Independent Scientology Milestone Two criticizes and purports to improve on Sakichi Toyoda / Toyota 5 Whys process.
Milestone Two: 5 Whys
http://ift.tt/21SlfRl
* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *
By Lana M.
Recently I read an article from the New York Times that had been republished in a major Australian newspaper. The article was all about a technique for getting to the root cause of a problem using a technique called “5 Whys”.
Per Wikipedia:
5 Whys is an iterative interrogative technique used to explore the cause-and-effect relationships underlying a particular problem. The primary goal of the technique is to determine the root cause of a defect or problem by repeating the question “Why?” Each question forms the basis of the next question. The “5” in the name derives from an empirical observation on the number of iterations typically required to resolve the problem.
The technique was formally developed by Sakichi Toyoda and was used within the Toyota Motor Corporation during the evolution of its manufacturing methodologies. In other companies, it appears in other forms. Under Ricardo Semler, Semco practices “three whys” and broadens the practice to cover goal setting and decision making.
Not all problems have a single root cause. If one wishes to uncover multiple root causes, the method must be repeated asking a different sequence of questions each time.
The method provides no hard and fast rules about what lines of questions to explore, or how long to continue the search for additional root causes. Thus, even when the method is closely followed, the outcome still depends upon the knowledge and persistence of the people involved. Example:
The vehicle will not start. (the problem)
1. Why? – The battery is dead. (first why)
2. Why? – The alternator is not functioning. (second why)
3. Why? – The alternator belt has broken. (third why)
4. Why? – The alternator belt was well beyond its useful service life and not replaced. (fourth why)
5. Why? – The vehicle was not maintained according to the recommended service schedule. (fifth why, a root cause)
The questioning for this example could be taken further to a sixth, seventh, or higher level, but five iterations of asking why is generally sufficient to get to a root cause. The key is to encourage the trouble-shooter to avoid assumptions and logic traps and instead trace the chain of causality in direct increments from the effect through any layers of abstraction to a root cause that still has some connection to the original problem. Note that, in this example, the fifth why suggests a broken process or an alterable behaviour, which is indicative of reaching the root-cause level.
It is interesting to note that the last answer points to a process. This is one of the most important aspects in the 5 Why approach – the real root cause should point toward a process that is not working well or does not exist. Untrained facilitators will often observe that answers seem to point towards classical answers such as not enough time, not enough investments, or not enough manpower. These answers may be true, but they are out of our control. Therefore, instead of asking the question why?, ask why did the process fail?
A key phrase to keep in mind in any 5 Why exercise is “people do not fail, processes do”.
I must admit, I chuckled when I read all of the above. If this is the extent of investigatory procedure and problem solving, then no wonder so many suffer from unresolving problems or issues. This “tech” is incomplete and does not work.
In LRH’s Data Series he details how to find the why that underlies a situation, and this involves observing the outpoints (ie. contrary fact, falsehood, altered importance, dropped time, added time, wrong source, etc.) in a situation, and “pulling the string” on that outpoint, then find the next outpoint, pull that one, and so on, until you get to the underlying cause. It is correct that you are asking why that outpoint exists – why it has occurred or what has caused it. And the explanation that is given (which is also an outpoint) is then questioned.
So the Five Why’s has the gist of it, but without using the outpoints (or pluspoints for a good situation) as the point to question, the Five Whys will not get to the bottom of problem and find the Why. And counting down to 5 questionings is just silly and arbitrary.
Here is LRH on the subject. Learning and drilling THIS tech, WILL allow a person to get to the bottom of illogical situations to find the cause and resolve them.
“LOGIC * * * *
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
Independent Scientology Milestone Two criticizes Sakichi Toyoda 5 Whys process
Milestone Two: 5 Whys
http://ift.tt/21SlfRl
* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *
By Lana M.
Recently I read an article from the New York Times that had been republished in a major Australian newspaper. The article was all about a technique for getting to the root cause of a problem using a technique called “5 Whys”.
Per Wikipedia:
5 Whys is an iterative interrogative technique used to explore the cause-and-effect relationships underlying a particular problem. The primary goal of the technique is to determine the root cause of a defect or problem by repeating the question “Why?” Each question forms the basis of the next question. The “5” in the name derives from an empirical observation on the number of iterations typically required to resolve the problem.
The technique was formally developed by Sakichi Toyoda and was used within the Toyota Motor Corporation during the evolution of its manufacturing methodologies. In other companies, it appears in other forms. Under Ricardo Semler, Semco practices “three whys” and broadens the practice to cover goal setting and decision making.
Not all problems have a single root cause. If one wishes to uncover multiple root causes, the method must be repeated asking a different sequence of questions each time.
The method provides no hard and fast rules about what lines of questions to explore, or how long to continue the search for additional root causes. Thus, even when the method is closely followed, the outcome still depends upon the knowledge and persistence of the people involved. Example:
The vehicle will not start. (the problem)
1. Why? – The battery is dead. (first why)
2. Why? – The alternator is not functioning. (second why)
3. Why? – The alternator belt has broken. (third why)
4. Why? – The alternator belt was well beyond its useful service life and not replaced. (fourth why)
5. Why? – The vehicle was not maintained according to the recommended service schedule. (fifth why, a root cause)
The questioning for this example could be taken further to a sixth, seventh, or higher level, but five iterations of asking why is generally sufficient to get to a root cause. The key is to encourage the trouble-shooter to avoid assumptions and logic traps and instead trace the chain of causality in direct increments from the effect through any layers of abstraction to a root cause that still has some connection to the original problem. Note that, in this example, the fifth why suggests a broken process or an alterable behaviour, which is indicative of reaching the root-cause level.
It is interesting to note that the last answer points to a process. This is one of the most important aspects in the 5 Why approach – the real root cause should point toward a process that is not working well or does not exist. Untrained facilitators will often observe that answers seem to point towards classical answers such as not enough time, not enough investments, or not enough manpower. These answers may be true, but they are out of our control. Therefore, instead of asking the question why?, ask why did the process fail?
A key phrase to keep in mind in any 5 Why exercise is “people do not fail, processes do”.
I must admit, I chuckled when I read all of the above. If this is the extent of investigatory procedure and problem solving, then no wonder so many suffer from unresolving problems or issues. This “tech” is incomplete and does not work.
In LRH’s Data Series he details how to find the why that underlies a situation, and this involves observing the outpoints (ie. contrary fact, falsehood, altered importance, dropped time, added time, wrong source, etc.) in a situation, and “pulling the string” on that outpoint, then find the next outpoint, pull that one, and so on, until you get to the underlying cause. It is correct that you are asking why that outpoint exists – why it has occurred or what has caused it. And the explanation that is given (which is also an outpoint) is then questioned.
So the Five Why’s has the gist of it, but without using the outpoints (or pluspoints for a good situation) as the point to question, the Five Whys will not get to the bottom of problem and find the Why. And counting down to 5 questionings is just silly and arbitrary.
Here is LRH on the subject. Learning and drilling THIS tech, WILL allow a person to get to the bottom of illogical situations to find the cause and resolve them.
“LOGIC * * * *
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire