Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH Why Staircase Tree (5 pages)

Expand Messages
  • Dr. Bill Corcoran at NSRC
    Bill S., Thanks for your evaluation of Why Staircase Trees (WST) versus Event and Causal Factor Charts (ECFC). The point about putting times in the WST boxes
    Message 1 of 9 , May 1, 2002
      Bill S.,
       
      Thanks for your evaluation of Why Staircase Trees (WST) versus Event and Causal Factor Charts (ECFC).
       
      The point about putting times in the WST boxes is a good one.
       
      If you put in the start time and stop time for every behavior and condition you have everything you need to map the WST into a Planning Logic Network (PLN), often called "PERT Chart". 
       
      And here is the BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious).
       
      The topology of a project is the same as the topology of a consequential event!! And the WST is just the Work Breakdown Structure!!
       
      If you know all of the behaviors and conditions and their start and stop times you can input it into a Project Management package, e.g., Microsoft Project 2000.
       
      It would be nice to hear from the project managers in the group.
       
      Best Regards,
       
      Bill Corcoran
       
      W. R. Corcoran, Ph.D., P.E.
      Nuclear Safety Review Concepts
      21 Broadleaf Circle
      Windsor, CT 06095-1634
      860-285-8779
      Mission: Saving lives, pain, assets, and careers through thoughtful inquiry.
       
      Check out our e-group  at
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice/
      where you will find all back issues of "The Firebird Forum".
       
      For a complimentary subscription to our e-newsletter on root cause, organizational learning, and safety send a message to firebird.one@...
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:02 PM
      Subject: RE: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH Why Staircase Tree (5 pages)

      Bill C.,

      For what it is worth, I also prefer the logic of "trees" over "ECF Charts" -
      no contest!

      Even from the "time" standpoint, I see no advantage for "ECF Charts".  They
      layout "events" (even non-causal ones?) in sequence from left to right.  If
      exact "time" is important (it usually isn't), it can be added to the "event"
      blocks.

      Vertical "trees" include causal "events" in sequence too (from bottom to
      top).  I have occasionally seen "time" of day and/or "date" in the "event"
      blocks on "trees".  It works fine.

      Bill Salot

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Dr. Bill Corcoran at NSRC [mailto:firebird.one@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:58 AM
      To: rootcauseconference@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH Why Staircase Tree (5
      pages)


      Bill W.,

      A late BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious)

      Why not do a Comparative TimeLine (c) (CTL) and map it into a Why Staircase
      Tree (WST)?

      The CTL could also be mapped into the Event and Causal Factors Chart (ECFC)
      for those whose taste buds prefer the ECFC.

      What do you think?

      Best Regards,

      Bill Corcoran


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Dr. Bill Corcoran at NSRC <mailto:firebird.one@...> 
      To: rootcauseconference@yahoogroups.com
      <mailto:rootcauseconference@yahoogroups.com> 
      Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:47 AM
      Subject: Re: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH Why Staircase Tree (5
      pages)

      Bill W.,

      Thanks ever so much.

      I'm glad you like VISIO Why Staircase Trees (WST).

      You are absolutely correct that the strength of the Event and Causal Factor
      Chart (ECFC) is chronology and the weakness is causation. Also you are right
      that the strength of the WST is causation and the weakness is that there is
      no time display at all.

      For time dependence I use the Comparative TimeLine (c) (CTL) and the Gantt
      Chart.

      For reasons I don't understand, senior executives seem to love the CTL and
      the WST, while the ECFC makes their eyes glaze over.

      Do you know of any easy-to-use software for doing Gantt Charts?

      Best Regards,

      Bill Corcoran

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "wjwlsn" <wjwlsn@...>
      To: <rootcauseconference@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:05 AM
      Subject: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH Why Staircase Tree (5
      pages)


      Bill C.,

      I prefer the Why Staircase Tree (WST) to the Event & Causal
      Factor Chart (E&CFC) chart in every respect but one... the
      E&CFC does a decent job of conveying time sequence, whereas
      the WST barely acknowledges the existence of time as a
      dimension. (This is not a criticism of your tree, but of the
      methodology in general.)

      I still prefer the WST because I generally can't stand E&CFC.
      Back when I asked the question in February (I think), my
      main problem with E&CFC was the quibbling over what gets
      labeled an event, a cause, a causal factor, etc. That's a
      problem. Some thoughts off the top of my head:

      1. The commonly held definitions of "event", "cause",
      "causal factor", "contributing cause", and "root cause"
      aren't precise enough.

      OR

      2. Maybe Dean Gano's right, cause and effect are one and the
      same, and we shouldn't quibble over how we label things.

      OR

      3. We need a different, less ambiguous taxonomy.

      Please feel free to add to this list.

      It seems to me that E&CFC is firmly entrenched in #1, and the
      WST is a concession to #2 (even if you don't buy the whole
      Cause=Effect thing).

      What I really want is #3, the Über-ChartT and associated
      terminology. It would be easy to create, easy to follow, convey
      all necessary cause/effect relationships, clearly call out all
      items of importance, show time sequencing, be backed up by solid
      terminology, and slice, dice, chop, and peel on command.

      I haven't really answered your questions yet, have I? I think
      the choice of WST over E&CFC is subjective at this point...
      once they're done, I get a lot of information from each. From
      an implementation standpoint, the WST seems to be the way to
      go for working out the cause/effect relationships and avoiding
      arguments over terminology. That being said, it follows that if
      only one chart is done, the WST should be it. For important
      events, I can see value from having both WST and E&CFC... and
      having the WST on-hand while you're making the E&CFC would be
      a big help. Also, it appears that Visio does make a pretty nice
      WST chart.

      Bill W.


    • Dr. Bill Corcoran at NSRC
      Mark, The first time I ever viewed an adverse event as an anti-project , it blew my mind. A project is usually thought of as deliberate and an anti-project is
      Message 2 of 9 , May 1, 2002
        Mark,
         
        The first time I ever viewed an adverse event as an "anti-project", it blew my mind. 
         
        A project is usually thought of as deliberate and an anti-project is something that is unintentional.
         
        It gives you an eerie feeling, like watching "King Lear" or "Oedipus Rex" or "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" or even "Hair".
         
        Reading about TMI, Bhopal, Challenger, Herald of Free Enterprise, Chernobyl, or the Vietnam War gives the same creepy willies.
         
        I have had the same queasiness on several root cause analysis projects, including the Foreign Material Intrusion at LaSalle and the Loss of Level that preceded the CY shutdown.
         
        The current Davis-Besse thing is similar.
         
        You keep asking yourself, "Why didn't these smart people see it coming?" What is the fatal flaw that keeps people from seeing fatal flaws?
         
        The objectives of a project and the consequences of an event are opposite sides of the same coin.
         
        They are the results of behaviors and conditions.
         
        In the case of a successful project the behaviors and conditions are functional.
         
        In the case of a consequential event the behaviors and conditions are a mixture of functional and dysfunctional where the dysfunctional trumps the functional.
         
        Enough for now.
         
        This is an exciting thread.
         
        OBTW: A root cause analysis is a meta-project. It is a project about an anti-project. A root cause analysis of a sour project is doubly nested.
         
        This is about as convoluted as I am willing to get on an empty stomach.
         
         
        Best Regards,
         
        Bill Corcoran
         
        W. R. Corcoran, Ph.D., P.E.
        Nuclear Safety Review Concepts
        21 Broadleaf Circle
        Windsor, CT 06095-1634
        860-285-8779
        Mission: Saving lives, pain, assets, and careers through thoughtful inquiry.
         
        Check out our e-group  at
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice/
        where you will find all back issues of "The Firebird Forum".
         
        For a complimentary subscription to our e-newsletter on root cause, organizational learning, and safety send a message to firebird.one@...
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 8:31 AM
        Subject: Re: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH Why Staircase Tree (5 pages)

        Bill C.  Looking at a consequential event as a project and the RCA as a post-mortem project management case study could reveal information that we might not otherwise stumble upon.
         
        One of the elements of project management I find to be very important is the concept of stakeholders.  The stakeholders include all the individuals and communities of individuals that have some vested interested in the project's success or failure.  In event space - the stakeholders are the individuals and communities of individuals that were impacted at each stage of the sequence of events.  This can identify the parties that should have been involved in detecting and correcting the adverse conditions and dysfunctional behaviors at each step of the event for the comparative timeline.
         
        Another key element of project management is contingency planning.  In event space, the contingencies that could have helped also go on the comparative timeline.  The contingencies that could have helped but were not identified can become another thread on the why staircase tree.
         
        None of this is really breakthrough stuff, but using a different lens to look at the same information can reveal new insights.
         
        Mark Venable
        SynerMetrics LLC
        860 572-9382
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 6:53 AM
        Subject: Re: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH Why Staircase Tree (5 pages)

        Bill S.,
         
        Thanks for your evaluation of Why Staircase Trees (WST) versus Event and Causal Factor Charts (ECFC).
         
        The point about putting times in the WST boxes is a good one.
         
        If you put in the start time and stop time for every behavior and condition you have everything you need to map the WST into a Planning Logic Network (PLN), often called "PERT Chart". 
         
        And here is the BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious).
         
        The topology of a project is the same as the topology of a consequential event!! And the WST is just the Work Breakdown Structure!!
         
        If you know all of the behaviors and conditions and their start and stop times you can input it into a Project Management package, e.g., Microsoft Project 2000.
         
        It would be nice to hear from the project managers in the group.
         
        Best Regards,
         
        Bill Corcoran
         
        W. R. Corcoran, Ph.D., P.E.
        Nuclear Safety Review Concepts
        21 Broadleaf Circle
        Windsor, CT 06095-1634
        860-285-8779
        Mission: Saving lives, pain, assets, and careers through thoughtful inquiry.
         
        Check out our e-group  at
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice/
        where you will find all back issues of "The Firebird Forum".
         
        For a complimentary subscription to our e-newsletter on root cause, organizational learning, and safety send a message to firebird.one@...
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:02 PM
        Subject: RE: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH Why Staircase Tree (5 pages)

        Bill C.,

        For what it is worth, I also prefer the logic of "trees" over "ECF Charts" -
        no contest!

        Even from the "time" standpoint, I see no advantage for "ECF Charts".  They
        layout "events" (even non-causal ones?) in sequence from left to right.  If
        exact "time" is important (it usually isn't), it can be added to the "event"
        blocks.

        Vertical "trees" include causal "events" in sequence too (from bottom to
        top).  I have occasionally seen "time" of day and/or "date" in the "event"
        blocks on "trees".  It works fine.

        Bill Salot

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Dr. Bill Corcoran at NSRC [mailto:firebird.one@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:58 AM
        To: rootcauseconference@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH Why Staircase Tree (5
        pages)


        Bill W.,

        A late BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious)

        Why not do a Comparative TimeLine (c) (CTL) and map it into a Why Staircase
        Tree (WST)?

        The CTL could also be mapped into the Event and Causal Factors Chart (ECFC)
        for those whose taste buds prefer the ECFC.

        What do you think?

        Best Regards,

        Bill Corcoran


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Dr. Bill Corcoran at NSRC <mailto:firebird.one@...> 
        To: rootcauseconference@yahoogroups.com
        <mailto:rootcauseconference@yahoogroups.com> 
        Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:47 AM
        Subject: Re: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH Why Staircase Tree (5
        pages)

        Bill W.,

        Thanks ever so much.

        I'm glad you like VISIO Why Staircase Trees (WST).

        You are absolutely correct that the strength of the Event and Causal Factor
        Chart (ECFC) is chronology and the weakness is causation. Also you are right
        that the strength of the WST is causation and the weakness is that there is
        no time display at all.

        For time dependence I use the Comparative TimeLine (c) (CTL) and the Gantt
        Chart.

        For reasons I don't understand, senior executives seem to love the CTL and
        the WST, while the ECFC makes their eyes glaze over.

        Do you know of any easy-to-use software for doing Gantt Charts?

        Best Regards,

        Bill Corcoran

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "wjwlsn" <wjwlsn@...>
        To: <rootcauseconference@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:05 AM
        Subject: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH Why Staircase Tree (5
        pages)


        Bill C.,

        I prefer the Why Staircase Tree (WST) to the Event & Causal
        Factor Chart (E&CFC) chart in every respect but one... the
        E&CFC does a decent job of conveying time sequence, whereas
        the WST barely acknowledges the existence of time as a
        dimension. (This is not a criticism of your tree, but of the
        methodology in general.)

        I still prefer the WST because I generally can't stand E&CFC.
        Back when I asked the question in February (I think), my
        main problem with E&CFC was the quibbling over what gets
        labeled an event, a cause, a causal factor, etc. That's a
        problem. Some thoughts off the top of my head:

        1. The commonly held definitions of "event", "cause",
        "causal factor", "contributing cause", and "root cause"
        aren't precise enough.

        OR

        2. Maybe Dean Gano's right, cause and effect are one and the
        same, and we shouldn't quibble over how we label things.

        OR

        3. We need a different, less ambiguous taxonomy.

        Please feel free to add to this list.

        It seems to me that E&CFC is firmly entrenched in #1, and the
        WST is a concession to #2 (even if you don't buy the whole
        Cause=Effect thing).

        What I really want is #3, the Über-ChartT and associated
        terminology. It would be easy to create, easy to follow, convey
        all necessary cause/effect relationships, clearly call out all
        items of importance, show time sequencing, be backed up by solid
        terminology, and slice, dice, chop, and peel on command.

        I haven't really answered your questions yet, have I? I think
        the choice of WST over E&CFC is subjective at this point...
        once they're done, I get a lot of information from each. From
        an implementation standpoint, the WST seems to be the way to
        go for working out the cause/effect relationships and avoiding
        arguments over terminology. That being said, it follows that if
        only one chart is done, the WST should be it. For important
        events, I can see value from having both WST and E&CFC... and
        having the WST on-hand while you're making the E&CFC would be
        a big help. Also, it appears that Visio does make a pretty nice
        WST chart.

        Bill W.

      • sallust4
        Gentlemen, Thanks for posting the WST file and report files for DB case, and your interesting discussion. For what it is worth, the time issue was the one of
        Message 3 of 9 , May 1, 2002
          Gentlemen,

          Thanks for posting the WST file and report files for DB case, and
          your interesting discussion. For what it is worth, the time issue
          was the one of several that prompted me to seek a better
          alternative to the fault tree-based accident data display while I
          was with the NTSB.

          I was unable to find an E&CF chart among the files here. Is there
          any recent E&CF chart for this or other cases that is posted on
          the web to which you could point me as an example of such
          charts to reference for further discussion?

          Ludwig

          --- In Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@y..., "Dr. Bill Corcoran
          at NSRC" <firebird.one@a...> wrote:
          > Bill S.,
          >
          > Thanks for your evaluation of Why Staircase Trees (WST)
          versus Event and Causal Factor Charts (ECFC).
          >
          > The point about putting times in the WST boxes is a good one.
          >
          > If you put in the start time and stop time for every behavior and
          condition you have everything you need to map the WST into a
          Planning Logic Network (PLN), often called "PERT Chart".
          >
          > And here is the BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious).
          >
          > The topology of a project is the same as the topology of a
          consequential event!! And the WST is just the Work Breakdown
          Structure!!
          >
          > If you know all of the behaviors and conditions and their start
          and stop times you can input it into a Project Management
          package, e.g., Microsoft Project 2000.
          >
          > It would be nice to hear from the project managers in the
          group.
          >
          > Best Regards,
          >
          > Bill Corcoran
          >
          > W. R. Corcoran, Ph.D., P.E.
          > Nuclear Safety Review Concepts
          > 21 Broadleaf Circle
          > Windsor, CT 06095-1634
          > 860-285-8779
          > Mission: Saving lives, pain, assets, and careers through
          thoughtful inquiry.
          >
          > Check out our e-group at
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
          Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice/
          > where you will find all back issues of "The Firebird Forum".
          >
          > For a complimentary subscription to our e-newsletter on root
          cause, organizational learning, and safety send a message to
          firebird.one@a...
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Salot, William
          > To: 'rootcauseconference@y...'
          > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:02 PM
          > Subject: RE: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH
          Why Staircase Tree (5 pages)
          >
          >
          > Bill C.,
          >
          > For what it is worth, I also prefer the logic of "trees" over "ECF
          Charts" -
          > no contest!
          >
          > Even from the "time" standpoint, I see no advantage for "ECF
          Charts". They
          > layout "events" (even non-causal ones?) in sequence from
          left to right. If
          > exact "time" is important (it usually isn't), it can be added to
          the "event"
          > blocks.
          >
          > Vertical "trees" include causal "events" in sequence too (from
          bottom to
          > top). I have occasionally seen "time" of day and/or "date" in
          the "event"
          > blocks on "trees". It works fine.
          >
          > Bill Salot
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Dr. Bill Corcoran at NSRC [mailto:firebird.one@a...]
          > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:58 AM
          > To: rootcauseconference@y...
          > Subject: Re: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH
          Why Staircase Tree (5
          > pages)
          >
          >
          > Bill W.,
          >
          > A late BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious)
          >
          > Why not do a Comparative TimeLine (c) (CTL) and map it into
          a Why Staircase
          > Tree (WST)?
          >
          > The CTL could also be mapped into the Event and Causal
          Factors Chart (ECFC)
          > for those whose taste buds prefer the ECFC.
          >
          > What do you think?
          >
          > Best Regards,
          >
          > Bill Corcoran
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Dr. Bill Corcoran at NSRC <mailto:firebird.one@a...>
          > To: rootcauseconference@y...
          > <mailto:rootcauseconference@y...>
          > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:47 AM
          > Subject: Re: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH
          Why Staircase Tree (5
          > pages)
          >
          > Bill W.,
          >
          > Thanks ever so much.
          >
          > I'm glad you like VISIO Why Staircase Trees (WST).
          >
          > You are absolutely correct that the strength of the Event and
          Causal Factor
          > Chart (ECFC) is chronology and the weakness is causation.
          Also you are right
          > that the strength of the WST is causation and the weakness
          is that there is
          > no time display at all.
          >
          > For time dependence I use the Comparative TimeLine (c)
          (CTL) and the Gantt
          > Chart.
          >
          > For reasons I don't understand, senior executives seem to
          love the CTL and
          > the WST, while the ECFC makes their eyes glaze over.
          >
          > Do you know of any easy-to-use software for doing Gantt
          Charts?
          >
          > Best Regards,
          >
          > Bill Corcoran
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "wjwlsn" <wjwlsn@y...>
          > To: <rootcauseconference@y...>
          > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:05 AM
          > Subject: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH Why
          Staircase Tree (5
          > pages)
          >
          >
          > Bill C.,
          >
          > I prefer the Why Staircase Tree (WST) to the Event & Causal
          > Factor Chart (E&CFC) chart in every respect but one... the
          > E&CFC does a decent job of conveying time sequence,
          whereas
          > the WST barely acknowledges the existence of time as a
          > dimension. (This is not a criticism of your tree, but of the
          > methodology in general.)
          >
          > I still prefer the WST because I generally can't stand E&CFC.
          > Back when I asked the question in February (I think), my
          > main problem with E&CFC was the quibbling over what gets
          > labeled an event, a cause, a causal factor, etc. That's a
          > problem. Some thoughts off the top of my head:
          >
          > 1. The commonly held definitions of "event", "cause",
          > "causal factor", "contributing cause", and "root cause"
          > aren't precise enough.
          >
          > OR
          >
          > 2. Maybe Dean Gano's right, cause and effect are one and the
          > same, and we shouldn't quibble over how we label things.
          >
          > OR
          >
          > 3. We need a different, less ambiguous taxonomy.
          >
          > Please feel free to add to this list.
          >
          > It seems to me that E&CFC is firmly entrenched in #1, and the
          > WST is a concession to #2 (even if you don't buy the whole
          > Cause=Effect thing).
          >
          > What I really want is #3, the Über-ChartT and associated
          > terminology. It would be easy to create, easy to follow, convey
          > all necessary cause/effect relationships, clearly call out all
          > items of importance, show time sequencing, be backed up by
          solid
          > terminology, and slice, dice, chop, and peel on command.
          >
          > I haven't really answered your questions yet, have I? I think
          > the choice of WST over E&CFC is subjective at this point...
          > once they're done, I get a lot of information from each. From
          > an implementation standpoint, the WST seems to be the way
          to
          > go for working out the cause/effect relationships and avoiding
          > arguments over terminology. That being said, it follows that if
          > only one chart is done, the WST should be it. For important
          > events, I can see value from having both WST and E&CFC...
          and
          > having the WST on-hand while you're making the E&CFC
          would be
          > a big help. Also, it appears that Visio does make a pretty nice
          > WST chart.
          >
          > Bill W.
        • Dr. Bill Corcoran at NSRC
          Ludwig, It s on the NRC web site. I ll send it to you by separate e-mail. You ll find the ECFC on pages 29-33 of the attachment. This is too much to post on
          Message 4 of 9 , May 1, 2002
            Ludwig,
             
            It's on the NRC web site.
             
            I'll send it to you by separate e-mail.
             
            You'll find the ECFC on pages 29-33 of the attachment.
             
            This is too much to post on the e-groups.
             
            I'll send it off-line to anyone who asks for it.
             
            Compare the plant's ECFC with the WST I posted.
             
            Best Regards,
             
            Bill Corcoran
             
            W. R. Corcoran, Ph.D., P.E.
            Nuclear Safety Review Concepts
            21 Broadleaf Circle
            Windsor, CT 06095-1634
            860-285-8779
            Mission: Saving lives, pain, assets, and careers through thoughtful inquiry.
             
            Check out our e-group  at
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice/
            where you will find all back issues of "The Firebird Forum".
             
            For a complimentary subscription to our e-newsletter on root cause, organizational learning, and safety send a message to firebird.one@...
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: sallust4
            Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 2:29 PM
            Subject: [Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice] [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH Why Staircase Tree (5 pages)

            Gentlemen,

            Thanks for posting the WST file and report files for DB case, and
            your  interesting discussion. For what it is worth, the time issue
            was the one of several that prompted me to seek a better
            alternative to the fault tree-based accident data display while I
            was with the NTSB.

            I was unable to find an E&CF chart among the files here. Is there
            any recent E&CF chart for this or other cases that is posted on
            the web to which you could point me as an example of such
            charts to reference for further discussion?

            Ludwig

            --- In Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice@y..., "Dr. Bill Corcoran
            at NSRC" <firebird.one@a...> wrote:
            > Bill S.,
            >
            > Thanks for your evaluation of Why Staircase Trees (WST)
            versus Event and Causal Factor Charts (ECFC).
            >
            > The point about putting times in the WST boxes is a good one.
            >
            > If you put in the start time and stop time for every behavior and
            condition you have everything you need to map the WST into a
            Planning Logic Network (PLN), often called "PERT Chart".
            >
            > And here is the BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious).
            >
            > The topology of a project is the same as the topology of a
            consequential event!! And the WST is just the Work Breakdown
            Structure!!
            >
            > If you know all of the behaviors and conditions and their start
            and stop times you can input it into a Project Management
            package, e.g., Microsoft Project 2000.
            >
            > It would be nice to hear from the project managers in the
            group.
            >
            > Best Regards,
            >
            > Bill Corcoran
            >
            > W. R. Corcoran, Ph.D., P.E.
            > Nuclear Safety Review Concepts
            > 21 Broadleaf Circle
            > Windsor, CT 06095-1634
            > 860-285-8779
            > Mission: Saving lives, pain, assets, and careers through
            thoughtful inquiry.
            >
            > Check out our e-group  at
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
            Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice/
            > where you will find all back issues of "The Firebird Forum".
            >
            > For a complimentary subscription to our e-newsletter on root
            cause, organizational learning, and safety send a message to
            firebird.one@a...
            >   ----- Original Message -----
            >   From: Salot, William
            >   To: 'rootcauseconference@y...'
            >   Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:02 PM
            >   Subject: RE: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH
            Why Staircase Tree (5 pages)
            >
            >
            >   Bill C.,
            >
            >   For what it is worth, I also prefer the logic of "trees" over "ECF
            Charts" -
            >   no contest!
            >
            >   Even from the "time" standpoint, I see no advantage for "ECF
            Charts".  They
            >   layout "events" (even non-causal ones?) in sequence from
            left to right.  If
            >   exact "time" is important (it usually isn't), it can be added to
            the "event"
            >   blocks.
            >
            >   Vertical "trees" include causal "events" in sequence too (from
            bottom to
            >   top).  I have occasionally seen "time" of day and/or "date" in
            the "event"
            >   blocks on "trees".  It works fine.
            >
            >   Bill Salot
            >
            >   -----Original Message-----
            >   From: Dr. Bill Corcoran at NSRC [mailto:firebird.one@a...]
            >   Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:58 AM
            >   To: rootcauseconference@y...
            >   Subject: Re: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH
            Why Staircase Tree (5
            >   pages)
            >
            >
            >   Bill W.,
            >
            >   A late BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious)
            >
            >   Why not do a Comparative TimeLine (c) (CTL) and map it into
            a Why Staircase
            >   Tree (WST)?
            >
            >   The CTL could also be mapped into the Event and Causal
            Factors Chart (ECFC)
            >   for those whose taste buds prefer the ECFC.
            >
            >   What do you think?
            >
            >   Best Regards,
            >
            >   Bill Corcoran
            >
            >
            >   ----- Original Message -----
            >   From: Dr. Bill Corcoran at NSRC <mailto:firebird.one@a...> 
            >   To: rootcauseconference@y...
            >   <mailto:rootcauseconference@y...> 
            >   Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:47 AM
            >   Subject: Re: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH
            Why Staircase Tree (5
            >   pages)
            >
            >   Bill W.,
            >
            >   Thanks ever so much.
            >
            >   I'm glad you like VISIO Why Staircase Trees (WST).
            >
            >   You are absolutely correct that the strength of the Event and
            Causal Factor
            >   Chart (ECFC) is chronology and the weakness is causation.
            Also you are right
            >   that the strength of the WST is causation and the weakness
            is that there is
            >   no time display at all.
            >
            >   For time dependence I use the Comparative TimeLine (c)
            (CTL) and the Gantt
            >   Chart.
            >
            >   For reasons I don't understand, senior executives seem to
            love the CTL and
            >   the WST, while the ECFC makes their eyes glaze over.
            >
            >   Do you know of any easy-to-use software for doing Gantt
            Charts?
            >
            >   Best Regards,
            >
            >   Bill Corcoran
            >
            >   ----- Original Message -----
            >   From: "wjwlsn" <wjwlsn@y...>
            >   To: <rootcauseconference@y...>
            >   Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:05 AM
            >   Subject: [rootcauseconference] Re: Davis-Besse RVH Why
            Staircase Tree (5
            >   pages)
            >
            >
            >   Bill C.,
            >
            >   I prefer the Why Staircase Tree (WST) to the Event & Causal
            >   Factor Chart (E&CFC) chart in every respect but one... the
            >   E&CFC does a decent job of conveying time sequence,
            whereas
            >   the WST barely acknowledges the existence of time as a
            >   dimension. (This is not a criticism of your tree, but of the
            >   methodology in general.)
            >
            >   I still prefer the WST because I generally can't stand E&CFC.
            >   Back when I asked the question in February (I think), my
            >   main problem with E&CFC was the quibbling over what gets
            >   labeled an event, a cause, a causal factor, etc. That's a
            >   problem. Some thoughts off the top of my head:
            >
            >   1. The commonly held definitions of "event", "cause",
            >   "causal factor", "contributing cause", and "root cause"
            >   aren't precise enough.
            >
            >   OR
            >
            >   2. Maybe Dean Gano's right, cause and effect are one and the
            >   same, and we shouldn't quibble over how we label things.
            >
            >   OR
            >
            >   3. We need a different, less ambiguous taxonomy.
            >
            >   Please feel free to add to this list.
            >
            >   It seems to me that E&CFC is firmly entrenched in #1, and the
            >   WST is a concession to #2 (even if you don't buy the whole
            >   Cause=Effect thing).
            >
            >   What I really want is #3, the Über-ChartT and associated
            >   terminology. It would be easy to create, easy to follow, convey
            >   all necessary cause/effect relationships, clearly call out all
            >   items of importance, show time sequencing, be backed up by
            solid
            >   terminology, and slice, dice, chop, and peel on command.
            >
            >   I haven't really answered your questions yet, have I? I think
            >   the choice of WST over E&CFC is subjective at this point...
            >   once they're done, I get a lot of information from each. From
            >   an implementation standpoint, the WST seems to be the way
            to
            >   go for working out the cause/effect relationships and avoiding
            >   arguments over terminology. That being said, it follows that if
            >   only one chart is done, the WST should be it. For important
            >   events, I can see value from having both WST and E&CFC...
            and
            >   having the WST on-hand while you're making the E&CFC
            would be
            >   a big help. Also, it appears that Visio does make a pretty nice
            >   WST chart.
            >
            >   Bill W.



            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            Root_Cause_State_of_the_Practice-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.