Comments on: Root Cause Analysis at NASA

By: Manonita

Manonita — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 10:30:52 +0000

What is the difference between FMEA and RCFA. In either case we do RCA to derive the Root Cause to prevent Failure.
Please clarify.

By: Alan Charles

Alan Charles — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:42:33 +0000

Hi Pete,
I disagree with your findings and conclusion. What usually happens in root cause analysis is it is dependent on the level of management for the particular problem. A shop floor problem may stop at a root cause that is different to the findings of root cause by a senior manager. Therefore, one can always ask another why. In this situation you tend to end up with the system issue that needs addressing. This is my findings from many years of doing this at Toyota. For the NASA case, reviewing what they have done, then I agree with you it’s not right and basically they need some training in this area themselves. But to conclude big organisations find this time of root cause is not a totally correct conclusion to make for your article. If they, or anyone uses the therefore to go back up the tree is doesn’t fit in some cases. Why going down and therefore coming back up is essential to confirm the findings. Nasa’s tree approach is ok but needs to be used correctly. Please offer your services to train them. You can end up with a series of root causes that need addressing, the tree needs more branches.
cheers alan

By: p

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:40:15 +0000

I hate to be that guy, but NASA, did not always fully embrace the process. As I recall from Feinman’s account, they fought him openly as well as passive-agressively when he was brought in to perform the RCFA on the Challenger explosion.

By: Pete Abilla

Pete Abilla — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:42:08 +0000

In reply to Andy Wagner. Hi Andy - I suppose I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification and I apologize to all the NASA employees, especially those currently in outer space.

By: Andy Wagner

Andy Wagner — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:32:45 +0000

NASA asked me to pass on the word “rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”
The space shuttle program shut down, not due to budget cuts, but due to the fact that the vehicle was ~30-years old and no longer viable. The replacement vehicle was canceled due to poor program management, requirements definition, and cost control, but I think the fellows sitting on the space station right now would be a bit disturbed to find out that they were “closed.” The thousands of other NASA employers and contractors conducting space and aeronautical research and exploration, including unmanned exploration of the solar system would also be surprised by that news.

By: Alan Longland

Alan Longland — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:38:57 +0000

This is a lovely example of one of the benefits we all gained from the work NASA did, but which was always difficult to quantify in budgetary terms.

Of course the “Kaizen” position might mitigate against the levels of staff NASA might require, but it does give us a framework to cost the failure in real terms and argue for a modified approach.