Root cause analysis: getting past the first plausible answer
Root cause analysis works out why something went wrong deeply enough that fixing it prevents a recurrence. Its main difficulty is stopping too early, at an answer that sounds satisfying.
A project status report is read in ninety seconds by someone deciding whether to worry. Write it for that reader and it stops being a weekly chore.
A project status report tells the people funding or depending on a project where it stands. It is read quickly, usually by someone with several other projects to think about, and the only questions they actually have are: is this on track, what changed, and does anything need me. A report that does not answer those three in the first paragraph will not be read further, however complete the rest is.
The chronic failure is reporting activity. A list of what the team did last week feels like accountability and tells the reader nothing about whether the project will land. Report position and change, not effort.
Agree what the status colours mean before the first report, in writing. Without a definition, "at risk" means whatever the author's temperament suggests, and the same project is reported green by one manager and amber by another. Tie them to something checkable — for instance, at risk when a milestone will slip beyond a defined tolerance without intervention.
Weekly reports suit projects measured in weeks; monthly suits anything longer. What breaks the rhythm is reporting too often on slow-moving work, which produces reports that say nothing and train the reader to ignore them. The other failure is escalating only at the point of crisis: a project that reports green for eight weeks and then red has not deteriorated suddenly — it has been reported wrongly, and the reader learns to distrust every subsequent green.
In Ettex, the report lives in Ettex Docs — templates so every period starts from the same structure, version history so last month's report as sent is recoverable, threaded comments if a stakeholder queries a figure, and a share link so the report is a link rather than an attachment nobody can find. The underlying work sits in Ettex Board with columns, assignees, due dates and a log of every move, the numbers and the budget position come from Ettex Sheets, milestone dates from Ettex Calendar, and the risks referenced in the report belong in a register in Ettex Records.
Said plainly: Ettex has no project reporting. Nothing here generates a status report from your board, calculates percentage complete, produces burndown charts, or tracks earned value. You write the report and pull the numbers yourself. Fifteen minutes a week is a reasonable trade for a small project; portfolio-level reporting across many projects wants a PM tool that rolls up automatically.
Project and period, an overall status word, what changed, progress against plan, next period's deliverables, risks needing a decision, budget position, decisions requested with dates, and key upcoming dates.
One page. Detail belongs in an attachment; the report itself has to survive a ninety-second read.
Weekly for projects measured in weeks, monthly for longer ones. Reporting too often on slow work produces empty reports that train the reader to ignore them.
Whatever you define in advance and write down. Tie them to something checkable — a milestone slipping beyond an agreed tolerance — rather than to how the author feels.
No. What the team did is not what the reader needs; where the project stands and what changed is. Activity belongs in the team's own tracking.
As soon as a milestone is at genuine risk, not when it has already slipped. Late escalation costs more than the awkward conversation, and it devalues every green report before it.
A project status report answers three questions: on track, what changed, what do you need from me. Fix the template, define the colours in advance, ask for decisions with dates — and report amber the week you first believe it.
Root cause analysis works out why something went wrong deeply enough that fixing it prevents a recurrence. Its main difficulty is stopping too early, at an answer that sounds satisfying.
A code of conduct says how people here are expected to behave and what happens when they do not. Its value is not aspiration — it is having decided the hard cases before one arrives.
A project charter names the objective, the boundaries, the sponsor and the person authorised to run the work. Its main use comes months later, when people disagree about what was agreed.