top of page

A formal approach, which incorporates Statistical Process Control, is needed for environmental root cause analysis.  JD Solomon Inc.'s FAST is one environmental root cause analysis approach.
A formal approach, which incorporates Statistical Process Control, is needed for environmental root cause analysis.

We often jump to the wrong conclusions when non-compliance occurs. Non-compliance occurs when the standards and regulations designed to protect public health and the environment are unmet. Obviously, we must reduce immediate risks. However, these measures often address the symptoms and not the root causes. This leads to further delays or doubling down on the wrong things as we move through mitigation that misses the mark. Using statistical process control in environmental root cause analysis is one way to make sure you’re getting it right!

 

A Classic Example

A large manufacturing plant had problems with elevated wastewater parameters that exceeded regulatory levels. After much investigation and a formal root cause analysis, several mitigation strategies were implemented to address the primary causes of failure.

 

The issue came not from our analysis but from the corporate level, which insisted that the mitigation be formalized in a written document with state regulators. The system changes to re-establish compliance were not tested adequately themselves, resulting in more failing tests and intense finger-pointing. In the end, changes in monitoring, additives, and supervisory control just needed time to get fine-tuned.

 

Making sure statistical process control is established before finalizing mitigation avoids a second crisis during implementation.

 

Overview of SPC

Statistical Process Control (SPC) is a powerful tool for monitoring and controlling system processes. Its main goal is to verify that processes produce conforming products with minimal variation. While SPC is commonly associated with manufacturing, its principles and techniques can equally apply to environmental root cause analysis.

 

What is SPC?

SPC involves using statistical methods to monitor and control a process. By collecting and analyzing data from the process, organizations can identify variations that may indicate problems. SPC helps distinguish between common cause variation (inherent to the process) and special cause variation (arising from specific, identifiable sources). This differentiation is crucial for effective problem-solving and process improvement.

 

The Seven Rules of SPC

SPC is governed by several rules that guide its implementation. These rules help identify non-random patterns that may indicate underlying issues in the process.


Rule 1: Points Beyond Control Limits

Any data point outside the control limits indicates a significant shift in the process.

 

Rule 2: A Run of Seven Points on One Side of the Mean

Seven consecutive points on one side of the mean suggest a non-random pattern.

 

Rule 3: A Trend of Seven Points Continuously Increasing or Decreasing

Seven points continuously increasing or decreasing indicates a systematic change in the process.

 

Rule 4: Two Out of Three Points in the Outer Third

Two out of three consecutive points in the outer third of the control chart signal a potential process shift.

 

Rule 5: Four Out of Five Points in the Outer Two-Thirds

Four out of five consecutive points in the outer two-thirds of the chart also indicate a process shift.

 

Rule 6: Fifteen Points in the Inner Third

Fifteen consecutive points in the inner third suggest reduced variability.

 

Rule 7: Eight Points with No Points in the Inner Third

Indicates a pattern that deviates from randomness.

 

Applying SPC in Environmental Root Cause Analysis

Identifying Environmental Issues

Environmental root cause analysis involves identifying the underlying causes of environmental problems. Organizations collect data on various environmental parameters such as air quality, water quality, emissions, and waste generation. Control charts, a fundamental tool in SPC, can be used to monitor these parameters over time. Any deviations from the norm, as highlighted by the seven rules, can indicate potential environmental issues.

 

Analyzing Data for Root Causes

Once potential issues are identified, the next step is to analyze the data to determine the root causes. This involves looking for patterns and correlations in the data. For instance, a sudden increase in emissions might correlate with a change in raw materials or a new production process. These correlations help organizations pinpoint the specific causes of environmental problems.

 

Developing Mitigation Strategies

Mitigation strategies should aim to eliminate or reduce the root causes. For example, suppose a specific process is found to be a cause of increased emissions. In that case, the organization might consider optimizing the process, changing the raw materials, or installing pollution control equipment. In other cases, monitoring or feedback loops must be shorter to achieve higher control.

 

Tracking Mitigation Performance

SPC is also used to track the performance of mitigation strategies. In fact, this may be its most valuable application in environmental issues. By continuously monitoring the relevant environmental parameters using control charts, organizations can assess the effectiveness of their mitigation efforts. Any improvements or regressions can be quickly identified, allowing for timely strategy adjustments.

 

Continuous Improvement

Environmental root cause analysis is an ongoing process. As new data is collected, it should be continually analyzed using SPC methods to ensure the processes remain controlled and compliant with environmental regulations. This continuous improvement cycle maintains sustainable practices and minimizes environmental impact.

 

Using SPC in Environmental Root Cause Analysis

Statistical Process Control (SPC) is a valuable tool in environmental root cause analysis. By using SPC techniques, organizations can effectively identify, analyze, and address environmental issues. The seven rules of SPC provide a structured approach to monitoring and controlling processes, ensuring that any deviations are correctly identified and rectified. Continuous monitoring and improvement are essential for maintaining environmental sustainability and regulatory compliance.


Jeff Lineberger believes the best path to long-term planning and effective communication is interest-based negotiation.
Jeff Lineberger believes the best path to long-term planning and effective communication is interest-based negotiation.

Interest-based negotiation is a collaborative approach to resolving conflicts and making decisions, particularly valuable in long-term planning processes. This method focuses on understanding and addressing the underlying interests of all parties involved rather than merely negotiating positions. By emphasizing mutual gains and fostering cooperation, interest-based negotiation can lead to more sustainable and satisfactory outcomes.

 

These are three major aspects of interest-based negotiation.


1. Understanding Interests, Not Positions

In interest-based negotiation, the primary goal is to uncover and address the true interests of the parties involved. Interests are the underlying reasons, needs, and concerns that drive people's positions. For example, in a city planning process, one group may advocate for more parks (position) because they value green space for recreation and environmental benefits (interests). By focusing on these interests, negotiators can explore various solutions that satisfy the core needs of all parties, leading to more creative and acceptable outcomes.


It has been my experience that most of us are born positional bargainers, so the concept of peeling back those positions to find the real driving interest does not come naturally. In very important negotiations, it can even be helpful to invest in training the party representatives (including your own) to recognize the difference, understand how to write a clear statement of their interests and how to communicate their interests to the rest of the group.


We, in fact, used this approach to train many of the 160 involved stakeholders and then have them write and share their interest statements at the beginning of a three-year effort to negotiate a binding relicensing agreement for the Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project. The stakeholder teams then focused on those written interest statements (over 2500 individual interests) and together, we crafted options to address those interests in a meaningful way. Without taking the time to truly understand interests and examine our own on the front end, I am confident most stakeholders would have been lost in a swirl of mutually exclusive positions from the outset.


It's also important to spend adequate time understanding interests BEFORE trotting out options to resolve the differences. First, you need to define the problem (i.e., the various, sometimes competing interests the team is trying to address), THEN move ahead to solution space.

 

2. Generating Options for Mutual Gain

Interest-based negotiation encourages the generation of multiple options before deciding on a solution. This brainstorming phase is crucial for finding innovative solutions that can meet the interests of all parties. In long-term planning, this might involve considering various development plans, funding sources, and timelines that balance economic growth with community well-being.


While it's most helpful to have an experienced, unaffiliated, third-party facilitator leading the entire process, it can be critical at this stage. It's next to impossible for one of the stakeholders to be a truly unbiased process leader and this stage of the negotiation really requires the participants to let their guard down long enough to understand the pros and cons of the various proposed solutions. Someone, typically the convening authority (e.g., the government entity responsible for the planning process), would need to contract for the facilitator's services; however, the facilitator should be focused on process success, not trying to ensure a particular participant "wins." For our hydro relicensing processes, we have employed third-party facilitators and have taken great care to ensure we don't disclose our own must-haves to the facilitator. Process integrity demands this kind of separation.


It can also be very helpful to lay down some ground rules around the discussion of solutions. In hydro relicensing processes, we have called these proposed solutions trial balloons and included the understanding they can be withdrawn, in whole or in part, for any reason and at any time prior to signing a final, binding agreement. This technique removes the anxiety of implied commitments that could otherwise act as a major deterrent for creative thinking and deprive the group of elegant solutions.

 

3. Building Relationships and Trust

A key aspect of interest-based negotiation is building and maintaining positive relationships. Trust and effective communication are essential for uncovering true interests and working collaboratively. In long-term planning, stakeholders such as government agencies, developers, and community groups need to work together over extended periods. Establishing trust helps ensure that agreements are upheld and that parties remain committed to the shared goals.


It's also important to acknowledge trust must be earned through action. Power does not equal implied trust. In fact, the party with the most power at the table (e.g., the convening authority) is often not trusted from the beginning, regardless of their own good-faith intentions. While both words and actions can be critical to success, remaining true to your commitments, however difficult they may be, can build the kind of long-lasting trust that is the foundation for long-term success.

 

Two Other Types of Negotiation

Distributive negotiation is typically seen in scenarios where resources are limited and each party aims to maximize their share. This zero-sum approach often results in one party's gain being another party's loss. For example, in a budget allocation meeting, departments might fight for a larger share of a fixed budget, leading to a competitive and adversarial atmosphere. This approach can be detrimental in long-term planning, where ongoing cooperation and future relationships are crucial. If the relationship truly matters, be very careful about using processes that create winners and losers. Nobody wants to lose and probably won't stick around after their first big loss.

 

Integrative negotiation shares similarities with interest-based negotiation in that it seeks win-win solutions. However, integrative negotiation often focuses more on combining resources and finding complementary benefits. For example, two companies might form a strategic alliance where one provides technological expertise while the other offers market access, benefiting both. While integrative negotiation is collaborative, it may not always delve deeply into the underlying interests of each party as thoroughly as interest-based negotiation does. To be most effective, integrative negotiation also benefits from some amount of equity in terms of what can be given by each party. A solution where one party is really the one bringing everything to the table may have a short half-life that may not survive the natural change out of party representatives.

 

Conclusions on Interest-Based Negotiation

Interest-based negotiation is particularly effective in long-term planning processes due to its focus on understanding interests, generating mutually beneficial options, and building trust. Addressing the root causes of conflicts and focusing on collaboration can lead to more durable and satisfactory outcomes compared to distributive negotiation. While similar to integrative negotiation in its pursuit of win-win solutions, interest-based negotiation distinguishes itself by deeply exploring the underlying interests of all parties, ensuring that solutions are not only creative but also genuinely aligned with the needs and values of those involved. This approach fosters a cooperative atmosphere that is essential for the sustained success of long-term projects.

 

The Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project relicensing process mentioned earlier resulted in a binding Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement (CRA), signed in 2006 by 70 parties, including 27 local government entities. Now in its 18th year of implementation, the CRA has endured the change out of many of its party representatives, guided tens of millions of dollars worth of investment, significantly reshaped the operation of an 11-lake hydropower development on a river spanning two states, and spawned the highly effective Catawba-Wateree Drought Management Advisory Group and the Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group. The CRA even helped settle a US Supreme Court case.

 

Without the interest-based negotiation the stakeholders committed to in 2003, I really believe we would still not have a New License (which was issued in 2015) and perhaps none of the above benefits would have come to fruition. So please don't think these long-range planning processes don't matter----they do and they really, really can change how we treat each other and how well or not we can rise to future challenges. As Helen Keller said, "Alone, we can do so little; together, we can do so much."

 

Let's go "all-in" to get together and negotiate in good faith via interest-based processes. We might even have a shot at restoring perhaps the greatest tool for effective communication and living well with each other----being able once again to disagree without being disagreeable. Now, wouldn't that be something?



Jeff Lineberger, PE has been with Duke Energy for 32 years and is currently Director of Water Strategy & Hydro Licensing, providing leadership for licensing and compliance at 28 hydropower stations in the Carolinas and Midwest, and drought response coordination & long range water supply planning for 39 reservoirs in the Carolinas. Jeff's team also leads public recreation area planning and management of 132 public recreation areas around the Carolinas' reservoirs.


Jeff has led negotiations settling several hydropower relicensing efforts including a 70-party agreement for the Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project which fostered the settlement of a US Supreme Court case (SC v. NC, No. 138, Original), a 17-party relicensing agreement for the Keowee-Toxaway Hydro Project and a new operating agreement coordinating the operation of the Keowee-Toxaway and Bad Creek hydro projects with three hydro projects located downstream in the Savannah River Basin which are operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Jeff is a two-time winner of the James B. Duke Award for these hydro relicensing efforts, including being one of the inaugural winners in 2007.


Since its incorporation in 2007, Jeff has been a director of the Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group, a 501c (3) non-profit composed of Duke Energy and 18 public water utilities sharing a common water supply. He is also on the South Carolina Water Planning Process Advisory Committee and is Duke Energy's primary representative to the National Hydropower Association.


June 2024 Updates (picture provided by Buddy Richardson). JD Solomon Inc. provides practical solutions.
June 2024 Updates (picture provided by Buddy Richardson). JD Solomon Inc. provides practical solutions.

Register today for the June 27 free webinar on Developing Better Business Presentations!

 

Upcoming Free Webinar

June 27, 2024 – Register today!

 

Frustrated? A New Way to Develop Business Presentations

 

Business presentations are critical in conveying strategic visions, securing stakeholder buy-in, and driving decision-making. Improving the presentation development process increases productivity, cost savings, effective communication, and work-life balance.

 

This session will provide a new approach to developing business presentations more efficiently and effectively. It is intended for technical professionals and their work that involves analysis, statistics, modeling, complexity, and uncertainty.

 

The methodology focuses on effective communication practices, including working with audiences with language, visual, and hearing challenges. Tips will be provided on how to work more effectively with presentation development in multi-layered, bureaucratic environments.

 

Are you ready to regain some of your productive time? Are you ready for a better work-life balance? Are you ready to be recognized more for the good work you do?

 

About the Presenter

JD Solomon is the presenter.

 

Register now!

 

 

Hot Topics

Our insights are inspired by the interesting projects and people we encounter.

 

Facilitation

 

Asset Management

 

Featured Project

The Pee Dee River Basin Plan enters its final sixth months. Recent activities include prioritizing water supply and demand strategies, drafting report chapters, and completing the USGS groundwater model. Major plan development activities will be completed over the summer and the plan will move to the public comments phase this fall.

 

The 24 appointed RBC members are from the agriculture, water utility, power utility, industrial, recreation, and environmental stakeholder groups. The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources is the lead agency. Brown and Caldwell (BC) and JD Solomon Inc. are teamed to facilitate and draft the plan.

 

Environmental Root Cause Analysis

JD Solomon Inc. provides root cause analysis for physical, business, and environmental failures and near misses. Our proven FAST approach—Frame, Analyze, Solve, and Transmit—enables organizations to find workable solutions to their most difficult problems. It allows organization leaders to find the right solutions quicker and in a format that is understandable for decision makers and implementation teams.

 

JD Solomon Inc. has developed a niche practice in environmental root cause analysis. Environmental failures are often more related to biological and chemical interactions, whereas physical interactions heavily influence equipment and business process failures. Like their occurrences, which take months, years, or decades to realize, environmental solutions often require longer periods to validate.

 

 

 

Contact us for more information about our solutions for environmental root cause analysis.

 

Updates Moving to Bi-Monthly

For the rest of 2024, our updates will move to July-August, September-October, and November-December. This approach worked well when we tried it last summer. Look for monthly communication in between the Updates about special events, upcoming presentations, or a hot topic that may interest you!




JD Solomon Inc. provides solutions for program development, asset management, and facilitation at the nexus of facilities, infrastructure, and the environment. Subscribe for monthly updates related to our firm.

Experts
bottom of page