The Unicist Approach to Root Cause Management


Unicist Conceptual Management

The Unicist Standard provides the unicist unified field method to manage the unified field of business functions to ensure the achievement of results.
The discovery that the concepts and fundamentals people have in their long-term memory drive their actions, allowed managing the fundamentals of business functions, driving management to a superior level. On the one hand, unicist conceptual management approaches the root causes of business problems to develop structural solutions, using unicist conceptual design to ensure their functionality. On the other hand, conceptual management allows forecasting the future using a unicist strategic approach to develop maximal strategies to grow and minimum strategies to ensure results. The unicist unified field method defines the steps to diagnose, build solutions and develop pilot tests to ensure the results of business processes.

 

The “Roots” of Unicist Root Cause Management

Introduction

The use of recurring palliatives in problem solving, when the root causes of problems are unknown, demonstrated to be a fallacious shortcut, frequently used for conjunctural solution building, that produces paradoxical results.

Unicist Root Cause Management introduced an approach for problem solving, facing the management of root causes and avoiding the use of shortcuts used as palliatives, to develop structural solutions.

From Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Russell and others, in the philosophical field, to the empirical approach of Dr. Ishikawa in the industrial field, the problem of causality was faced trying to find the validity of the causality of things, on the one hand, and introducing the fundamentals of processes on the other hand.

Unicist Root Cause Management introduced an approach to develop structural solutions for problems in adaptive environments. It drives to research the fundamentals of efficacy and efficiency and find a solution that integrates the problems, their restricted context and their wide context.

This approach showed that structural problem solving is the most energy saving action because it hinders the reappearance of problems. It requires apprehending the root causes of problems, working within the boundaries established by the limit causes and ends with a structural solution based on the functionality of the fundamentals of the problem and an operational solution that ensures results.

The Basics

The discovery of the intelligence that underlies nature and the structure of concepts that regulate the evolution of living beings and drive human actions opened the possibility of managing root causes.

The consequence of these discoveries is that the root causes of problems are defined by the dysfunctionality of the fundamentals that integrate the concepts that underlie the entity or action that cannot fulfill its purpose.

This approach became possible due to the development of the unicist ontology that defines the nature of things by emulating the structure of the triadic intelligence that underlies nature (purpose, active and entropic principle, energy conservation principle). Thus, the discovery of the root causes became possible due to the knowledge of the unicist ontology of the entities that are being managed.

This unicist approach to causality has a different purpose than those of the philosophical approaches of Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Russell and others. These approaches tried to find the validity of the causality of things, while the unicist approach is fully focused on understanding causality, including the validity of knowledge, to solve problems and to build solutions.

Dr. Ishikawa, who developed the root cause management for industrial processes, introduced the use of the fundamentals of processes to identify and discover root causes.

The predecessors of the unicist approach, both at a philosophical and at an empirical level, need to be known to understand the functionality of the unicist root cause management that has been installed by the Unicist Theory.

People who do not understand the significance of root causes and the possibility to achieve them cannot develop structural solutions. Their approach can be intuitive or intuitive and rational.

It all begins by understanding their functionality and ends by measuring the standards to confirm the necessary threshold of the fundamentals to achieve results.

The Unicist Ontology of Problem Causality

The unicist approach to problem solving was developed to deal with complex adaptive systems such as social, economic and business processes.

On the one hand, the unicist management of causality in complex adaptive systems is based on the inexistence of both univocal cause-effect relationships and the exclusive disjunctions “OR” among their elements, which are substituted by biunivocal relationships and the conjunction “AND” that integrates their elements.

On the other hand, these complex adaptive entities are not integrated by variables, which are based on univocal relationships, but by objects, which are autonomous adaptive systems that assume a role/function in these systems.

Complexity science was developed to explain, manage and predict adaptive systems and environments. It allowed managing the causality of adaptive systems, which have open boundaries to sustain their adaptability.

The Unicist Management of Causality

The unicist management of causality is based on the unicist ontology of the complex adaptive systems that describes their nature and defines the concepts that regulate their evolution.

A problem exists when a functionality, that has been defined as possible to be achieved, cannot be fulfilled.

The unicist approach to problem solving defines three types of causes that are integrated in the concept of problem causality.

  • Triggering causes: that define the operational causes that generate a problem.
  • Necessary causes: that define the root causes of the problem.
  • The limit causes: that define the boundaries of what is possible to be achieved.

Different Levels of Solutions

The unicist approach to problem solving defines four levels of solutions that can be achieved according to the level of knowledge of the problems.

It has to be considered that people who need to avoid risks cannot deal with problems’ causality and substitute the knowledge of problems with pre-concepts that allow them to avoid facing the risks of developing solutions.

The different levels of solutions that have been defined are:

  1. Repairs
  2. Palliatives
  3. Systemic Solutions
  4. Adaptive Solutions

Repair

The natural response of people when an urgent problem appears is to repair it, based on the negative consequences that need to be avoided. This is a short-term energy saving action to face the solution of problems.

If the root-problem is not being addressed, the problem will reappear when the root cause acts again.

Palliatives

The natural response when people do not have the knowledge to solve specific problems is the use of palliatives to mitigate the consequences of such problems. This is a short-term energy saving actions when there is a lack of knowledge to solve problems.

The problem will continue to exist mitigated by the palliatives that have been installed.

Systemic Solutions

The development of systemic solutions is the necessary approach when the problems deal with the efficiency of the processes. In this case, it solves the root causes of the problem, but if the lack of efficiency is produced by dysfunctional efficacy, it will reappear due to the entropy of the solution.

This is an energy consuming action that naturally drives towards finding the root causes that includes both the problems with efficacy and efficiency.

Adaptive Solutions

This is the approach to develop structural solutions for problems. It drives to research the fundamentals of efficacy and efficiency and find a solution that integrates the problems, their restricted context and their wide context.

It is the most energy saving action because it hinders the reappearance of problems. It requires working within the boundaries established by the limit causes and ends with a structural solution based on the functionality of the fundamentals of the problem and an operational solution that ensures operational results.

Share