3 ms·

This argument seems rather pedantic to me, possibly because the author's context is different from mine. Of course you shouldn't treat the 5 Whys as orthodoxy.

by cle 8y ago

This argument seems rather pedantic to me, possibly because the author's context is different from mine. Of course you shouldn't treat the 5 Whys as orthodoxy. Of course it's not a silver bullet in RCA. Of course it's not always sufficient. It's a useful tool for getting yourself into the right mindset for RCA: when you think you have an answer, dig a little deeper and you might find something more fundamentally wrong. In the author's context (healthcare), 5 Whys may in fact be dangerous to promote. In software, where many of us are building CRUD sites and consumer apps, it's a huge improvement over the norm. I'd be very skeptical of the idea of an engineering team trying to employ CAST (linked in the article to analyze cardiovascular surgery mistakes) unless they're building something mission-critical. My point is: consider when to use a tool. In many contexts, the 5 Whys is a fantastic tool and should be used. In other contexts (likely this author's), it can oversimplify.

chrisseaton 8y ago
> Of course you shouldn't treat the 5 Whys as orthodoxy. Of course it's not a silver bullet in RCA. Of course it's not always sufficient. This problem is similar to what happens in tech with big new ideas. People do present it as orthodoxy, people do present it as a silver bullet, people do present it as always being sufficient. Then people inevitably find it's not quite that hard-and-fast and get upset. See the massive backlash against 'agile'. It was supposed to be a flexible way to approach doing things and some general ideas. But a generation of programmers have been told it's an absolute rule that you must do things a certain way - you must have a standup and it must be so many minutes long - and now they're angry.
- cle 8y ago
  Yes I've observed the same thing. It doesn't mean we should give up on coherent frameworks though. It just means we need to emphasize and be vocal about the dangers of orthodoxy (which is what I'm constantly trying to do).
  - pintxo 8y ago
    For me it's not about orthodoxy. It's rather about teaching WHY we should do certain things instead of HOW. If we focus on the why, is sufficiently easier for people to decide this fits or does not.
    - reificator 8y ago
      > For me it's not about orthodoxy. It's rather about teaching WHY we should do certain things instead of HOW. If we focus on the why, is sufficiently easier for people to decide this fits or does not. Of course. But you shouldn't stop at one why. You should keep digging until you find more. I'd say... five of them should be enough.

by cle 8y ago

chrisseaton 8y ago

> Of course you shouldn't treat the 5 Whys as orthodoxy. Of course it's not a silver bullet in RCA. Of course it's not always sufficient. This problem is similar to what happens in tech with big new ideas. People do present it as orthodoxy, people do present it as a silver bullet, people do present it as always being sufficient. Then people inevitably find it's not quite that hard-and-fast and get upset. See the massive backlash against 'agile'. It was supposed to be a flexible way to approach doing things and some general ideas. But a generation of programmers have been told it's an absolute rule that you must do things a certain way - you must have a standup and it must be so many minutes long - and now they're angry.

cle 8y ago
Yes I've observed the same thing. It doesn't mean we should give up on coherent frameworks though. It just means we need to emphasize and be vocal about the dangers of orthodoxy (which is what I'm constantly trying to do).
- pintxo 8y ago
  For me it's not about orthodoxy. It's rather about teaching WHY we should do certain things instead of HOW. If we focus on the why, is sufficiently easier for people to decide this fits or does not.
  - reificator 8y ago
    > For me it's not about orthodoxy. It's rather about teaching WHY we should do certain things instead of HOW. If we focus on the why, is sufficiently easier for people to decide this fits or does not. Of course. But you shouldn't stop at one why. You should keep digging until you find more. I'd say... five of them should be enough.