4 ms·

> If you can come up with a single answer for a complex causality problem, something hints to me that you would probably point to the same “cause”for other prob

> If you can come up with a single answer for a complex causality problem, something hints to me that you would probably point to the same “cause”for other problems too. That's basically the point of the 5 whys approach. You work up the tree/into the graph of contributing factors based on the specific problem and you end up solving lots of problems. If you don't go back far enough, you're likely just putting a band-aid on the problem and some other variation of it will waste more time again. You get "5 whys" back and now you can really start figuring out what went wrong and how to fix/prevent/mitigate/avoid/etc. it for next time.

darksaints 4y ago
If you asked my dad to root cause literally any problem in my life, from my failed marriage all the way to a random nasty smell emanating from my kitchen, he would trace it back to the fundamental root cause that I’m no longer a believing mormon. I don’t have any problem with the idea that you should dig deeper for any form of causal reasoning. My problem is with the inherent linear flow and singular root cause reasoning of the 5-whys methodology. It is just too easy to lead you back to the thing that you are personally biased to think anyway. If you want to solve actual problems, you more than likely have to solve multiple problems that contribute to a complex system than to solve any singular problem.
- efsavage 4y ago
  I don't mean to be snarky, but if you're looking for a linear flow or singular root cause, you're doing it wrong. It's literally just getting you in the door and past the most immediate symptoms. If you can work your way back from a smelly kitchen to a change in religion, you ask, "Does anyone who didn't change religions have a smelly kitchen?" Obviously the answer is yes, so flag it as possibly correlated and move on to investigate factors that have a better chance at causality and aren't so easily dismissed. Or maybe you need to go even further back, and there's some link between why your kitchen smells and why you changed religions. It's just an approach, like therapy, not an algorithm.
  - darksaints 4y ago
    > I don't mean to be snarky, but if you're looking for a linear flow or singular root cause, you're doing it wrong. It's literally just getting you in the door and past the most immediate symptoms. If you read this thread there are literally multiple interpretations of what the 5-whys actually means, each of which results in a roundabout No True Scotsman argument. Including yours. I’d prefer to see the 5-why’s as what it actually is: an aphorism about not treating symptoms but rather problems. The aphorism is useful…attempts to define it as some kind of formal tool are a waste of everybody’s time. There are plenty of tools (such as Ishikawa diagrams) out there that represent a better implementation of the aphorism, and 5-whys can be replaced entirely by them.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      Is it actually that? I'm pretty sure that the term comes out of the Toyota Production System, in which kaizen, or continuous improvement, is the heart of the process. Given that the Ishikawa diagram also comes out of post-war Japan's industrial process quality improvement community, I would be very surprised if Totota didn't make use of Ishikawa diagrams in practice.

darksaints 4y ago

If you asked my dad to root cause literally any problem in my life, from my failed marriage all the way to a random nasty smell emanating from my kitchen, he would trace it back to the fundamental root cause that I’m no longer a believing mormon. I don’t have any problem with the idea that you should dig deeper for any form of causal reasoning. My problem is with the inherent linear flow and singular root cause reasoning of the 5-whys methodology. It is just too easy to lead you back to the thing that you are personally biased to think anyway. If you want to solve actual problems, you more than likely have to solve multiple problems that contribute to a complex system than to solve any singular problem.

efsavage 4y ago
I don't mean to be snarky, but if you're looking for a linear flow or singular root cause, you're doing it wrong. It's literally just getting you in the door and past the most immediate symptoms. If you can work your way back from a smelly kitchen to a change in religion, you ask, "Does anyone who didn't change religions have a smelly kitchen?" Obviously the answer is yes, so flag it as possibly correlated and move on to investigate factors that have a better chance at causality and aren't so easily dismissed. Or maybe you need to go even further back, and there's some link between why your kitchen smells and why you changed religions. It's just an approach, like therapy, not an algorithm.
- darksaints 4y ago
  > I don't mean to be snarky, but if you're looking for a linear flow or singular root cause, you're doing it wrong. It's literally just getting you in the door and past the most immediate symptoms. If you read this thread there are literally multiple interpretations of what the 5-whys actually means, each of which results in a roundabout No True Scotsman argument. Including yours. I’d prefer to see the 5-why’s as what it actually is: an aphorism about not treating symptoms but rather problems. The aphorism is useful…attempts to define it as some kind of formal tool are a waste of everybody’s time. There are plenty of tools (such as Ishikawa diagrams) out there that represent a better implementation of the aphorism, and 5-whys can be replaced entirely by them.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Is it actually that? I'm pretty sure that the term comes out of the Toyota Production System, in which kaizen, or continuous improvement, is the heart of the process. Given that the Ishikawa diagram also comes out of post-war Japan's industrial process quality improvement community, I would be very surprised if Totota didn't make use of Ishikawa diagrams in practice.