POTENTIAL PROBLEM ANALYSIS:

Its aim is to provide a challenging analysis of an idea being developed or action plan so that you can determine ways in which it may go wrong

The method is closely related to some of the methods used in identifying potential faults in complex hardware systems, it has a 'rational' rather than 'creative' approach, but still provides and first-rate supply of creative triggers if approached in an imaginative spirit.

A substantial amount of effort is required to carry out the analysis thoroughly and therefore the method is usually set aside for the more ultimate action plan (or perhaps the final handful of options):

Define the Key requirements, a 'must' - outputs, actions or events that must take place if the implementation is to be successful. Failure of any of these is likely to cause problems.

Record and investigate all possible problems for each of the key requirements that have now been identified, listing all 'potential problems' - i.e. potential ways it could go wrong (a technique such as Negative Brainstorming could help) and look at each of them (a technique such as Five Ws and H could help). If you have come up with an excess of possible problems, it is advisable to make a initial estimate of the by and large risk (see below) that each problem creates, so that you can give attention to the rest of the analysis on those that offer the greatest risk.

List possible causes for each potential problem, and the risk associated with it, the risk reflects both the likelihood of an event, and the severity of the impact if it did, so that 'high likelihood / high impact' causes present the highest risk.



Develop preventative actions where possible rather than having to muddle through a problem after it has happened. Where possible try to develop ways of preventing potential problem causes or minimising their effects and estimate the residual risk that might still remain even if preventative action were taken.

Develop contingency plans where necessary, i.e. where problems would have serious effects, but you cant prevent them, or there is a high residual risk even if you do.

The table (step 7) below is a simple way of displaying the analysis, which could contain a variety of quantitative estimates from crude 'high, medium and low' subjective judgements, to carefully, researched measures depending on the demands of the situation.

Potential Risk analysis is a preventive risk control measure used to analyse existing or new processes, process changes, and equipment.Although it seems like a logical analysis to do in the situations outlined above, many organizations fail to take the appropriate risk analysis and control measures to ensure success even on smaller process changes, tasks or projects. Potentail risk or potential problem analysis is similar to an FMEA study where the potential failure modes are listed and their effects and impacts on the business are considered. The potential risk analysis is usually carried out by the process improvement team, process engineers and management. They are a preventive way of controlling problems and risks rather than trying to control and take corrective action once the failure has eventuated.

The potential risk analysis should include the following steps:

-Project brief, plant or process scope that will be topic of the risk analysis study

-Outline the different steps, tasks or components that compose the process, project or plant

-For each step in the process or component outline the potential issues or problems that may eventuate in this step of the process, project or component. Thi is the most important step of the process and the most time consuming as it will require input and brain storming from all stakeholders.

-All the potential issues and problems are given a risk rating depending on the damage they could cause if they do eventuate. This risk rating can be a simple one of Low, medium or High.

-The final step is the risk control measures put into place and the responsible person for carrying out these actions. This step has two substeps which are the short term measures to ensure these risks don't eventuate in the near future, and the other step is what measures or policies should be implemented to fully diversify that risk and sustain as close to a risk free process, project or plant as possible.

BULLET PROOFING:

The bullet proofing technique aims to identify the areas in which your plan might be especially vulnerable:

What may possibly go wrong?

What are some of the difficulties that could occur?

What's the worst imaginable thing that could occur?

There are some similarities with Potential Problem Analysis(PPA)(Kepner and Tregoe), Negative Brainstorming (Isaksen and Treffinger, 1985) who suggest that 'What might happen if...?' is a useful question to use for looking at potential challenges.

Brainstorm around enquiries such as: 'What might happen if...?' to identify the areas in your plan of action that could potentially cause problems and which have not yet been identified.

All the areas identified should be placed on a table such as the one below, showing how likely the event is to occur and if it did occur, how serious it would be for your plan.

Major problems that are very likely to happen. If there are significant numbers, you may first need to priorities them so that you can focus your effort on the most important.

Use any suitable problem-solving method to work out ways to dealing with them.

NEGATIVE BRAINSTORMING:

Negative (or Reverse) brainstorming requires a significant level of effort analysing a final short-list (rather the initial mass) of existing ideas. (see BulletProofing and Potential Problem Analysis ). Examining potential failures is relevant when an idea is very new, complex to implement or there is little margin for error. Negative brainstorming consists of a conventional BrainStorming session (or any other suitable idea-generation method) that is applied to questions such as: 'What could go wrong with this project?'

Often referred to as the 'tear-down' method, because of its negativity can be advantageous and seen in a positive light when training implementers to deal with hostile criticism. However, even this example needs to be followed up with a constructive debrief to ensure the implementer feels encouraged and secure.

1. Brainstorm Displaying a comment such as 'How not to solve the problem, i.e. how to really mess up implementing project X' will generate much humour and unexpected ideas (which should be noted)

2. Identify a cluster i.e. comments said in different ways that mean the same thing 'Staff only'; 'don't tell non-staff', reverse the cluster to give a single positive comment e.g. 'tell those involved'

Repeat step 2, ad lib as you go