Using the wrong set of 5 whys in problem solving

Do you try to quickly to get to why? The purpose of most questioning is to stimulate reflective thinking by probing for needs and concerns. Instead of probing with the 5 why’s try a more subtle approach or architecture for your sales and marketing.

In the paper, The Art and Architecture of Powerful Questions by Eric Vogt, he states that most groups working on this dimension of linguistic architecture produce a variant of the following general hierarchy.

The general thesis is that virtually any question can be converted into a more powerful question by moving up the pyramid. As an example, consider the following sequence:

1. Are you feeling okay?
2. Where does it hurt?
3. How are you feeling in general?
4. Why do you suppose you aren't feeling well?

As we move from the simple yes/no question towards the why question, you probably notice that the questions tend to motivate more reflective thinking, and are generally more "powerful.

There are refinements within this dimension of linguistic architecture available to an interested practitioner. For instance, using the conditional tense rather than the present tense will often invite greater reflective speculation:

• What can we do?

seems to offer fewer possibilities than...

• What could we do?

I like this architecture because Why is too powerful of a question to start with. Toyota’s, seven step “Practical Problem Solving Process” model encourages you to stay away from why till the fourth step.

1. Initial problem perception
2. Clarify the problem
3. Locate area or point of concern
4. Investigate root cause (5 Whys)
5. Countermeasure
6. Evaluate
7. Standardize

They actually follow a similar architecture depicted in the triangle above. They used simple closed ended questions to identify and clarify the problem and then locate the area of concern though the 5 whys. Not the 5 Whys of root cause, but the 5 whys of When, Who, Where, Which and What.

The power of the first 5 whys is where the true power of discovery lies. It is the focusing step that provides clarity and provides the basis for agreement. Without these steps irrelevant information may be acted upon and finding agreement on root cause may be difficult. Effective action can only follow clear thinking. Providing a consensus on the point of concern before moving to root cause is imperative.

In the paper cited, author Eric Vogt goes on to state:

The dialogue group concluded that clearly one dimension which defines a

powerful question is this linguistic architecture. However, other factors are also at play when we consider the relative power of the following two questions:

1. Why is my coat unbuttoned?
2. Where can we find spiritual peace?

This is an instance where most people would say that the "where" question has somewhat greater power than the "why" question. After reflection, we hypothesized that there were probably three dimensions which define a powerful question: Architecture, Context and Scope.”

The paper is a short and easy read and I encourage you read it in full.

Related Information:
Problem Solving – Think 3, Not 5
Pair Problem Solving in the Workplace
Problem Solving really the Core of Lean Implementation
Quit Brainstorming and start Q-Storming®

Visit the Marketing with A3Website