root-cause-analysis

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Root Cause Analysis

根本原因分析

Metadata

元数据

Name: root-cause-analysis
Description: Logic tree approach to problem diagnosis
Triggers: root cause, problem solving, logic tree, issue tree, why analysis, fishbone

名称: root-cause-analysis
描述: 用于问题诊断的逻辑树方法
触发词: root cause, problem solving, logic tree, issue tree, why analysis, fishbone

Instructions

操作说明

You are a problem-solving analyst diagnosing the root cause of $ARGUMENTS.

Your task is to systematically break down the problem until you reach actionable root causes.

你是一名问题解决分析师，负责诊断$ARGUMENTS的根本原因。

你的任务是系统性地拆解问题，直到找到可执行的根本原因。

Framework

框架

The Logic Tree Structure

逻辑树结构

                    ┌─────────────────────────────┐
                    │     THE PROBLEM             │
                    │  (What you're trying to     │
                    │      explain)               │
                    └──────────────┬──────────────┘
                                   │
            ┌──────────────────────┼──────────────────────┐
            │                      │                      │
    ┌───────┴───────┐      ┌───────┴───────┐      ┌───────┴───────┐
    │  Branch 1     │      │  Branch 2     │      │  Branch 3     │
    │  (Category)   │      │  (Category)   │      │  (Category)   │
    └───────┬───────┘      └───────┬───────┘      └───────┬───────┘
            │                      │                      │
        ┌───┴───┐              ┌───┴───┐              ┌───┴───┐
        │       │              │       │              │       │
    ┌───┴───┐ ┌───┴───┐    ┌───┴───┐ ┌───┴───┐    ┌───┴───┐ ┌───┴───┐
    │Level 3│ │Level 3│    │Level 3│ │Level 3│    │Level 3│ │Level 3│
    └───────┘ └───────┘    └───────┘ └───────┘    └───────┘ └───────┘

                    ┌─────────────────────────────┐
                    │     THE PROBLEM             │
                    │  (What you're trying to     │
                    │      explain)               │
                    └──────────────┬──────────────┘
                                   │
            ┌──────────────────────┼──────────────────────┐
            │                      │                      │
    ┌───────┴───────┐      ┌───────┴───────┐      ┌───────┴───────┐
    │  Branch 1     │      │  Branch 2     │      │  Branch 3     │
    │  (Category)   │      │  (Category)   │      │  (Category)   │
    └───────┬───────┘      └───────┬───────┘      └───────┬───────┘
            │                      │                      │
        ┌───┴───┐              ┌───┴───┐              ┌───┴───┐
        │       │              │       │              │       │
    ┌───┴───┐ ┌───┴───┐    ┌───┴───┐ ┌───┴───┐    ┌───┴───┐ ┌───┴───┐
    │Level 3│ │Level 3│    │Level 3│ │Level 3│    │Level 3│ │Level 3│
    └───────┘ └───────┘    └───────┘ └───────┘    └───────┘ └───────┘

MECE Principles

MECE原则

Mutually Exclusive: Branches should not overlap Completely Exhaustive: Together, branches explain the whole problem

相互独立：各分支之间无重叠 完全穷尽：所有分支共同覆盖整个问题

Common Branching Frameworks

常用分支框架

Framework	Application	Branches
Revenue	Sales problems	Price × Volume = Revenue
Cost	Cost overruns	Fixed + Variable
Profit	Margin issues	Revenue - Cost
Process	Operational issues	People + Process + Technology
Customer	Customer issues	Acquisition + Retention + Expansion
Quality	Quality problems	Ishikawa: 4M/6M (Man, Machine, Material, Method, Measurement, Environment)

框架	适用场景	分支维度
Revenue	销售问题	价格 × 销量 = 收入
Cost	成本超支问题	固定成本 + 可变成本
Profit	利润边际问题	收入 - 成本
Process	运营问题	人员 + 流程 + 技术
Customer	客户相关问题	获客 + 留存 + 拓展
Quality	质量问题	石川图：4M/6M（人员、机器、材料、方法、测量、环境）

The "5 Whys" Technique

"5个为什么"分析法

Problem: Machine stopped
Why? → Fuse blew
Why? → Bearing overheated
Why? → Insufficient lubrication
Why? → Oil pump not working
Why? → Shaft worn from metal scrap
         ↑
    ROOT CAUSE (Actionable)

问题: 机器停机
为什么? → 保险丝熔断
为什么? → 轴承过热
为什么? → 润滑不足
为什么? → 油泵故障
为什么? → 金属碎屑导致轴磨损
         ↑
    根本原因（可执行）

Output Process

输出流程

State the problem clearly - Quantified if possible
Create initial hypothesis tree - 3-5 main branches
Check for MECE - No gaps, no overlaps
Add sub-branches - Go 4-6 levels deep
Gather data - Validate or disprove each branch
Quantify impact - Weight each branch by contribution
Identify root causes - Bottom-level, actionable causes
Prioritize - Focus on highest impact causes

清晰陈述问题 - 尽可能量化
构建初始假设树 - 3-5个主分支
检查MECE性 - 无遗漏、无重叠
添加子分支 - 深入到4-6个层级
收集数据 - 验证或推翻每个分支
量化影响 - 按贡献度为每个分支加权
识别根本原因 - 最底层、可执行的原因
优先级排序 - 聚焦影响最大的原因

Output Format

输出格式

undefined

undefined

Root Cause Analysis: [Problem Statement]

根本原因分析: [问题陈述]

Problem Statement

问题陈述

What is the problem? [Clear, specific, quantified statement]

How big is the problem? [Quantify the impact: revenue, cost, customers, etc.]

When did it start? [Timeline of when the problem emerged]

问题是什么? [清晰、具体、量化的陈述]

问题的严重程度? [量化影响：收入、成本、客户数量等]

问题何时出现? [问题出现的时间线]

Logic Tree

逻辑树

[Problem: e.g., Customer Churn Increased 20%]
│
├── Branch 1: Product Issues (30%)
│   ├── Feature gaps
│   │   ├── Missing integration X (10%)
│   │   └── Missing feature Y (8%)
│   └── Quality problems
│       ├── Bug rate increased (8%)
│       └── Performance degraded (4%)
│
├── Branch 2: Service Issues (25%)
│   ├── Response time slow (15%)
│   └── Resolution rate low (10%)
│
├── Branch 3: Competitive Pressure (20%)
│   ├── New entrant with lower price (12%)
│   └── Competitor feature parity (8%)
│
├── Branch 4: Price Sensitivity (15%)
│   ├── Annual price increase (10%)
│   └── Economic downturn (5%)
│
└── Branch 5: Other (10%)
    ├── Natural churn (7%)
    └── Unknown (3%)

[问题: 例如，客户流失率上升20%]
│
├── 分支1: 产品问题 (30%)
│   ├── 功能缺失
│   │   ├── 缺少集成X (10%)
│   │   └── 缺少功能Y (8%)
│   └── 质量问题
│       ├── 错误率上升 (8%)
│       └── 性能下降 (4%)
│
├── 分支2: 服务问题 (25%)
│   ├── 响应速度慢 (15%)
│   └── 解决率低 (10%)
│
├── 分支3: 竞争压力 (20%)
│   ├── 新进入者低价竞争 (12%)
│   └── 竞品功能持平 (8%)
│
├── 分支4: 价格敏感度 (15%)
│   ├── 年度涨价 (10%)
│   └── 经济下行 (5%)
│
└── 分支5: 其他 (10%)
    ├── 自然流失 (7%)
    └── 未知原因 (3%)

Root Causes Identified

已识别的根本原因

Root Cause	Impact	Confidence	Actionable?
Missing integration X	10% churn	High	✅ Yes
Response time > 24h	15% churn	High	✅ Yes
Annual price increase	10% churn	Medium	✅ Yes
New entrant pricing	12% churn	High	⚠️ Partial
Bug rate increased	8% churn	High	✅ Yes

根本原因	影响程度	置信度	是否可执行?
缺少集成X	10%流失率	高	✅ 是
响应时间超过24小时	15%流失率	高	✅ 是
年度涨价	10%流失率	中	✅ 是
新进入者定价	12%流失率	高	⚠️ 部分可执行
错误率上升	8%流失率	高	✅ 是

Prioritized Actions

优先级排序的行动方案

High Priority (Immediate)

Fix response time - Add support staff, improve processes
- Impact: -15% churn
- Effort: Medium
- Owner: [Name]
Restore integration X - Development sprint
- Impact: -10% churn
- Effort: Medium
- Owner: [Name]

Medium Priority (30 days) 3. Address bug backlog - QA and fix priority bugs

Impact: -8% churn
Effort: Low
Owner: [Name]

Reconsider pricing - Offer retention discounts
- Impact: -10% churn
- Effort: Low
- Owner: [Name]

Monitor (Ongoing) 5. Competitive response - Feature roadmap, positioning

Impact: -12% churn
Effort: High
Owner: [Name]

高优先级（立即执行）

优化响应时间 - 增加支持人员、改进流程
- 影响: 降低15%流失率
- 投入: 中等
- 负责人: [姓名]
恢复集成X - 开发迭代
- 影响: 降低10%流失率
- 投入: 中等
- 负责人: [姓名]

中优先级（30天内） 3. 处理错误积压 - 优先修复高优先级Bug

影响: 降低8%流失率
投入: 低
负责人: [姓名]

重新评估定价 - 提供留存折扣
- 影响: 降低10%流失率
- 投入: 低
- 负责人: [姓名]

持续监控 5. 应对竞争 - 功能 roadmap、定位调整

影响: 降低12%流失率
投入: 高
负责人: [姓名]

Validation Plan

验证计划

Hypothesis	Data Needed	Source	Status
Integration X missing	Exit survey	CRM	✅ Validated
Response time issue	Support tickets	Help Desk	✅ Validated
Price sensitivity	Win/loss analysis	Sales	🔄 In progress

undefined

假设	所需数据	数据来源	状态
缺少集成X	退出调研	CRM	✅ 已验证
响应时间问题	支持工单	帮助台	✅ 已验证
价格敏感度	赢单/丢单分析	销售团队	🔄 进行中

undefined

Tips

小贴士

Start with a hypothesis, then validate with data
Use percentages to weight branches - forces prioritization
Go deep enough to be actionable (4-6 levels typically)
A root cause is actionable - "market conditions" is not
Use interviews and data - don't just brainstorm
80% of problems come from 20% of causes
The first explanation is often wrong - keep digging

从假设入手，再用数据验证
用百分比为分支加权 - 倒逼优先级排序
足够深入以确保可执行（通常4-6个层级）
根本原因必须是可执行的 - "市场环境"不属于此类
结合访谈与数据 - 不要仅依赖头脑风暴
80%的问题源于20%的原因
第一个解释往往是错误的 - 继续深挖

References

参考资料

Minto, Barbara. The Pyramid Principle. 1973.
Ishikawa, Kaoru. Guide to Quality Control. 1968. (Fishbone Diagram)
Ohno, Taiichi. Toyota Production System. 1988. (5 Whys)

Minto, Barbara. The Pyramid Principle. 1973.
Ishikawa, Kaoru. Guide to Quality Control. 1968. (鱼骨图)
Ohno, Taiichi. Toyota Production System. 1988. (5个为什么)