AEC689
Conducting the Needs Assessment #11: Causal Analysis
Techniques1
Amy Harder2
Introduction
Some community needs are persistent challenges; examples
include lack of clean water, lack of quality education
opportunities, and lack of accessible healthy food. The same
holds true within organizations; ongoing challenges for
Cooperative Extension, such as employee burnout (Russell
et al., 2019) or lack of public awareness of the organization
(Harder, Moore, Mazurkewicz, & Benge, 2013), are readily
found in Extension literature. Simply having data to show
the continuing nature of persistent or unsolved needs may
not be enough to change the status quo; causal analysis
techniques can be used to more deeply understand the
reasons and conditions contributing to the present situation
and what might happen in the future if needs persist. This
publication in the Conducting the Needs Assessment series
provides Extension educators and other service providers
with an introduction to two techniques that can easily
be used when seeking information about relationships
between causes and needs: fishboning and cause and
consequence analysis.
Why use causal analysis
techniques?
Causal analysis is the term used “to refer broadly to
techniques that describe or analyze factors or conditions
that contribute to the existence of perpetuation of a need
or an unresolved problem” (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995,
pp. 239–240). Witkin and Altschuld (1995) explained that
causal analysis can be used to qualitatively explore questions such as:
• Why has a need persisted over time?
• What factors or conditions influence the existence of the
need?
• Why haven’t previously attempted solutions worked to
solve the need?
• Is the need genuine?
Causal analysis techniques help Extension educators and
those they work with consider needs in the context or system in which they exist; otherwise, the scope of the needs
assessment may be too narrowly focused or important
factors overlooked. Typically, causal analysis techniques will
be used early in the needs assessment process (Phase 1; see
Benge, Warner, & Harder, 2019) so informed decisions can
be made about the types of data that will be necessary to
collect in Phase 2 (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995).
Fishbone Diagram
A common tool used to visually illustrate cause and effect
is the fishbone diagram. Ishikawa (1983) is credited with
popularizing the technique, which is “designed to identify
all of the causes of a specified problem and then, from these
possible causes, determine the one that is most likely to be
the root cause” (McLean, 2006, p. 104). A wide variety of
1. This document is AEC689, one of a series of the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, UF/IFAS Extension. Original publication
date March 2020. Visit the EDIS website at https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu for the currently supported version of this publication.
2. Amy Harder, professor, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, and director, Program Development and Evaluation Center; UF/
IFAS Extension, Gainesville, FL 32611.
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services
only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status,
national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other UF/IFAS Extension publications, contact your county’s UF/IFAS Extension office.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, UF/IFAS Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A & M University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County
Commissioners Cooperating. Nick T. Place, dean for UF/IFAS Extension.
fishbone diagram templates are available for free online,
including PowerPoint and Excel templates.
The fishbone technique uses a set of simple procedures.
An Extension educator will need to facilitate the following
process if he or she wishes to use the fishboning technique.
1. Invite a small group to participate in the development
of the fishbone diagram. The invited individuals should
be knowledgeable about the need that will be discussed.
Witkin and Altschuld suggested (1995) including 10 to 12
individuals. Larger groups should be split and facilitated
independently, which can yield useful comparisons
between the final diagrams.
2. Use poster-sized paper (or larger, such as sticky walls
that allow papers to be added and rearranged) or a large
whiteboard to draw the large fish skeleton that will
provide the framework for the discussion. The need or
problem being discussed should go at the head of the
fish, on the right-hand side. A spine with at least four ribs
should be added and labeled. In corporate settings, the
labels commonly include materials, workers, methods,
and machines (McLean, 2006; Witkin & Altschuld, 1995).
However, in an Extension setting, it may be more appropriate to consider labels such as clientele, stakeholders,
or volunteers instead of workers and to replace machines
with policies or organizational culture. See Figure 1 for an
example of a fishbone skeleton.
diagram. The Extension educator should take the role of
scribe for this portion of the process and is responsible
for soliciting input from each participant until no new
causes are suggested. Participants should be instructed
not to discuss the merit or placement of the causes
during this stage. New ribs may need to be added to
accommodate causes that do not fit the existing ribs on
the diagram.
5. A facilitated discussion of the diagram should be led by
the Extension educator. Participants should be encouraged to consider if causes are clustered appropriately
on each rib or if changes should be made. Relationships
between causes and subcauses should also be clarified
and illustrated. The group is ready to move forward when
there is consensus that the diagram portrays an accurate
view of the causes contributing to the need or problem.
6. The next step requires participants to assign values to
each cause. Some variation in methods exists. Witkin and
Altschuld (1995) recommended having participants vote
on the “degree of likelihood” (p. 245) that a cause created
the need or problem, using a scale from 1 to 5. McLean
(2006), however, suggested instructing participants to
vote only for the cause that they believe is the root cause
of the problem. In this method, participants can check
the single cause they want to vote for or can be given a
limited number of colored dots (such as three) to place
next to the cause(s) they consider most likely to be the
root cause.
7. The results of the voting are tabulated to show what the
small group believes are the most critical causes of the
need or problem. The results can be used to inform the
next phase of the needs assessment process (Witkin &
Altschuld, 1995).
Cause and Consequence Analysis
Figure 1. Example template for fishbone diagram.
Credits: Amy Harder, UF/IFAS
3. Small-group participants should be instructed to
independently brainstorm and list possible causes of the
identified need or problem.
4. Once all participants have finished their brainstorming,
the members should take turns sharing their thoughts
about causes and where the cause should be placed on the
Conducting the Needs Assessment #11: Causal Analysis Techniques
Similar to fishboning, the cause and consequence analysis
(CCA) can be used to identify priorities, but instead of
focusing on the most important causes, a CCA identifies
the most critical needs. CCA also goes a step further by
also generating information about potential consequences
of not addressing the causes of a need or problem, a step
that can easily be overlooked when conducting needs
assessments (Witkin & Altschuld, 1995). Additionally, CCA
is used to evaluate multiple needs simultaneously, whereas
the fishbone diagram is used to examine only one need
at a time. For this reason, an Extension educator should
proceed with the CCA only if a list of needs has already
been generated in the needs assessment process.
2
Follow the below procedure to complete a CCA. The steps
are based on the process explained by Witkin and Altschuld
(1995), modified for use in Extension settings.
1. Invite a small group of stakeholders who represent
diverse viewpoints, such as clients, volunteers, county
commissioners, or representatives from other local
service providers, to participate in the CCA. Convening
the group in a room with a large whiteboard is recommended; multiple poster-sized sheets of paper may be
used as an alternative option.
2. Create a very large chart that includes five columns,
labeled as follows: (a) need/concern, (b) causes, (c)
consequences, (d) difficulty to correct, and (e) criticality.
See Table 1 for an example of how to set up the chart.
3. Use Column 1 to list the needs that have already been
identified during the needs assessment process.
4. Facilitate discussion with the group to brainstorm all
possible causes for each need; causes should then be listed
in Column 2 next to the corresponding need in Column
1.
5. Facilitate discussion with the group to brainstorm all
possible consequences if the cause is not addressed and
the need remains unresolved. Consequences should
be listed in Column 3, again next to the corresponding
information in Columns 1 and 2.
6. Provide participants with paper that they can use to list
each need and individually judge the difficulty of addressing it, using a rating system of low, medium, or high.
References
Benge, M., Harder, A., & Warner, L. (2019). Conducting the
Needs Assessment #1: Introduction. AEC677. Gainesville:
University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/wc340
Harder, A., Moore, A., Mazurkewicz, M., & Benge, M.
(2013). Problems impacting extension program quality at
the county level: Results from an analysis of county program reviews conducted in Florida. Journal of Extension,
51(1). Retrieved from https://joe.org/joe/2013february/rb2.
php
Ishikawa, K. (1983). Guide to quality control. Tokyo: Asian
Productivity Organization.
McLean, G. N. (2006). Organization development:
Principles, processes, performance. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler Publishers, Inc.
Russell, M. B., Attoh, P., Chase, T., Gong, T., Kim, J., &
Liggans, G. L. (2019). Burnout and extension educators:
Where we are and implications for future research. Journal
of Human Sciences and Extension, 7(1), 195–211.
Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and
conducting needs assessments: A practical guide. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Appendix A: Conducting the Needs
Assessment Series Overview
Conducting the Needs Assessment #1: Introduction
7. Participants can use the same sheet of paper to rate how
critical it would be if the need is not met, with 1 being the
least critical and 5 being the most critical.
General summary of needs assessments, including what
a needs assessment is, the different phases, and tools to
conduct a needs assessment.
8. Tabulate the individual ratings either through a show of
hands or collect the papers to provide respondents with
confidentiality. The most frequent responses serve as the
group judgment for the difficulty and criticality of each
need. The results can be used to set priorities for action.
Conducting the Needs Assessment #2: Using Needs
Assessments in Extension Programming
Overview of using needs assessments as part of the Extension program planning process.
Summary
Conducting the Needs Assessment #3: Motivations,
Barriers, and Objections
The causal analysis techniques presented in this publication
can easily be applied by Extension educators for use in
Extension settings to improve the quality of the needs assessment process and, in turn, for planning better programs
that address priority community needs.
Information about the motivations, barriers, and objections
to conducting needs assessments for Extension professionals and service providers.
Conducting the Needs Assessment #11: Causal Analysis Techniques
3
Conducting the Needs Assessment #4: Audience Motivations, Barriers, and Objections
Information about the motivations, barriers, and objections
that clientele and communities may have for participating
or buying-in to a needs assessment.
Conducting the Needs Assessment #5: Phase 1
—Pre-assessment
Conducting the Needs Assessment #8: The Borich Model
Overview of using the Borich Model to conduct a needs
assessment.
Conducting the Needs Assessment #9: The Nominal Group
Technique
Overview of using the Nominal Group Technique to
conduct a needs assessment.
Introduction to the Pre-assessment phase of conducting a
needs assessment, including defining the purpose, management, identifying existing information, and determining
the appropriate methods.
Conducting the Needs Assessment #6: Phase 2
—Assessment
Introduction to the Assessment phase of conducting a
needs assessment, including gathering and analyzing all
data.
Conducting the Needs Assessment #10: The Delphi
Technique
Overview of using the Delphi Technique to conduct a needs
assessment.
Conducting the Needs Assessment #11: The Causal Analysis Technique
Overview of using the Causal Analysis Technique to
conduct a needs assessment.
Conducting the Needs Assessment #7: Phase 3
—Post-assessment
Introduction to the Post-assessment phase of conducting a
needs assessment, including setting priorities, considering
solutions, communicating results, and evaluating the needs
assessment.
Table 1. Template for a CCA chart.
Need/concern
Causes
Consequences
Conducting the Needs Assessment #11: Causal Analysis Techniques
Difficulty to correct—low,
medium, or high
Criticality
1 (least critical) – 5 (most
critical)
4