top of page

A root cause analysis is a root cause analysis, regardless of whether it is for an environmental system or not.atter where you find a failure.
Environmental root cause analysis creates some special considerations; however, an RCA is an RCA no matter where you find a failure.

Root cause analysis (RCA) is a collective term that describes a wide range of approaches, tools, and techniques used to uncover the causes of problems. The American Society for Quality (ASQ) defines a root cause as a factor that caused a non-conformance and should be permanently eliminated through process improvement.


The international risk standard, ISO 31000, adds clarification that root cause analysis attempts to identify the root or original causes instead of only the immediately obvious symptoms. RCA is most often applied to the evaluation of major loss but may also be used to analyze losses on a more global basis to determine where improvements can be made.


Typical Environmental Situations

Environmental root cause analysis is relevant to a wide variety of situations. A few that I have evaluated include the following:

  • Intermittent dye discharges from an industrial facility into nearby streams

  • Algal blooms in lakes and ponds

  • Fish kills and aquatic plant damage

  • Regulated or emerging contaminates discharged in rivers and waterways

  • Sand blockage of a shallow-draft, coastal inlet

  • Sedimentation accumulation in streams and ponds from construction activities

  • Air quality impacts from commercial and land-clearing operations

  • Numerous regulatory violations related to surface water, groundwater, solid waste, hazardous waste, and air quality where a single source of responsibility is not easily identified


Three Things To Avoid

Equipment and business process failures are usually identified in a short time, whereas environmental failures are not realized for months, years, or decades after the first distress is experienced.


Environmental failures are often more related to biological and chemical interactions, whereas physical interactions heavily influence equipment and business process failures. Once failure begins, there is a steady progression and little self-healing in physical systems. In natural systems, there is a greater opportunity for self-healing. The sum effect is that symptoms are usually noticed earlier in physical systems than in natural systems.


The P-F curve used in mechanical systems has similar applications to natural systems.
The P-F curve used in mechanical systems has similar applications to natural systems. (Source: Aladon)

In reliability engineering, Potential Failure (P-F) is defined as the interval between the point when a potential failure becomes detectable and the point at which it degrades into a functional failure. The P-F curve is conceptually powerful in establishing condition monitoring technologies or predictive tools to detect these potential failures before they occur.


Regardless of how fast a failure occurs or how noticeable it is, a failure analysis is a failure analysis no matter where you find it. Good root cause analysis principles are the same for any type of system.


Three primary mistakes occur with doing environmental root cause analysis.


Too Much “Physics of Failure”

In physical systems, the concept of the physics of failure refers to the use of degradation equations that describe how physical, chemical, mechanical, thermal, or electrical mechanisms evolve over time and eventually induce failure. Underlying the physics of failure are failure mechanisms that essentially describe how something fails (for mechanical systems. corrosion, erosion, fatigue, and overload are the four primary mechanisms of failure).


Failure mechanisms shed light on how things fail but do not provide the causal relationships needed to establish and mitigate the root causes.


In all RCAs, it is easy to dwell too much on studying failure mechanisms. This is especially true when performing environmental RCAs because the environmental sector contains more scientists and researchers than engineers and financial professionals. The applied nature of the latter two types of professionals leads to a “good enough” effect that optimizes resources and time-effectively gets to the end game of reducing future failures.

One common mistake with environmental RCAs is spending too much time studying.


Too Little Structure

Most formally trained RCA professionals are in the manufacturing or healthcare sectors, where the cost of failure is readily noticeable and can be acute. Many seasoned RCA professionals have environmental RCAs in their portfolios, but they are not usually on top of the contact list of scientists and regulators.


Neither formally trained nor having ready access to seasoned RCA professionals, many scientists and regulators use (or develop) their own approaches for doing the failure analysis. The result of not using a proven RCA methodology results in spending too many resources, taking too much time, and, most importantly, not identifying the correct root causes.

One common mistake with environmental RCAs is not usually a proven RCA methodology.



Too Much Focus on a Single Cause

Environmental RCAs are usually driven because of non-compliance with statutes and regulations. Regulators, impacted parties, and their attorneys seek to place blame (and restitution) on a single party.


This leads to erroneous RCAs because, by definition, there are multiple causes of failure when a failure occurs in any system.


The problem is further compounded by environmental failures falling into the domain of regulators and politicians, who naturally seek to assign the blame and move on. The healthcare system is most akin to the environmental sector in this way; however, the healthcare system is more interested in risk mitigation and continual improvement of systems (albeit quietly).


One common mistake with environmental RCAs is not recognizing that there is always more than one root cause.


One Big Solution

The one big solution is to use a formally trained RCA professional with a standardized methodology. The process ultimately will take less time, require fewer resources, and identify the true root causes that lead to better performance and fewer risks.


Moving Forward

The three things that every science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) professional should do is:

  1. Take a course in root cause analysis

  2. Identify an RCA professional you trust (you will need one at some point)

  3. Insist on doing a proper RCA when a failure occurs


An RCA is an RCA no matter where you find the failure.

 

JD Solomon Inc provides program development, asset management, and facilitation at the nexus of facilities, infrastructure, and the environment. Contact us about our FAST (Frame, Analyze, Solve, Transmit) methodology for root cause analysis and our RCA experience in the environmental sector. Visit Communicating with FINESSE for communication approaches for issues involving complexity, uncertainty, and failure.




SCDNR, Clemson University, USGS, and several consultnats including JD Solomon provide support for the Pee Dee RBC.
Clemson's Tom Walker, Facilitator JD Solomon. and SCDNR's Brooke Czwartacki, Andy Wachob, and Scott Harder are the support team for the Pee Dee RBC

The 25-person Pee Dee River Basin Council (RBC) has moved into Phase 2 of its 24-month program. The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources is the lead agency. Brown and Caldwell (BC) and JD Solomon Inc are teamed to provide facilitation and plan development. JD Solomon is the lead facilitator for the effort.


Phase 2 consists of refining and applying three different models of the basin. SCDNR is developing water demand projections and CDM Smith is performing the surface water modeling. Both models are Excel-based. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is providing the groundwater model of the basin using the finite difference model MODFLOW.


The Pee Dee RBC will review and refine the models over the next few months. The outputs will be the basis of strategies, monitoring, and risk management recommendations developed specifically for this basin. Subsequent phases will include prioritizing and negotiating the different strategies among the different interests and developing the report.


In other recent news, the Pee Dee RBC elected long-time basin resident and businessman Buddy Richardson as chair and Waccamaw Riverkeeper Cara Schildtknecht as Vice-Chair.

Visit the Pee Dee River Basin Council website for more information.


 

JD Solomon Inc provides facilitation, asset management, and program development at the nexus of facilities, infrastructure, and the natural environment. Founded by JD Solomon, Communicating with FINESSE is a not-for-profit community of technical professionals committed to being better trusted advisors. Visit the CWF website for guest insights from practitioners on effective ways to communicate with decision makers.



I love data as a reliability engineer. In fact, I consume data like food – and I have a big appetite. The hardest thing to do is to push away from the table, but that is exactly what you need to do to make your asset management program effective.

These are a few reasons that minimizing the focus of your asset management program on information systems is not as controversial as it first sounds.


Asset Management Is Foundationally About Accounting

Organizations have used and managed their assets to deliver value and achieve their goals for hundreds of years. Every organization determines what it considers value to be and chooses how to derive the best total value.


The formal practice of asset management has become more explicit over the past 40 years. Globally, in the 1980s, an oil and gas crisis in the United Kingdom and service failures in the public sector drove an outcry for more accountability. In the 1990s, asset management gained traction through government accounting standards.


Modern asset management is foundationally concerned with accountability and compliance. The trick is that maximizing asset value is primarily the function of engineering, operations, and maintenance. Operationalizing asset management requires avoiding allowing accountability and compliance from dominating the program’s approach.


Tracking Assets Does Not Operationalize Your Program

Jim Oldach, Kathryn Benson, and I asked and answered the simple question, "Asset Management Gone Bad: Are Trackable Assets Crippling Your Maintenance and Reliability Program?” (proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the Society of Maintenance and Reliability Professionals). Key considerations included:

  • How do asset-based approaches and system-based approaches fit together from a practical standpoint?

  • Should preventative maintenance (PM) and predictive maintenance (PdM) programs be performed at the asset or system levels?

  • Should work orders and cost accounting be tracked at the asset level or the functional location (or subsystem) level?

  • Where does Reliability Centered Maintenance and focusing on function rather than individual assets fit in?

The conclusion is that most asset management programs are not operationalized because the primary need to improve lifecycle performance is not being addressed. Reliability and maintenance programs are collapsing under the weight of too much detailed data collection and information management that is not useful.


It is ironic the blank stares I get when I ask the simple question, “what is the value of your individual assets?” One would think asset value is an essential component of an asset management program focused on lifecycle. We spend much time collecting data and maintaining information management systems when those aspects often do not include a critical component – asset value.


Organizational Capacity Continue to be the Greatest Challenge

Organizational capacity is a function of three factors – secure harbor, the CID nexus, and organizational culture. The CID nexus is the interaction of personnel capabilities, information, and decision-making processes. Organizations that push major decisions lower in the ranks need better information and highly capable personnel.


Many organizations keep strategic decision making at higher levels of the organization. The fallacy of organizations that focus energy on powerful information systems is that the data is not consumed because the organization does not operate that way.


The shortage of qualified resources in technical fields has been documented for nearly twenty years. That crisis is now upon us. For example, South Carolina Water Environment Federation (WEA) president Earl Sheppard cites, “we face the reality of losing 50% of our workforce to retirement in the next five years.” In all market sectors, reliability and maintenance experts believe the incoming replacements will not have the skills to make strategic decisions.


Most Organizations Do Not Use the Data

In theory, organizations will consume asset management data for reliability engineering and business case evaluations. In practice, few organizations hire personnel, develop business processes, and focus enough time on the results.


Root cause analysis (RCA) guru Bob Latino has described why organizations have a tough time implementing root cause analysis (https://accendoreliability.com/root-cause-analysis-justification-game/). Defect elimination (DE) expert Michelle Henley shares similar concerns and specifically states that a major challenge is being “overly focused on the numbers” (https://www.accelix.com/defect-elimination-programs-change-the-culture-by-solving-lots-of-little-problems-first/).


Latino and Henley agree that organizational improvement is more about the culture than the numbers. Neither cites not having enough data as the core issue when it comes to applying desirable end-game tools like root cause analysis or defect elimination.


Most asset managers are like Don Quixote in search of the elusive destination of Eldorado. Information systems are intriguing but will not produce asset management nirvana.


Gaily bedight,

A gallant knight,

In sunshine and in shadow,

Had journeyed long,

Singing a song,

In search of Eldorado.


But he grew old—

This knight so bold—

And o’er his heart a shadow—

Fell as he found

No spot of ground

That looked like Eldorado.


And, as his strength

Failed him at length,

He met a pilgrim shadow—

‘Shadow,’ said he,

‘Where can it be—

This land of Eldorado?’


‘Over the Mountains

Of the Moon,

Down the Valley of the Shadow,

Ride, boldly ride,’

The shade replied,—

‘If you seek for Eldorado!’


Eldorado by Edgar Allan Poe


Moving Forward

Information systems will not make your asset management more effective. Focusing on information systems will drain your program's energy, enthusiasm, and resources.


The solutions for an effective asset management program include performing a criticality analysis, developing a 20-year financial forecast of renewal and replacement costs, and first addressing the gaps identified by maintenance and operations staff.

 

JD Solomon Inc provides program development, asset management, and facilitation at the nexus of facilities, infrastructure, and the environment. Contact us if you seek better results from your asset management program.



Experts
bottom of page