51–60 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This method was invented by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakichi_Toyoda . He died in 1930. I'm pretty sure that it predates even the word "startup" as it is currently used :)
I know that Eric Ries did not invent it, but he spread this idea with his highly popular book.
Why 5x? You should rather check when you reached the point that it will not happen again. Probably nobody is assigned to the task of installing filters in new machines and the next one will fail again...
For example, applying this to IT when analyzing the underlying causes of a particular downtime or security breach, usually, the first 2 layers of "why" are technical reasons that need to be adressed by the relevant specialists, the next 2 layers are failures of policy and procedures that need to be adressed by the managment chain, and around 5th "why" you get to weaknesses in the organization, company priorities and values which is slow to change but valuable info anyway.
Beyond that you just get to acknowledgements about how life is not perfect that is not actionable, but the first 4-5 layers of 'why' generally do lead to something that can be fixed given proper authority and motivation.
Or you could, you know, just figure out the root bloody cause of things. Can you package that message up and sell it as a consultancy?
That doesn't stop people from trying to take 'shortcuts' though, and those shortcuts are what consultants prey on.
Why 5x? You should rather check when you reached the point that it will not happen again. Probably nobody is assigned to the task of installing filters in new machines and the next one will fail again...
There seems to be some confusion/mis-interpretation about the 5 part. This is called 五回のなぜ in Japanese ("Go-kai no naze," or Why Five Times) and refers to root cause analysis. Of course the number of times the process need be repeated until the root cause is identified is variable. Five in this case is merely a jingly mnemonic, as Japanese people are so fond of.
Why is there no filter on the intake? It was proposed, but declined by management as "too costly". Why is it too costly? Because cutting visible costs is perceived as saving money and therefore Good, whereas prevention and maintenance are perceived as unnecessary, because Bad Stuff Just Happens Regardless. Why? Because people suck at statistics ("if we can't eliminate a risk altogether, there's no point in trying, le…
But it is not as simple as prevention vs. cost-cutting. In any place, there are thousands of things that might prevent a problem, but which of them are worth doing? One of many strategies for selecting the right precautions is an evolutionary one: fix the ones that caused problems in the past.
I survived several years in a Six Sigma organization. The Five Whys was one of my favorite 'tools' despite the 'Black Belts' dragging the process out much longer than required. I've never seen a methodology burn through more easel pads.
I don't force it 5x but asking why was the best lesson I learnt working with users/clients as people tend to talk about solutions and not the problems. That's also where my nickname comes from.
Ask why more than twice at my job and you'll get in trouble. Sometimes the boss, and the customer, doesn't want to be asked. I think this idea is too aggressive and indicative of high pressure sales tactics.