By Kevin Stewart
As is so often the case, sometimes we simply forget to wonder why.
Have you heard the one about the daughter that saw her mother cut the ham in half before cooking it at the Christmas gathering and asked why? “Well mom said we’ve always done it that way, but Grandma is here and I learned from her, so she can tell you why!” So the daughter asks Grandma, “Why does mom cut the ham in half before cooking it?” Grandma says, “Well Dear, I’ve always done it that way and I suppose your mother is just following suit. We’re in luck though, Great Granny is here and I learned from her, so why don’t you see if she knows.” So she goes to Great Granny and asks, “Why does mom cut the ham in half before cooking it?” “Oh dear!” says Great Granny. “That is simple. When I was cooking Christmas dinner I didn’t have a pan big enough so I cut it in half and put it into two pans!!”
Perhaps we have forgotten to wonder why about 5 Whys? I’m all for using the right tool for the right job, but what job was 5 Whys designed for?
According to Wikipedia, it was developed by Sakichi Toyoda and was adapted for the Toyota Production System (TPS) by Taiichi Ohno. While not an expert on 5 Whys by any stretch, I do know the premise of TPS was to eliminate waste. Everything was predicated on that simple notion, and all of the other tools were built to help them achieve that goal. So I don’t think it is a giant leap to make the assumption that the 5 Whys was part of that. I’m always interested in others thoughts, so I offer up that the 5 Whys was not designed as a tool to solve complicated problems that have many twists and turns to root cause, but rather as a simple tool that was supposed to help the operator on the floor become engaged in the problem solving methodology, and in the process, eliminate waste.
If this is truly the case, then one can make the assertion that just because you have a hammer – everything isn’t a nail.
By this I mean that the 5 Whys can be used successfully in a simplified manner where the consequences are low, the time is short, and the tool is used close to the time of the incident. This would mean that there would not be a lot of evidence or verification necessary because the consequences are low. In addition, suggested changes could be reviewed by supervisors and operators for validity before being put in place without a fear of major consequences.
So that leads us to the question – is the biggest problem with 5 Whys that in many cases we may be attempting to solve problems the tool wasn’t designed for?
If it truly was designed for an operator to fix small problems that he recognized at the time they happened, then he wouldn’t have a lot of time. The problems wouldn’t be big and complicated, and the consequences were only that he would continue to waste time and money until the problem got fixed.
In summary:
Let the consequence determine the need for validation. The 5 Whys are just “caused by…” statements that we don’t need to delve into when using the method for its intended purpose - analyzing a simple problem.
RC Simplified™ is the perfect tool to conduct 5 why investigations. It is free, readily available and simple to use. If the investigation requires a report or follow up, simply convert RC Simplified™ to an Apollo investigation in RealityCharting®. This provides for reporting, documenting actions and finding solutions. They are the perfect combo - 5 whys + RC Simplified™
