Source Critique 7

Application of Fishbone Diagram to Determine the Risk of an Event with Multiple Causes

Ilie, G and Ciocoiu, CN. (2010, March). Application of Fishbone Diagram to Determine the Risk of an Event with Multiple Causes. In Management Research and Practice. 2(1), 1-20.


Ishikawa Diagram

Purpose

This journal article introduces the fishbone diagram as a evaluation technique to determine causes of an event. After developing an example diagram, it goes on to assess the risk of individual causes as well as its global risk through the application of supplemental risk analysis functions.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths

>  Helps team members approach the problem in a systematic fashion.

>  Helps determine the root causes of a problem or quality issue.

>  Utilizes group knowledge and encourages communication.

>  Helps identify intelligence gaps.

Weaknesses

>  No specific weaknesses identified; however, a poorly developed diagram will not identify all of the causes for a thorough risk analysis.

Description
This article describes the development and implementation of a fishbone diagram in seven steps:

1.  Identify the problem.

2.  Formalize the problem.

3.  Determine primary and secondary causes. 

4.  Establish priority criteria.

5.  Construct the fishbone diagram detailing the primary causes.

6.  Analyze the completed diagram.

7.  Managers accept the diagram.

UsesThe methodology described by Ilie and Ciocoiu is the process of developing a fishbone diagram to identify causes of a problem and then determining the risk of each cause through prioritization and the calculation of weighted sums. The results rank each cause at a threat level from negligible to disaster. That data along with the likelihood of each cause allow managers to assess vulnerabilities in each area and take action on high risk causes.

ComparisonThis article is distinctly different from previously reviewed sources in that it has a primary focus on applying risk assessment techniques to the results of a fishbone diagram, and the description of implementing the fishbone diagram in itself is quite brief. Prior knowledge of fishbone diagrams would be extremely helpful for the reader to properly understand the context.

Sources CitedBasic Tools for Process Improvement. (1995, May 3). Retrieved December 20, 2009, from Balanced Scorecard Institute: http://www.balancedscorecard.org/Portals/0/PDF/c-ediag.pdf

Ciocoiu, CN. (2008). Managementul riscului. Teorii, practice, metodologii. Bucharest: ASE.

Ilie, G. (2009). De la management la guvernare prin risc. Bucharest: UTI Press & Detectiv.

Juran, JM. (1999). Juran’s Quality Handbook (5^th Edition). McGraw-Hill.

Straker, D. (n.d.). Cause-Effect Diagram. Retrieved January 10, 2010, from QualityTools: http://syque.com/quality_tools/toolbook/cause-effect/cause-effect.htm

Watson, G. (2004). The Legacy of Ishikawa. Quality Progress 37(4), 54-47.

Most InformativeThis article was very informative because it put the fishbone diagram into a context where it is not only used to identify causes, but also as the basis for ongoing analysis and business planning. The math is complex; however, the authors use an easy-to-understand example and work out each step numerically as well as presenting each step visually as a data table.

Source AuthorCarmen Nadia Ciocoiu is an Associate Professor at the Academy for Economic Study, Bucharest. She is well published in the field of economic simulation and business process modeling. Gheorghe Ilie is a Director with UTI Grup SRL, a high-tech consulting firm in Bucharest, Romania, specializing in information services and quality management.

Source ReliabilityHigh credibility

Critique AuthorKenda Puchalski, kenda.puchalski@gmail.com, “Mercyhurst College, Erie PA, Advanced Analytic Techniques Course,” 07 February 2011.