|
2001 "Root Cause Analysis" Survey Results
Ó
Plant Maintenance Resource Center
Overview
This survey of use of Root Cause Analysis techniques by Maintenance professionals was conducted on the Plant Maintenance Resource Center web site in late 2000.
Summary of Key Findings
Voluntary (and confidential) responses were sought to the survey, and 146 valid responses were received from a wide range of individuals working across a variety of industries.
The key findings are:
- 59% of respondents indicated that they used some form of Root Cause Analysis process
- Of those who indicated that they used some form of Root Cause Analysis process, 79% indicated that they used formal, structured processes
- Those using formal processes considered that the overall effectiveness of their approach was significantly better than did those people using informal processes.
- Supervisory and technical staff are more likely to be involved in Root Cause analysis than shop floor personnel.
- The greatest benefits appear to be in the area of improved Equipment Availability and Reliability, but users of Root Cause Analysis processes reported benefits across a wide range of parameters.
- 60% of respondents indicated that they used external consultants to assist with their Root Cause Analysis implementation, and those that used external consultants were slightly more likely to report that their Root Cause analysis process was more effective
- 55% of respondents indicated that they used software to assist with their Root Cause Analysis process, and those that used software were significantly more likely to report that their Root Cause analysis process was more effective
- 59% of respondents used the TapRooT approach to Root Cause analysis
- Most of those that used commercially available approaches considered these approaches to be effective, but those that used other approaches were less satisfied with the effectiveness being achieved.
- Significantly, 25% of all respondents indicated that they were considering implementing a new or revised Root Cause approach.
Respondent Data
Of the 146 valid responses, almost two-thirds were based in the USA, with the remainder spread throughout the world.
| Country |
Responses |
% of Total |
| United States | 91 | 62 |
| Canada | 11 | 8% |
| Australia | 5 | 3% |
| India | 4 | 3% |
| Mexico | 3 | 2% |
| Belgium | 2 | 1% |
| South Africa | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 28 | 19% |
Respondents came from a wide range of industries.
| Industry |
Responses |
% of Total |
| Manufacturing-Petroleum refining, chemicals and associated products | 28 | 19% |
| Utilities-Electricity Generation | 16 | 11% |
| Manufacturing-Other | 11 | 8% |
| Utilities-Gas supply | 9 | 6% |
| Oil and Gas-Oil and gas extraction | 8 | 5% |
| Services-Transport | 8 | 5% |
| Services-Research and Development | 7 | 5% |
| Manufacturing-Wood and paper products | 6 | 4% |
| Manufacturing-Metal products | 6 | 4% |
| Services-Contract Maintenance/Repairs | 5 | 3% |
| Manufacturing-Machinery and equipment | 4 | 3% |
| Mining-Metal ore | 4 | 3% |
| Services - Other | 4 | 3% |
| Manufacturing-Food, beverages, tobacco | 3 | 2% |
| Services-Business Services/Consulting | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 24 | 16% |
Safety Professionals, Maintenance line management, and Engineering positions were well represented in the survey.
| Position |
Responses |
% of Total |
| Safety Professional |
28 |
19% |
| Maintenance Manager/Superintendent |
19 |
13% |
| Reliability Engineer |
12 |
8% |
| Plant/Maintenance Engineer |
10 |
7% |
| Maintenance Planner |
8 |
5% |
| Process/Industrial Engineer |
7 |
5% |
| Maintenance Crafts/Tradesperson |
5 |
3% |
| Maintenance Foreman/Supervisor |
5 |
3% |
| Consulting Engineer |
5 |
3% |
| Management Consultant |
4 |
3% |
| Training professional |
4 |
3% |
| Product Support Professional |
3 |
2% |
| CEO/Managing Director |
3 |
2% |
| Teacher/Academic |
3 |
2% |
| Other |
30 |
21% |
Respondents generally came from larger organisations.
| No of Trades/Craftspeople |
Responses |
% of Total |
| Large(more than 100 crafts/tradespeople) | 93 | 63.7% |
| Medium(10 to 100 crafts/tradespeople) | 31 | 21.2% |
| Small(less than 10 crafts/tradespeople) | 4 | 2.7% |
| No response | 18 | 12.3% |
Detailed Results
Root Cause Analysis Use
59% of respondents indicated that they used some form of Root Cause Analysis process
Does your workplace currently use a process for identifying and analysing the root causes of lack of equipment performance?
| Response |
Number |
% of Total |
| Yes |
86 |
59% |
| No |
60 |
41% |
Formal vs Informal Processes
Of those who indicated that they used some form of Root Cause Analysis process, 79% indicated that they used formal, structured processes - the remainder used informal processes.
Which phrase describes your workplace's approach to Root Cause Analysis?
| Response |
Number |
% of Total |
| Formal/Structured |
68 |
79% |
| Informal/Unstructured |
18 |
21% |
Those using formal processes considered that the overall effectiveness of their approach was significantly better than did those people using informal processes.
| Approach to Root Cause Analysis |
Overall, how would you rate the effectiveness of your Root Cause Analysis process? |
| Excellent |
Very Good |
Good |
Satisfactory |
Poor |
Don't Know |
N/A |
| Formal/Structured |
21% |
43% |
22% |
12% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
| Informal/Unstructured |
0% |
28% |
11% |
39% |
17% |
6% |
0% |
When is Root Cause Analysis used?
From the data provided, it would appear that significant, "one-off" events, are investigated slightly more frequently than recurring, frequent events using Root Cause Analysis. However, events that lead to Safety or Environmental consequences are significantly more frequently analysed using Root Cause Analysis processes, than are those events which lead to lost Production, which in turn, are generally more frequently analysed than those events which lead to increased costs.
Which "One-off" events are analysed using Root Cause Analysis processes?
| |
Production Loss |
Safety Incident |
Environmental Incident |
Operating Cost increase |
Maintenance Cost Increase |
| Always |
33% |
64% |
52% |
17% |
14% |
| Often |
35% |
23% |
21% |
21% |
21% |
| Sometimes |
20% |
8% |
13% |
43% |
4% |
| Never |
2% |
3% |
8% |
9% |
13% |
| Don't Know |
3% |
1% |
1% |
7% |
7% |
| N/A |
7% |
0% |
5% |
2% |
2% |
Which recurring events are analysed using Root Cause Analysis processes?
| |
Production Loss |
Safety Incident |
Environmental Incident |
Operating Cost increase |
Maintenance Cost Increase |
| Always |
21% |
50% |
38% |
12% |
14% |
| Often |
35% |
23% |
28% |
28% |
23% |
| Sometimes |
26% |
17% |
14% |
37% |
37% |
| Never |
8% |
5% |
8% |
10% |
14% |
| Don't Know |
1% |
1% |
1% |
6% |
6% |
| N/A |
9% |
3% |
10% |
7% |
6% |
Who participates in the Root Cause Analysis process?
Maintenance personnel, on the whole, tend to be more involved in Root Cause Analysis processes than Production personnel, and supervisory and technical staff are more likely to be involved than shop floor personnel.
Who participates in the Root Cause Analysis process?
| |
Always |
Often |
Sometimes |
Never |
Don't Know |
N/A |
| Reliability/Plant/Maintenance Engineers |
19% |
49% |
26% |
1% |
0% |
6% |
| Maintenance Managers/Superintendents |
15% |
7% |
41% |
1% |
0% |
6% |
| Maintenance Foremen/Supervisors/Coordinators |
22% |
42% |
28% |
1% |
0% |
7% |
| Maintenance Planners/Schedulers |
7% |
26% |
44% |
12% |
2% |
9% |
| Maintenance Trades/Craftspeople |
7% |
26% |
44% |
12% |
2% |
9% |
| Production Managers/Superintendents |
2% |
35% |
47% |
6% |
0% |
10% |
| Production Foremen/Supervisors/Coordinators |
13% |
41% |
34% |
2% |
1% |
9% |
| Production Operators |
9% |
34% |
40% |
6% |
0% |
12% |
| Safety Officers |
16% |
45% |
30% |
6% |
1% |
1% |
| Environmental Officers |
9% |
37% |
38% |
7% |
1% |
7% |
Benefits of Root Cause Analysis
The greatest benefits appear to be in the area of improved Equipment Availability and Reliability, but users of Root Cause Analysis processes reported benefits across a wide range of parameters.
In what areas did you achieve benefits from using Root Cause Analysis?
| |
Significant |
Some |
None |
Don't Know |
N/A |
| Maintenance Costs |
19% |
49% |
8% |
17% |
7% |
| Equipment availability |
26% |
60% |
1% |
7% |
6% |
| Equipment reliability |
33% |
53% |
1% |
8% |
5% |
| Operating Costs |
23% |
49% |
7% |
14% |
7% |
| Safety |
24% |
50% |
6% |
9% |
10% |
| Environmental |
24% |
50% |
6% |
9% |
10% |
Use of Consultants
60% of respondents indicated that they used external consultants to assist with their Root Cause Analysis implementation
Did you use external consultants to assist in establishing your Root Cause Analysis process?
| Response |
Number |
% of Total |
| Yes |
52 |
60% |
| No |
33 |
38% |
| N/A |
1 |
1% |
Those that used external consultants were slightly more likely to report that their Root Cause analysis process was more effective
| Use Consultants? |
Overall, how would you rate the effectiveness of your Root Cause Analysis process? |
| Excellent |
Very Good |
Good |
Satisfactory |
Poor |
Don't Know |
N/A |
| Yes |
15% |
48% |
19% |
15% |
2% |
2% |
0% |
| No |
18% |
27% |
18% |
29% |
0% |
4% |
3% |
Use of Software
55% of respondents indicated that they used software to assist with their Root Cause Analysis process
Do you use specialist Root Cause Analysis software to support your Root Cause Analysis process?
| Response |
Number |
% of Total |
| Yes |
47 |
55% |
| No |
37 |
43% |
| N/A |
2 |
2% |
Those that used specialist Root Cause Analysis software were significantly more likely to report that their Root Cause analysis process was more effective
| Use Software? |
Overall, how would you rate the effectiveness of your Root Cause Analysis process? |
| Excellent |
Very Good |
Good |
Satisfactory |
Poor |
Don't Know |
N/A |
| Yes |
22% |
41% |
27% |
10% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
| No |
5% |
37% |
13% |
29% |
11% |
3% |
3% |
Root Cause Analysis approaches used
59% of respondents used the TapRooT approach to Root Cause analysis
Is your Root Cause Analysis process based on any of the following commercially available Root Cause Analysis processes?
| Response |
Number |
% of Total |
| Apollo |
3 |
3% |
| ProAct |
3 |
3% |
| Reason |
2 |
2% |
| TapRooT |
51 |
59% |
| Inhouse System |
12 |
14% |
| Other Approach |
4 |
5% |
| Don't Know |
4 |
5% |
| Don't Know |
7 |
8% |
Most of those that used commercially available approaches considered these approaches to be effective, but those that used other approaches were less satisfied with the effectiveness being achieved. In interpreting the following table, be aware that the total number of respondents using Apollo, ProAct and Reason was very small.
| Approach Used |
Overall, how would you rate the effectiveness of your Root Cause Analysis process? |
| Excellent |
Very Good |
Good |
Satisfactory |
Poor |
Don't Know |
N/A |
| Apollo |
25% |
50% |
25% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
| ProAct |
0% |
33% |
67% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
| Reason |
0% |
50% |
0% |
50% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
| TapRooT |
23% |
46% |
21% |
10% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
| Inhouse System |
0% |
31% |
8% |
46% |
15% |
0% |
0% |
| Other Approach |
0% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
0% |
0% |
Considering a New/Revised Root Cause approach
Significantly, 25% of all respondents indicated that they were considering implementing a new or revised Root Cause approach. This is made up of 22% of those that are currently using Root Cause approaches, and 30% of those that are not currently using Root Cause approaches. It would appear that, although most respondents reported significant benefits with using their existing Root Cause Analysis approach, they feel that there may be improvements that can still be made.
Is your workplace currently considering implementing a new/revised Root Cause Analysis process?
| Response |
Number |
% of Total |
| Yes |
37 |
25% |
| No |
73 |
50% |
| Don't Know |
14 |
10% |
| N/A |
22 |
15% |
The decision regarding whether to consider alternative approaches appears to be relatively independent of the approach being currently used, although those using self-developed approaches appear to be more likely to be investigating alternatives. In interpreting the following table, be aware that the total number of respondents using Apollo, ProAct and Reason was very small.
Is your workplace currently considering implementing a new/revised Root Cause Analysis process?
| Current approach used |
Number of Responses |
% of Total |
| Apollo |
1 |
25% |
| ProAct |
0 |
0% |
| Reason |
0 |
0% |
| TapRooT |
10 |
19% |
| Inhouse System |
5 |
38% |
| Other Approach |
1 |
25% |
Ó
Plant Maintenance Resource Center 2001
All rights reserved.
If you wish to copy or distribute this article, please email me to ask for permission first!
(Permission will generally be granted, so long as appropriate credit is given to its origin).
Copyright 1996-2009, The Plant Maintenance Resource Center . All Rights Reserved.
Revised: Thursday, 08-Oct-2015 11:54:30 AEDT
Privacy Policy
| 
