Renooij, 2003)
Conditional Probability Table (CPT) Conditional Probability Table (CPT)

S4
S4 Absent Absent Present Present S4 Absent Absent Present Present
S1 Absent Present Absent Present S1 Absent Present Absent Present

S3
Impossible Improbable Improbable Expected Present 7.5% 20% 20% 62.5%
Present
(0–15%) (15–25%) (15–25%) (50–75%)
S3 S3
Certain Probable Probable Uncertain Absent 92.5% 80% 80% 37.5%
S1 Absent
(85–100%) (75–85%) (75–85%) (25–50%)
Figure 8.
CPT for Node S3
S3 is “Present” or “Absent”
TQM 4. Numerical example
31,3 In this section, using the BBN model and framework developed in Section 3, we conduct a
statistical exercise by executing simulation trials in the probabilistic graphical modeling
software OpenMarkov. Specifically, we follow the following procedure:
• Step 1: we conduct 60 experimental simulation trials, in which root cause nodes are
randomly chosen to exist in either a DS or UDS. For each trial, the probability of the
306 queue length increasing is calculated from the BBN model created in Section 3.
• Step 2: using this data set, we conduct a linear regression analysis, with the states of
the root cause nodes as input variables, and the probability of the queue length
increasing as the output variable.
• Step 3: with the regression results, we can identify key root causes that influence the
problem under investigation prior to transitioning into the Improve phase of a
DMAIC project.
To execute the aforementioned procedure, we start with the baseline model, shown in
Figure 9. The red bars in the illustration show the unconditional probabilities of each node
existing in either of the binary states defined in Table I, per the estimated CPT values from
Table II. Per the output of the baseline BBN, the probability of O1 increasing is
approximately 0.5597 (or 55.97 percent). This is derived from using the law of total
probability, in combination with the elicited values from the CPTs as given in the Appendix.
An example simulation trial using the BBN model is presented in Figure 10. In this
illustration, we experiment in our model by using three nodes – M3, M1 and P2. Specifically,
M3 is in the “Absent” state, M1 is in the “Unfavorable” state and P2 is in the “Present” state.
Thus, in contrast to Figure 9, Figure 10 shows the baseline results (shown by the red bars) and
the aforementioned posterior probabilities as a result of the simulation exercise (shown by
P4 P1
Present 0.6250 Present 0.3469
Absent 0.3750 Absent 0.6531
M3 S4 P2
Present 0.2650 Present 0.7856 Present 0.3750
Absent 0.7350 Absent 0.2144 Absent 0.6250
M2 S2 S3 C1
O1
Present 0.3659 Present 0.5995 Decrease 0.4403
Absent 0.3750 Absent 0.2900 Absent 0.6341 Absent 0.4005 Increase 0.5597
P3 S1
Figure 9.
Baseline model Favorable
M1
0.6250
Unfavo..le 0.3750
P4 P1
M3 S4 P2
Present 0.0000 Present 0.8357 Present 1.0000
Absent 1.0000 Absent 0.1643 Absent 0.0000
M2 S2 S3 C1
Present 0.7899
O1
Present 0.6980 Present 0.4800 Present 0.7090 Decrease 0.3746
Absent 0.5200 Absent 0.2910 Increase 0.6254
P3 S1
Figure 10. Absent 0.4505 Absent 0.2000
Example BBN
M1
simulation trial Favorable 0.0000
Unfavo..le 1.0000
the blue bars) for the nodal unconditional probabilities. Posterior probabilities are calculated Ishikawa
recursively throughout the network using Bayes’ Rule, as noted in the following equation: diagrams
P ðBjAÞP ðAÞ and BBNs
P A9B ¼ : (1)
P ðBÞ
That is, we can calculate the probability of an event “A” given a realization of event “B.” The
term P(B|A) can be obtained from the baseline CPTs, and the terms P(A) and P(B) are the 307
prior probabilities given in Figure 9.
Moreover, given the definition of this scenario, in order to execute this simulation, we set
P(M3 ¼ Absent) ¼ P(M1 ¼ Unfavorable) ¼ P(P2 ¼ Presented) ¼ 1. Using these inputs,
along with the elicited values from the CPTs and the equations outlined in the Appendix, the
resulting posterior probability of O1 increasing is 0.6254 (or 62.54 percent).
Upon completing the experiments in step 1 for our example, we transition to step 2,
where we conduct a linear regression analysis, as given in the following equation:
X
n
y ¼ b0 þ bi xi : (2)
i¼1
In this equation, y is the probability that the queue length increases (or that node O1 is in the
increased state). The n covariates, denoted by xi, are binary variables, described as follows
in the following equation:
(
1; if node i exists in the undesirable stateðUDSÞ
xi ¼ : (3)
1; if node i exists in the desirable stateðDSÞ
In analyzing the output in Table III, the R2 value indicates that a simple linear regression model
explains nearly all of the variability of the response variable – the probability of O1 increasing.
In the sample results shown, this probability is given by the intercept, 0.5619 (or 56.19 percent).
Based on the p-values from the regression, we can identify six root causes that
are of particular interest as we transition to the Improve phase (using α ¼ 0.05 as a
minimum threshold):
(1) (C1) – Stubborn and arrogant customer behavior: customer behavior has a major
impact on queue lengths. If customers exhibit negative behavior, per our model
results, this will likely increase queue lengths. We observe the opposite effect when
customers do not exhibit negative behavior.
(2) (P2) – Computer service and network breakdown: if the computer systems are fully
operational, queue lengths are reduced; however, upon experiencing service
breakdowns, queue lengths will likely increase.
(3) (P4) – Irregular customer demand and service analysis: if customer demand is
smooth and predictable, this will likely reduce the queue lengths.
(4) (S1) – Nonchalant attitude of staff toward job description: if employees display
enthusiasm toward their jobs, it has a positive impact on the system, thus decreasing
queue length.
(5) (S3) – Impatient nature of the staff: similar to C1, if employees are impatient with
customers, this will likely increase the length of the queue. However, exercising
patience will likely decrease the size of the queue.
(6) (S4) – Busy with other service operations: if employees do not have the burden of
balancing multiple tasks, this will likely reduce the lengths of the queue.
TQM Node State Coefficient SE (Coefficient) t-value p-value
31,3
(Intercept) 0.5619099 0.0037043 151.692 o2.00E-16
M1 DS −0.0042143 0.0034051 −1.238 0.22408
UDS 0.0039866 0.0032937 1.21 0.23425
M2 DS 0.0036226 0.003255 1.113 0.27332
UDS −0.0025776 0.0032809 −0.786 0.43737
308 M3 DS 0.0041073 0.0037733 1.089 0.2838
UDS −0.0030155 0.0033405 −0.903 0.37285
C1 DS −0.3476802 0.0049339 −70.468 o2.00E-16
UDS 0.2383078 0.0048467 49.169 o2.00E-16
P1 DS 0.001034 0.0045487 0.227 0.8215
UDS 0.000927 0.0033604 0.276 0.78429
P2 DS −0.0253526 0.0051042 −4.967 1.77E-05
UDS 0.0522327 0.0043815 11.921 7.05E-14
P3 DS 0.0030271 0.0037338 0.811 0.42301
UDS −0.0014641 0.0043683 −0.335 0.73949
−0.0161733 −3.102
P4 DS 0.0052132 0.00378
UDS −0.0046386 0.0032921 −1.409 0.16765
S1 DS −0.0196334 0.0031099 −6.313 2.99E-07
UDS 0.005792 0.0065168 0.889 0.38019
S2 DS −0.0051751 0.0040413 −1.281 0.20877
UDS 0.0005732 0.0039557 0.145 0.88563
S3 DS −0.0288947 0.00399 −7.242 1.87E-08
UDS 0.0570166 0.0038914 14.652 o2.00E-16
Table III. S4 DS −0.0158037 0.0050423 −3.134 0.00348
Linear regression UDS −0.0018644 0.0037059 −0.503 0.61805
output summary Notes: Multiple R2: 0.9974; Adjusted R2: 0.9956; F-statistic: 562.9 on 24 and 25 DF, p-value: o 2.2e-16
To confirm the statistical validity of the model (residuals normally distributed with a mean
of 0 and constant variance), we examine the resulting residuals vs fitted values, as displayed
in Figure 11, to verify randomness. As indicated by the graph, the residuals appear to be
centered around zero, and contained within the horizontal 3-sigma bands depicted by the
red lines on the graph. Furthermore, the normal probability plot in Figure 12 indicates that
the residuals are close to normally distributed. Thus, given that the residuals appear to be
normally distributed around a mean of zero, and do not exhibit either a clear trend or
heteroscedasticity with respect to the fitted values, this suggests that our residuals are
random and we conclude that our model is a statistically valid one.
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
Residuals
0
0.53 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.57
–0.005
–0.01
Figure 11.
–0.015
Residuals vs
fitted values
–0.02 Fitted Values
Normal Probability Plot Ishikawa
2.5
diagrams
2 and BBNs
1.5
Standardized Sample Quantiles
0.5 309
0
–2.50 –2.00 –1.50 –1.00 –0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
–0.5
–1
–1.5
–2 Figure 12.
Normal probability
–2.5 plot for residuals
Theoretical Quantiles
With the information from this analysis, we are now able to transition to the Improve phase,
where a process improvement team can develop targeted solutions aimed at the root causes
identified from the statistical exercise. For instance, the process improvement team may
decide to implement a web-based banking solution, in an effort to reduce workload for the
staff. This may potentially mitigate root causes C1, P4, S3 and S4 by reducing peak
customer volumes, which allows employees to dedicate more time troubleshooting customer
issues. Another, more obvious, solution would be to establish redundancies within the
computer network in order to mitigate P2.
5. Conclusion
This work is a critical step in addressing the concerns of successfully executing CI projects
that follow the DMAIC cycle. Specifically, the approach presented in this framework enables
CI practitioners to leverage qualitative data and expertise to conduct in-depth statistical
analysis in the event that data collection activities cannot be fully executed. This framework
serves as a surrogate exercise for quantitative analyses in the “Analyze” phase of a DMAIC
project, thus allowing CI practitioners to identify critical root causes of a given problem
under investigation prior to transitioning to the “Improve” phase. With that said, to advance
this research, it is necessary to consider the following research extensions:
• collaborating with subject matter experts (SMEs) to further refine and enhance the
BBN model; and
• applying simulation-based optimization methods to prioritize proposed solutions.
The first research extension allows practitioners to build a BBN model that is more
representative of the system under investigation. While we conduct computer-based
simulation experiments to define a relationship between inputs and outputs, guidance from
SMEs will further strengthen this relationship. Furthermore, this enables practitioners to
validate the BBN model process experts in real-time, and thus, enhances the quality of
solutions generated as a result of the insight obtained from the analytical exercises.
The second research extension would utilize the closed-form function obtained from the
simulation and regression exercises as an objective function in a strategic planning
operations research model. Specifically, a budget or resource constrained model would
allow CI teams to determine the optimal portfolio of solutions to address the problem
under investigation.
TQM In conclusion, in the context of CI applications, we have proposed the first framework
31,3 that translates qualitative knowledge obtained from a CE diagram into a statistical
relationship between inputs and outputs by means of BBN models, simulation, and
regression models. This framework enables CI to evaluate the impact of process inputs on
the problem under investigation, and ultimately propose targeted solutions based on
statistical evidence.
310
References
Aastrom, H., Hansen, P., Garre, L. and Ambjerg-Nielsen, K. (2014), “An influence diagram for urban
flood risk assessment through pluvial flood hazards under non-stationary conditions”, Journal
of Water and Climate Change, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 276-286.
Aktekin, T. and Soyer, R. (2012), “Bayesian analysis of queues with impatient customers: applications
to call centers”, Naval Research Logistics, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 441-456.
Amundson, J., Brown, A., Grabowski, M. and Badurdeen, F. (2014), “Life-cycle risk modeling: alternate
methods using Bayesian belief networks”, Procedia CIRP, Volume 17, pp. 320-325.
Anaya, A., Luque, M. and Garcia-Saiz, T. (2013), “Recommender system in collaborative learning
environment using an influence diagram”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 40 No. 18,
pp. 7193-7202.
Berthelot, J.-M. and Latouche, M. (1993), “Improving the efficiency of data collection: a generic
respondent follow-up strategy for economic surveys”, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 417-424.
Bez, M.R., Flores, C.D., Fonseca, J.M.L., Maroni, V., Barros, P.R. and Vicari, R.M. (2012), “Influence
diagrams for selection of pedagogical strategies in multi-agent system learning”, Advances in
Artificial Intelligence – IBERAMIA 2012 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7637, pp. 621-630.
Bouaziz, M., Zamai, E. and Duvivier, F. (2013), “Towards Bayesian network methodology for predicting
the equipment health factor of complex semiconductor systems”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 15, pp. 4597-4617.
Brooker, P. (2011), “Experts, Bayesian belief networks, rare events and aviation risk estimates”, Safety
Science, Vol. 49 No. 8, pp. 1142-1155.
Buyukozkan, G., Kayakutlu, G. and Karakadilar, I. (2015), “Assessment of lean manufacturing effect on
business performance using Bayesian belief networks”, Expert Systems with Applications,
Vol. 42 No. 19, pp. 6539-6551.
Byers, J.F. and White, S.V. (2004), Patient Safety: Principles and Practice, Springer Publishing,
New York, NY.
Chesley, G.R. (1978), “Subjective probability elicitation techniques: a performance comparison”, Journal
of Accounting Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 225-241.
Clemen, R.T. (1991), Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis, PWS - Kent,
Boston, MA.
Crosby, M. (1981), “Bayesian statistics in auditing: a comparison of probability elicitation techniques”,
Accounting Review, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 355-367.
Deng, X., Chen, Q. and Jiang, D. (2013), “Application of fishbone chart analysis method in prevention of
steam turbine overspeed accident”, Guangdong Electric Power, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 73-77.
Desai, K., Desai, M. and Ojode, L. (2015), “Supply chain risk management framework: a fishbone
analysis approach”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 34-56.
Dmitriev, G., Vetroy, A. and Al-Fakih, A. (2014), “Prediction of the risk of osteoporotic fractures using
Bayesian belief networks”, Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 24-27.
Donaldson, M.S., Harris-Wehling, J. and Lohr, K. (Eds) (1991), Medicare: New Directions in Quality
Assurance Proceedings, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Duckett, S. and Nijssen-Jodan, C. (2012), “Using quality improvement methods at the system level to Ishikawa
improve hospital emergency department treatment times”, Quality Management in Health Care, diagrams
January/March, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 29-33.
and BBNs
Er, F. and Lezki, S. (2015), “The usage of influence diagrams for decision making in textiles”, Asian
Social Science, Vol. 8 No. 11, pp. 163-169.
Fatisson, J., Oswald, V. and Lalonde, F. (2016), “Influence diagram of physiological and environmental
factors affecting heart rate variability: an extended literature overview”, Heart International, 311
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. e32-e40.
Fenton, N.E., Neil, M. and Caballero, J.G. (2007), “Using ranked nodes to model qualitative judgments in
Bayesian networks”, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 10,
pp. 1420-1432.
Gartlehner, G., Schultes, M., Titscher, V., Morgan, L., Bobashev, G., Williams, P. and West, S. (2017),
“User testing of an adaptation of fishbone diagrams to depict results of systematic reviews”,
BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 17 No. 169, pp. 1-9.
Garvey, M.D., Carnovale, S. and Yeniyurt, S. (2015), “An analytical framework for supply network risk
propagation: a Bayesian network approach”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 243
No. 2, pp. 618-627.
Gitlow, H., Oppenheim, A., Oppenheim, R. and Levine, D. (2015), Quality Management, 4th ed., Hercher
Publishing, Naperville, IL.
Hekmatpanah, M. (2011), “The application of cause and effect diagram in Sepahan oil company”, World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 78, pp. 537-541.
Higgins, H.M., Huxley, J.N., Wapenaar, W. and Green, M.J. (2014), “Quantifying veterinarians’ beliefs on
disease control and exploring the effect of new evidence: a Bayesian approach”, Journal of Dairy
Science, Vol. 97 No. 6, pp. 3394-3408.
Ishikawa, K. (1985), What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way, Prentice Hall Direct,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ishikawa, K. (1991), Guide to Quality Control, Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.
Jaspersen, J. and Montibeller, G. ( July 2015), “Probability elicitation under severe time pressure: a risk-
based method”, Risk Analysis: An International Journal, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1317-1335.
Jayswal, A., Li, X., Zanwar, A., Lou, H.H. and Huang, Y. (2011), “A sustainability root cause analysis
methodology and its application”, Computers & Chemical Engineering, Vol. 35 No. 12, pp. 2786-2798.
Jih, H.J. and Huang, T.Y. (2011), “e-Teaching empowered by knowledge visualization: ‘G. O. Easy’
courseware for instructional message designers”, 2011 International Conference on Electrical
and Control Engineering, Vol. 65, IEEE, Yichang, pp. 6560-6564.
Kaki, A., Salol, A. and Talluri, S. (2015), “Disruptions in supply networks: a probabilistic risk
assessment approach”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 273-287.
Kazemi, R., Mosleh, A. and Dierks, M. (2017), “A hybrid methodology for modeling risk of adverse
events in complex health-care settings”, Risk Analysis: An International Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 421-440.
Kekolahti, P. and Karikoski, J. (2013), “Analysis of mobile service usage behavior with Bayesian belief
networks”, Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 325-352.
Kemmerer, B., Mishra, S. and Shenoy, P. (2002), “Bayesian causal maps as decision aids in venture
capital decision making: methods and applications”, Academy of Management Proceedings,
Denver, August.
Lacave, C., Luque, M. and Diez, F.J. (2007), “Explanation of Bayesian networks and influence diagrams
in Elivra”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), Vol. 37
No. 4, pp. 952-965.
Landuyt, D., Broekx, S., D’Hondt, R., Engelen, G., Aertsens, J. and Goethals, P.L.M. (2013), “A review of
Bayesian belief networks in ecosystem service modeling”, Environmental Modeling and
Software, Vol. 46, pp. 1-11.
TQM Li, B., Han, T. and Kang, F. (2013), “Fault diagnosis expert system of semiconductor manufacturing
31,3 equipment using a Bayesian network”, International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 1161-1171.
Liu, H., Zhang, C. and Wan, Y. (2010), “Research on information engineering surveillance risk
evaluation based on probabilistic influence diagram”, 2010 2nd IEEE International Conference
on Information Management and Engineering, April, pp. 362-366.
312 Liu, K.F.-R., Lu, C.-F., Chen, C.-W. and Shen, Y.-S. (2012), “Applying Bayesian belief networks to health
risk assessment”, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 451-465.
Lumina Decision Systems (2018), “What is an influence diagram?”, available at: www.lumina.com/
technology/influence-diagrams/ (accessed October 21, 2018).
Luo, T., Wu, C. and Duan, L. (2018), “Fishbone diagram and risk matrix analysis method and its
application in safety assessment of natural gas spherical tank”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 174 No. 10, pp. 296-304.
Luxhoj, J.T. and Coit, D.W. (2006), Modeling Low Probability/High Consequence Events: An Aviation
Safety Risk Model, IEEE, Newport Beach, CA, pp. 215-221.

McDermott, Y. and Aitken, C. (2017), “Analysis of evidence in international criminal trials using
Bayesian belief networks”, Law, Probability and Risk, Vol. 16 Nos 2-3, pp. 111-129.
Makinde, O.A., Munyai, T. and Ramatsetse, B.I. (2017), “Establihing suitable process methodologies for
optimizing servicing operations in the banking industries”, Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM)
Singapore, pp. 860-864.
Martins, M.R. and Maturana, M.C. (2013), “Application of Bayesian belief networks to the human
reliability analysis of an oil tanker operation focusing on collision accidents”, Reliability
Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 110, pp. 89-109.
Millan, E., Loboda, T. and Perez-de-La-Cruz, J.L. (2010), “Bayesian networks for student model
engineering”, Computers & Education, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 1663-1683.
Mkrtchyan, L., Podofillini, L. and Dang, V.N. (2016), “Methods for building conditional probability
tables of Bayesian belief networks from limited judgement: an evaluation for human reliability
application”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 151, pp. 93-112.
Pagano, A., Pluchinotta, I., Giordano, R., Petrangeli, A., Fratino, U. and Vurro, M. (2018), “Dealing with
uncertainty in decision-making for drinking water supply systems exposed to extreme events”,
Water Resources Management, Vol. 6 Nos 2131-2145, p. 32.
Pai, R.R., Kallepalli, V.R., Caudill, R.J. and Zhou, M. (2003), “Methods toward supply chain risk analysis”,
IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 5, Washington, DC,
pp. 4560-4565.
Phan, T.D., Smart, J.C.R., Capon, S.J., Hadwen, W.L. and Sahin, O. (2016), “Applications of Bayesian
belief networks in water resource management: a systematic review”, Environmental Modeling
and Software, Vol. 85, pp. 98-111.
Predd, J., Osherson, D. and Kulkarni, S. (2008), “Aggregating probabilistic forecasts from incoherent
and abstaining experts”, Decision Analysis, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 177-189.
Qazi, A., Quigley, J., Dickson, A. and Ekici, S.O. (2017), “Exploring dependency based probabilistic
supply chain risk measures for prioritising interdependent risks and strategies”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 259 No. 1, pp. 189-204.
Quintana, R. (2012), “A case study of Bayesian belief networks in industrial work process design based
on utility expectation and operational performance”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 6 No. 7, pp. 765-777.
Rahman, H., Wang, C. and Jackson, C. (2010), “CTM model using Ishikawa diagram for quality
management in design-and-build projects”, Scientific Research and Essays, Vol. 6 No. 25,
pp. 5442-5456.
Reid, P. (2014), “Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies”, Education and Ishikawa
Information Technologies, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 383-407. diagrams
Roed, W., Mosleh, A., Vinnem, J.E. and Aven, T. (2009), “On the use of the hybrid causal logic method in and BBNs
offshore risk analysis”, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 445-455.
Sedki, K., Polet, P. and Vanderhaegen, F. (2013), “Using the BCD model for risk analysis: an influence
diagram based approach”, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 26 No. 9,
pp. 2172-2183. 313
Sherchan, W., Nepal, S. and Paris, C. (2013), “A survey of trust in social networks”, ACM Computing
Surveys, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 47:1-47:33.
Shinde, D.D., Ahirrao, S. and Prasad, R. (2018), “Fishbone diagram: application to identify the root
causes of student–staff problems in technical education”, Wireless Personal Communications,
Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 653-664.
Shipworth, D. (2006), “Qualitative modelling of sustainable energy scenarios: an extension of the Bon
qualitative input-output model”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24, pp. 695-703.
Small, M. (2008), “Methods for assessing uncertainty in fundamental assumptions and associated models
for cancer risk assessment”, Risk Analysis: An International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1289-1307.
Steele, S., Bilchik., A., Eberhardt, J., Kalina, P., Nissan, A., Johnson, E., Avital, I. and Stojadinovic, A.
(2012), “Using machine-learned Bayesian belief networks to predict perioperative risk of
clostridium difficile infection following colon surgery”, Journal of Medical Internet Research,
Vol. 14 No. 5.
Stiber, N.A., Small, M.S. and Pantazidou, M. (2004), “Site-specific updating and aggregation of Bayesian
belief network models for multiple experts”, Risk Analysis: An International Journal, Vol. 24
No. 6, pp. 1529-1538.
Su, X., Mahadevan, S., Xu, P. and Deng, Y. (2015), “Dependence assessment in human reliability
analysis using evidence theory and AHP”, Risk Analysis: An International Journal, Vol. 35 No. 7,
pp. 1296-1316.
Terek, M. (2005), “Decision trees and influence diagrams in decision analysis”, Journal of the Applied
Mathematics, Statistics and Informatics, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 121-135.
Tseng, C. (2006), “Influence diagram for investment portfolio selection”, Computational Economics:
A Perspective from Computational Intelligence (IGI Global), pp. 62-78.
Witteman, C. and Renooij, S. (2003), “Evaluation of a verbal-numerical probability scale”, International
Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 117-131.
Wong, K.C. (2011), “Using an Ishikawa diagram as a tool to assist memory and retrieval of relevant
medical cases from the medical literature”, Journal of Medical Case Reports, Vol. 5 No. 120, pp. 1-3.
Wright, W. (1988), “Empirical comparison of subjective probability elicitation methods”, Contemporary
Accounting Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 47-57.
Xiaofeng, Z., Hong, L. and Shuwei, X. (2012), “Evaluation of electronic products OEM industry supply
chain risk based on fuzzy influence diagram”, 2012 First National Conference for Engineering
Sciences, Baghdad, November, pp. 2498-2501.
Zhang, J., Teixeira, A., Guedes Soraes, C., Yan, X. and Liu, K. (2016), “Maritime transportation risk
assessment of Tianjin port with Bayesian belief networks”, Risk Analysis: An International
Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1171-1187.
Zhang, Z., Demsar, U., Wang, S. and Virrantaus, K. (2018), “A spatial fuzzy influence diagram for
modelling spatial objects’ dependence: a case study on tree-related electric outages”,
International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 349-366.
Zheng, H., Deng, Y. and Hu, Y. (2017), “Fuzzy evidential influence diagram and its evaluation
algorithm”, Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 131 No. 1, pp. 28-45.
Zhi, Z. and Xue-Jin, F. (2010), “Application study on fuzzy influence diagram in highway tunnel
construction safety risk assessment”, 2010 International Conference on Management Science &
Engineering 17th Annual Conference Proceedings, Melbourne, November, pp. 272-279.
31,3
314
TQM
Appendix
diagrams
315
and BBNs
Ishikawa
31,3
316
TQM
diagrams
317
and BBNs
Ishikawa
TQM
31,3
318
About the authors

Mark Rodgers is Assistant Professor in the Supply Chain Management Department, Rutgers Business
School. His research interests include power grid expansion planning, simulation-based optimization,
supply chain disruption and risk management. He received the PhD Degree in Industrial and Systems
Engineering from Rutgers University, MS Degrees in Statistics and Industrial and Systems Engineering
from Rutgers University, MEng Degree in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Practices from Stevens
Institute of Technology, and the BS Degree in Ceramics and Materials Science Engineering from Rutgers
University. Mark has held various analytics roles in the telecommunications, pharmaceutical,
transportation, and management consulting industries prior to his academic appointment. Mark Rodgers
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: mrodgers@business.rutgers.edu
Dr Rosa Oppenheim is Professor of Supply Chain Management and Vice Chair of the Department of
Supply Chain Management. She was previously Executive Vice Dean and Acting Dean at Rutgers
Business School, and Interim Chair of the Department of Supply Chain Management. She received her
PhD Degree in Operations Research, Master of Science degree in Operations Research and Bachelor of
Science degree in Chemical Engineering from Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn (now NYU Tandon
School of Engineering); she also holds Master of Arts degrees in English and in Liberal Studies, both
from Rutgers University. Her research interests are in statistical process control, total quality
management and six sigma management. She is Author or Co-Author of many articles and many texts
including, most recently, Managing Supply Chain Operations and Quality Management, and has
conducted training programs for major corporations. She is the recipient of numerous awards for
excellence in teaching and was recently named Rutgers Business School Distinguished Service Professor.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Articulo 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Articulo 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The TQM Journal

Ishikawa diagrams and Bayesian belief networks for continuous improvement

Downloaded on: 26 April 2019, At: 15:52 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

relationships. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

2.1 Cause-and-effect diagrams

Not developing a flexible customer Unequal distribution of

296 complaint resolution system workload

long queues at banks

P ðLisa lateÞ ¼ P ðLisa latejtraffic accidentÞ P ðtraffic accidentÞ

þP ðLisa latejno traffic accidentÞ P ðno traffic accidentÞ

¼ ð0:8Þ ð0:1Þ þ ð0:1Þ ð0:9Þ ¼ 0:17:

ROOT, OR Traffic Accident

CHILD NODE CHILD NODE

Conditional Traffic Conditional Traffic

be used to quantify risks and predict the likelihood of future events.

for knowledge acquisition, in order to diagnose possible root causes, probabilities

2.3 Influence diagrams

decision maker aims to either minimize or maximize; and

Visual Representation Node Name

Event A directly influences the The outcome of Event E is

Forecast Outcomes Hurricane Outcomes

investigation is designated as an outcome node, or node O1.

Collaborate w/SMEs Bayesian Belief

Certain (Almost) 85 100

Conditional Probability Table (CPT) Conditional Probability Table (CPT)

S1 Absent Present Absent Present S1 Absent Present Absent Present

Figure 10. Absent 0.4505 Absent 0.2000

Safety Risk Model, IEEE, Newport Beach, CA, pp. 215-221.

About the authors

You might also like