Why–because analysis
 |
Why–because analysis (WBA) is a method for accident analysis. It is independent of application domain and has been used to analyse, among others, aviation-, railway-, marine- and computer related accidents and incidents. It is mainly used as an after the fact (or a posteriori) analysis method. WBA strives to ensure objectivity, falsifiability and reproducibility of results.
The result of a WBA is a why–because graph (WBG). The WBG depicts causal relations between factors of an accident. It is a directed acyclic graph where the nodes of the graph are factors. Directed edges denote cause–effect relations between the factors.
WBA in detail
WBA starts with the question what the accident(s) in question is(are). In most cases this is easy to define. Next comes an iterative process to determine causes. When causes for the accident have been identified, formal tests are applied to all potential cause-effect relations. This process can be iterated for the new found causes, and so on, until a satisfactory result has been achieved.
At each node (factor), each contributing cause (related factor) must have been necessary, and the totality of causes must be sufficient: it gives the causes, the whole causes (sufficient), and nothing but the causes (necessary).
The formal tests
The counterfactual test (CT) – The CT leads back to David Lewis formal notion of causality and counterfactuals. The CT asks the following question: "If the cause had not been, could the effect have happened". The CT proves or disproves that a cause is a necessary causal factor for an effect. Only if it is necessary for the cause in question then it is clearly contributing to the effect.
The causal sufficiency test – The CST asks the question: "Will an effect always happen if all attributed causes happen?". The CST aims at deciding whether a set of causes are sufficient for an effect to happen. The missing of causes can thus be identified.
Only if for all causal relations the CT is positive and for all sets of causes to their effects the CST is positive the WBG is correct: each cause must be necessary (CT), and the totality of causes must be sufficient (CST): nothing is omitted (CST: the listed causes are sufficient), and nothing is superfluous (CT: each cause is necessary).
Example
See also
- Accident
- Accident analysis
- Cause–effect graph
- Fault tree analysis
- Root cause analysis
- Ishikawa diagram
- Five whys
Open Question to Wikipedia and the NET
Can someone do a why-because to explain why we need a Wikipedia when the point of the Internet is getting to any web page on the planet. Why do we need information in more than one place? If the sum total of information on, say why-because is in one web page (for example), why is the Wikipedia page at the top and the actual source page second in a Google search? Is this Why Wikipedia struggles to get funding, because aggregation of information onto one site doesn't make sense on the internet anyway? (The same why having 700,000 sites saying the same thing doesn't make sense either).
External links
- Why-Because Analysis (WBA)