This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Root cause page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Oh my gosh -- this might be the dumbest wikipedia article I have seen. If there is anything that does not need its own whole Wikipedia page, its the common phrase "root cause" -- you might as well make a Wikipedia page for every word in the dictionary that just talks about its etymology. Delete this stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.203.51.229 ( talk) 03:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is a horrible mismash of nonsense - starting to fix it will require a complete rewrite...
65.243.187.101 05:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The previous version was so horrible, I just trashed it all and started fresh. I left in the "cleanup required" stuff for now. --
72.141.22.69 17:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Who decided to trash the whole old page without discussing an edit? This revision also looks like someones own ideas with no links to a basis document. Should it also be trashed and started over?
Bad idea:
Quote from article: "A root cause is a cause that is at a root of an effect."
Why not just say that a root cause is the cause of a root?
Perhaps we could have some discussion about this page? -- 216.163.76.131 01:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
How about this...
There's definitely a need for a solid definition as a foundation for this page and the additional clarification. While reading through peer-reviewed professional journals for related research, it's been clear that different disciplines that use the term have different meanings, so the likelihood of finding one definition that will suit everyone is slight. On the other hand, finding a 'lowest common denominator' that contains the basics in simple language should be possible. I've discussed it with a few colleagues, and one we think is a good start is:
One problem with this definition is that many people engaged in root cause analysis activities are influenced by the definitions and schema that originate with the consultants who sell analysis techniques - those definitions often exclude items below the point where intervention is possible, since their focus is (necessarily) only on events which can be altered. One discussion with a consultant had him telling me that "The root cause" (as if there's only one) of a fatality in a house destroyed by a hurricane was poor building codes. While it obviously couldn't be prevented, the uneven heating of the Earth caused the hurricane, which in turn was a cause of the destruction. -- Prainog 01:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
A new starting definition for root cause has been provided. It is an amalgamation of a few different definitions proposed below. Some of the text has been revised to support new links to other wikipedia entries that expand upon fundamental concepts. Finally, some recently added text at the bottom of this article has been removed as it didn't fit in with the rest of the article; it attempted to describe one particular form of root cause analysis (relations diagram), promote it as the "best" such tool, and then make the claim that there is only one root cause for any given effect, which is not a universally supported theorem.
-- 72.141.22.69 00:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This page continues to go from bad to worse and back to bad.
The new definition of "root cause" that emphasizes "earliest event in the causal chain where an intervention could realistically have prevented the outcome" is off base.
Being early in the causal chain does not make a cause a root cause.
Also, this whole page seems to focus on the "cause and effect" relationship. Yet cause and effect had been proven to be a weak method for root cause analysis. Socrates was the original proponent of "cause and effect" but 1700's philosopher David Hume provided a critique of cause and effect that should dissuade modern analysts from using this approach.
In my opinion this page need a complete rewrite with an emphasis on the divergent views of root cause - not a false "consesus definition" that is wrong and misleading.
24.183.226.168 21:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
PS: I put this comment at the top because the last comment was put at the top...
Good, glad you're going to address the single/multiple root cause issue. It's definitely something that should be included. Regarding the definition, I had been waiting over a month for someone to comment about a definition I had proposed when you posted yours. Maybe I was a little hasty, but after another week or so of waiting, I finally tired of the inaction and simply posted yours with a slight change in the first sentence. I would rather see improvements made to the article than waiting long periods of time in the hopes someone will comment on a proposed change. Additions can always be modified later. -- 72.141.21.242 05:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's the material I mentioned in my previous post. The material in the third paragraph of each section is weak, and my not be worth putting in the article. Opinions and suggestions are welcome. Also, since my opinion is that the first view is antiquated, I may have let my biases intrude in the text, so suggestions on that are requested.
I figured that a good place for it would be after the definition but before the remainder of the material in the article. Also, a good example to go with each of the views would probably be a good idea - possibly the same scenario viewed through both methods?
Please forgive the formatting, but I figured I could take some shortcuts on the discussion page that would be corrected when I or someone else posts changes in the article. The star after mentioning 1905 was where a footnote would go to reference an article in the medical journal _The_Lancet_ from November, 1905 titled "The Present State of Medical Practice in the Rhondda Valley"
-- Prainog 19:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The term root cause has been used in professional journals as early as 1905* but the lack of a widely accepted definition after all this time indicates that there are significantly different interpretations of exactly what constitutes a root cause.
The two biggest differences in viewpoint regard the possibility of an outcome having more than one root cause.
SINGLE CAUSE
The single cause philosophy is based on the belief that there is a single cause for any outcome which, if prevented, would prevent the outcome itself. In this context, the root cause is the cause which dominates over all other contributing factors.
This viewpoint results in the identification of a single root cause that provides a clear direction for preventing an undesired outcome. The subjective criteria used for selection of the root cause from among the contributing factors has been criticized as being arbitrary and inconsistent.
One basis for the argument supporting this as the ‘proper’ interpretation is the decomposition of the words in the phrase – the root cause is the cause at the root of the outcome. While there may be nuances in the meanings of the words, the common usage of the words lead to a straightforward and simple interpretation.
MULTIPLE CAUSES
The multiple cause philosophy stems from the belief that a root cause can exist for each of the contributing factors that were necessary for a resulting outcome. By preventing any of those necessary causes, the undesired outcome can be presented.
The result of this philosophy is a branching model that attempts that incorporates all the identified ways that the outcome could be prevented. The inclusive model provides a variety of corrective actions that can potentially break the causal chain. This method also has a measure of subjectivity since judgment must be used in determining how far back to evaluate a causal chain.
Some proponents of this interpretation believe that it is the ‘proper’ one based on the common illustration of the model with the undesired outcome at the top and the causes spreading below like roots spreading from the trunk of a tree.
Now that the single/multiple sections have been added and are being improved, I think the rest of the article should be revisited. It's got plenty of items that are relevent, informative and well written, but I think the structure should be changed some. At the least, a separate section for the example would be good. Also, the discussion of continuous improvement and learning-organizations is something of a tangent and may be better suited to a section identified as uses-and-applications or practical-applications, or something like that.
I'll be working something up during the week, but just figured I'd identify where I was heading in case someone else wanted to do it first or didn't think it was a good idea.
Also, I'd like to go back to the definition too. The use of underlying doesn't really seem appropriate - it suggests that root causes are hidden and/or fundamental, and they're frequently neither. I don't have anything to replace it with right now, but I think there's still room to make it more neutral and generic.
-- Prainog 10:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow - a lot of discussion in a short period of time. You two seem very involved in this page.
I would like to comment on part of the discussion that is far up the page:
I don't want to go into the discussion of TapRooT's basis (as this isn't a TapRooT discussion) or on the prevalence of cause and effect as a root cause model. But I would like to comment on the "the earliest event in the causal chain" comment.
I think an event and a "cause & effect" are two separate ideas. Events spring from "chain of events". A chain of events is a time based sequence of actions - not a chain of causation. Thus the earliest event would commonly be thought of as an ACTION that happened first in a time line leading to a consequence.
Cause & Effect - on the other hand - is based on a causal chain. This causal chain is not linked to time but is linked by an order of causation. This causal chain is linked to an ultimate EFFECT.
Thus the first event is a sequence of events and the primary or originating cause in a chain of cause & effect probably aren't the same.
Therefore, using "the earliest event" when discussing a causal chain may be confusing (thus may not "make perfect sense" to others).
Just a comment.
68.143.40.146 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
ISSUE 1:
Time (earliness) probably has little to do with "rootiness".
Sequence in the causation chain probably does have to do with depth ... and therefore "rootiness".
But the arguments about "depth to go to" in a causation chain and the accuracy of the causation chain when using cause & effect is why there is so much disagreement about the definition to begin with.
Current Definition:
Proposed Definition:
I'm not sure that I'm happy with even this definition as it seems rather "dense" - but I suppose that it is better than what has gone before.
ISSUE 2:
I have now paid $60 searching for the reference mentioned in the second paragraph:
There are 7 articles with this title in the referenced journal that year. All aticles appear to be letters to the editor written by doctors concerned about competition in the medical profession. Neither of the two that I paid $30 to read mentioned root cause and neither seemed to be a scollarly article in a professional joural. Any blog posting today would seem to be the equivalent. So this reference seems to be misleading. Or am I missing something?
Either a better reference is needed (pages in the journal, publication date (not just year), or issue number, or a real reference to an early article about root cause.
I would guess that the argument about finding and defining root causes goes back to antiquity in several cultures.
68.143.40.146 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There have recently been a series of edits that alternately removed and added references to 'Creation' in one of the bottom paragraphs of the article.
"One view holds that, in theory, one would have to return to the Big Bang or point of Creation to find true root causes."
It was originally removed because it was a redlink and because the editor believed it failed the undue weight policy of Wikipedia. The next edit restored it with the broken link, which was then also reverted.
I've restored the text with a more appropriate link because in my opinion, the idea of creationism doesn't fail the undue weight test here because it is not a "tiny minority view", nor does this text "give undue weight to a significant-minority view". In fact, it simply mentions an alternate view that some would argue is the majority view in a way that seems appropriate.
Prainog ( talk) 22:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
If I may point out that the opening paragraph " A root cause is an initiating cause in a casual chain, leading to an outcome or effect of interest" is a direct quote taken from Rooney and Vanden Heuvel, (2004) which should be correctly referenced on your page. 197.111.223.241 ( talk) 18:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
It looks like this page has a long history of needing improvement and not getting it. If nobody objects, I'm going to turn this into a WP:DAB page for Root Cause (Person of Interest) and Root cause analysis. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Root cause page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Oh my gosh -- this might be the dumbest wikipedia article I have seen. If there is anything that does not need its own whole Wikipedia page, its the common phrase "root cause" -- you might as well make a Wikipedia page for every word in the dictionary that just talks about its etymology. Delete this stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.203.51.229 ( talk) 03:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is a horrible mismash of nonsense - starting to fix it will require a complete rewrite...
65.243.187.101 05:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The previous version was so horrible, I just trashed it all and started fresh. I left in the "cleanup required" stuff for now. --
72.141.22.69 17:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Who decided to trash the whole old page without discussing an edit? This revision also looks like someones own ideas with no links to a basis document. Should it also be trashed and started over?
Bad idea:
Quote from article: "A root cause is a cause that is at a root of an effect."
Why not just say that a root cause is the cause of a root?
Perhaps we could have some discussion about this page? -- 216.163.76.131 01:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
How about this...
There's definitely a need for a solid definition as a foundation for this page and the additional clarification. While reading through peer-reviewed professional journals for related research, it's been clear that different disciplines that use the term have different meanings, so the likelihood of finding one definition that will suit everyone is slight. On the other hand, finding a 'lowest common denominator' that contains the basics in simple language should be possible. I've discussed it with a few colleagues, and one we think is a good start is:
One problem with this definition is that many people engaged in root cause analysis activities are influenced by the definitions and schema that originate with the consultants who sell analysis techniques - those definitions often exclude items below the point where intervention is possible, since their focus is (necessarily) only on events which can be altered. One discussion with a consultant had him telling me that "The root cause" (as if there's only one) of a fatality in a house destroyed by a hurricane was poor building codes. While it obviously couldn't be prevented, the uneven heating of the Earth caused the hurricane, which in turn was a cause of the destruction. -- Prainog 01:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
A new starting definition for root cause has been provided. It is an amalgamation of a few different definitions proposed below. Some of the text has been revised to support new links to other wikipedia entries that expand upon fundamental concepts. Finally, some recently added text at the bottom of this article has been removed as it didn't fit in with the rest of the article; it attempted to describe one particular form of root cause analysis (relations diagram), promote it as the "best" such tool, and then make the claim that there is only one root cause for any given effect, which is not a universally supported theorem.
-- 72.141.22.69 00:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This page continues to go from bad to worse and back to bad.
The new definition of "root cause" that emphasizes "earliest event in the causal chain where an intervention could realistically have prevented the outcome" is off base.
Being early in the causal chain does not make a cause a root cause.
Also, this whole page seems to focus on the "cause and effect" relationship. Yet cause and effect had been proven to be a weak method for root cause analysis. Socrates was the original proponent of "cause and effect" but 1700's philosopher David Hume provided a critique of cause and effect that should dissuade modern analysts from using this approach.
In my opinion this page need a complete rewrite with an emphasis on the divergent views of root cause - not a false "consesus definition" that is wrong and misleading.
24.183.226.168 21:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
PS: I put this comment at the top because the last comment was put at the top...
Good, glad you're going to address the single/multiple root cause issue. It's definitely something that should be included. Regarding the definition, I had been waiting over a month for someone to comment about a definition I had proposed when you posted yours. Maybe I was a little hasty, but after another week or so of waiting, I finally tired of the inaction and simply posted yours with a slight change in the first sentence. I would rather see improvements made to the article than waiting long periods of time in the hopes someone will comment on a proposed change. Additions can always be modified later. -- 72.141.21.242 05:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's the material I mentioned in my previous post. The material in the third paragraph of each section is weak, and my not be worth putting in the article. Opinions and suggestions are welcome. Also, since my opinion is that the first view is antiquated, I may have let my biases intrude in the text, so suggestions on that are requested.
I figured that a good place for it would be after the definition but before the remainder of the material in the article. Also, a good example to go with each of the views would probably be a good idea - possibly the same scenario viewed through both methods?
Please forgive the formatting, but I figured I could take some shortcuts on the discussion page that would be corrected when I or someone else posts changes in the article. The star after mentioning 1905 was where a footnote would go to reference an article in the medical journal _The_Lancet_ from November, 1905 titled "The Present State of Medical Practice in the Rhondda Valley"
-- Prainog 19:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The term root cause has been used in professional journals as early as 1905* but the lack of a widely accepted definition after all this time indicates that there are significantly different interpretations of exactly what constitutes a root cause.
The two biggest differences in viewpoint regard the possibility of an outcome having more than one root cause.
SINGLE CAUSE
The single cause philosophy is based on the belief that there is a single cause for any outcome which, if prevented, would prevent the outcome itself. In this context, the root cause is the cause which dominates over all other contributing factors.
This viewpoint results in the identification of a single root cause that provides a clear direction for preventing an undesired outcome. The subjective criteria used for selection of the root cause from among the contributing factors has been criticized as being arbitrary and inconsistent.
One basis for the argument supporting this as the ‘proper’ interpretation is the decomposition of the words in the phrase – the root cause is the cause at the root of the outcome. While there may be nuances in the meanings of the words, the common usage of the words lead to a straightforward and simple interpretation.
MULTIPLE CAUSES
The multiple cause philosophy stems from the belief that a root cause can exist for each of the contributing factors that were necessary for a resulting outcome. By preventing any of those necessary causes, the undesired outcome can be presented.
The result of this philosophy is a branching model that attempts that incorporates all the identified ways that the outcome could be prevented. The inclusive model provides a variety of corrective actions that can potentially break the causal chain. This method also has a measure of subjectivity since judgment must be used in determining how far back to evaluate a causal chain.
Some proponents of this interpretation believe that it is the ‘proper’ one based on the common illustration of the model with the undesired outcome at the top and the causes spreading below like roots spreading from the trunk of a tree.
Now that the single/multiple sections have been added and are being improved, I think the rest of the article should be revisited. It's got plenty of items that are relevent, informative and well written, but I think the structure should be changed some. At the least, a separate section for the example would be good. Also, the discussion of continuous improvement and learning-organizations is something of a tangent and may be better suited to a section identified as uses-and-applications or practical-applications, or something like that.
I'll be working something up during the week, but just figured I'd identify where I was heading in case someone else wanted to do it first or didn't think it was a good idea.
Also, I'd like to go back to the definition too. The use of underlying doesn't really seem appropriate - it suggests that root causes are hidden and/or fundamental, and they're frequently neither. I don't have anything to replace it with right now, but I think there's still room to make it more neutral and generic.
-- Prainog 10:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow - a lot of discussion in a short period of time. You two seem very involved in this page.
I would like to comment on part of the discussion that is far up the page:
I don't want to go into the discussion of TapRooT's basis (as this isn't a TapRooT discussion) or on the prevalence of cause and effect as a root cause model. But I would like to comment on the "the earliest event in the causal chain" comment.
I think an event and a "cause & effect" are two separate ideas. Events spring from "chain of events". A chain of events is a time based sequence of actions - not a chain of causation. Thus the earliest event would commonly be thought of as an ACTION that happened first in a time line leading to a consequence.
Cause & Effect - on the other hand - is based on a causal chain. This causal chain is not linked to time but is linked by an order of causation. This causal chain is linked to an ultimate EFFECT.
Thus the first event is a sequence of events and the primary or originating cause in a chain of cause & effect probably aren't the same.
Therefore, using "the earliest event" when discussing a causal chain may be confusing (thus may not "make perfect sense" to others).
Just a comment.
68.143.40.146 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
ISSUE 1:
Time (earliness) probably has little to do with "rootiness".
Sequence in the causation chain probably does have to do with depth ... and therefore "rootiness".
But the arguments about "depth to go to" in a causation chain and the accuracy of the causation chain when using cause & effect is why there is so much disagreement about the definition to begin with.
Current Definition:
Proposed Definition:
I'm not sure that I'm happy with even this definition as it seems rather "dense" - but I suppose that it is better than what has gone before.
ISSUE 2:
I have now paid $60 searching for the reference mentioned in the second paragraph:
There are 7 articles with this title in the referenced journal that year. All aticles appear to be letters to the editor written by doctors concerned about competition in the medical profession. Neither of the two that I paid $30 to read mentioned root cause and neither seemed to be a scollarly article in a professional joural. Any blog posting today would seem to be the equivalent. So this reference seems to be misleading. Or am I missing something?
Either a better reference is needed (pages in the journal, publication date (not just year), or issue number, or a real reference to an early article about root cause.
I would guess that the argument about finding and defining root causes goes back to antiquity in several cultures.
68.143.40.146 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There have recently been a series of edits that alternately removed and added references to 'Creation' in one of the bottom paragraphs of the article.
"One view holds that, in theory, one would have to return to the Big Bang or point of Creation to find true root causes."
It was originally removed because it was a redlink and because the editor believed it failed the undue weight policy of Wikipedia. The next edit restored it with the broken link, which was then also reverted.
I've restored the text with a more appropriate link because in my opinion, the idea of creationism doesn't fail the undue weight test here because it is not a "tiny minority view", nor does this text "give undue weight to a significant-minority view". In fact, it simply mentions an alternate view that some would argue is the majority view in a way that seems appropriate.
Prainog ( talk) 22:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
If I may point out that the opening paragraph " A root cause is an initiating cause in a casual chain, leading to an outcome or effect of interest" is a direct quote taken from Rooney and Vanden Heuvel, (2004) which should be correctly referenced on your page. 197.111.223.241 ( talk) 18:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
It looks like this page has a long history of needing improvement and not getting it. If nobody objects, I'm going to turn this into a WP:DAB page for Root Cause (Person of Interest) and Root cause analysis. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)