Metode Ilmiah Analisis Akar Masalah
Metode Ilmiah Analisis Akar Masalah
METODE
ANALISIS AKAR MASALAH
(ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS)
Contoh Definisi :
In normal chaotic organizational environments it is often quite
difficult to find candidates for root cause analysis because the
situations which repeat are either distributed over time so one
doesn't realize they are actually recurring, or the situation happens
to different people so there isn't an awareness of the recurring
nature of the situation (systems-thinking.org).
On receipt of initial notification, the department will provide the
hospital with a sentinel event reference number to be indicated on
the root cause analysis, risk reduction action plan summary and
other correspondence about the episode (Victorian State
Government – Health).
Root cause analysis (RCA) is a methodology for finding and
correcting the most important reasons for performance problems. It
differs from troubleshooting and problem-solving in that these
disciplines typically seek solutions to specific difficulties, whereas
RCA is directed at underlying issues (bill-wilson.nrt).
2
Teknik analisis akar masalah merupakan teknik analisis yang bertahap dan
terfokus untuk menemukan akar masalah suatu problem, dan bukan hanya
melihat gejala-gejala dari suatu masalah.
Contoh Definisi:
Saat ini Pendekatan Analisis Akar Masalah banyak di gunakan di
lingkungan pelayanan kesehatan / rumah sakit untuk menyelesaikan
masalah akibat Kejadian Tidak Diharapkan (KTD) dan Sentinel Event
3
Institut Manajeme
untuk Program Keselamatan Pasien (
http://pusdiknakes
Institut Manajemen Resiko KliniS)
Metode Analisis Akar Masalah dan Solusi (MAAMS) ini menyajikan
suatu cara berpikir yang diperagakan dengan tata-alir (flow chart),
disertai dengan beberapa contoh. Penerapan MAAMS membantu
penggunanya untuk berpikir induktif maupun deduktif, kualitatif
maupun kuantitatif, lebih mendalam dan menyeluruh, serta
mempermudah kerjasama inter, multi, atau transdisiplin (Jurnal
Jurnal Universitas http://journal.ui.ac
Universitas Indonesia)
Untuk masalah sosial dan humaniora bisa digunakan metode
analisis akar masalah dan solusinya (MAAMS), yang mencari sebab-
dari-sebab sekaligus berpikir out of the box. Pengalaman
mempraktikkan MAAMS di kelas ilmu sosial dasar sejak pertengahan
1990-an menunjukkan mahasiswa mampu memahami secara
metodis bahwa banyak masalah sosial berakar pada korupsi (harta,
takhta, cinta asmara, dan gabungannya) dan mengajukan solusi
dasarnya. Maraknya korupsi pada bangsa ini merupakan indikasi
Pojok Anti Korups
banyaknya keterbelahan kepribadian.
http://pojokantikor
-
Contoh definisi:
Salah satu teknik analisis yang biasa digunakan dalam menganalisa
kegagalan suatu sistem adalah analisis akar penyebab (Root Cause
Analysis). RCA adalah sebuah metode yang terstruktur yang
digunakan untuk menemukan akar penyebab dari masalah
LP Universitas Ha http://w w w .unha
kerusakan poros (LP UNHAS).
Untuk membedakan antara modus kegagalan (modes of failure),
penyebab (cause of failure), dan efek (effect of failure), maka
diambil 3 kotak terakhir dari tiap-tiap analisis akar penyebab
masalah masing-masing sebagai cause of failure, mode of failure
Mercu Buana http://74.125.153.
dan effect of failure (Mercu Buana).
Diagram Tulang-Ikan
No Pelaku Kebutuhan
1 Pemda -Peningkatan pendapatan Daerah-Peningkatan
Lapangan Kerja-Peningkatan kesejahteraan nelayan
2 Dinas Perikanan -Produksi Hasil Tangkapan memenuhi kebutuhan
dan Kelautan pasar-Menjaga potensi sumberdaya perikanan-
Peningkatan sumber informasi perikanan
3 Nelayan -Bantuan modal untuk biaya operasi-Penambahan
unit penangkapan
4 Pengusaha -Peningkatan jumah alat tangkap-Tersedianya BBM-
Pabrik es
5 Pedagang/Bakul -Bantuan modal-Fasilitas untuk berdagang-Mutu
ikan yang bagus
Formulasi Masalah
Formulasi masalah adalah suatu upaya untuk pendefinisian
permasalahan secara spesifik, sehingga masalah tersebut mencapai suatu
individu yang dimungkinkan dilaksanakannya usaha ke arah pemecahannya.
Formulasi masalah didasarkan pada penentuan informasi yang terperinci
yang dihasilkan selama identifikasi sistem. Adapun beberapa masalah yang
berkaitan dengan sistem perikanan tangkap di PPN Palabuhanratu,
diantaranya :
Identifikasi Sistem
Identifikasi sistem berhubungan dengan kebutuhan-kebutuhan yang
dibutuhkan oleh pelaku dalam system perikanan tangkap dengan masalah-
masalah yang dihadapinya. Kebutuhan tersebut ebeliputi input-output yang
terkendali dan input-ouput yang tidak dapat dikendalikan. Input yang
terkendali merupakan faktor yang mempengaruhi pemasukkan dari suatu
sistem yang dapat dikendalikan, seperti nelayan, kapal, bahan bakar, es, dan
pasar. Adapun input yang tak terkendali yang merupakan faktor yang
mempengaruhi sistem yang tidak dapat dikendalikan, seperti sumber daya
ikan, iklim, dan musim. Sedangkan, output terkendali merupakan faktor
yang mempengaruhi keluaran dari suatu sistem yang dapat dikendalikan,
seperti harga ikan, upah ABK, retribusi, dan biaya perawatan kapal. Adapun
output yang tak terkendali merupakan faktor yang mempengaruhi keluaran
suatu sistem yang tidak dapat dikendaikan, seperti kenaikkan harga BBM,
dan hasil tangkapan yang didapatkan.
Analisis Kebutuhan
Analisis kebutuhan pada dasarnya merupakan tahap awal
pengkajian dalam pendekatan sistem, dan sangat menentukan kelaikan
sistem yang dibangun. Analisis kebutuhan juga merupakan kajian terhadap
faktor-faktor yang berkaitan dengan sistem yang dianalisis. Oleh karena itu,
dalam penelitian ini analisis kebtutuhan diarahkan pada pihak-pihak yang
mempunyai kepentingan dan keterkaitan baik secara langsung maupun
tidak langsung terhadap pengendalian pencemaran perairan danau.
Dalam pengendalian pencemaran perairan danau, pihak yang
mempunyai kepentingan dan terkait secara langsung adalah
(1) Masyarakat lokal yaitu masyarakat yang tinggal di sekitar danau yang
memanfaatkan perairan danau untuk berbagai kepentingan,
(2) Dinas instansi terkait yaitu semua dinas instansi pemerintah daerah
yang mempunyai hubungan keterkaitan dengan perairan danau baik
langsung mapun tidak,
(3) Akademisi (peneliti) yaitu orang yang melakukan penelitian pada
perairan danau,
(4) Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat (LSM) yaitu lembaga yang dibentuk
masyarakat setempat yang mempunyai kepedulian terhadap
kelestarian perairan danau, dan
(5) Badan usaha milik negara yaitu perusahaan yang melakukan kegiatan
usaha di perairan danau.
Sumber: http://menyelamatkandanaulimboto.wordpress.com/pengendalian-
pencemaran-danau/marganof/3-metode-penelitian/
Identifikasi Sistem
Identifikasi sistem merupakan suatu rantai hubungan antara
pernyataan dari kebutuhan dengan pernyataan khusus dari masalah yang
harus dipecahkan untuk memenuhi kebutuhan-kebutuhan tersebut. Hal ini
sering digambarkan dalam bentuk diagram lingkar sebab-akibat (cousal loop
diagram) . Diagram tersebut merupakan pengungkapan interaksi antara
komponen di dalam sistem yang saling berinteraksi dan mempengaruhi
dalam kinerja sistem. Disamping itu, hubungan antara input (masukan) dan
output (keluaran) dalam suatu sistem digambarkan dalam sebuah diagram
inputoutput (masukan-keluaran) seperti disajikan pada gambar berikut.
Diagram lingkar sebab-akibat merupakan gambaran dari struktur model
pengendalian pencemaran di perairan danau yang dibuat berdasarkan
diagram input-output.
Sumber: http://menyelamatkandanaulimboto.wordpress.com/pengendalian-
pencemaran-danau/marganof/3-metode-penelitian/
13
Pohon Masalah
Untuk mencari MASALAH POKOK, metode pohon masalah ini mencobamenelusuri
masalah hingga ke AKAR MASALAH. Harapannya, jika akar masalahtersebut bisa
terpecahkan maka masalah utama akan terpecahkan.Instrumen yang paling umum
digunakan adalah pohon masalah.
1. Tuliskan satu MASALAH POKOK pada selembar kartu dan tempelkan
padapapan tulis atau pinboard
2. Carilah penyebab langsung terjadinya masalah pokok tersebut
denganmenelusuri hubungan SEBAB AKIBAT
3. Telusuri SEBAB AKIBAT sampai ke akar penyebabnya, sampai
POHON MASALAHterbentuk secara lengkap
4. Tulislah satu pernyataan yang dianggap sebagai penyebab langsung
terjadinyaMasalah Pokok
5. Begitu seterusnya sampai tidak ada lagi yang masih dapat
diidentifikasi sebagaipenyebab langsung terjadinya keadaan
14
sampahkurangterawat
Ht gundul Irigasi
SISTEMIK MASALAH
Berbeda dengan Pohon Masalah, metode ini melihat bahwa masalah itu saling
bertautan dan saling mempengaruhi. MASALAH POKOK merupakan masalah yang
mempunyai pengaruh terbesar terhadap MASALAH lainnya.
Tahap-tahap yang harus dilalui adalah:
1. Menuliskan MASALAH-MASALAH masing-masing pada selembar
kartu
2. Menempelkan semua kartu yang bertuliskan MASALAH pada
papan
3. Menunjukkan SEBAB AKIBAT antar masalah-masalah tersebut
denganmenggunakan TANDA PANAH
15
Sekala
Akses modal Daya tawar
Usaha Kecil
lemah lemah
Hal yang penting adalah bukan mempelajari dan menggunakan semua alat
in, tetapi lebih untuk mengenal alat-alat analisa akar masalah dan
mengaplikasikan teknik-teknik atau alat yang sesuai untuk menangani suatu
masalah tertentu.
PEMAHAMAN MASALAH
Diagram Hubungan
Diagram hubungan antara iklim dan tanaman.
Sumber: http://taman-agribisnis.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.html
20
Penting untuk diingat bahwa penamaan terhadap kelompok ide (atau tema
dari kelompok) sebaiknya dicantumkan setelah dilakukan proses
pengelompokkan dan bukan sebelumnya. Sehingga dengan demikian tema
kelompok ide akan relevan dengan ide-ide yang terkumpul pada kelompok
tersebut. Sebagai contoh, kumpulan ide hasil brainstorming seperti yang
diperlihatkan pada tabel berikut, setelah dilakukan penyaringan dan
pengelompokan akan tampak seperti yang diperlihatkan pada tabel.
meningkatkan menyediakan
komunikasi di semua waktu bagi middle
sektor manager untuk
berpartisipasi
akses yang luas Membentuk steering
terhadap informasi committee dengan
wewenang yang jelas
membuat menyediakan
defenisi support staff
operasional bagi middle
mengenai manager
pengetian
proses
menghitung Membuat
process program goals
capability. yang jelas
Menyediakan
waktu bagi
middle manager
untuk
berpartisipasi
membentuk
steering
committee
dengan
wewenang yang
jelas
ANALISIS SEBAB-AKIBAT
1. Cause and effect chart (CE diagram). Suatu alat yang mudah
diaplikasikan / digunakan untuk menganalisa sebab-sebab yang
mungkin dari suatu masalah.
2. Matrix Diagram. Suatu teknik visual untuk mengatur potongan-
potongan informasi sesuai dengan aspek-aspek tertentu.
3. Five whys (Lima Mengapa). Suatu pendekatan yang digunakan untuk
menyelidiki lebih mendalam tentang hubungan-hubungan sebab
(causal relationships).
Contoh CE-diagram:
How to draw CE diagram
Step 1
Write down the effect to be investigated and draw the 'backbone' arrow to it.
In the example shown below the effect is 'Incorrect deliveries'.
Step 2
Identify all the broad areas of enquiry in which the causes of the
effect being investigated may lie. For incorrect deliveries the diagram
may then become:
25
For manufacturing processes, the broad areas of enquiry which are most
often used are Materials (raw materials), Equipment (machines and tools),
Workers (methods of work), and Inspection (measuring method).
Step 3.
This step requires the greatest amount of work and imagination
because it requires you (or you and your team) to write in all the
detailed possible causes in each of the broad areas of enquiry. Each
cause identified should be fully explored for further more specific
causes which, in turn, contribute to them.
Sumber: http://www.hci.com.au/hcisite3/toolkit/causeand.htm
26
Note the emphasis on the use of evidence and reasoning for investigating
and acquiring knowledge: this could very well serve as a working description
of the root cause analysis process. Consider also that science can refer to
27
both natural (or "hard") sciences like physics and chemistry, or social ("soft")
sciences like economics and sociology.
So, even root cause analysis efforts that delve into issues of human and
organizational performance must be performed scientifically and be subject
to rigorous standards of evidence. (Of course, this has little bearing on the
parts of a root cause analysis that deal solely with physical/technical issues.)
In summary, the root cause analysis process contains many elements that
are not consistent with the belief that it is an art. These elements (evidence,
reasoning, objective standards), however, are fully consistent with the
characterization of root cause analysis as a science, or at least as a process
dominated by scientific thinking. While certain aspects of the process may
be subjective in nature, even these must be performed within an objective,
scientific framework for the process to have any validity. Thus, the assertion
that RCA is "more art than science" is not justified, and should not be
promoted.
When RCA practitioners talk about Root Causes, they are basically talking
about Causes that have all the qualities listed above. They want you to
understand that problems are like plants that you don't want, i.e. weeds. If
you leave a weed alone, you will end up with more weeds. If you try to
remove a weed by cutting it off at the surface, your weed will grow back.
The part of a weed you have to kill or remove to prevent future weeds is the
root. The best overall solution would be to treat the soil so weeds don't take
root in the first place!
So, back to the real questions at hand: what is a Root Cause? At what point
are you satisfied that you've found one? When can you stop asking "Why"?
Here's a short answer: you're right next to a Root Cause for your problem
when you reach a fundamental force, law, or limit that cannot be removed
by any action taken within your system. The actual Root Cause is the
contradiction between your system's values (purpose, rules, culture, etc.)
and these fundamental forces, laws, or limits.
That's all I'm going to say for now, but I'll be exploring this topic in more
detail in the future. Keep watching my blog for more articles on this topic.
It has been discussed the definition of the word root as it applies to the
concept of root cause. However, that article did not provide a definition for
29
the word cause. While the meaning of cause may seem obvious to the casual
observer, this article will develop a very precise definition that is useful for
the incident investigator or root cause analyst.
First, consider the concept of an effect. The word itself is fairly ambiguous,
because it is so often tied to the word cause, as in cause and effect. Looking
at the concept intuitively, however, yields some insight. What is the
difference between having an effect, versus having no effect?
In a situation where some action was taken, but there is no effect, then
nothing changed. If there was an effect, then something must have changed.
The difference is then the presence or lack of a change. In essence, an effect
is a change.
Incorporating all the points discussed above leads to the following definition
for cause:
Sumber: http://syque.com/quality_tools/toolbook/cause-effect/example.htm
31
Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is generally conducted in several phases. I've seen
some methodologies that break down the RCA process into as many as a
dozen different steps. In reality, however, there are just three main phases
we need to be concerned about. More importantly, these three phases are
very different from each other... so different that they should always be kept
distinctly separate. I've designated these phases Investigation, Analysis, and
Decision. Read on to see why.
Tahap 1: Investigation
The purpose of the investigation phase is to discover facts that show HOW
an incident occurred. During investigation, we are not concerned with what
didn't happen, or what should have happened -- the only concern is what
actually happened, without any judgement of value. Investigation deals with
facts in a value-neutral manner.
During the investigation phase, if you find yourself using words like "not",
"should", "error", "incorrect", "inappropriate", etc., STOP! You are injecting
value judgements into a practice that requires absolute neutrality. Facts
exist regardless of what we think or feel about them. Jumping too early into
what should have happened will obscure your vision of what did happen.
There may be times when required facts simply aren't available -- critical
evidence was destroyed in the process, or there were no witnesses to a
critical event. In such cases, you have some options. Consider secondary
sources that may not be conclusive, but could provide enough circumstantial
evidence to guide further investigation. Attempt to reconstruct the event
using plausible scenarios and then perform controlled tests to confirm or
deny the most likely explanations.
Regardless of the tools you use, the final product of the investigation phase
should be a factual representation of the incident. If some facts were not
available, and theory (backed up by testing) had to be used instead, ensure
this is clearly evident in the representation of the incident. This
representation should then be thought of as a complete script or plan for
reproducing the incident in detail. Only after you've reached this point
should you progress to the next phase, Analysis.
Tahap 2: Analysis
The purpose of the analysis phase is to discover reasons that explain WHY an
incident occurred. This is when you take the purely factual representation of
the incident and view it within the context of the system (or organization)
that created it. The values of the system (purpose, rules, culture, etc.) can
now be used to compare what actually happened against what should have
happened, at any point during the incident.
32
During the analysis phase, do not let yourself fall into the trap of believing
that the values of the system are always correct! You are not just analyzing
the incident itself, but also the system that created it. Mentally place
yourself within the incident, watch events unfold, and then determine if the
system's values were, for example: correct but inadequately applied,
insufficient to prevent the incident, or incorrect such that the system's
values actually created (or contributed to) the incident.
Don't get too caught up in the mechanics of the analysis tool being used.
Many tools are available to aid the analysis phase. Each has it's own
strengths and weaknesses, and preferred realms of application. For
example, if you're not getting any insight using barrier analysis, switch over
to change analysis. The point of any analysis tool is to provide insight, and in
some situations, one tool may be vastly superior to another.
Finally, do not let questions like "how can I fix this? ..." be considered during
the analysis phase. It is all too easy to let desired corrective actions colour
your perceptions of an incident's causes. However, analysis is about
discovering conditions that exist now or existed in the past. The future must
not enter into the equation. Jumping too early into what could be risks
obscuring your vision of what is.
Regardless of the tools you use, the final product of the analysis phase
should be a finite set of root causes for the incident that show why it was
inevitable. Yes, inevitable -- these are fundamental, latent conditions that
were just laying around waiting for some kind of trigger to activate. Only
after you've reached this realization should you progress to the next phase,
Decision.
Tahap 3: Decision
The purpose of the decision phase is to develop recommendations that
identify WHAT should be learned and WHAT needs to be done. In this phase,
we are concerned with correcting or eliminating the root causes of an
incident. This can only be accomplished if both learning and action occur.
Learning without action is mere mental trickery, while action without
learning is simply useless physical exercise. Both are required for long-term,
effective results.
During the decision phase, beware of overly-specific, conditional corrective
action recommendations! It is often tempting to save effort by cramming
one more feature or condition into an existing mechanism. However, doing
so often just adds complexity to a situation that has already shown itself to
be prone to failure. Do not be afraid to recommend complete redesign in
such situations.
In some situations, there may be several options available to correct or
eliminate a root cause. In such cases, a structured decision analysis method
should be used to gauge competing recommendations against criteria such
33
Finally, once it is decided which lessons must be learned and which actions
must be taken, make one final check. Evaluate the recommendations
against the original incident. Ask yourself "if we had known these lessons,
and had these measures in place, would the incident still have occurred?"
Similarly for the root causes, ask "... would these root causes still exist?"
Only when you can honestly answer "NO" to both of these questions do
you have a plan that has a good chance of being effective.
Catatan Penutup
Hopefully, by this point you have begun to understand why I've identified
three different phases of Root Cause Analysis and why they should be kept
separate. I hope this one final thought will help you understand completely:
the three phases of Root Cause Analysis differ in their balances of objectivity
versus subjectivity. Moving subjectivity too early into the process ultimately
destroys it's integrity.
Investigation must be completely objective, in order to expose only
factual relationships.
Analysis can be subjective, but only to the extent that different
systems or organizations have different values, some of which may
be contradictory or incorrect.
Decision is subjective in that multiple options may exist to correct or
eliminate root causes, and selection of the right options must be
coloured by what we want our values to be in the future.
Finally, note that in this whole article, I've not taken us past the point of
deciding what to do. In other words, what about actually doing? In my
opinion, that's a completely different process, perhaps the subject of a
future article. All I will say at this point is that the Root Cause Analysis
philosophy outlined above fulfills the "Plan" portion of the "Plan-Do-Check-
Adjust" cycle (PDCA). Hopefully, what I've written here will help you Plan
better!
1. Problem Statement
The Problem Statement is a clear, concise and measurable description
of waste, rework or deviation from a standard (the norm). It should
explain WHO is experiencing the problem, WHEN they experienced the
problem, and WHERE they experienced the problem. The description
must be measurable, and should refer to the standard.
2. Goal Statement
The Goal Statement is the clear, concise, measurable and attainable
objective. It must include a precise target date to accomplish the goal.
The Goal Statement must mirror the problem statement.
3. Point of Cause
Think Cause and Effect. If the problem is waste or the deviation from
standard, then the point of cause is the physical time and/or location
the deviation is occurring. Apply the Because Equation to the problem
to help define the Point of Cause (The problem occurs BECAUSE of the
point of cause).
4. Root Causes
35
6. Follow Up
This is the “Check and Adjust” phase of the PDCA. When the group first
plans the counter measures to be taken, they should schedule a time
to return to check on their success. This can be a week into the future,
a month, six months, a year – depending on the target date set in the
36
7. Standardization
Standardization is developing the logistics of the process so that work
is performed the same way across communities, companies, cities and
states. Standardization includes communication and education. The
group communicates the standard through sharing the PDCA, creating
a Standardized Work Instruction Sheet (SWIS), creating a Value Stream
or Process Map, updating a manual, among other tools. The group
educates through reviewing a SWIS at a team meeting, creating a
certification program, one-on-one coaching, and so on.
Plan (Rencanakan)
Meletakkan sasaran dan proses yang dibutuhkan untuk memberikan
hasil yang sesuai dengan spesifikasi.
Do (Kerjakan)
Implementasi proses.
Check (Cek)
Memantau dan mengevaluasi proses dan hasil terhadap sasaran dan
spesifikasi dan melaporkan hasilnya.
Hasil-hasil Statistik
X 1 1 11 F1 12 F2 .... 1m Fm 1
X p p p1 F1 p 2 F2 .... pm Fm p
hi2 2i 1 2i 2 .... 2i m
Statistik uji :
p p
r
i 1 j 1
2
ij
KMO = p p p p
r
i 1 j 1
2
ij a ij2
i 1 j 1
Apabila nilai KMO lebih besar dari 0,5 maka terima Ho sehingga dapat
disimpulkan jumlah data telah cukup difaktorkan.
40
Statistik Uji :
1 p
rk rik , k = 1, 2,...,p
p 1 i 1
2
r rik
p( p 1) i k
ˆ
( p 1) 2 1 (1 r ) 2
p ( p 2)(1 r ) 2
Dengan :
r k = rata-rata elemen diagonal pada kolom atau baris ke k dari matrik R
(matrik korelasi)
r = rata-rata keseluruhan dari elemen diagonal
Daerah penolakan :
tolak H0 jika
(n 1) p
2 ik
2
T ( r r ) ˆ (r k r ) 2 2 ( p 1) ( p 2) / 2;
(1 r ) i k k 1
Beyond the statistical results, the study examined the ability of the
students to identify root causes that were specific and reasonable. Note that
this factor was examined separately from the usability factor discussed
above.
CED: In general, students using the CED were not able to identify
specific root causes, even though they perceived it to be better at
"... facilitating productive problem-solving activity, being easier to
use, and more readable."
ID: Students using the ID were able to find (i.e., identify and agree
upon) root causes, but they were of mixed quality as regards
specificity and reasonability. Otherwise, the ID was perceived to be
no worse than the CED, in general.
CRT: The students perceived the CRT as complex and difficult to use.
However, even though most students using the CRT were
uncomfortable doing so, the quality of their outputs was better.
They were able to find root causes most of the time, and with high
integrity in over half the cases.
Contoh aplikasi ID :
An Interrelationship Digraph is used to analyze the cause and effect relationships
that exist between ideas so that the key drivers and outcomes can be determined.
An Interrelationship Digraph consists of circularly positioned ideas with arrows
indicating the direction of influence of one idea upon another. Only the dominant
direction of influence is drawn, therefore arrows pointing in both directions
between ideas are not present in a traditional Interrelationship Digraph (ID).
The following steps show how a traditional ID is constructed.
1. Define an issue or problem and collect the related ideas (5 to 25 ideas).
2. Write the ideas on cards in large letters and arrange them in a large
circular pattern on a wall or other surface such that arrows can be easily
drawn between them.
menyebabkan dampak terbesar ~ 80%. Walau angka ini bisa diperdebatkan, kalau
bercermin dari konsep pareto, maka kita tidak perlu ragu menggunakannya.
Pada prakteknya, diagram yang digunakan mirip dengan fault tree analysis, setiap
node dalam cabang masalah ini dikenal dengan UDE – undesireable effect. Solusi
atau injection (meminjam istilah pengobatan) pada akar dapat juga disertai injection
pada UDE karena boleh jadi ada prasyarat agar hasilnya lebih optimal.
Biasanya CRT digunakan untuk menggambarkan kondisi saat ini (as-is). Oleh
karenanya dengan CRT kita dapat mengetahui kondisi pencemaran lingkungan pada
saat ini. Kalau ingin membangun kondisi yang seharusnya (to-be or should be) maka
CRT dapat dimodifikasi dengan memberikan injection di bagian tertentu plus
wording-nya diubah sesuai dengan kondisi yang diinginkan (kalimat positif). Diagram
baru ini disebut FRT (future reality tree).
Sumber: http://www.pinnacle-strategies.com/
Theory%20of%20Constraints%20Jonah%20Thinking%20Processes.htm
Current Reality Tree (CRT, similar to the current state map used by many
organizations) — evaluates the network of cause-effect relations between the
undesirable effects (UDE's, also known as gap elements) and helps to pinpoint the
root cause(s) of most of the undesirable effects.
Future Reality Tree (FRT) - Once some strategies (injections) are chosen to
solve the root cause uncovered in the evaporating cloud and current reality
tree, the FRT maps the future states of the system to identify all
44
Sumber: http://www.pinnacle-strategies.com/
Theory%20of%20Constraints%20Jonah%20Thinking%20Processes.htm
45
Sumber: http://www.pinnacle-strategies.com/
Theory%20of%20Constraints%20Jonah%20Thinking%20Processes.htm
46
Transition Tree (TrT) - describes in detail the actions that will lead to the
fulfillment of a plan to implement a certain outcome, the expected
intermediate states and the assumptions of why one believes the actions
will work.
Sumber: http://www.pinnacle-strategies.com/
Theory%20of%20Constraints%20Jonah%20Thinking%20Processes.htm
47
Sumber: http://www.pinnacle-strategies.com/
Theory%20of%20Constraints%20Jonah%20Thinking%20Processes.htm
48
Checklists Akar-Masalah
Visi Akar-Masalah (The Root Cause Vision)
Incident Response
Initial questions to ask the next time you experience a problem, from
Patterns of Response.
1. What is the current, actual impact of the problem?
2. What is the potential impact if the problem is not solved?
3. What level of risk are we willing to live with, that is also supportable
from a moral/legal/contractual viewpoint?
4. What would be an acceptable outcome that balances risk, cost, and
benefit?
Fundamental logic checks to employ for verification of any and all causal
claims arrived at through investigation or analysis, from Five-by-Five Whys.
1. What proof do I have that this cause exists? (Is it concrete? Is it
measurable?)
2. What proof do I have that this cause could lead to the stated effect?
(Am I merely asserting causation?)
3. What proof do I have that this cause actually contributed to the
problem I'm looking at? (Even given that it exists and could lead to
this problem, how do I know it wasn't actually something else?)
4. Is anything else needed, along with this cause, for the stated effect
to occur? (Is it self-sufficient? Is something needed to help it along?)
5. Can anything else, besides this cause, lead to the stated effect? (Are
there alternative explanations that fit better? What other risks are
there?)
Questions for probing the reasons for events that appear to be caused by
human error, from Human Error.
1. Was the possibility of the error known? *
2. Were the potential consequences of the error known? *
3. What about the activity made it prone to the occurrence of the
error?
4. What about the situation contributed to the creation of the error?
5. Was there an opportunity to prevent the error prior to it's
occurrence? *
50
6. Once the error was committed, was there any way to recover from
it? *
7. What about the system sustained the error instead of terminating
it?
8. What fed the error, and drove it to become a bigger problem?
9. What made the consequences as bad as they were?
10. What (if anything) kept the consequences from being worse?
* If YES, why did the event proceed beyond this point? If NO, why not?
some problems are more complex than others, and may result from
the interaction of several different causes. If we don't identify all the
relevant interactions, we may miss something truly important.
The fields of incident investigation and root cause analysis are over-
abundantly supplied with acronyms, like E&CF, ETBA, MORT, MES, etc. After
much investigation, I've determined that to become really famous in this
business, you've got to have at least one acronym attributed to you.
Therefore, I hereby unleash the BOGUS test upon the world at large, as
defined by these five factors:
Beyond Control
Obvious
Grandiose
Unrelated
Simplistic
Beyond Control: Some conditions are beyond our control, like stupidity,
gravity, or the weather. We can't make them go away, nor can we change
their fundamental natures. The problem is that by identifying such a
condition as a cause, we run the risk of deciding to ignore it because its
"beyond our control." The attribution of cause should instead be made to a
lack of protection against a hazard.
Grandiose: Sometimes you hear cause statements that make you wish you
knew what the investigator was smoking. "We did not leverage our core
competencies to instill a culture of knowledge discovery and effect a
paradigm shift to agile performance..." is an example of a grandiose cause
statement. It would be better to say something like "... we don’t learn from
52
our past mistakes, and that is hurting us." There is virtue in simplicity -- try
to distill cause statements down to their pure essence.
Unrelated: We often have more than one problem to deal with, and it can
be tempting to tie one problem to another in order to save time and effort.
However, in doing so we must ensure that we do not attempt to "force-fit"
an unrelated cause onto a different problem. In trying to kill two birds with
one stone, we might later find that both birds are alive and well, and happily
making new baby birds that can't wait to grow up and come peck your eyes
out.
Pros
Conceptually simple, easy to grasp.
Easy to use and apply, requires minimal resources.
Works well in combination with other methods.
Results translate naturally into corrective action recommendations.
Cons
Sometimes promotes linear thinking.
Sometimes subjective in nature.
Can confuse causes and countermeasures.
Reproducibility can be low for cases that are not obvious or simple.
Definisi-definisi
Diskusi
At the heart of barrier analysis is the concept of the target. The primary
quality of a target is that it exists under a specified range or set of
conditions, and that we require it to be maintained within that specified
54
range or set of conditions. This very general quality means that almost
anything can be a target -- a person, a piece of equipment, a collection of
data, etc.
Given the concept of the target, we then move to the means by which a
target is adversely affected. By adverse effect, we mean that the target is
somehow moved outside of it's required range or set of conditions. Anything
that does this is called a hazard. This is a very general quality -- almost
anything can be a hazard. However, it is possible to uniquely define
hazard/target pairs by the pathways through which hazards affects targets.
Having identified hazards, targets, and the pathways through which hazards
affect targets, we arrive at the concepts of barriers and controls. These are
used to protect and/or maintain a target within it's specified range or set of
conditions, despite the presence of hazards. The primary quality of a barrier
or control is that it cuts off a pathway by which a hazard can affect a target.
Barriers and controls are often designed into systems, or planned into
activities, to protect people, equipment, information, etc. The problem is
that design and planning are rarely perfect. All hazards may not be identified
beforehand, or unrecognized pathways to targets may surface. In both of
these cases, appropriate barriers and controls may not be present. Even if
they are present, they may not be as effective as originally intended. As a
result, targets may lack adequate protection from change or damage.
The purpose of barrier analysis is thus to identify pathways that were left
unprotected, or barriers and controls that were present but not effective. All
pathways relate to specific hazard/target pairs, and all barriers and controls
relate to specific pathways. Success in barrier analysis depends on the
complete and thorough identification of all pathways.
Konsep-konsep
Efektivitas Umpan-balik
Kelemahannya
The use of barrier analysis presupposes that countermeasures were
considered during the design of a system, or planning of an activity. The
results of a complete and thorough barrier analysis may identify many
opportunities to create new countermeasures, or to improve existing
countermeasures. However, given the same consequence to investigate,
different investigators might propose any of the following (or variations
and/or combinations thereof) as root causes:
preliminary hazard analysis was inadequate;
appropriate countermeasure was not provided;
inappropriate countermeasures were provided;
existing countermeasure was inadequate;
existing countermeasure was not properly employed;
existing countermeasure was rendered inoperative;
hazard was not controlled;
target should not have been exposed to hazard;
etc.
All these statements may be true. However, such variability makes it
extremely difficult to rely on barrier analysis alone as a root cause analysis
tool. It is therefore recommended that barrier analysis results always be
reviewed independently, and that barrier analysis never be used as the sole
method for determining root causes.
In the opinion of the author, the only statement above that qualifies as a
potentially valid root cause statement is the first, "preliminary hazard
analysis was inadequate." This statement could then be qualified with
supporting evidence and analysis; in fact, all the other items listed might be
provided to illustrate how the preliminary hazard analysis failed.
57
Pros
Conceptually simple, easy to grasp.
Works well in combination with other methods.
Results translate naturally into corrective action recommendations.
Can be used to find causes that are obscure, or that defy discovery
using other methods.
Cons
Requires some basis for comparison.
Resource intensive, requires exhaustive characterization of
deviation.
Applicable only to a single, specific deviation.
Provides only direct causes for a deviation.
Results may not be conclusive; testing usually required.
Definisi
Diskusi
As suggested by the name of the technique, change analysis is based on the
concept that change (or difference) can lead to deviations in performance.
This presupposes that a suitable basis for comparison exists. What is then
required is to fully specify both the deviated and undeviated conditions, and
then compare the two so that changes or differences can be identified. Any
change identified in this process thus becomes a candidate cause of the
overall deviation.
What is a suitable basis for comparison? There are basically three types of
situations that can be used. First, if the deviation occurred during
performance of some task or operation that has been performed before,
then this past experience can be the basis. Second, if there is some other
58
task or operation that is similar to the deviated situation, then that can be
used. Finally, a detailed model or simulation of the task (including controlled
event reconstruction) can be used, if feasible.
Once a suitable basis for comparison is identified, then the deviation can be
specified. Various schemes exist for performing this specification. Perhaps
the most useful scheme (attributed to Kepner and Tregoe) involves four
dimensions (WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and EXTENT) and two aspects (IS and IS
NOT). Regardless of the scheme used, the end result should be a list of
characteristics that fully describe the deviated condition.
Given the full specification of the deviated condition, it becomes possible to
perform a detailed comparison with the selected undeviated condition. Each
difference between the deviated and undeviated situations is marked for
further investigation. In essence, each individual difference (or some
combination of differences) is a potential cause of the overall deviation.
After the potential causes are found, each is reviewed to determine if it
could reasonably lead to the deviation, and under what circumstances. The
most likely causes are those that require the fewest additional conditions or
assumptions. In this way, a large list of potential causes can be whittled
down to a short list of likely causes. Finally, given the likely causes, the
actual or true cause(s) must be identified. Generally speaking, the only way
to verify which likely cause is the true cause is by testing.
The purpose of change analysis is thus to discover likely causes of a
deviation through comparison with a non-deviated condition, and then to
verify true causes by testing. True causes found using change analysis are
usually direct causes of a single deviation; change analysis will not usually
yield root causes. However, change analysis may at times be the only
method that can find important, direct causes that are obscure or hidden.
Success in change analysis depends ultimately on the precision used to
specify a deviation, and in verification of true cause through testing.
Konsep-konsep
Perubahan (Change)
Change is introduced in all factors of life continuously. Some sources of
change are planned, as in deliberate actions taken to achieve a purpose.
Other sources of change are unplanned, as in natural, random variation, or
as in factors introduced unintentionally due to outside influences or as the
result of error. Whatever the source, change is often a source of disruption
in the normal, expected, or usual flow of events. When change is not
accounted for or compensated, it can lead to deviations.
As discussed above, change analysis depends on the recognition of changes
or differences that could have led to a specific deviation. Sometimes,
however, multiple changes may have occurred over time that combine to
59
Deskripsi
Causal factor tree analysis is an investigation and analysis technique used to
record and display, in a logical, tree-structured hierarchy, all the actions and
conditions that were necessary and sufficient for a given consequence to
have occurred.
Cons
Cannot easily handle or display time dependence.
Sequence dependencies can be treated, but difficulty increases
significantly with added complexity.
Shows where unknowns exist, but provides no means of resolving
them.
Stopping points can be somewhat arbitrary.
Definisi
Diskusi
Tree structures are often used to display information in an organized,
hierarchical fashion: organization charts, work breakdown structures,
genealogical charts, disk directory listings, etc. The ability of tree structures
to incorporate large amounts of data, while clearly displaying parent-child or
other dependency relationships, also makes the tree a very good vehicle for
incident investigation and analysis. Combination of the tree structure with
cause-effect linking rules and appropriate stopping criteria yields the causal
factor tree, one of the more popular investigation and analysis tools in use
today.
Typically, a causal factor tree is used to investigate a single adverse event or
consequence, which is usually shown as the top item in the tree. Factors
62
that were immediate causes of this effect are then displayed below it, linked
to the effect using branches. Note that the set of immediate causes must
meet certain criteria for necessity, sufficiency, and existence. More
information on what constitutes a necessary and sufficient cause can be
found in this article on the definition of cause. Proof of existence requires
evidence.
Once the immediate causes for the top item in the tree are shown, then the
immediate causes for each of these factors can be added, and so on. Every
cause added to the tree must meet the same requirements for necessity,
sufficiency, and existence. Eventually, the structure begins to resemble a
tree's root system. Chains of cause and effect flow upwards from the
bottom of the tree, ultimately reaching the top level. In this way, a complete
description can be built of the factors that led to the adverse consequence.
Often, an item in the tree will require explanation, but the immediate causes
are not yet known. The causal factor tree process will only expose this
knowledge gap; it does not provide any means to resolve it. This is when
other methods such as change analysis or barrier analysis can be used to
provide answers for the unknowns. Once the unknowns become known,
they can then be added to the tree as immediate causes for the item in
question.
Each new cause added to the tree should be evaluated as a potential
endpoint. When can a cause be designated as an endpoint? This is an object
of some debate. Several notable RCA practitioners use some version of the
following criteria:
The cause must be fundamental (i.e. not caused by something more
important), AND
The cause must be correctable by management (or does not require
correction), AND
If the cause is removed or corrected, the adverse consequence does
not occur.
These three criteria, taken together, are basically just a statement of the
most-widely used definition for "root cause". An alternate set of criteria,
preferred by the author, is presented below. Note that these are all
referenced to the system being analyzed. (An article deriving and explaining
these criteria is forthcoming.)
The cause is a system response to a requirement imposed from
outside the system, or
The cause is a contradiction between requirements imposed from
within the system, or
The cause is a lack of control over system response to a disturbance,
or
The cause is a fundamental limit of the system design.
63
A causal factor tree will usually have many endpoints. The set of all
endpoints is in fact a fundamental set of causes for the top consequence in
the tree. This fundamental set includes endpoints that would be
considered both beneficial or detrimental; every one of them had to exist,
otherwise the consequence would have been different. Endpoints that
require corrective action would typically be called root causes, or root and
contributing causes if some scheme is being used to differentiate causes in
terms of importance.
Sumber: http://www.oxenrideronsynergy.com/2011/09/creative-root-cause-analysis-
terminology/
Agregasi
Aggregation is the operation consisting in condensing the information contained in
each criterion into one single item of information. This supposes that the following
questions receive an answer. Should the same weight be given to all the criteria
constituting the index? Or should they be given different weights? And if so, how?
What is the relationship between the index and the indicators? Is it a sum, a
product, or something more complicated?
In practice, both questions usually come down to a dilemma between a simple and a
weighted average. The question of weighting is a crucial and distinctly difficult one.
It consists in attributing a weight, and therefore a specific value to the various
dimensions of the concept. For instance, in the case of a poverty index, it could
consist in giving more weight to the material dimension than to the social (isolation,
exclusion) or cultural dimensions.
Dimensions and indicators making up an index can be represented in the form of a
tree diagram, the concept being the trunk of the tree and each branch representing
one of the dimensions, with each branch breaking down into sub-branches ending
up with the leaves representing the actual indicators. At each branching out, a
weighting can be attributed to the branches arising there, with at the end the leaves
to which is attached a weight equal to the product of the coefficients of the sub-
branches and the branches from which they arise.
67
the status quo, and the major root causes of the situation need to be identified in
order to devise effective ways of dealing with them. Problems and their inter-
relationships can be identified and visualized using the so-called “problem tree”.
The problem tree is a diagram showing the cause–effect relationships between
problem conditions in a defined contest.
How to proceed:
1. Define precisely the situation (sector, subsector, area, and so on.) to be
analysed;
2. Define some (approximately five) major problem conditions related to the
selected situation;
3. Organize the problem conditions according to their cause –effect
relationships;
4. Add additional problems, thus describing causes and effects; and
5. Check the diagram (tree) for completeness (most relevant conditions) and
logical order.
It is important to identify, on the basis of the problem analysis, the objectives and
results that the project is intended to achieve. If there is no secure commitment
from all the parties concerned to the project’s objectives and results, then friction
69
Berikut ini adalah contoh Pohon-Tujuan untuk pencemaran sungai dari Pedoman EC
PCM:
The situation analysis is concluded with the selection strategy, i.e. the exercise of
synthesising a significant amount of information then making a complex judgement
about the best implementation strategy (or strategies) to pursue. The figure below
summarizes the passage from the situation analysis to planning:
70
71
Much more could be written about these groupings, and the problem
solving sequence in general, but I'll let it go for now. Just keep in mind the
intent of presenting such a thing is to provide a structured framework for
solving problems, not to box you in or limit you unnecessarily. Please use
this if you think it will be helpful; otherwise, ignore it!
1. RESPOND - Respond to the problem: address injury/damage that
has already been caused, make appropriate notifications,
preserve/quarantine evidence to the extent possible, initiate
cleanup actions.
2. MITIGATE - Mitigate the immediate causes: take action to reduce
the production and/or release of the bad thing, enhance protections
against it, find a way to eliminate it or minimize it.
3. ASSESS - Assess risk: determine extent of condition, review
adequacy of measures in place, assess risk of further harm, decide if
deeper analysis required.
4. INVESTIGATE - Investigate the how: track the actual sequence of
events, figure out what changes of state took place, determine the
script behind the problem.
5. ANALYZE - Analyze the why: break down the script and determine
critical points, figure out what should have happened, find the gaps
between actual and expected, uncover key forcing factors,
determine extent of cause.
6. DESIGN - Design the solution: find the weaknesses, pick the points
of most leverage, develop solution options, decide on best
combination of actions, validate the plan, get buy-in and funding.
72
Model digunakan secara luas dalam analisis akar masalah. Probably the
most fundamental of these is the model of causation. There are models
based on manipulability, probability, counterfactual logic, etc. This is an area
of considerable complexity, as no single model seems to address all possible
situations.
The counterfactual logic model of causation is used most often in root cause
analysis, as it is the easiest to grasp and is generally the most useful. It is the
model that gives us the necessary and sufficient test, and for this alone, it's
usefulness to the investigator or analyst is boundless. However, even this
model fails under certain circumstances.
This last point might initially seem to be a disadvantage. How can a model
that becomes unworkable ever be beneficial? Consider it this way -- what if
we used an alternate model that happily gave us answers, well outside it's
range of applicability? We might very well continue using the model without
realizing that it no longer applied.
Sumber: http://www.reallysimplebusinesstools.com/content/simple-
model-human-behavior)
In the end, we are left with models upon models upon models... each with
their own rules and assumptions, strengths and weaknesses. As stated
previously, models are useful because they help us abstract away
unimportant data so we can increase our focus on useful information. This is
the strength of using models; unfortunately, it is also the main weakness. If
models are used without knowledge of their assumptions and limitations,
we could end up discounting potentially important facts and misdirecting
our investigations.
There is no single "model of everything" we can rely upon to provide good
answers in all cases. However, we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that the
various models can't help us achieve better root cause analysis results.
Models can guide us to possibilities we might have missed, and provide
insights that we might not have seen. The key success strategy may well be
to have knowledge of a wide variety of models that can be used in a variety
of situations. Then, as with anything else in life, we must simply ensure that
we understand the tools we use, before we use them.
79
One way to learn more about how a forested ecosystem works is to build a
model.
An ecosystem model is an accurate but simplified representation of an
ecosystem that can be very useful in thinking about or simulating the actions
of a real ecosystem. Because any ecosystem has many different but
interrelated components, the best way to understand the system is to break
it down into its component parts. To get an introduction to a very simplified
forest model, see our Forest Ecosystem Gamewhich gives participants and
introduction to how a hardwood forest ecosystem works before and after
exotic earthworms invade.
Step One:
The first step in building a graphical model of a hardwood forest ecosystem
is to identify its major components.
The components of any ecosystem are those physical things that contain
energy and nutrients. In a graphical Forest Ecosystem, these components
are often illustrated using boxes like in Figure 1 below.
understory contains most of the visible plant life found between the sapling
layer and forest floor. The forest floor is where one would find most of the
plant roots, bulbs, fungi, seeds, years of accumulated leaves and twigs. The
soil is the “dirt” under the forest floor and is composed largely of minerals of
various grain size (very small grain size = clay…very large grain size = sand)
and organic material that has been mixed in with the mineral component. In
addition, there are numerous animals that live in the forest, and of course
we cannot forget people. We will add those two components to our forest
ecosystem model later.
Step Two:
Once you have identified the components of your ecosystem model, you
need to define the processes that connect the components. This is
graphically done by using arrows to indicate the flow of nutrients or energy
among the different ecosystem components.
The components of our ecosystem model are now connected by processes that result in
the movement of energy or nutrients among the components.
This is because there are no substantial processes that result in the flow of
nutrients directly from a tree to an understory plant or visa-versa (the flow
of nutrients always goes through the forest floor first!). In a conceptual
diagram, there would be important relationships between the trees and
understory plants. For example, trees provide shade to the understory
plants. But remember, in an ecosystem model, only processes that result in
flow of energy or nutrients are represented. You will see why this is
important a little later.
Now let’s add the animals and the people components to our ecosystem.
You can see in Figure 3 below that energy & nutrients flow from the trees
and understory plants to the animals when they eat the leaves, twigs and
buds of trees or graze on understory plants; and when the animal excrete
waste products or die, energy & nutrients are returned to the forest floor
component. Since people are really just a special kind of animal, you can see
that energy & nutrients flow from the trees to people when they eat
something from a tree, like maple syrup… Read more.
We have added two components (people & animals) to our ecosystem model, along
with some processes connecting them to other components.
82
Step Three:
Determine the major inputs and outputs of your ecosystem. As you are
building your ecosystem model, one thing to think about is whether your
ecosystems could be opened or closed. A closed ecosystem is one that has
no inputs of energy or nutrients from outside the ecosystem and no outputs
of energy or nutrients leaving the system. The earth is an example of a
closed ecosystem with respect to nutrients and an open ecosystem with
respect to energy (see figure 4 below). All the nutrients that have ever been
on earth are here and simply continue to cycle, there are no additions or
losses. However, the earth is constantly getting inputs of energy from the
sun and simultaneously radiating energy back. The earth doesn’t heat up too
much or cool down too much because the earth’s energy balance is in a
relatively stable equilibrium, meaning that the amount of energy being input
and output are about equal.
The earth ecosystem and has no inputs or outputs of nutrients which are
constantly recycled within the global ecosystem, while the earth has both inputs
and outputs of energy that are in a relatively stable equilibrium.
Now, let’s examine some potential inputs and outputs of nutrients & energy
to our forested ecosystem (see Figure 5 below).
83
Some typical inputs and outputs of nutrients and energy for forested ecosystems
include evapotranspiration, nutrient leaching, sunlight and rain.
Step Four:
Once you have identified the components, processes and major inputs and
outputs in your ecosystem model, then you can begin to add the actual
values to these parts of your ecosystem by measuring them. For example,
you could measure the amount of litter that falls to the forest floor each
year (a process), what the biomass of trees is in a given forest (a
component), how much light reaches the forest over a growing season (an
input), or how much nitrogen leaches from the forest (an output). Needless
84
to say, some of these things are easier to measure than others and for most
of these things it would be very hard to directly measure the value for a
whole forest. For example, it would be hard to catch every single leaf that
fell from the trees in a given year and weigh them all! So, researchers
estimate these values taking samples of the given measurement they want
to know. In the case of leaf litter, you can put out trays in the forest and
after all the leaves have fallen for the year, dry and weight the leaf liter in
your trays. They you can use that value to calculate an estimate of the total
leaf litter for your forest.
Step Five:
Use your ecosystem model to think about how changes can cascade through
an ecosystem or to ask specific questions that can be answered with further
research. When the major components, processes and inputs and outputs of
an ecosystem are understood, then you can use the model to see how
changing one part of the ecosystem affects other parts. For example, if you
harvest trees from your forest, that will decrease the amount of leaf litter
reaching the forest floor each year which may lead to decreases in available
nutrients for understory plants. This is the type of thing forest ecology
researchers often study.
For example, researchers may monitor soil nutrient levels for many years
after trees have been harvested to see how the real forest behaves
compared to what they thought might happen based on their forest model,
their understanding of how the forest works. If the results in the real forest
are very different than those predicted by their model, then they know that
they don’t have full understanding of how their forest works and they may
go back to try to improve their model.
85
Why why analysis (analisa kenapa kenapa) adalah suatu metode yang
digunakan dalam root cause analysis dalam rangka untuk problem solving
yaitu mencari akar suatu masalah atau penyebab dari defect supaya sampai
ke akar penyebab masalah. Istilah lain dari why why analysis adalah 5 whys
analysis. Metoda root cause analysis ini dikembangkan oleh pendiri Toyota
Motor Corporation yaitu Sakichi Toyoda yang menginginkan setiap individu
dalam organisasi mulai level top management sampai shopfloor memiliki
skill problem solving dan mampu menjadi problem solver di area masing-
masing.
Terkadang untuk sampai pada akar masalah bisa pada pertanyaan kelima
atau bahkan bisa lebih atau juga bisa bahkan kurang tergantung dari tipe
masalahnya. Metoda root cause analysis ini cukup mudah dan bisa sampai
pada akar masalahnya, bukan hanya di permukaan saja. Dan mencegah
masalah tersebut terulang lagi.
Tahapan umum saat melakukan root cause analysis dengan why why
analysis:
1. Menentukan masalahnya dan area masalahnya
2. Mengumpulkan team untuk brainstorming sehingga kita bisa
memiliki berbagai pandangan, pengetahuan, pengalaman, dan
pendekatan yang berbeda terhadap masalah
3. Melakukan gemba (turun ke lapangan) untuk melihat actual tempat,
actual object, dan actual data
4. Mulai bertanya menggunakan why why
5. Setelah sampai pada akar masalah, ujilah setiap jawaban dari yang
terbawah apakah jawaban tersebut akan berdampak pada akibat di
87
Sumber: http://meelaisme.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/analisis-masalah-dan-akar-masalah-
penanaman-padi-sawah-irigasi-oryza-sativa-pada-tanah-seri-tlogorejo/)
Berdasarkan analisis akar masalah yang digambarkan dengan pohon
masalah di atas, dapat dilihat bahwa terdapat tiga akar masalah yang
menyebabkan tidak optimal dan tidak stabilnya produktivitas tanaman
padi sawah bila ditanam di lahan di kawasan Tlogorejo. Ketiga akar
masalah tersebut ialah kelerengan yang cukup curam, kurangnya
penutup lahan, serta tekstur tanah yang agak kasar.
89
Based on Route Cause Analysis ( Fishbone Diagram ) owner of the KPI (Key
Performance Indicator ) need to prepare Action plan with a purpose of
returning the result of process back on track, meaning to be on Target with
that specific KPI next time.
The action plan is focused on defining a 4 key points that are defines by
simple questions:
Who - The owner of the KPI is responsible for conducting the action plan
What - Action plan, specifying activities that will lead to achieving target
When - Time frame, deadline for the activities
How - Resources required for Action plan
The Fishbone Diagram is the practical tool for route causes analysis during
daily environmental management.
90
Diagram Tulang Ikan untuk mencari penyebab dari suatu perubahan atau
permasalahan (Sumber: http://www.biz-
development.com/PerformanceManagement/2.10.Ishikawa-Fishbone-
Diagram.htm)
2. Fishbone Diagram
Diagram ”Tulang Ikan” atau Fishbone diagram sering pula disebut Ishikawa
diagram sehubungan dengan perangkat diagram sebab akibat ini pertama
kali diperkenalkan oleh Prof. Kaoru Ishikawa dari Jepang.
Pertanyaan Why?
Bercabang hingga mencapai lima yang menggambarkan sub tulang ikan itu
sendiri. Dimana kategori utama Manusia, Pengukuran, Metode, Materia,
Mesin dan Lingkungan dapat diganti sesuai kebutuhan misalkan, dalam
95
Contoh 1.
Atau tampilan deskripsi dapat berupa catatan demikian yang jika diterapkan
dalam fishbone diagram memunculkan gambaran tulang besar dan tulang
kecil ikan. Sebagai berikut:
Sb1-1: Guru/Dosen kurang kompeten/tidak banyak belajar
Sb1-2: Guru/Dosen mengajar ditempat lain atau sibuk mencari
uang tambahan
Sb1-3: Kesejahteraan kurang
Sb1-4: APBN tidak mencukupi
Sb1-5: Pajak banyak hilang korupsi merajalela (temuan...)
Sb2-1: Siswa input (lulusan sekolah sebelumnya) kurang berkualitas
Sb2-2: Unit pemroses rendah (guru, fasilitas, dll)
Sb2-3: Anggaran APBN Rendah (BOS tidak normal)
Sb2-4: Pajak negara terserap sedikit
Sb2-5: Korupsi dan sadar pendidikan moral rendah
Sb3-1: Masyarakat kurang peduli kualitas lulusan siswa
Sb3-2: Masyarakat sudah menganggap biasa atau terbiasa dengan
KKN
Sb3-3: Rekruitmen siswa dan SDM tidak bersih atau transaparan
Sb3-4: Ada ketidak sesuaian penerapan kebijakan
Sb3-5: Korupsi dan sadar pendidikan moral rendah
Sb4-1: Kurikulum kurang tepat atau salah arah
Sb4-2: Ada kepentingan tidak etis dalam penyusunannya
Sb4-3: Tidak ada akses kontrol untuk masyarakat atau pemerhati
pendidikan
Sb4-4: Sistem demokrasi anomali yang sarat akan KKN
Sb4-5: Korupsi dan sadar pendidikan moral rendah
Contoh 2.
Masalah: Mengapa Siswa SMA Kesulitan Menyerap Pelajaran Kimia ?
Kategori Utama
Sebab 1 (Sb1): Guru
Sebab 2 (Sb2): Siswa
Sebab 3 (Sb3): Masyarakat
Sebab 4 (Sb4): Kurikulum
Sebab 5 (Sb5): Sarana
Five Why
1. Why 1. Guru kurang kompeten. Siswa kuarang antuasias belajar.
Masyarakat kurang peduli kualitas jasa pendidikan. Membutuhkan
banyak praktek dan referensi. Referensi dan praktek kurang
memadai
2. Why 2. Fasilitas pendidikan dan pelatihan kurang. Teacher center
dan pembelajaran sering konvensional. Masyarakat hanya sekedar
berpifikir tentang lulus dan tidak lulus. Tujuan kurikulum banyak .
Buku, Alat dan bahan kurang memadai
3. Why 3 Tidak ada waktu dana pendukung. Kurangnya referensi atau
buku sumber dan praktek. Terlalu percaya pada sekolah. Materi
yang harus disampaikan banyak. Keterbatasan Dana
4. Why 4 Pendanaan dari pribadi, pemerintah dan komite sekolah
kurang lancar Kurangnya fasilitas. Membatasi diri hanya berpikir
tentang kelangsungan pendidikan siswa (ekonomi). Tuntutan
kelulusan untuk melanjutkan kuliah Keterbatasan bantuan dari
pemerintah maupun komite sekolah
5. Why 5 Alokasi dana pemerintah dan siswa terbatas. Alokasi dana
pemerintah dan siswa terbatas. Angapan ekonomi lebih utama
untuk kehidupan dibanding lainnya. Perbaikan pendidikan untuk
perbaikan ekonomi. Alokasi dana pemerintah dan siswa terbatas
98
Atau tampilan deskripsi dapat berupa catatan demikian yang jika diterapkan
dalam fishbone diagram memunculkan gambaran tulang besar dan tulang
kecil ikan. Sebagai berikut:
Sb1-1: Guru kurang kompeten
Sb1-2: Fasilitas pendidikan dan pelatihan kurang
Sb1-3: Tidak ada waktu dan cana dukungan
Sb1-4: Pendanaan pribadi, pemerintah dan komite sekolah kurang
Sb1-5: Alokasi dana pemerintah dan siswa terbatas
Sb2-1: Siswa kurang antusias belajar
Sb2-2: Teacher center
Sb2-3: Kurangnya referensi atau buku sumber dan praktek
Sb2-4: Kurangnya fasilitas
Sb2-5: Alokasi dana pemerintah dan siswa terbatas
Sb3-1: Masyarakat kurang peduli kualitas jasa pendidikan
Sb3-2: Masyarakat hanya berpikir tentang lulus dan tidak lulus
Sb3-3: Terlalu percaya pada sekolah
Sb3-4: Membatasi diri berpikir tentang kelangsungan
perekonomian
Sb3-5: Ekonomi lebih untuk kehidupan (sekolah pun untuk
perbaikan ekonomi)
Sb4-1: Membutuhkan banyak praktek dan referensi
Sb4-2: Indikator atau tujuan terlalu luas dan banyak
Sb4-3: Materi yang harus disampaikan banyak
Sb4-4: Tuntutan lulusan untuk melanjutkan ke jenjang pendidikan
yang lebih tinggi
Sb4-5: Perbaikan pendidikan untuk jenjang yang lebih tinggi.
Sb5-1: Referensi dan praktek kurang memadai
Sb5-2: Alat dan bahan serta buku sumber kurang memadai
Sb5-3: Keterbatasan dana
Sb5-4: Keterbatasan bantuan dana dari pemerintah dan komite
sekolah.
Sb5-5: Alokasi dana dari pemerintah dan siswa terbatas.
99
2. Income
a. Same level of income over the years while loans keep on going up
b. Limited opportunity to increase personal income
c. People are surviving on disposable income making them vulnerable to
interest rates fluctuations
d. Reduced income specially when a person becomes less marketable in a
competitive labor market
e. Saving too little or none at all.
4. Cost of Living
101
a. Hand phones, which in fact are becoming more fads and crazes instead of
necessity.
b. Rising cost of healthcare as reflected in medical expenses.
c. Rising cost of education.
d. Hike in transport fare
e. GST hike
f. Rising cost of housing
g. Needs for broadband connection to gain access to the World Wide Web.
5. Employment
a. Automation displaces human labor.
b. Company mergers and acquisition causing lay offs on redundant
workforce.
c. Underemployment
d. Downsizing of companies
e. Managerial jobs are taken over by intelligent systems.
f. Job losses
g. Retrenchment
6. Behavior (Psychological)
a. Financial phobia where people keep on denying their
indebtedness.
b. Banking on windfall.Compulsive shopping.
DAFTAR PUSTAKA