9 ms·

This is a deliberately click-bait title. It intentionally misuses the word fallacy, when it actually means that root cause analysis is an essential step in the

This is a deliberately click-bait title. It intentionally misuses the word fallacy, when it actually means that root cause analysis is an essential step in the correct direction and must go even further in that direction. All it's really saying is "cause should be plural in root cause analysis." The fact that perhaps an incident had multiple simultaneous causes doesn't invalidate root-cause-analysis. The fact that 5-whys diverge after level 3 or 4 means that once you get to to a high-enough level there are numerous solutions on how to prevent a problem (to use the car-battery example, there are dozens of solutions. The car could show a message when the alternator doesn't work, the dealer could call the car-owner at service times, they could invent a belt that doesn't ever break, etc)

bayonetz 9y ago
Yep, this article’s framing is poor. The 5 Whys are just a simplification that proved useful to get people to dig deeper that previously couldn’t be bothered. There is nothing stopping you from turning a linear sequence of questions into a fanning-out tree of questions so that you can go both deep and wide. ...well nothing other than time and resources. It’s like suggesting that riding bicycles are a fallacy and that if you really want to get somewhere fast, you need to take an airplane. It’s true that bicycles are slower but they are usually better than walking and the cost/benefit ratio is often better than taking a flight.