151–160 of 172 posts
(This kind of epistemological work-out is handy in lots of other situations. When the JWs or Mormons show up at your door, asking "How do you know that?" repeatedly is often all that you need to do until they give up and go away.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlike most management methodology nonsense, it works and makes sense.
Why are most management methodologies nonsense?
Management is a domain with domain-specific terminology and jargon. It's not terrible, just not user friendly. 5 whys is at its core really approachable. You may need to find the guy with domain-specific expertise to answer the 5th why, but still understand how you got there.
Why does the hybrid braking system and mechanical braking system disengage with ABS, but then only re-engage the mechanical brake, resulting in a considerable change in deceleration, causing you to have to depress the brake further to avoid colliding with things in front of you.
Still waiting on a good reason for that one...
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.
A blind drunk man was jaywalking and was hit by a distracted and inexperienced driver and died. Why did he die? There likely isn't a singular root cause. There are 5 potential singular root causes, but they are a subset of the 5-factorial potential combinatorial root causes . I agree that solutions before problems is bad, but the five whys is problematic simply because it promotes the idea of singular root cause whic…
The answer to "why" can be three different things. So you ask why to each of those. Repeat.
The five whys is only "problematic" if you expect it to give you the answer. It's only a means by which it can be easier for you to arrive at one or more of the many possible answers.
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.
Could it be a play on the word 誤解 [1]. As in '誤解のなぜ’. [1] http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E8%AA%A4%E8%A7%A3&ref=sa
If we're just going for homophones it could just as easily be "fifth floor" but that also doesn't make a lot of sense as a pun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how that sits with "Don't bring me problems—bring me solutions" that I occasionally hear from non-technical managers...
One of my best managers ever was non-technical. His line was, "you're smart enough to fix this, so do it, do it right, and don't let it happen again." He did a great job getting the resources to back it up, too, while shielding his team from company politics. Right up until the point where he lost at company politics, anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A problem without a suggested solution is a complaint. If your people only bring you complaints, it is a drain on everyone; it breeds discontent in the workforce and contempt in management.
I feel that some people are very good at seeing problems, and some people are very good at finding solutions to problems. I don't see any reason that the same skills should be present in any given individual, so you always need both types.
- First you can implement solutions (jr level) - Then you can design solutions (mid level, sometimes senior - most of time is spent here) - Then you can find problems that need solutions (senior, management)
Pity they don't believe in this in real life. Why does the hybrid braking system and mechanical braking system disengage with ABS, but then only re-engage the mechanical brake, resulting in a considerable change in deceleration, causing you to have to depress the brake further to avoid colliding with things in front of you. Still waiting on a good reason for that one...
I wonder what the answers were to "Why did we conceal our deadly (not for Toyota, but for their customers) mistakes?" and "Why did we actively deceive our customers regarding the safety of our vehicles?"