Why do fishbone diagrams bother me?
22 October 2009
Why
do fishbone diagrams bother me?
I’m
observing a training session on problem-solving in – let’s say, a large bank. The session focuses on two techniques: the
fishbone diagram and the ‘5 Whys’. As
far as this session is concerned, problem-solving more or less is drawing fishbones and asking ‘Why?’.
And
my heart sinks.
Most
of us probably know the basics of fishbone analysis. If you’d like a quick reminder, there’s a
good explanation here. The technique was developed by Professor Kaoru Ishikawa in the 1960s, in the context
of the Total Quality movement.
The ‘5 Whys’
technique seems to have no named inventor.
I suspect that it’s a part of a kind of ‘folk wisdom’ that has grown up,
perhaps particularly among engineers. In
this session, we are encouraged to take one of the problems identified on our
fishbones and ask ‘Why?’ five times, in order to find the problem’s root cause.
Both techniques are promoted vigorously. A very brief Googlesearch threw up references
to both techniques in both education
and the NHS. And here they are again, in a bank. They are clearly very popular – at least,
among trainers.
So why do these techniques make me so
uncomfortable? As I watch the group
struggle with them, a number of thoughts come to mind.
-
The techniques are easily misunderstood.
What categories do we pick for the ‘ribs’ of the
diagram? The question often arises, and
it’s a powerful one. When a group asks
that question, they are intuitively recognizing that their answers will depend
on the way they frame the search. But
the choice of categories is rarely discussed.
Then there is the difficulty in making sense of the
diagram once it’s drawn. In particular,
the group should be looking for possible linkages between elements on the
diagram. Very rarely does the exercise
progress to this point.
As a result of these misunderstandings, a group can
come to feel simply overwhelmed by the sheer scale of a problem. Which is precisely what happens during this
session.
- The techniques ignore circles of influence.
Both the fishbone and ‘5 Whys’ tend to drag a
group’s thinking very quickly out of their circle of
influence. Effective problem-solving
must surely help a group focus on what they are able to achieve; yet both
techniques tend to encourage a group to think further away from the area where it can actually make a
difference.
- The techniques tend to evoke blame.
Looking for causes nearly always evokes an emotional
response.
If a problem involves people, it’s very hard to
separate a cause from the idea of blame.
In this mindset, a problem is a bad situation, something that shouldn’t
have happened – and for which someone should be punished.
I think blame is a very interesting psychological
phenomenon, worthy of its own posting; but for the moment, it’s important to
point out that blame isn’t helpful when we are trying to solve a problem.
Blame reinforces the problem as a problem; it focuses our thinking outside our circle of
influence; and – like all strong emotions – it more or less disables our
ability to think constructively.
- The techniques work on the assumption that any problem has
a cause (or set of causes).
In fact, very few problems have clear causes. It makes sense to use a fishbone diagrams –
or to ask ‘Why?’ five times – when we want to refine or improve the performance
of an otherwise stable system (such as the manufacturing processes within which
the techniques were originally developed).
In most problem-solving situations, however, we aren’t trying to restore
previous conditions or improve a system.
We’re trying to do something else.
Focussing on causes, it seems to me, is usually
counterproductive in problem-solving (just as it often is in therapy). Finding out why you are in prison doesn’t
necessarily help you escape.
It’s not the tools’ fault. But if a problem-solving training session
focuses exclusively on techniques to remove causes, it short-changes the group
and may even do damage.
To quote (perhaps) Abraham Maslow:
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."
The
first rule of problem-solving is that a
problem is as it is because we see it that way.
Effective problem-solving should surely begin by
exploring what it means to define a problem.
And, however effective these two techniques may be, neither of them do
that.
I agree. It's why I invented my PossibilitySpace method which helps groups of people explore 'things they want to do better together'.
How are you Alan? congrats on the new book.
Best wishes
Arthur Battram
Posted by: Arthur Battram | 01 August 2012 at 09:25 AM
Well said. So many groups are in a hurry to 1) categorize, and 2) blame and these tools promote that type of thinking. Blame doesn't help, and to categorize a problem risks reframing it in a way that blurs the real issues. So much better for groups to focus on the outcomes that they want, rather than getting stuck in diagnosis hypnosis.
Thank you so much for your useful insights!
Posted by: Douglasbrent | 01 October 2012 at 03:25 AM