A team is two or more people working together to accomplish a common purpose. If two or more people are seeking to work together, successful communication is critical. The CRCA Team Communication Cycle is an effective way to facilitate communication within the team.

Teams are a resource of tremendous potential and tapping the genius, insight and potential in any team is the challenge of team communication. Individuals who make up the team can bring a vast knowledge, understanding, ability, expertise, insight, intuition, access and energy to the team, yet these assets are not immediately obvious or easily accessible. We have an unmined deposit.

While the team contains the untapped resources of great knowledge and energy, it also harbors misperceptions, partial understanding, blind spots, invalid assumptions, irrational responses, prejudice and bias. The key to successful teamwork is to separate the two (untapped resources) (misperceptions) utilizing the former and discarding the latter. Just as the prospector panned for gold and carefully sorted the gold from the mud, a team must select the genius of insight from the mud of misinformation.

The CRCA Team Communication Cycle, a specifically designed communication method, facilitates the team’s gathering of information and the sorting of the valuable from the worthless. It is a very specific method used to facilitate teamwork by managing communication. It utilizes the same probing questions that drive the team process to stimulate each team member to draw on the pool of resources he/she brings to the task in order to utilize the collective resources for the team.

The challenge of an effective team facilitator, like a prospector of old, is to separate what is valuable from what is not. While teams generate a great deal of information, not everything is useful. To collect and sort information, effective teams follow the five sequential steps of the CRCA Team Communication Cycle:

1. Ask a probing question.

2. Provide time to find potential answers.

3. Report all potential answers.

4. Discuss and analyze all potential answers.

5. Agree as a team on the answer.

A Tactical Plan details the implementation of solutions. To complete the problem-solving task, the team must develop and implement a Tactical Plan.

The Tactical Plan Step identifies the resources necessary to implement the solutions, organizes the resources, establishes a timetable and assigns responsibility and accountability.

There are four areas of consideration in the tactical planning for implementing the solution:

1. What are the step-by-step details and actions of implementing the solutions?
Develop a project plan with the details and actions necessary to implement the solution.

2. What are the resources needed to implement the solutions?
Resources include time, people, material, equipment and finances. Include information such as job responsibilities, qualifications for people, working networks and a description of the necessary resources.

3. What are the target dates for implementing each step?
Sequence the details and actions on a time line.

4. Who is responsible and accountable to implement each step?
The team should choose the appropriate people to carry out the project details. Accountability, responsibility and authority should be assigned to enable people to accomplish their goals.

For a more detailed and thorough planning process, it is recommended that the team use Planning Team Strategy, a team strategic planning process listed to the left of this post.

The Solution is the course of action the team chooses to address The Root Causes and solve the problem. It becomes the strategic objective targeted by The Tactical plan.

The Solution step identifies and describes the strategic direction that will solve, resolve or eliminate the problem. Since problem solving requires a change in thinking or process (different from the thinking and process that created the problem) there will, by necessity, be some level of innovation, creativity and risk in any viable course of action.

The outcome of The Solution Step is the creation of a viable way to eliminate The Surface Problem at the root cause.

To create a solution, review The Alarm, The Expectation, The Surface Problem statements, and The Root Cause diagram.

The probing question I often pose to a team to find a solution is: “If you could, without fear or limits, offer any suggestions to address the root causes to this problem, what would be your suggestions? I also like to advise teams: “Never allow fear, flak, or finances to prematurely eliminate a viable option.

Introspection and dialogue by and between team members are the primary sources of solution generating. Interviewing people for ideas can be useful to some extent, but the primary source of creative solutions will come from the team members themselves who have been intensely involved in the work of problem solving. The creative idea or solution usually comes after a period of intense involvement and commitment. Encourage team members to trust and rely on their own creative insights and solutions.

Generate creative ideas by repeating the cycle three times: Ask for ideas, record on a list, ask again and expand the list or solution ideas. Experience with Creative Root Cause Analysis (CRCA) has demonstrated time and time again that the most creative, innovative and viable solutions are generated in the second and third rounds of solution generating. Challenge team members to probe their subconscious. Encourage individuals to avoid self-censoring and express all that comes to mind, even ideas considered silly or impractical. All ideas are to be suggested without critique.

To facilitate repeated cycles of inquiry, the asking of additional probing questions is usually helpful. Challenge the team to generate a list double in size to the initial list of ideas that resulted from the preceding response to the probing question. The greater the number of options generated, the greater the likelihood a viable and innovative solution will be identified.  Accept and record all ideas without critique. Remember, critical judgment applied too soon stifles creativity. You can eliminate weak or poor ideas later, but if you never get an idea on the table because someone held back, it can reduce the results.

Once the team has exhausted all ideas for possible solutions, the task is to reduce the long list to a short list of viable solutions. Team members discuss, clarify, combine, critique, and integrate ideas. Allow the discussion to take a positive approach and develop the best ideas. It is not necessary to eliminate ideas; simply focus on developing viable solutions. The most viable ideas will continue to attract the team’s attention; others will fall by the wayside for lack of interest. At this stage, it is important to anticipate new problems a solution could generate.

Through discussion, the team works to combine, divide, stretch, and mold new ideas. This is the point at which synergy has the greatest benefit. Through discussing several ideas, an entirely new idea may emerge. Continue the discussion and refinement until a short list of three to five viable courses of action remain.

Prioritize the short list. In most cases, the number one priority item will be the selected solution. If not, the team can select a solution or multiple solutions. This solution will become the expectation against which its success or its problems will be measured.

Manage time pressures. Sometimes, it is best to take a break and get away from the problem. At other times, a break would disrupt the thinking flow. Pressure is nearly always the enemy of creative problem solving.

Visualize The Root Causes

The Systemic Categories become the roots on the diagram and the verified causes in each category become the tributary roots. Visualize the root causes by recording all of them on the root cause diagram. This rendering is important for perception, and often generates further insight into the problem. While this may appear to be time consuming, the visualization of the category roots with the contributing factors is a powerful tool to drive The Solution Step of the process.

Once this graphic visualization has been completed, the team should review it for missing information and then record the root cause.

Analyze the Diagram

While looking at the visual chart of the root cause diagram, the team is to discuss each root category. Consider similarities, differences, interrelationships, and cause-effect relationships. Consider the relational dynamic of how one root problem might impact another (systemic). When additional insight results, be sure to record it on the root cause diagram.

Detailed Root Examples

See “Creative Root Cause Analysis” Icon to the left of this post.

Once The Root Causes have been verified, the next task is to systematically organize them. As a team, group The Root Causes together by like themes, patterns, and similarities. When completed, category names should be determined that will represent the main contributing (primary) roots to the problem. There are no predetermined category titles or number of categories in this method. Some root cause diagrams will have two categories; others three; still others, four and five. The categories will become the titles of the systemic roots on the diagram.

Experience with Creative Root Cause Analysis (CRCA) has revealed that more than five root categories are difficult to comprehend or discuss. Teams find it more useful to keep the root system categories to a maximum of five, or to divide the diagram into two or more systems.

Part of the uniqueness and genius of this process is that it does not impose a predetermined form or paradigm on the problem but, rather, it allows the problem to be defined conceptually and visually by the team. Therefore, there is no pat answer on how to create a root cause diagram.

Note: This step is a very important paradigm shift. Unlike analytical, linear problem-solving methods, such as the fish bone diagram and cause/effect diagrams, categories are not predetermined. With these methods, the categories can, in effect, become boundaries to confine and limit problem solving.

Identifying all potential causes before verifying and categorizing verified causes is a powerful technique to aid people and teams to think outside the box. Invariably, when taking this approach, a root cause will be identified that would have been missed in the use of linear methods because it fell outside the scope of traditional categories, such as manpower, machines, management, materials, etc.

In generating a long list of possible causes, it is understood that many of these will not be valid. The next activity after generating this long list is to pair down the list of causes to a “short list” that only contains actual causes.

Once all possible root causes have been identified and listed, it is time for the team to discuss and analyze all potential causes. As a team, begin a logical and reasonable discussion to verify or eliminate suggested causes. This is where the team is to apply data, critical evaluation and judgment.

There are many tools of verification/validation available that may be used based upon the experience of the team and the nature of the problem. The following tools have been successfully used by teams in verifying potential causes: comparison, flow chart, process chart, SPC chart, trend analysis, change analysis, barrier analysis, and event charting.

To Verify all Valid Root Causes, the team must use all available resources that are appropriate to the industry. Verification methods must be determined for each root cause. In order to determine the appropriate verification method, the team is to select the most viable tools/methods for examination and verification of the particular root cause.

Reasonable, issue-focused discussion is basic to Creative Root Cause Analysis (CRCA). Intuition will guide the team to potential answers. Rational discussion and appropriately applied analysis and verification methods, specific to the industry, will lead the team to a synergistic answer to the initial probing question and, ultimately, to the viable solution to the problem.

The verification process continues until all answers have been validated or eliminated. The purpose of verification is to discard faulty ideas, build on incomplete observations and establish the actual, verifiable root causes of the problem. A valid, verified cause must agree with the facts and will/could reproduce The Surface Problem.

Effective Verification Methods include:

✦ Facts: Does it fit within the known facts?

✦ Observation: Actually observe the cause.

✦ Experimental Testing: Recreate the situation.

✦ Outcome measurement: Try a fix and see if it makes a difference.

Root Causes are the factors that fuel The Surface Problem. They are the source of the problem condition and the tributary events that bring about the problem.

The Root Cause Step exposes and categorizes all possible source causes to the problem and discovers systemic interplay that also contributes to The Surface Problem. The outcome of The Root Cause Step is a verbal and visual description of The Surface Problem and its causes.

To begin investigating The Root Causes, review The Alarm, The Expectation and The Surface Problem Statements.

The very nature of The Root Causes is that they are hidden and not easily detected. Therefore, the team must conduct an intense search for possible root causes. Depending on the problem and accessibility of information, the time to search will vary. This is an important step, so be sure to provide adequate time to explore for root causes.

A crucial technique to be successful at Root Cause discovery is to repeat the cycle of looking for potential root causes. Experience with Creative Root Cause Analysis (CRCA) has demonstrated, time and time again, that the discovery of The Root Cause comes in the third, fourth and fifth cycles of this probing inquiry. This repetition challenges the team to probe its subconscious, and investigate and interview for additional, not immediately obvious, connections and insights.

Repetition of this cycle forces the team to uncover a greater number of possible root causes, and the likelihood that more, deeply rooted causes will be revealed. To facilitate repeated cycles of inquiry, ask these additional probing questions:

• What’s changed?
• Who is involved?
• What happens leading up to the problem?
• How could The Surface Problem be impacted by equipment, facilities, policies, procedures, management, materials, suppliers, environment, etc.?
• Who witnessed the situation?
• Who was involved with the situation?
• Who reported the problem?
• What were the qualifications?
• What was the experience level?
• What were the attitudes?
• What were the people doing at the time?
• How alert were those involved?
• How were people treated?
• How were people supervised?
• How were people equipped?
• How were people instructed?
• How effective was communication?
• What mitigating circumstances existed?
• How would you describe the situation, sequence of events?
• What was different than normal?

Remember, evaluative judgment and logic should be suspended until a complete list of possible causes has been generated and posted. Analysis and verification applied too soon will stifle creativity and the process of generating possible root causes.

Poorly or ill-defined problems lead to poor solutions. The accurate definition of a problem is essential for effective problem solving. A Surface Problem is an obstacle that blocks the Expectation. This condition is unacceptable. “Surface” implies that the problem is immediate and observable, but the entire problem is not visible. In some terminology, the Surface Problem might also be called the symptom. The cause of a Surface Problem can be a single or multiple, less visible source. The Surface Problem is the difference or the gap between expected results (Expectation) and actual results (Alarm).

The Surface Problem is where, when, and how the Alarm does not measure up to the Expectation. In many cases, the Surface Problem will be similar to the Alarm but the Surface Problem Statement will be more specific and stated in words that show the Surface Problem does not meet the Expectation.

If a team needs help in identifying and defining the Surface Problem, use one or more of the following questions to stimulate further discussion:

• When is the Expectation not being met?
• When does the Surface Problem occur?
• When does the Surface Problem not occur?
• What undesirable effects are occurring as a result of the Surface Problem?
• Who is involved with the Surface Problem?
• What is the frequency of error?
• How often does the Surface Problem appear?
• What is the intent of the discussion?

Never assume that everyone knows and agrees upon the Surface Problem or if it is acceptable or not acceptable. A problem exists when a situation is not meeting expectations. If team members disagree on this point, the problem-solving process becomes more difficult.

The Surface Problem Statement is to be written without use of the following words being either specifically stated or implied: such as, because, due to, resulting from.

Effective problem solving begins with accurately identifying the problem; therefore, it is absolutely essential that the problem be well defined. Remember, poorly defined problems lead to poor solutions.

In root cause problem solving, the Expectation is the anticipated outcome or result. It is the assumed or explicit benchmark that triggered the Alarm. It is the strategic focus of a viable solution. The Expectation is also the standard of measurement that will be used to define the problem. It may also be understood as a desirable situation or event with desirable consequences.

The existence of a problem implies that there is an expected result that is being hindered. A problem is a difference, or gap, between an anticipated outcome (expected result) and an actual outcome. Therefore, to identify a problem (measure a gap) the team must know the expected result(s). The Expectation, then, is a description of the acceptable situation at minimum, or the ideal state at best. It is an Alarm-free situation.

The final Expectation Statement is to be a descriptive, specific, realistic, worthwhile, and measurable identification of a best-case or trouble-free scenario. The best expectation statements are clear, concise, (common language) and contain all critical information.

The Expectation Step eliminates all hidden or unspoken agendas of the team. It allows them to establish an agreement (in a verbal Expectation Statement) of an explicit standard for assessing the problem and causes. The expected result is the standard or benchmark that is currently understood by the team. It becomes both the primary measurement of a problem and the general direction for solution seeking.

In some situations, the Expectation may already be defined as a policy statement, a recurring procedure or precedent, a standard of measurement, a benchmark, a goal, an objective, a desired result or a best-case scenario. In such cases, the Expectation Step is as simple as finding that existing standard and reporting it to the team

In most cases, the Expectation is assumed or implied but not explicitly defined. In those cases, the team must assess what is the implied or assumed Expectation and write it in explicit terms.

The best Expectation Statement is:

Specific : Precisely stated

Realistic: Is doable

Worthwhile: Will it satisfy stakeholders?

Measurable: Can be observed and assessed.

Never assume that everyone knows and agrees on the expected result. The existence of a problem means that an Expectation has not been met. If there is no agreement on the Expectation, there cannot be clear definition of the problem.

Highly technical applications require precise and explicit Expectation Statements. As a rule, the more specialized the application, the more precise the Expectation Statement.

If the team has a difficult time determining the Expectation, use the following questions to facilitate team discussion:

• What was expected?
• What was assumed?
• What would not cause alarm?
• What is a realistic, best-case scenario?
• How “should” this be?

Accurate Expectations are essential for concise, accurate and factual problem identification.

Too many alarms are an indication of more than one problem. However, the team may also identify symptoms or even root causes at this time. Accurate alarm descriptions may be facilitated by a thorough consideration of What, Where, When, How, Who. The following questions may prove useful:

• What?
• What happened?
• What were the major occurrences?
• What else happened at the same time?
• What were the damages, injuries or ramifications?
• What were the conditions at the time?
• What were the environmental/cultural conditions?
• What happened prior?
• What happened afterwards?
• Where?
• Where did the event occur?
• When?
• When did it happen?
• How?
• How would you describe the situation?
• How would you describe the event?
• How did location factor into the event?
• Who?
• Who witnessed the situation?
• Who was involved with the situation?

Below is a guide to effective Alarm Reactions: