It is not surprising then to learn that if we are faced with a task or have to solve a problem we don’t all take the same approach. On the one hand this is useful because it means that as a group or society or company we often have many different approaches available to us. The flip side is that as individuals many of us will tend jump into our own natural way of taking action. This is often so natural that it doesn’t occur to us to question whether we have the appropriate method for what we are doing. Take for example the following case concerning the activity of running and the injuries it produces.
First here is what might happen to you if you are a serious runner:
- Runner’s knee
- Stress Fracture
- Shin Splint
- Achilles Tendonitis
- Muscle Pull
- Ankle Sprain
- Plantar Fasciitis
- IT band syndrome
- Blisters
But herein lies a dilemma. A paper published in 2008 on “Reduced Disability and Mortality among Aging Runners” found some surprising results including:
- Runners were leaner and less likely to smoke
- Runners were less likely to have disabilities - disability was typically postponed for 16 years
- Runners had a slower rate of disability progression
- Reduction in cardio vascular deaths - death was typically postponed by 7 years
- Reduced incidence of dementia
So what are people to do. On the one hand doctors tell us that running is likely to injure us; on the other, running seems to be good for our health.
What if we could help people avoid injuries altogether? On the surface this might seem unreasonable but let’s turn the problem on its head. What if, instead of treating the symptoms, we asked the question “Why does the injury occur?” This takes us into the realm of what problem solvers call root cause analysis. If practiced successfully this technique will remove the source of the problem, thus essentially removing the problem.
Such a technique has been applied to running. It may not address all the problems in the above list but initial results show success in treating injuries like stress fractures. An interesting article in the Wall Street Journal summarizes some of the work of Michael Silverman. The thesis of his work is that it is not running per se that causes the injuries but rather the way that people run. He analyses a patient’s running technique using video and observations of various physical routines. From this he can point to issues with their running style and suggest modifications. Patients can then work on their running technique to make changes. This approach is called, not surprisingly, gait analysis. The article doesn’t give a statistical success rate but does point to several anecdotal cases of success.
But the most interesting fact about this process is perhaps the cost. Gait analysis may cost as much as $500, which on the surface may seem like a lot to improve your running, but when you weigh that cost against the fact that in later life you may prevent disabilities and extend your life, it would seem to be well worth the price economically, not to mention the better state of mind you might enjoy from being fitter. Perhaps this is one way we can eat away at health care costs.
This is a case where root cause analysis has produced a benefit for all concerned. Runners can prolong their running well into their senior years, their future medical bills might be reduced, and doctors have another arrow in their quiver to treat their athletic patients.
Fundamentally it was changing tools that accomplished this result - switching to Root Cause Analysis. As individuals we are often inclined towards our favored method of problem solving but in some cases we might be better off if we developed an assortment of tools that would allow us to pick the right tool for the job.
No comments:
Post a Comment