Автор пытается ответить на вопрос о причине использования этого термина? Почему мы применяем его только в случае проблем, но не успеха?
“There is no root cause. The problem with this term isn't just that it's singular or that the word root is misleading: there's more. Trying to find causes at all is problematic...looking for causes to explain an incident limits what you'll find and learn. And the irony is that root cause analysis is built on this idea that incidents can be fully comprehended. They can't. We already have a better phrase for this, and it sounds way cooler: it's called a perfect storm. In this way, separating out causes and breaking down incidents into their multiple contributing factors, we're able to see that the things that led to an incident are either always or transiently present. An incident is just the first time they combined into a perfect storm of normal things that went wrong at the same time.”
....
A challenge for readers and listeners
I’ll offer a few questions to consider the next time you read or hear the term ‘root cause’:
• What is the author (or speaker) trying to convey by using the term?
• What agenda(s) might the author (or speaker) have in their version of the story, other than providing the richest description they can?
• What else can you imagine is influencing the outcome of the story being told, besides what is deemed the ‘root cause’?
• What details seem to be noticeably absent in the story you’re being told?
• What questions can you imagine being dismissed or discounted by the storyteller, if you had the chance to ask them?
Questions like these are garden-variety critical thinking exercises. But they might help us explore what the story doesn’t tell us, or what might be missing in the story.
#процессы #it_философия