東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Solving problems: A statistical comp...

Doggett, Anthony Mark.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Solving problems: A statistical comparison of three root cause analysis tools.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Solving problems: A statistical comparison of three root cause analysis tools./
作者:	Doggett, Anthony Mark.
面頁冊數:	143 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 64-09, Section: B, page: 4553.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International64-09B.
標題:	Engineering, Industrial. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3107077

Solving problems: A statistical comparison of three root cause analysis tools.
Doggett, Anthony Mark.

Solving problems: A statistical comparison of three root cause analysis tools. - 143 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 64-09, Section: B, page: 4553.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Colorado State University, 2003.

The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to compare the perceived differences between the cause-and-effect diagram (CED), the interrelationship diagram (ID), and the current reality tree (CRT) with regard to causality, factor relationships, usability, and participation. The independent variables were the CED, the ID, and CRT, which are graphical display tools designed for root cause analysis. The specific dependent variables were the perceived ability of each tool to identify causality and relationships between factors. In addition, the researcher was interested in the perceived usability of the tools and the perceived degree of participation.Subjects--Topical Terms:

626639
Engineering, Industrial.

Solving problems: A statistical comparison of three root cause analysis tools.
LDR:03363nmm 2200325 4500 001 1866555
005 20050105140200.5
008 130614s2003 eng d
035 $a (UnM)AAI3107077
035 $a AAI3107077
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 1 $a Doggett, Anthony Mark. $3 1953935
245 1 0 $a Solving problems: A statistical comparison of three root cause analysis tools.
300 $a 143 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 64-09, Section: B, page: 4553.
500 $a Advisers: Brian Cobb; Michael De Miranda.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Colorado State University, 2003.
520 $a The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to compare the perceived differences between the cause-and-effect diagram (CED), the interrelationship diagram (ID), and the current reality tree (CRT) with regard to causality, factor relationships, usability, and participation. The independent variables were the CED, the ID, and CRT, which are graphical display tools designed for root cause analysis. The specific dependent variables were the perceived ability of each tool to identify causality and relationships between factors. In addition, the researcher was interested in the perceived usability of the tools and the perceived degree of participation.
520 $a Using a within-subjects repeated measures design with counterbalancing, participants attempted to solve an organizational problem introduced via a scenario. Participants responded about their experience with each of the tools with regard to the dependent variables using a self-report instrument. Findings of the research indicated that participants could significantly distinguish differences between the tools with respect to usability, but could not perceive differences on causality, factor relationships, or participation. Other interesting findings included differences in process times, the types of questions asked, process observations, and generated tool outputs.
520 $a The conclusions drawn from the experiment were that participants' perceptions of usability were driven primarily by the ease or difficulty of the tool use. The CED was perceived easiest to use while the CRT was the most difficult. The ID also emerged as an easy alternative for root cause analysis, but was not perceived differently in other aspects of usability. Another interesting result was that the quality of outputs varied greatly between the tools. Groups using the CED and ID were able to construct the tools with accuracy most of the time, but had difficulty finding specific and reasonable root causes. In comparison, the groups using the CRT were able to find specific and reasonable root causes over half the time regardless of construction accuracy.
520 $a The implications for policy indicate that training, facilitation, and opportunities for group practice are important for all three tools. Varying degrees of training and expertise are required depending on the tool used, the complexity of the problem, and other group factors.
590 $a School code: 0053.
650 4 $a Engineering, Industrial. $3 626639
650 4 $a Business Administration, Management. $3 626628
650 4 $a Education, Business. $3 1017515
690 $a 0546
690 $a 0454
690 $a 0688
710 2 0 $a Colorado State University. $3 675646
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 64-09B.
790 1 0 $a Cobb, Brian, $e advisor
790 1 0 $a Miranda, Michael De, $e advisor
790 $a 0053
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2003
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3107077