‘5 why’ is a tool often used to understand the real cause of a problem. Finding those real causes is often like peeling an onion: one apparent problem or more often symptom of a problem, leads to another, to another, until the root cause is clear.
Often however, we make changes in the absence of a compelling problem, usually to take advantage of an opportunity, or simplify/optimise some sort of process. In those cases, I have often seen the onion reverse itself.
You end up with unintended consequences.
A pack change that confuses existing customers, a change of supplier for a better price that has consequences for operational efficiency; a product feature added that customers said they wanted that added to unanticipated production complexity, and so on. I have suffered from several of these unintended consequences of seemingly sensible, well considered and pro-active changes.
Before any change, exercise a ‘Reverse 5 why’. Look for the wider consequences that may be caused by the change, and take the impacts into consideration.
Move a few steps back, and ask yourself; are there any impacts from this change? How will other functional responsibilities, customers, supply chain partners, be affected? What unintended consequences may occur?
It is very easy to become close to a project, and proceed to implementation without taking a ‘helicopter’ view of the potential impact beyond the immediate context of the change. Once you start doing it, taking that extra moment, which is usually all it takes, it becomes an integral part of an automatic due diligence process undertaken before making a change.
Building an automatic ‘Reverse 5 why’ into your planning processes will identify risk, and build the confidence of others with a veto in the projections you will have done to support the change.
b
I often talk about a tree of whys. Any problem has a cause and an impact. Lots of people focus on just the cause (hence the “root cause analysis”) whether through using the 5 why’s or tools like fish bone diagrams. They forget to think about the impacts. Brainstorming both sides helps you to flesh out all those little problems and little impacts you might not have considered.
The other technique I use is one of a mindset and is a bit more broader. It’s looking at the various parts of your business (or product) and assuming it has already failed, then backtracking from there. It helps you understand the resilience of your systems without presuming you understand all the mechanics.
Between the two, you can actually build quite a lot of rigour around the impacts of changes.
Craig,
I call that backtracking process ‘Hindsight Planning’.
There are several posts around its benefits written over some time, the most recent only a couple of weeks ago.
Thanks Peter.
Using a reverse 5 why is so obvious that most people miss it, or do not pay sufficient attention to potential unintended consequences, such that the cause problems later on.
Good approach, Allan. Trying to identify and cut off the ‘unintended consequences’ before they become fixed in place. An important management function. Our current situation in Australia, in every state, indicates the outcome of an absence of such preventative planning.