category	One of the Seven Basic Tools of Quality
describer	Kaoru Ishikawa
purpose	To break down (in successive layers of detail) root causes that potentially contribute to a particular effect }}

Ishikawa diagrams (also called fishbone diagrams, or herringbone diagrams , cause-and-effect diagrams, or Fishikawa) are causal diagrams that show the causes of a certain event -- created by Kaoru Ishikawa (1990). Common uses of the Ishikawa diagram are product design and quality defect prevention, to identify potential factors causing an overall effect. Each cause or reason for imperfection is a source of variation. Causes are usually grouped into major categories to identify these sources of variation. The categories typically include:

People: Anyone involved with the process

Methods: How the process is performed and the specific requirements for doing it, such as policies, procedures, rules, regulations and laws

Machines: Any equipment, computers, tools etc. required to accomplish the job

Materials: Raw materials, parts, pens, paper, etc. used to produce the final product

Measurements: Data generated from the process that are used to evaluate its quality

Environment: The conditions, such as location, time, temperature, and culture in which the process operates

Overview

Ishikawa diagrams were proposed by Kaoru Ishikawa in the 1960s, who pioneered quality management processes in the Kawasaki shipyards, and in the process became one of the founding fathers of modern management.

It was first used in the 1940s, and is considered one of the seven basic tools of quality control. It is known as a fishbone diagram because of its shape, similar to the side view of a fish skeleton.

Mazda Motors famously used an Ishikawa diagram in the development of the Miata sports car, where the required result was "Jinba Ittai" or "Horse and Rider as One". The main causes included such aspects as "touch" and "braking" with the lesser causes including highly granular factors such as "50/50 weight distribution" and "able to rest elbow on top of driver's door". Every factor identified in the diagram was included in the final design.

Causes

Causes in the diagram are often categorized, such as to the 8 M's, described below. Cause-and-effect diagrams can reveal key relationships among various variables, and the possible causes provide additional insight into process behavior.

Causes can be derived from brainstorming sessions. These groups can then be labeled as categories of the fishbone. They will typically be one of the traditional categories mentioned above but may be something unique to the application in a specific case. Causes can be traced back to root causes with the 5 Whys technique.

Typical categories are:

The 8 Ms (used in manufacturing)

Machine (technology)

Method (process)

Material (Includes Raw Material, Consumables and Information.)

Man Power (physical work)/Mind Power (brain work): Kaizens, Suggestions

Measurement (Inspection)

Milieu/Mother Nature (Environment)

Management/Money Power

Maintenance

The 8 Ps (used in service industry)

Product=Service

Price

Place

Promotion/Entertainment

People(key person)

Process

Physical Evidence

Productivity & Quality

The 4 Ss (used in service industry)

Surroundings

Suppliers

Systems

Skills

Questions to be asked while building a Fishbone Diagram

Man/Operator – Was the document properly interpreted? – Was the information properly circulated to all the functions? – Did the recipient understand the information? – Was the proper training to perform the task administered to the person? – Was too much judgment required to perform the task? – Were guidelines for judgment available? – Did the environment influence the actions of the individual? – Are there distractions in the workplace? – Is fatigue a mitigating factor? - Is his work efficiency acceptable? - Is he responsible/accountable? - Is he qualified? - Is he experienced? - Is he medically fit and healthy? – How much experience does the individual have in performing this task? - can he carry out the operation without error?

Machines – Was the correct tool/tooling used? - Does it meet production requirements? - Does it meet process capabilities? – Are files saved with the correct extension to the correct location? – Is the equipment affected by the environment? – Is the equipment being properly maintained (i.e., daily/weekly/monthly preventative maintenance schedule) – Does the software or hardware need to be updated? – Does the equipment or software have the features to support our needs/usage? - Was the machine properly maintained? – Was the machine properly programmed? – Is the tooling/fixturing adequate for the job? – Does the machine have an adequate guard? – Was the equipment used within its capabilities and limitations? – Are all controls including emergency stop button clearly labeled and/or color coded or size differentiated? – Is the equipment the right application for the given job?

Measurement – Does the gauge have a valid calibration date? – Was the proper gauge used to measure the part, process, chemical, compound, etc.? – Was a gauge capability study ever performed? - Do measurements vary significantly from operator to operator? - Do operators have a tough time using the prescribed gauge? - Is the gauge fixturing adequate? – Does the gauge have proper measurement resolution? – Did the environment influence the measurements taken?

Material (Includes Raw Material, Consumables and Information ) – Is all needed information available and accurate? – Can information be verified or cross-checked? – Has any information changed recently / do we have a way of keeping the information up to date? – What happens if we don't have all of the information we need? – Is a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) readily available? – Was the material properly tested? – Was the material substituted? – Is the supplier’s process defined and controlled? - Was the raw material defective? - was the raw material the wrong type for the job? – Were quality requirements adequate for the part's function? – Was the material contaminated? – Was the material handled properly (stored, dispensed, used & disposed)?

Method – Was the canister, barrel, etc. labeled properly? – Were the workers trained properly in the procedure? – Was the testing performed statistically significant? – Was data tested for true root cause? – How many “if necessary” and “approximately” phrases are found in this process? – Was this a process generated by an Integrated Product Development (IPD) Team? – Did the IPD Team employ Design for Environmental (DFE) principles? – Has a capability study ever been performed for this process? – Is the process under Statistical Process Control (SPC)? – Are the work instructions clearly written? – Are mistake-proofing devices/techniques employed? – Are the work instructions complete? - Is the work standard upgraded and to current revision? – Is the tooling adequately designed and controlled? – Is handling/packaging adequately specified? – Was the process changed? – Was the design changed? - Are the lighting and ventilation adequate? – Was a process Failure Modes Effects Analysis (FMEA) ever performed? – Was adequate sampling done? – Are features of the process critical to safety clearly spelled out to the Operator?

Environment – Is the process affected by temperature changes over the course of a day? – Is the process affected by humidity, vibration, noise, lighting, etc.? – Does the process run in a controlled environment? – Are associates distracted by noise, uncomfortable temperatures, fluorescent lighting, etc.?

Management - Is management involvement seen? – Inattention to task – Task hazards not guarded properly – Other (horseplay, inattention....) – Stress demands – Lack of Process – Training or education lacking – Poor employee involvement – Poor recognition of hazard – Previously identified hazards were not eliminated

Criticism

In a discussion of the nature of a cause it is customary to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions for the occurrence of an event. A necessary condition for the occurrence of a specified event is a circumstance in whose absence the event cannot occur. A sufficient condition for the occurrence of an event is a circumstance in whose presence the event must occur. Ishikawa diagrams have been criticized for failing to make the distinction between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. It seems that Ishikawa was not even aware of this distinction.

See also

Seven Basic Tools of Quality

Five whys

References

Further reading

Ishikawa, Kaoru (1990); (Translator: J. H. Loftus); ''Introduction to Quality Control''; 448 p; ISBN 4-906224-61-X Dale, Barrie G. et al. (2007); ''Managing Quality 5th ed''; ISBN 978-1-4051-4279-3

External links

Article from HCI Australia on Cause and Effect Diagrams

Category:Causality Category:Knowledge representation Category:Diagrams Category:Quality control tools

ar:سمكة إيشيكاوا bg:Диаграма причина-следствие cs:Diagram příčin a následků de:Ursache-Wirkungs-Diagramm es:Diagrama de Ishikawa eu:Ishikawa diagrama fr:Diagramme de causes et effets it:Diagramma di Ishikawa nl:Ishikawadiagram ja:特性要因図 pl:Diagram Ishikawy pt:Diagrama de Ishikawa fi:Kalanruotokaavio sv:Fiskbensdiagram tr:Balık kılçığı diyagramı uk:Діаграма Ісікави vi:Phương pháp Ishikawa zh:石川图