2001 Root Cause Analysis Survey Results

Nut

Pgina 1 de 9

Plant Maintenance Resource Center

2001 Root Cause Analysis Survey Results

Home

Manage assets for greater profit - Datastream

Publications
Journals

Go

QuickView

Search

Bookstore
Articles
Standards
Training
Materials

2001 "Root Cause Analysis" Survey

Results

What's New
Site Map

Plant Maintenance Resource Center

Site Search
About

Overview

Contact

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:
l

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

file://C:\Confiabilidad\Anlisis de Fallos\Ejemplos traducidos\2001 Root Cause Analysis ... 19/08/2005

2001 Root Cause Analysis Survey Results

l
l

Pgina 2 de 9

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

3%

India

3%

Mexico

2%

Belgium

1%

South Africa

1%

28

19%

Other

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

6%

Oil and Gas-Oil and gas extraction

5%

Services-Transport

5%

Services-Research and Development

5%

Manufacturing-Wood and paper products

4%

Manufacturing-Metal products

4%

Services-Contract Maintenance/Repairs

3%

file://C:\Confiabilidad\Anlisis de Fallos\Ejemplos traducidos\2001 Root Cause Analysis ... 19/08/2005

2001 Root Cause Analysis Survey Results

Pgina 3 de 9

Manufacturing-Machinery and equipment

3%

Mining-Metal ore

3%

Services - Other

3%

Manufacturing-Food, beverages, tobacco

2%

Services-Business Services/Consulting

2%

24

16%

Other

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

5%

Process/Industrial Engineer

5%

Maintenance Crafts/Tradesperson

3%

Maintenance Foreman/Supervisor

3%

Consulting Engineer

3%

Management Consultant

3%

Training professional

3%

Product Support Professional

2%

CEO/Managing Director

2%

Teacher/Academic

2%

30

21%

Other
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)

2.7%

18

12.3%

No response

Detailed Results
file://C:\Confiabilidad\Anlisis de Fallos\Ejemplos traducidos\2001 Root Cause Analysis ... 19/08/2005

2001 Root Cause Analysis Survey Results

Pgina 4 de 9

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 Safety

Operating
Environmental Cost

Maintenance

file://C:\Confiabilidad\Anlisis de Fallos\Ejemplos traducidos\2001 Root Cause Analysis ... 19/08/2005

2001 Root Cause Analysis Survey Results

Loss

Pgina 5 de 9

Incident Incident

increase

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?
Operating
Production Safety
Environmental
Maintenance
Cost
Loss
Incident Incident
Cost Increase
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
N/A
Know

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%

file://C:\Confiabilidad\Anlisis de Fallos\Ejemplos traducidos\2001 Root Cause Analysis ... 19/08/2005

2001 Root Cause Analysis Survey Results

Pgina 6 de 9

Production
Foremen/Supervisors/Coordinators
Production Operators
Safety Officers
Environmental Officers

13%

41%

34%

2%

1% 9%

9%

34%

40%

6%

0% 12%

16%

45%

30%

6%

1% 1%

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%

Those that used external consultants were slightly more likely to report that their Root
Cause analysis process was more effective
Overall, how would you rate the effectiveness of your Root
Cause Analysis process?
Use
Consultants? Excellent Very
Good Satisfactory Poor Don't
N/A
Good
Know
Yes

15%

48%

19%

15%

2%

2%

0%

file://C:\Confiabilidad\Anlisis de Fallos\Ejemplos traducidos\2001 Root Cause Analysis ... 19/08/2005

2001 Root Cause Analysis Survey Results

No

18%

Pgina 7 de 9

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%

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%

ProAct

3%

Reason

2%

TapRooT

51

59%

Inhouse System

12

14%

Other Approach

5%

Don't Know

5%

Don't Know

8%

Most of those that used commercially available approaches considered these

file://C:\Confiabilidad\Anlisis de Fallos\Ejemplos traducidos\2001 Root Cause Analysis ... 19/08/2005

2001 Root Cause Analysis Survey Results

Pgina 8 de 9

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 selfdeveloped 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

file://C:\Confiabilidad\Anlisis de Fallos\Ejemplos traducidos\2001 Root Cause Analysis ... 19/08/2005

2001 Root Cause Analysis Survey Results

Pgina 9 de 9

Apollo

25%

ProAct

0%

Reason

0%

10

19%

Inhouse System

38%

Other Approach

25%

TapRooT

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).
Plant Maintenance Resource Center Home Maintenance Articles

file://C:\Confiabilidad\Anlisis de Fallos\Ejemplos traducidos\2001 Root Cause Analysis ... 19/08/2005