Root Cause Analysis Template (5 Whys, Fishbone, A3)

Problem statement, containment, Pareto, target, fishbone with cause tests, 5 Whys, countermeasures, check, standardisation, ISO 9001 clause 10.2 link

БізнесСтандартCommon practice; ISO 9001:2026 clause 10.2 contextroot cause analysisОновлено 29 жовт. 2026 р.

Відкрити в редакторіЗавантажити .md

Як використовувати: Use it when a recurring or costly business problem needs its causes found and fixed with data. Fill the problem statement and containment first, then a Pareto split before brainstorming causes. The main pitfall is stopping at the first plausible cause or blaming people instead of the process.

Перегляд

Root Cause Analysis: [Problem title]

A one-document record of a business problem worked through to its root causes and verified countermeasures, combining three common methods: a Pareto split of the data, a fishbone (cause and effect) diagram and the 5 Whys, laid out in the order of an A3 problem-solving report. It supports, but does not replace, the nonconformity and corrective action record required by management system standards such as ISO 9001:2026 clause 10.2. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example.

Document control

Field	Value
Document ID	[RCA-YYYY-NNN]
Problem title	[Short title]
Linked records	[NC or CAPA ID, incident ID, complaint ID]
Version	[0.1]
Status	[Open / Analysis / Countermeasures / Verifying / Closed]
Owner	[@process-owner]
Team	[@name, @name]
Sponsor	[@sponsor]
Date opened	YYYY-MM-DD
Target close date	YYYY-MM-DD

Revision history

Version	Date	Author	Change
0.1	YYYY-MM-DD	[@author]	Problem statement and containment
0.2 (Example)	YYYY-MM-DD	[@author]	Root cause verified, countermeasures added

The worked example is Calderbrook Foods, a fictional bakery manufacturer supplying supermarkets, whose on-time-in-full (OTIF) delivery rate fell in one month.

1. Problem statement

Item	Value
What is wrong	[Observable problem]
Where	[Site, line, process]
When first seen	YYYY-MM-DD
Size of the gap	[Actual vs standard]
Impact	[Customers, cost, compliance]

Example: In March, 414 of 3,600 customer orders (11.5%) were not on time in full, against a standard of 97% OTIF. OTIF fell from 97.2% in February to 88.5% (3,186 of 3,600). Two customers applied late-delivery penalties.

2. Containment

ID	Action	Owner	Date	Remove when
CT-1	[Action]	[@owner]	YYYY-MM-DD	[Condition]
CT-1 (Example)	Extra dispatch check of every pallet against the order	[@dispatch-lead]	YYYY-MM-DD	OTIF at 97% for 4 weeks
CT-2 (Example)	Daily call with the carrier on collection times	[@logistics]	YYYY-MM-DD	Carrier countermeasure verified

3. Current condition and Pareto

Failure category	Orders	Share	Cumulative
[Category]	[Count]	[%]	[%]
Dough line changeover overran, product late (Example)	186	44.9%	44.9%
Short pick at dispatch (Example)	97	23.4%	68.4%
Carrier collected late (Example)	71	17.1%	85.5%
Missing or wrong labels (Example)	38	9.2%	94.7%
Other (Example)	22	5.3%	100.0%
Total (Example)	414	100.0%

Example: The first two categories explain 68.4% of failures. The team analyses changeover overruns first.

4. Target

Measure	Current	Target	By
[Measure]	[Value]	[Value]	YYYY-MM-DD
Example: Orders late due to changeover per month	186	20 or fewer	YYYY-MM-DD
Example: OTIF	88.5%	97% or more	YYYY-MM-DD

5. Fishbone (cause and effect)

ID	Category	Possible cause	Test	Result
FC-1	[Category]	[Cause]	[How it was checked]	[Verified / Ruled out / Not yet tested]
FC-1 (Example)	Methods	No standard changeover sequence	Observed 6 changeovers, each done in a different order	Verified
FC-2 (Example)	Environment	March schedule added 3 new products	Changeovers per week rose from 9 to 15	Verified
FC-3 (Example)	Machines	Mixer bowl clamp sticks	Maintenance log shows 1 event in March	Ruled out
FC-4 (Example)	Measurement	Changeover time not recorded	No data before March	Verified (contributing)

6. 5 Whys

Step	Why?	Answer	Evidence
[N]	[Why did the previous answer happen?]	[Answer]	[Evidence]
1 (Example)	Why were orders late?	Product finished after the dispatch cut-off	Production log
2 (Example)	Why did product finish late?	Changeovers took 70 minutes instead of 40	Timed observation
3 (Example)	Why did changeovers take 70 minutes?	Each crew used its own order of steps, with waiting between them	Observation of 6 changeovers
4 (Example)	Why does each crew use its own order?	No standard work for changeover exists	Document search
5 (Example)	Why is there no standard work?	Changeovers were rare until March, so no one owned the method	Schedule history, interviews

Root cause statement: [One sentence that names the system condition.]

Example: Changeover has no standard method or owner, which became critical when weekly changeovers rose from 9 to 15.

7. Countermeasures

ID	Countermeasure	Addresses	Owner	Due	Status
CM-1	[Countermeasure]	[FC-n / root cause]	[@owner]	YYYY-MM-DD	[Planned / Done]
CM-1 (Example)	Write and train standard work for changeover, with steps done in parallel	FC-1	[@production-lead]	YYYY-MM-DD	Planned
CM-2 (Example)	Sequence the weekly schedule to group products with the same allergen profile	FC-2	[@planning]	YYYY-MM-DD	Planned
CM-3 (Example)	Record start and end of every changeover on the line board	FC-4	[@shift-lead]	YYYY-MM-DD	Planned

8. Check results

Measure	Before	After	Target	Met?
[Measure]	[Value]	[Value]	[Value]	[Yes / No]
Example: Average changeover time (minutes)	70	[Value]	40	[Pending]
Example: OTIF	88.5%	[Value]	97%	[Pending]

9. Follow-up and standardisation

Action	Owner	Due
[Update procedure, training or audit]	[@owner]	YYYY-MM-DD
Example: Add changeover standard work to the controlled procedures	[@quality]	YYYY-MM-DD
Example: Start a second analysis on short picks (23.4% of failures)	[@dispatch-lead]	YYYY-MM-DD

10. Management system and sector links

ISO 9001:2026, clause 10.2 (nonconformity and corrective action): in outline, the organisation reacts to the nonconformity, evaluates the need to remove its causes (including root cause analysis), implements action, reviews effectiveness and keeps evidence. The same clause number appears in other management system standards that share the harmonized structure, such as ISO/IEC 27001:2022. Clause details of the 2026 edition here come from public summaries, not the licensed text; check your copy.
Formal record: use Nonconformity and corrective action record.
Patient safety events: use Healthcare root cause analysis.
Software and service incidents: use a blameless Postmortem.

11. Related templates

KPI scorecard, where the problem is often first seen as a Red KPI
Process document to write the new standard work
Lessons learned to share what the team found

Glossary

Containment: a temporary action that protects the customer while the cause is found.
Pareto analysis: sorting failure categories by size to find the few that cause most of the problem.
Fishbone diagram: a cause and effect chart that groups possible causes by category; also called an Ishikawa diagram.
5 Whys: asking why repeatedly, with evidence, until a changeable system cause is found.
A3: a one-sheet problem-solving report that tells the story from problem to follow-up.
OTIF: on time in full, the share of orders delivered complete by the agreed time.

Standard and licence note

Based on common quality improvement practice: the cause and effect diagram popularised by Kaoru Ishikawa, the 5 Whys described by Taiichi Ohno of Toyota, and the A3 report format pioneered by Toyota (see the Lean Enterprise Institute lexicon, https://www.lean.org/lexicon-terms/a3-report/ and https://www.lean.org/lexicon-terms/5-whys/). Clause 10.2 of ISO 9001:2026 (sixth edition, published 16 September 2026) and ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is cited by number with an original paraphrase; no text from the standards is reproduced. Official text: ISO, purchase or licensed access: https://www.iso.org/standard/88464.html (ISO 9001:2026). Check the current edition and your certification body's guidance before use. The section text and fictional Calderbrook example are original. Template licence: MIT.

Схожі шаблони

Бізнес