Honestly, I like Eric but this is kind of a strange video. The core of what "5 whys" is is root cause analysis. He doesn't really explain this and then goes on to, if I'm understanding him correctly, say that every time you hit the same root cause, spend a small amount of time on the fix? Or address each of the "why's" individually?
There's also something of an assumption that the root cause always ends up as a human problem and not a technical one which is only sometimes the case.
This ends up turning a very powerful process and tool into being a very convoluted MBA speak on process and team dynamics.
I suspect what he means is that the “root cause” is not a single, binary thing that is simply “fixed or not fixed”.
In the training example, it’s quite possible that the first hour of training will cover 80% of the problem, with subsequent hours offering diminishing returns. The point is to discover it while avoiding waste.
He’s acknowledging that “root cause” is a club that can be used for bureaucracy; handled wrongly it looks a lot like premature optimization or CYA. What he’s describing is what I consider empiricism.
The first half of the video served as a good example of how the 5 Whys can lead to the root cause. That doesn't mean the other Whys should not be looked at as they were an issue at some level.
The second half was a little more confusing with proportion of time in solving the problem. I understood the solution but now how it directly related to using the 5 whys analysis.
I think the idea was to spend a little bit of time/effort on each of the causes responsible for your issue. Over time, causes which need more fixing will crop up again and again and on average you'll spend the right amount of time on each one, without over-investing in any of them.
That's my interpretation, anyway: Imagine that you have 20 different issues related to training, but that you have the same conversation about training 20 times :)
I basically agree with you, but I think something positive about this video is its admonishment not to settle for one thing wrong. There are other factors and precursors that can be identified and fixed as well. Turn a root cause analysis into a root causeS analysis.
1.)Why is Eric Ries wrong?
Because he uses the 5 whys of root cause analysis
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
2.)Why is root cause wrong?
Because it is uses one of three logic frameworks.
3.)Why is one logic framework of deduction wrong?
In simple JAPANESE manufacturing environments,
deduction works.
In complex, chaotic environments need induction, abduction,
deduction and combinations of all three.
4.)Why are simple 'explanations' wrong?
Flawed safety process or entire 'safety culture' to blame?
Rise of the British empire or fall of the Roman empire?
5.)Why is the 'blame the process' wrong?
Mutual feedback loops between team, person, process and
technology. Technology includes software which is probabilistic.
Because it is 'the system of medical care'
6.)Why is the 'system of medical care' wrong?
Assumes you become healthy by taking pills. The more pills,
the better. The more root cause anomalies the better.
7.)Why is 'finding faults' wrong?
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/we_can-t_solve_problems_by_u...http://litemind.com/problem-definition/
Because “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of
thinking we used when we created them.”
5timewrong at workgold dot 33mail dot com
Tony's paradox on what happens when something has benn 'screwed':
replace quote of "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like
a nail" with
When all you have is a screwdriver, everything looks like a screw,
but you can't tell if you are TIGHTENING the screws (on yourself) and
making the problem worse or loosening the screws.
PPS. start the flame war! rise and fall of the JAPAN manufacturing empire. SONY will eventually go bankrupt.
too many nitpicking fault finders and little creativity
in the big corp HQ in earthquake prone Tokyo. All the
factories clustered in Thailand (how convenient for Japanese
male execs to go!) which is flooded.
PS. How do I solve problems? I use the FIVE WHO.
I take the strangest assortment I can find. Throw them
together in a 'party' and then induce/abduce the answer.
Since 'birds of a feather' flock together, the 'corporate
dodo bird' is doomed to extinction (to mix metaphors).
There's also something of an assumption that the root cause always ends up as a human problem and not a technical one which is only sometimes the case.
This ends up turning a very powerful process and tool into being a very convoluted MBA speak on process and team dynamics.