Understanding Demand and Failure Demand

Cause and Effect Diagram (Fishbone Diagram) - Ishikawa > Forum Log in

Understanding Demand and Failure Demand
Sue Warner, Business Consultant, United Kingdom

I am an MSc student of Six Sigma for service. For my final project I am evaluating the benefits of DMAIC lean "systems thinking" in a call centre. This involves mapping waste at a high level, by understanding demand and failure demand (things we didnt get right first time for customers-calls we shouldnt be getting). The output will indicate problems (failure demand) arising from many processes within the organisation and I need to focus on the vital few.
I am wondering the most helpful steps to get from a particular problem, to the process(es) implicated and then some prioritisation, with a team who have no experience of improvement. I think that CEDAC (Editor: CEDAC stands for Cause and Effect Diagram with the Addition of Cards; it is a visual, team-oriented problem solving methodology developed by Dr. Ryuji Fukuda) diagrams based on a process view, rather than a 4Ms approach might help and SIPOC's (Editor: SIPOC stands for Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers; it is a tool used by a team to identify all relevant elements of a process improvement project before work begins) might get the team thinking about process steps / inputs etc before we begin RCA.
I would welcome any feedback from other members of the forum in this type of situation...

Rodolph Dandan, Business Consultant, Canada
I do agree on the CEDAC as you are working with beginners. It is more organized than Ishikawa, it helps them gather their thoughts on providing input, thus easier to read.
SIPOCs are a must, so you'd better spend some time explaining to them the whole process.
You just make sure that you follow your project, but take some time explaining to them what they are doing. This is very important, as you don't want yourself to be the only one doing the whole thing.
Good luck on your project.

SIPOC / Process Mapping
Ian Ceazar Barias, Other, China
I also agree on using CEDAC and SIPOC to start the team brainstorm before RCA stage. These two tools do need collective team effort to be more effective useful for the RCA. Therefore training your team while using these tools will make the process more efficient and will be helpful for you.
Try doing SIPOC first, then process mapping followed by CEDAC (this sequence at least proved helpful for me).
Also consider to frequently go back and forth on these processes while progressing to the RCA as some links would need to be established.
Always make your team involved to get through the improvement phase easier. Noting my previous engineering director's thoughts "It's important to learn and understand the process (the how) of getting there so that you can get through it easier the next time around and make it a discipline".
So good luck and God bless on your project.

Root Cause Analysis, Cedac, Sipoc
Sue Warner, Business Consultant, United Kingdom
Thanks so much for your very helpful input. I entirely agree about the "go slow to go fast"-approach and bringing the team along. You have confirmed my thoughts about SIPOC and CEDAC being a good approach to take with beginners. Best regards.

The Cards of CEDAC
Jim Malloy, United Kingdom
It is the AC - addition of cards - bit of 'CEDAC' that I believe will be most valuable to the practical situation. This worked well at my previous employer (Japanese manufacturing plant) where CEDAC was the adopted and universally used problem solving method.
Everyone and anyone - not just those from that section - were encouraged to write a suggestion on a card. These (or the best of them if too many) were displayed on the Ishikawa diagram adjacent to the category branch, which is what then converted it to CEDAC.

Process Management Theories
lindy, Student (University), Australia
Thank you for the highlights on DEMAIC, CEDAC and SIPOC.
In my current research, I am exploring the links between some of the process management theories. My thoughts are though, that since the financial crisis, consideration to the models of managing for outcomes (mfo), managing business outcomes (mbo) and results based outcomes (rbo) has been somewhat excluded.
From my perspective not sufficient research has been undertaken in the area of process management theories.

Process Management Theories
Jaap de Jonge, Editor, Netherlands
@Lindy: very interesting, please expand upon what links you found... And please explain what you mean by: 'My thoughts... somewhat exluded'. I'll integrate it in your first reaction for you.


    Do you wish to study further? You can learn more from the summary, forum, discussions, lessons, courses, training, instructions, expert tips, best practices and education sources. Register.  

Special Interest Group Leader

You here

More on Cause and Effect Diagram (Fishbone Diagram) - Ishikawa
Best Practices

Expert Tips


About 12manage | Advertising | Link to us | Privacy | Terms of Service
Copyright 2016 12manage - The Executive Fast Track. V14.1 - Last updated: 25-10-2016. All names tm by their owners.