Clarifying the '5 Whys' Problem-Solving Method

To help lean thinkers apply this powerful approach to overcoming work obstacles, LEI Senior Advisor John Shook guides lean thinkers through a detailed example from Taiichi Ohno's Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. Learn more: www.lean.org/events-training/...

[@vincenzoesposito4337]

Precious material ! Thank you !

[@MegaSnegovichok]

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.

[@redditdevilsadvocate.5134]

Why

[@pryorifyable]

@@redditdevilsadvocate.5134 Why

[@jessicalueken2716]

00⁰0⁰😊😊

[@martinsvensson276]

Ive also discovered that. 5 whys is more a way to improve your arguments or theory of a problem, not finding new data etc

[@tarilonte]

Such a deep yet clear lesson!

[@MoveToUSA]

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.

[@Claudiuyoro]

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

[@dark_natas_666]

Good. Quick. To the point!

[@ToddMetcalf]

Very nice video, simple and to the point.

[@prashantkhurape8242]

Very good example & explaination !

[@Techpower888]

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

[@rosecharleneang9569]

Thanks, its so helpful.

[@davehansel9715]

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

[@jasonhunter7143]

Great job!

[@mohammadalirana9681]

Excellent

[@abdellahchaabi1378]

good explaintion

[@muskduh]

Thanks

[@subramanianbalachander6317]

GOOD ONE-QUITE THOUGHTFUL

[@aceman199]

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.

[@GeraldCrumbley]

Wasn't it Sakichi Toyoda who devised this system?

[@milkco6607]

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?

[@refundmybirth4578]

cool

[@ghulammustafa6019]

Good

[@leegale1993]

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

[@AirsoftRealSteelBoxing]

would it end there if there was no strainer by design? why? because that's the only model they can afford? why? because they can't produce more why? because their machine is faulty? --> so two options are add a strainer or invest on a better one

[@desmo8755]

it kept getting clogged with chips !!!

[@leegale1993]

@@desmo8755 Now we are closer to a root cause. 🙂

[@clarissa9679]

Bahasa Indonesia ada?

[@allenross2650]

✨💖✨

[@JamesWattMusic]

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.

[@sladjan_vuksanovic]

28.01.23

[@gathirwatimo3666]

Anyone from RMIT? You've found a schoolmate.

[@ITSPATT2]

enhe

[@ITSPATT2]

sure ilove it

[@williamduke8331]

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!

[@wazmasole3926]

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.

[@jacencko011]

What are you talking about? You ask the whys to solve the problem. The 5 Whys ARE the nitty-gritty of solving the problem.

[@Drewmack22]

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?

[@tfmooney1]

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???

[@franksabala5428]

Because there was not strainer...

[@refundmybirth4578]

worsr

[@JamesWattMusic]

The shavings are there because the pump is wearing down. They could make it out of a stronger material to slow down the wear rate. Or design a way to remove the shavings. If they did that, then it will have a different root cause like the pump blades breaking. It is like the whack a mole game, another one just keeps popping up.

[@yeyos5]

Metal to metal friction will give you metal shavings over time. The strainer would filter the bigger shavings thus keeping the machine in function.

[@alasdairmacleod8420]

With most liquids used in manufacturing the advice is to strain them before use even when opening a brand new can. Even paint. Why would metals appear in lube then you would need to ask what the constituent parts of the lube were. If you think the internal combustion engine then lead used to be not so much a lube but a knock preventor. Hence Leaded Fuel when lead was added to the fuel in order to prevent issues with the piston in the cylinder. It could be that over time constituent parts within the lube coagulate and form larger particals so the advice would be to shake well and strain before use.

[@bobbyvolkert.2063]

Evert body van die totdat,allso you.

[@CUEBALL424]

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.

[@imightbebiased9311]

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?

[@patrickb840]

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

[@baboneya]

" 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.

[@AlessandroBottoni]

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.