Clarifying the '5 Whys' Problem-Solving Method 

It is a perfectly valid technique when applied to simple technical problems like the one described in the example. Unfortunately, managers tend to widely apply it to "soft" areas (e.g. people management, organisational structures etc.), where any answer to the question "why?" gives you only what you "believe" the cause might be, not what it actually is. To offset this bias you'd always have to ask "What makes you think so?" after every "why?" question.

As a maintenance engineer on contract basis, I only look at the 1st level of 5 whys at my clients workplace, if I go all the way deep I may loose my job as a maintenance engineer.

For me, the 5 why's is working! Thanks for the information!

Precious material ! Thank you !

Good video, but I would argue that the root cause is NOT that there was no strainer--you have to keep asking "why?" The root cause is probably something along the lines of "management has a culture of expedience over thoroughness," or "management failed to train the maintainer," or "management failed to perform quality checks," or "management failed to follow through on ordering new parts," etc.

0:24 "Break down", as in the action is two words. "Breakdown" is a noun. "Occurrence" is spelled incorrectly. 0:46 Made me stop the video in rage. "Its" not "It's", which is a contraction. Your graphic is saying "Problem in it is own right". Nothing makes me question the value of a video spotlighting how improved thought processes can lead to better results when the video itself is riddled with flaws. Why don't you have a proofreader? Why wasn't this reviewed before deployment? Why is this still grammatically incorrect after being up for 5 years?

Wasn't it Sakichi Toyoda who devised this system?

Very well explained, and thankyou Matthew McConaughey for doing the narration :D

Not far enough. Why are you making metal shavings that's the actual root cause. Is the pump damaged? If the pump is damaged why wasn't it replaced or PMed before failure?

Such a deep yet clear lesson!

Anyone from RMIT? You've found a schoolmate.

Bahasa Indonesia ada?

More like a problem "identification" video than that of solving, you never really got to the nitty-gritty of how to solve the problem. You just rushed it in there at the end; "by adding a stranger" This is a "WHY the problem" video than a "HOW to solve the problem" as falsely represented in your Title.

Good reminder that sometimes we need to step back. And rethink the situation we are in. Thanks for your work!

Excellent

So what's the answer to a problem with those rules? Sue! You sue the living daylights out of them. But then they throw another rule at you: You can't! And who established these rules? Some "winner" (In quotes because in this particular case the winner is an absolute joke) that never gets anything right. So what's the answer? You wait until the "winner" has gotten enough things wrong and then you SUE! That's right! You throw out their last rule (you can't) and take issue with all of the other rules AND everything they got wrong! They will take you seriously when they're faced with the prospect of having to pay you several hundred thousand dollars!

Good. Quick. To the point!

Nicely explained! I also use 5 whys strategy tool in Google sheets. Great content!

Thanks

Am I crazy or is this just a common sense problem solving technique??? Why does this need to be “taught”?

28.01.23

Why was there no strainer ? Had it been left off Did it restrict flow Had it broken

cool

Great job!

✨💖✨

Very good example & explaination !

enhe

finding and scheduling for root causes of failures is one of the last realms where Humans rule. It is a very difficult problem, which automation hasnt solved. Some can take this advice for a career choice.

Very nice video, simple and to the point.

Thanks, its so helpful.

GOOD ONE-QUITE THOUGHTFUL

Good

good explaintion

Evert body van die totdat,allso you.

Sounds like basic troubleshooting to me. But they need to come up with special terms to call it so others think they are far more educated and knowledgeable, when most likely the opposite is true.

What happens when the whys become circular? For example (I don't know how machines work so take this idea with a grain of salt), what if the pump was supposed to seperate bad oil but there is bad oil makes the pump stop working? What does this circular logic resemble?

This may not be the best example of finding the root cause of this problem. The strainer is another Band-Aid. What will happen when the strainer gets all plugged up with shavings. No lube, bearing fail, fuse fail, equipment down. The source of the failures has not yet been discovered. Why are the shavings in the lube???

Describing how the problem-solving process is performed has very little to do with actually fixing the problem. This approach is nothing more than the usual "reductionist" approach used in scientific research to find the "root cause" of a phenomenon. It is nothing special. Just the usual "tracing -back" the problem to its source that we use in everyday life. Any high-school or university student needs much more than this to actually overcome his/her difficulties. He/she need *tools*. Cognitive and cultural tools.

" Great graphic representation of why I wasted three minutes and twenty seconds. Instead on multiple whys , how about asking 1 why not? Getting it right; doing it right the first time. " - This is a business model most over educated, management level individuals can't grasp. They need data and numbers and figures and charts and pictures and explanations and trials and blah blah blah to determine the cost effective route. Never trusting tried and true experience of what works and taking the next step from there. More doing, less figuring out how many idiots it takes to change a light bulb.