4 ms·
The points here seem valid, but I think the author misunderstands 5 Whys analysis a bit. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
by kscaldef 15y ago
The points here seem valid, but I think the author misunderstands 5 Whys analysis a bit. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys
"It is interesting to note that the last answer points to a process. This is one of the most important aspects in the 5 Why approach - the real root cause should point toward a process that is not working well or does not exist. Untrained facilitators will often observe that answers seem to point towards classical answers such as not enough time, not enough investments, or not enough manpower. These answers may sometimes be true but in most cases they lead to answers out of our control. Therefore, instead of asking the question why?, ask why did the process fail?"
and
"These tools allow for analysis to be branched in order to provide multiple root causes"
- th0ma5 15y agohrmmm... but not multiple causes that are actually fine on their own, or not in this particular order, or on that one day when that other (unknown) condition existed? I've been in many of tense meetings over those kind
- vacri 15y agoI was a bit puzzled reading the article, because in the places I have worked, 'root cause analysis' isn't looking for the simplistic thing the article describes. If it is simple, great, but more often than not the root cause is poor interaction between things, which can require multiple changes or even under-the-bonnet refactoring. The article's description of root cause analysis sounds like something a first-year undergraduate would think.
- cbsmith 15y agoI'm getting the impression that that HBR video has had a much wider penetration than the 5 Why's concept as a whole. This seems to have lead a lot of people to draw the wrong conclusions about even what 5 Why's is really about, let alone how it works.