iSixSigma

FISHBONE

This topic contains 14 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by  RickL 11 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #48677

    SigmaKID
    Member

    During the brainstorming for Fishbone,which approach is better?
    1.Start brainstorming and then categorize the causes.
    2.Start thinking from a category point of view .
    (eg: Think what are the Environmental causes )

    0
    #164806

    Adrian P. Smith
    Participant

    Hi SigmaKID
     
    Both approaches work well, although the second approach is probably the most common.
    The key thing about a fishbone is to continue to go down levels of detail (using 5 Whys for example) until you find potential root causes.
    Generally, the first level in this kind of brainstorming focuses on symptoms or secondary causes (e.g. the machine broke down) and you want to get to a point you can action (e.g. the machine broke down – because the annual maintenance wasn’t carried out – because the maintenance contract wasn’t renewed).
    Hope this helps.

    0
    #164817

    Fake Stan Alert
    Participant

    The first  option

    0
    #164827

    Ward
    Participant

    I agree with Stan. While there are the “generic” categories of people, methods, machines, materials, measurement, and environment, often the free-form brainstorming can generate more causes without those restrictions.
    A couple key suggestions. Make sure the “head of the fish” is a FOCUSED problem statement. If it is too broad, the fishbone can quickly become overwhelming. Make sure the root causes are driven down to ACTIONABLE levels. When asked “Why does the number of automobile accidents increase in Colorado in the winter time”, and the response is “the snow”, that is not helpful. If the response is “cars slide in the snow”, then then next level is easy, “People did not have proper snow tires”, or “the roads were not adequately prepared”, or “drivers do not allow enough braking distance” and so forth. We can’t keep it from snowing, but we can try and deal with it, when it does snow! Finally, do attempt to do fishbone on flipchart paper. It seems as soon as people run out room, they run out of ideas. The bigger the wall space, the more potential causes are generated.Also know that most people are aware of Ishikawa’s “cause enumeration” approach to causal analysis, but he also talked about “dispersion analysis” and “process classification” causal analysis, among others. There is a reason that ASQ awards an annual medal in his honor. He was a fascinating man, who really believed in the team approach to problem solving. Good luck!PS The fishbone is my favorite, of the seven basic quality tools.

    0
    #165314

    SigmaOwl
    Member

    Utilization of an Affinity Diagram is very helpful as I have discovered. It still allows participants to brainstorm at it’s basic level without restricting them to catergories. Refinement of those ideas is through the Affinity Diagram.
     It works for us, perhaps it will for you!

    0
    #165315

    SigmaOwl
    Member

    Duh… categories!… 6am EST.. mind is slow to operate.. Sorry!

    0
    #165318

    walden
    Participant

    Couldnt agree with Sigma Owl more. Affinitizing brainstorming sessions allows for free thought and thinking outside the box.

    0
    #165320

    angelaoverby
    Participant

    The process that I use that has always worked great is to use the affinity digram process with post it’s to create the fishbone.
    Just open it up and NO TALKING and people start writing one thought per post it and keep writing until they are out of ideas. Then they all go up and put them on the board NO TALKING and start arranging. There will be duplicates, just stack them up. Let people keep arranging and rearranging to logical groups and THEN review and talk through it.
    The post-it process gives everyone a voice instead of just the few more enthusiastic ones hogging the meeting.Cheers,
    Angela

    0
    #165322

    BobS
    Participant

    In my experience, starting with categories can be too limiting; I would rather have the participants get as many ideas generated as possible without the constraints of a category.  As a facilatator, I use the categories as my mental check to see if the participants have considered different aspects of the problem.  If they have not generated any ideas in a category that I feel may be relevant, I will ask some leading questions to get them thinging about that different perspective without necessarily actually using the name of the category.  I have found this very useful in practice.
    At the end of brainstorming, I then facilitate the use of an affinity diagram and let the categories be an outcome of that work.

    0
    #165323

    Hetchner
    Member

    I have used affinity process as described by Angela.  It always works real well and gives everyone a role and energizes the team around the discussions towards the end of the process.  Remember to group the post-its first and then come up with names for the groups.  Those names then become your categories. 

    0
    #165408

    cxg174
    Participant

    I think this depends on what you are using it for, general brainstorming or specific. If you already know a specific area that you need to look at or you have too many variables, I would do a specific area individually. I think it can only help your focus to be more specific. .

    0
    #165416

    Ron
    Member

    The benefit of the fishbone diagram is to group the potential causes into six catergories. To accomplish this in a brainstorming situation it is best to place the categories first.
    Why? Because humans respond to direction and are attimes unable to come up with a new idea without prompting the resposne and when you place the catergories it is easier for us to think of a issuerelated to the category.

    0
    #165424

    Van Kim Ban
    Member

    Adding  to  that  I  believe  you  may  solve  many  quality  problems through  using flow-chart,pareto  and  scatter  diagram….

    0
    #165430

    Roobelon
    Member

    Hi,
    I think the fishbone has many limitations. The first thing you have to consider is that cause and effect are the same thing, the diference begins at the point you start to ask “Why?”. The second thing is every effect has two posibles causes: one as an action and other as a condition. The combination of those causes at the same time produce the effect.
    The wickness of fishbone is you treat the action cause and the condition cause by grouping them as: Material, Wormanship, Enviroment, Method, Machine and Management. You never see the combination of those at the same time.
     

    0
    #165443

    RickL
    Member

     
    This article provide good suggestion on using fishbone:
    https://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c060628b.asp

    0
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.