Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
AbstractExplanatory hypotheses are formed and evaluated in root cause analysis. However, prior to investigation, the hypotheses must be prioritized. Often, methods such as nominal group technique, multi‐voting, and simple voting are used to decide which to investigate first. This research seeks to provide concrete criteria for the prioritization of hypotheses using three levels of prioritization based on the strength of the available evidence. A quality leadership email distribution list was used to distribute a survey to quality departments. Respondents were asked to rate various scenarios as confirmed, strong, moderate, and weak evidence towards supporting a hypothesis. Only 2 of 13 scenarios did not have statistically significant results and these results can be used by quality departments to prioritize hypotheses to investigate during root cause analysis.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
