For organizations operating in highly regulated environments, from nuclear energy to other safety-critical industries, the ability to resolve problems effectively is central to performance. Yet many corrective action programs focus on speed and compliance, rather than lasting resolution. Over time, this reactive approach drives recurring failures, rising costs, and strained regulatory relationships.
This article examines the current state of problem solving in the nuclear power generation sector and outlines how organizations can achieve a meaningful improvement in issue resolution. It highlights a common challenge: while many organizations use a range of problem-solving tools, they apply them inconsistently. The key to better results is a more systematic, cross-functional approach – supported by clear expectations and incentives that drive consistent processes.
The Hidden Cost of Reactive Corrective Action
At some nuclear plants, lead engineers spend two-thirds of their time — up to 30+ hours per week — working on corrective action programs. Managers spend significant hours of their own time in the same domain. At a minimum, the cost of corrective action efforts is very high in terms of time spent on issue resolution. This does not include the opportunity cost of diverting highly-skilled engineering resources away from more valuable work such as creating process improvements. The question to ask is, “What is the value of the results that we are getting?”
The key to good customer service and economic health for power generation companies is high equipment availability and reliability. Other than scheduled downtimes, power generation assets need to be ready and running to fulfill their missions. Everyone is happy when the turbines are spinning! However, despite the technical sophistication and automation, there is a frustrating trend of recurring problems resulting in forced downtime and increased cost in the industry. From our point of view, the contributing factors causing this situation are mismanagement of both equipment and human performance.
From Reactive Fixes to Systematic Issue Resolution
Sustaining the long-term performance of equipment and people requires deliberate planning and preventive effort. However, plant personnel are constantly engaged in the “fix it now” mode in order to restore operations as quickly as possible. As a result, there is little opportunity for thoughtful analysis or preventive action.
As a result, opportunities for future-focus are minimized and replaced by fire fighting problem solving. Thus, problems occur that could have been prevented. This cycle repeats itself along with recurring problems, related problems, as well as problems caused by the fix.
How do plants move away from this pattern? Must they simply get better at problem solving? The answer is to improve skills for issue resolution in addition to identifying the cause of problems. A good Issue Resolution process looks at the overall situation surrounding an issue. To properly address an issue, we need to determine root cause, as well as systematically deciding on a corrective action. Additionally, we need to give some thought to the implications of taking that corrective action.
The current state of problem solving
As previously mentioned, fixing problems may be management’s most critical responsibility. This activity is fundamental to success, but many organizations see it as such a basic function of operations that they assume it is in place and don’t see the need to invest resources to maintain and develop these skill sets. Research shows however, that the best performing plants also have the best organizational cultures for problem solving.
A recent INPO publication references a rise in problems linked to the execution of routine daily activities. Reduced attention to detail is cited as a contributing factor, along with gaps in management oversight. The report ultimately calls for stronger leadership engagement and the development of a culture that promotes disciplined, proactive thinking.
Contributing factors to a poor problem solving culture
The costs associated with heavily burdened staff operating under persistent time constraints are significant. These costs show up in every endeavor, from recurring problems, to significant events, to forced outages and extensions of planned outages. Lapses in these areas can also lead to regulatory concerns and cited findings.
There are straightforward, easily definable costs around the areas mentioned above. For each of their assets, power generation organizations can often calculate lost revenue during downtimes. The load on the system adds to the cost as it may require the purchase of replacement power. These costs are visibly obvious on financial balance sheets.
What about the costs that do not show up so easily? For example, nuclear plants that become overrun with problems must dedicate huge resources to finding and fixing problems under the watchful eyes of increased NRC scrutiny. Many times additional public scrutiny accompanies these perceived issues with problem Identification and resolution. As a result, additional resources and time are expended to resolve these issues as quickly as possible. Only when such efforts show success can the nuclear plant escape the watch list. Then they go back to the steady state, meaning that they lose the focus that just got them out of trouble.
Most plants have on average 30 years or more of experience among their lead technical personnel. The comfort levels associated with long experience often leads to complacency around rigorous problem solving. Too often, both management and technical teams rely too heavily on this experience and make inadequate jumps to causes of problems. They then spend much time and effort incorrectly pursuing ineffective corrective actions aimed more at the symptom than at the true cause.
Below are a few of the specific issues influencing mediocrity in this area:
Lack of consistency in problem identification
It is a challenge to get a small group of people on the same page. Imagine the difficulties of getting over 1,000 people to focus on a primary task like problem solving! One typical obstacle is that groups of technical personnel don’t agree to a definition or scope for the term “problem.” The eyes and ears of the plant are the operators and technicians who are out there every day. However, if they aren’t consistent and accurate in recognizing, reporting, and collecting problem-related data, how can the root cause analysts that follow them perform effectively?
When data collection isn’t timely, key data is lost, assumptions become facts, and root cause analysis quality is low. Problem identification and resolution efforts are dependent on the skills of the individuals involved, rather than based on a uniform systematic approach.
Inconsistent procedures
Every plant has procedures that cover troubleshooting and cause analysis. The procedures tend to mirror regulatory guidance, meaning that the activities and requirements are described at a very high level. At the working level, however, personnel face confusion about what tools to use and how to use them.
Additionally, functions such as operations, engineering, and maintenance often have separate procedures and methodologies for troubleshooting and root cause analysis. Cross-functional communications lose effectiveness and strength in these conditions. In the end, procedures can be more of an obstacle than a help. As a result, the focus is on filling out the form or ticking off the step in the procedure rather than the quality of the output.
Limited and ineffective training
Over the years plants typically have sponsored a variety of training to wide audiences on problem solving techniques. Rather than real skill development, many of the techniques barely reach the awareness level and rarely is there continuing training to keep skills fresh. In addition, organizations frequently fail to define when specific tools should be used or to set clear expectations for their application. As a result, employees attempt to use the tools without confidence or clarity, become frustrated, and eventually revert to familiar habits that feel more comfortable – even if they are less effective.
“Everything is a priority”
Competition for skill sets has put a heavy squeeze on plant staffing. Most people, particularly the leads, have a lot of assignments with tight deadlines. Unfortunately, “everything is a priority”, so the level of thinking gets reduced to focusing on interim actions performed to restore conditions by the deadline. The rationale is that the issue was fixed and plant operations were restored, but the question of how many times the issue has needed to be fixed fall to the bottom of the list.
At the macro level, many management teams fail to see problem solving as a value-added topic. Corrective Action Programs (CAPs) in the nuclear industry are a good example. Too frequently, CAP activities are viewed as administrative functions. Outcomes are measured in terms of filing paperwork within designated time windows rather than reaching a high quality level of analysis and response. Because the corrective action programs are viewed as a compliance activity by management, a clear signal is sent to the staff that minimizes necessary engagement and rigor.
Inability to untangle problems with multiple contributing factors
When something goes wrong, identifying whether the root cause is mechanical, human, or a combination of both can be challenging. Without a structured approach to examining how these factors interact, organizations often address visible effects instead of the true cause. This leads to ineffective corrective actions and unnecessary expense.
Problem solving is just the beginning
Problem solving can be overwhelming, but it is only the beginning. The real challenge is to design and implement corrective actions and preventive actions, a process which relies on good decision making. Yet in many organizations, a clear framework is lacking.
Often, there is an assumption that taking “enough actions” will make the symptom go away, n reality, corrective action succeeds only when objectives are clearly defined and there is alignment on what success looks like. Without that clarity, teams pursue multiple or ineffective fixes, struggle to reach consensus, and ultimately fail to address the true root cause.
Moving Forward: Systematic Problem Solving for More Effective Corrective Actions
The best way to solve problems is to not have them in the first place. Therefore, capitalize on problem prevention efforts. Set aside time and establish measures and responsibilities designed to avoid problems. Problem prevention is critical to high equipment reliability.
Here are a few daily activities to pursue:
Establish problem prevention expectations
You can greatly reduce the effort to correct problems with a more effective focus on systematic problem prevention. Management must lead the organizational culture change toward this goal. For every problem, as questions to understand how it is possible to prevent it happening again in the future. For every activity – from daily tasks to planned outages – make sure that planning includes problem prevention considerations.
These actions result in several key benefits:
- Operational performance and issue trending improve significantly
- Increased levels of equipment reliability and performance
- Outage performance improves, as issues are identified before implementation.
- Staff efforts become more future-focused, as high value engineering resources spend time on problem prevention instead of problem solving
- Budgets become more predictable and costs associated with problem resolution go down
Capture changes systematically
If a performance was on target, and then a deviation occurred, by definition there has been a change. We must focus much of the problem solving effort on finding the change that is related to the true cause of the deviation. Power plants make changes every day. Most of them achieve their expected purpose. However, some changes result in new problems, too. The key is to capture the changes and tweaks to equipment and programs in a systematic way.
In so doing, you can save significant time and effort in understanding why deviations may have occurred. Going forward, people will learn how to troubleshoot potential changes, and then better avoid problems that might be caused by a change
What to do when problems actually occur
Understanding problems effectively requires a clear framework for gathering and organizing information so that it can be evaluated for true cause. Developing best fixes to problems requires a similar framework that balances fix objectives with possible risks. When these conditions are met, both plant performance and regulatory relationships are optimized.
Enhance the First Observer Data Collection Step
Plant personnel need to be provided with a specific set of questions to ask as well as information to collect regarding observed deviations. Lack of accuracy, missing information, assumptions, faulty conclusions, etc. will cause the entire process to perform at lower standards.
We can only accomplish effective root cause analyses through good problem identification. This is the basis for any further root cause evaluation. In addition, the early accuracy of problem identification is essential for understanding the extent and scope of the issue. Further, trend analyses will see greatly increased validity.
Clarify Equipment/Human Performance/Organization Distinctions
Organizations must understand how people and equipment interact if they want to resolve issues effectively. Leaders should define clear distinctions between mechanical, human, and organizational factors and ensure teams have the analytical methods and skills needed to evaluate them.
Organizational influences also shape performance, often in ways that go unnoticed. When leaders intentionally design systems that reinforce the right behaviors, performance improves. Addressing human performance issues requires moving beyond superficial explanations such as “operator error” or “weak procedures” and identifying the underlying causes that drive those outcomes.
Develop Expert Cause Analysts
Despite broad staff experience, responsible problem solvers really benefit from expert leadership and coaching when trying to understand and resolve deviations. Basically, this approach matches unbiased questioners with the content expertise of problem “owners.” The ideal state is to prepare a small team of personnel with good leadership and communications skills for this important function. Keep them engaged so that skills stay fresh. In addition to providing these “process facilitators” with the appropriate tools, you need a human performance system that allows and encourages their active participation in problem resolution.
With this expertise, we can perform root cause analyses more consistently and quickly and with higher quality. We can also improve the critical thinking skills of the entire organization, from senior leadership down through to the frontline.
Define a structured approach for fixes
Corrective actions consume significant resources, yet they directly determine asset performance. Asset optimization depends on selecting and implementing the right actions. For this reason, we need to integrate corrective action planning into the broader strategic planning cycle, and carefully balance this against safety, production, and financial priorities.
A shared decision making framework between management and technical resources will help develop the best paths of action that will satisfy safety, production, and financial goals.
Teams should incorporate a structured risk assessment step to evaluate potential threats before implementing corrective actions. They should also apply project management principles early in the planning process to guide execution and maintain control over the path forward.
This eliminates the discrepancy between technical objectives and management desires, and reduces time and effort spent on pursuing ineffective solutions. We select alternatives rationally, according to set objectives with manageable risks. That way, we have a clear line connecting problems and fixes. Best of all, the number of fixes becomes more manageable. We can document our preferred alternatives, ensuring that they are easy to measure for success. In this way, we demonstrate the strategic value of the Corrective Action Program.
Effective change management: the framework for sustainable implementation
The overall driving need is to move from the current compliance mind-set, to a strategically-focused, highly effective problem solving culture. In short, this culture shift will maximize equipment reliability and provide a positive cost-benefit to the site. The culture change is tangible. Instead of concentrating on what is broken each day, teams redirect hundreds – even thousands – of hours toward prevention and long-term system health.
Implementing systematic problem solving is not simply a matter of introducing new tools. Like any lasting process change, it requires deliberate and sustained effort.
Successful implementation depends on four elements. First, procedures and business processes must clearly define responsibilities and workflows. Second, employees need targeted training to apply problem-solving methods effectively. Third, coaching can help to reinforce new behaviors and build confidence in real-world situations. Finally, performance expectations and incentives must align with the desired behaviors so that the new approach becomes part of everyday practice.
Improve Processes and Procedures
The Problem Solving and Resolution process is a key business process for any organization. Improving this process first requires a tight description of staff responsibilities and cross-functional information handoffs along the problem solving/corrective action flow. We can then embed tools and processes, including observable performance metrics that allow senior management to monitor and evaluate the process. Finally, we can develop and provide any initial and ongoing training and coaching, as required.
Develop Effective Problem Solving Skills
Gaining these skills requires an accurate description of responsibilities with performance measures for various levels in an organization. We can then implement targeted skill development efforts, accordingly to these responsibilities. What are the expectations of knowledge level and process use for each level? At each responsibility layer, from problem identification through to the development and implementation of fixes, we must consistently promote and maintain the expertise needed to resolve simple and complex problems.
Shape Human Performance
Organizational performance reflects the expectations that leaders set and reinforce. When a site struggles with weak problem-solving performance despite significant time and effort, the root causes often lie in unclear expectations and inconsistent reinforcement. Simply providing training is not enough. There must be clear expectations around what good use of process looks like. Leaders must set clear standards for process use, monitor adherence, and provide timely feedback. Incentives must encourage the behaviors the organization seeks to sustain. When these elements work together, they create a human performance system that supports consistent, disciplined problem solving.
Support supervisors
It is critical to prepare supervisors and managers to support change. It is also critical that senior managers support first-level supervisors in making changes, as implementation is where initiatives typically fail. Management wants quality, but the message heard at the supervisory level is production. We have to achieve a balance, and we can’ do that without supervisory involvement.
On-the-job coaching
Too often management launches changes by directive without considering the necessary implementation coaching. People need some time and practice to develop confidence and competence under expert coaching. This phase is particularly important at the beginning of use of any new process or tool. The goal is to move the performer to proficiency and thereby gradually reduce the need for coaching support.
Conclusion
The factors that influence the performance level of an organization’s problem solving processes extend beyond simply giving people the right tools. The interactions of the various success factors discussed in this article can be complex and weaknesses are sometimes not easy to identify.
If the reasons for the sub-par performance of your problem solving efforts are unclear, Kepner-Tregoe can perform an independent assessment to identify the weaknesses and provide a structured plan for improvement.
If there is a clear understanding of what’s not working well, Kepner-Tregoe offers a pinpointed approach in order to address the broken piece(s) of the puzzle.
Our goal is to equip clients with the skills to manage problem solving and corrective actions independently. We can also assist you in implementing changes effectively, so that they are permanent and sustainable. To that end we work with our clients until they are ready to take over the implemented tools and processes through self-management. Once in place, clients observe across-the-board improvements in plant performance, improved regulatory relationships and a stronger position in the marketplace.