The five Whys... does it work.
Discussion
I was told about this many years ago... when the Japanese principles were hot.
I never really used it, but it just intrigued me.
This may help.
https://www.liquidplanner.com/blog/use-5-whys-meth...
I never really used it, but it just intrigued me.
This may help.
https://www.liquidplanner.com/blog/use-5-whys-meth...
Edited by Milkyway on Tuesday 15th August 15:38
In short, yes. The principle is sound but it's not always 5 times, sometimes more sometimes less. Also needs some subtlety.
In my experience it works in many different scenarios, it's a simplistic approach to root cause analysis. I've used it most often when coaching and developing team members for example, when you use it to understand their motivation. For example:
"I want a new job"
"Why?"
"Becasue I don't like this one"
"What is it about this job you don't like?"
"I don't like having to do XYZ"
"Ok, what is it about XYZ that you dislike?"
"I don't like this (insert example) aspect of it"
"And what is it about that aspect that you don't enjoy"
"It makes me feel like ABC"
"Is that the only part of your job you don't enjoy?"
"Yes"
"So you like the rest of it?"
"Yes"
"Ok, well here are the options to help with having to do XYZ that would mean you don't have to find a new job, how does this sound...."
From there you can address the actual issue. Same approach when someone doesn't know what they want to do next, you ask what they enjoy, why, why, why, why etc to get to the root of what they're looking for in a job. Would work when selling as well potentially if it's an emotional purchase like a car.
You can't just keep going "Why" though, you do have to be listening and confirming what your hearing from the other person and they do have to feel safe enough to be open and honest. If they don't trust you they'll potentially just stubbornly lie
In my experience it works in many different scenarios, it's a simplistic approach to root cause analysis. I've used it most often when coaching and developing team members for example, when you use it to understand their motivation. For example:
"I want a new job"
"Why?"
"Becasue I don't like this one"
"What is it about this job you don't like?"
"I don't like having to do XYZ"
"Ok, what is it about XYZ that you dislike?"
"I don't like this (insert example) aspect of it"
"And what is it about that aspect that you don't enjoy"
"It makes me feel like ABC"
"Is that the only part of your job you don't enjoy?"
"Yes"
"So you like the rest of it?"
"Yes"
"Ok, well here are the options to help with having to do XYZ that would mean you don't have to find a new job, how does this sound...."
From there you can address the actual issue. Same approach when someone doesn't know what they want to do next, you ask what they enjoy, why, why, why, why etc to get to the root of what they're looking for in a job. Would work when selling as well potentially if it's an emotional purchase like a car.
You can't just keep going "Why" though, you do have to be listening and confirming what your hearing from the other person and they do have to feel safe enough to be open and honest. If they don't trust you they'll potentially just stubbornly lie
I carried out this exercise on a plumbing problem..
Conclusion, after some tooth sucking. Find original plumber and ask him to commit ritual suicide. As he's now retired to Cyprus it's easier just to bodge it a bit.
To answer your question no or err.....why?
Conclusion, after some tooth sucking. Find original plumber and ask him to commit ritual suicide. As he's now retired to Cyprus it's easier just to bodge it a bit.
To answer your question no or err.....why?
Edited by PositronicRay on Tuesday 15th August 16:12
No, it doesn't work. It gets introduced to teams because they're full of people that can't work out problems themselves or see the bigger picture. It's a crutch, it doesn't solve the problem because the problem is the quality of the people involved.
Inevitably the team that can't solve it's problems also can't implement it's solutions in ways that don't cause other problems and then you're doing your Whys against multiple linked and concurrent problems next round.
It's also the most patronising one of these common sense substitutes. People need to learn how to think rather than following a script.
Inevitably the team that can't solve it's problems also can't implement it's solutions in ways that don't cause other problems and then you're doing your Whys against multiple linked and concurrent problems next round.
It's also the most patronising one of these common sense substitutes. People need to learn how to think rather than following a script.
It's probably brilliant when one is working with Japanese robots in a Japanese car factory, but wouldn't aid the average British manager:
1) Why did Tarquin sell 80,000 units of the European Sirius fund when he was specifically asked to buy 80,000 units of Star of Europe?
- Tarquin didn't read the instructions properly.
2) Why didn't Tarquin read the instructions?
- He was hungover, bored, and thinking about something else at the time.
3) Why is Tarquin hungover, bored and distracted?
- Because being a telephone trader isn't very interesting.
4) Why isn't being a telephone trader very interesting?
- You can work that out, surely.
5) Why can't you give me a sensible answer?
- There isn't one. Nobody cares, we'll amend the deal and that will be that. We could do things properly but that would cost too much and require better telephone traders than Tarquin.
1) Why did Tarquin sell 80,000 units of the European Sirius fund when he was specifically asked to buy 80,000 units of Star of Europe?
- Tarquin didn't read the instructions properly.
2) Why didn't Tarquin read the instructions?
- He was hungover, bored, and thinking about something else at the time.
3) Why is Tarquin hungover, bored and distracted?
- Because being a telephone trader isn't very interesting.
4) Why isn't being a telephone trader very interesting?
- You can work that out, surely.
5) Why can't you give me a sensible answer?
- There isn't one. Nobody cares, we'll amend the deal and that will be that. We could do things properly but that would cost too much and require better telephone traders than Tarquin.
paulrockliffe said:
No, it doesn't work. It gets introduced to teams because they're full of people that can't work out problems themselves or see the bigger picture. It's a crutch, it doesn't solve the problem because the problem is the quality of the people involved.
Inevitably the team that can't solve it's problems also can't implement it's solutions in ways that don't cause other problems and then you're doing your Whys against multiple linked and concurrent problems next round.
It's also the most patronising one of these common-sense substitutes. People need to learn how to think rather than follow a script.
To quote someone (I've no idea who), there's no such thing as common sense. Everything you know, you've learned from somewhere. As a concept to help someone not just read something at face value or trust the first thing someone tells you, it does have its use. Like everything it just depends on whether you understand the purpose behind the tool and it's not the only tool you'd use to problem-solve an issue. Inevitably the team that can't solve it's problems also can't implement it's solutions in ways that don't cause other problems and then you're doing your Whys against multiple linked and concurrent problems next round.
It's also the most patronising one of these common-sense substitutes. People need to learn how to think rather than follow a script.
I currently work with a guy who constantly says during meetings "What is the problem statement" to EVERYTHING that's discussed. Clearly, he's somehow been introduced to the idea of defining a problem statement but he didn't get as far as understanding its implementation. Is defining a problem statement a bad idea? Of course not, but it isn't a magic bullet to solve every issue.
The Japanese do have some pretty interesting business principles but they're not all suited to everything, for example, Gemba. Great idea and you could absolutely take bit's of the concept for use elsewhere but you're clearly not able to implement it in every field.
In our production processes... a problem only had to appear once.
Actions were put in place so that there wasn’t a repeat.
But the last line of the article.... Do you use 5 Whys in your work & personal life.
I think that I used it in the latter once... with my ex partner.
My kids used to be good at the 5 whys.
Actions were put in place so that there wasn’t a repeat.
But the last line of the article.... Do you use 5 Whys in your work & personal life.
I think that I used it in the latter once... with my ex partner.
My kids used to be good at the 5 whys.
Edited by Milkyway on Tuesday 15th August 17:58
paulrockliffe said:
No, it doesn't work. It gets introduced to teams because they're full of people that can't work out problems themselves or see the bigger picture. It's a crutch, it doesn't solve the problem because the problem is the quality of the people involved.
Inevitably the team that can't solve it's problems also can't implement it's solutions in ways that don't cause other problems and then you're doing your Whys against multiple linked and concurrent problems next round.
It's also the most patronising one of these common sense substitutes. People need to learn how to think rather than following a script.
Utter rubbish.Inevitably the team that can't solve it's problems also can't implement it's solutions in ways that don't cause other problems and then you're doing your Whys against multiple linked and concurrent problems next round.
It's also the most patronising one of these common sense substitutes. People need to learn how to think rather than following a script.
It works brilliant as a platform to ensure you are solving what is wrong with what and only focusing on one issue at a time.
Posters like the above jump to conclusions and end up chasing the rainbow and wondering why they either have reoccurring issues or don’t solve them in the workplace.
There is a reason it is a fundamental of all problem solving tools and processes.
It does work, I applied it to one guy in my old site team that I inherited. A great lad, worked his backside off and we got along really well.
But …
Everything he didn’t like was referred to as ‘Sh*t’.
At first when I asked why it was sh*t I initially got the reply ‘because it is’
I would say to him that if he didn’t tell me why something was sh*t then I couldn’t improve anything or make it better.
It took a little time to bring him round, but once he saw that I was making changes based on the responses and suggestions he made to make something less sh*t it just because second nature and less negative.
But …
Everything he didn’t like was referred to as ‘Sh*t’.
At first when I asked why it was sh*t I initially got the reply ‘because it is’
I would say to him that if he didn’t tell me why something was sh*t then I couldn’t improve anything or make it better.
It took a little time to bring him round, but once he saw that I was making changes based on the responses and suggestions he made to make something less sh*t it just because second nature and less negative.
Roboticarm said:
Just me or did anyone else come here thinking this was a thread about five guys... The burger chain ?
Just you so far, at least of those who have posted an admission!(Hungry now, damn you...)
For me, it works when not taken literally. The principle of challenging until correct root causes are found is spot on; that can take more or fewer than 5 whys. People who rigidly stick to five are misusing it.
In my experience it's useful when you're dealing with people who want to learn, are willing to accept feedback, want it to work and believe everyone else has been doing their best given the situation they are in.
This is unfortunately a rare situation - often people are cynical about "trendy management stuff" or feel a need to be competitive or hide from any mistakes (whether or not they admit this).
This is unfortunately a rare situation - often people are cynical about "trendy management stuff" or feel a need to be competitive or hide from any mistakes (whether or not they admit this).
Milkyway said:
I was told about this many years ago... when the Japanese principles were hot.
I never really used it, but it just intrigued me.
This may help.
https://www.liquidplanner.com/blog/use-5-whys-meth...
I did all this when doing my ILM 20 odd years ago. I still use it on Mrs Nemesis when I wish to annoy her. I never really used it, but it just intrigued me.
This may help.
https://www.liquidplanner.com/blog/use-5-whys-meth...
Edited by Milkyway on Tuesday 15th August 15:38
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff