BT

Limitations of the Five Whys Technique in Agile Retrospectives

| by Savita Pahuja Follow 2 Followers on Feb 28, 2015. Estimated reading time: 3 minutes |

Five Whys technique is a popular technique for root cause analysis. Many people use it in agile retrospectives. Is this a suitable technique for agile teams? Do we have any alternate better technique for the agile teams?

John Allspaw, SVP of Technical Operations at Etsy favors to discard Five Whys approach in his blog on The Infinite Hows. He says that using the Five Whys is a good first step toward doing real root cause analysis but asking too many whys end up in blaming people.

In order to learn (which should be the goal of any retrospective or post-hoc investigation) you want multiple and diverse perspectives. You get these by asking people for their own narratives. Effectively, you’re asking “how? “

Asking “why?” too easily gets you to an answer to the question “who?” (which in almost every case is irrelevant) or “takes you to the ‘mysterious’ incentives and motivations people bring into the workplace.”

Asking “how?” gets you to describe (at least some) of the conditions that allowed an event to take place, and provides rich operational data.

As per the blog on ARMS Reliability there are following resons for the criticism of Five Whys method:

  • Tendency for investigators to stop at symptoms rather than going on to lower-level root causes
  • Inability to go beyond the investigator’s current knowledge – cannot find causes that they do not already know
  • Lack of support to help the investigator ask the right “why” questions
  • Results are not repeatable – different people using 5 Whys come up with different causes for the same problem
  • Tendency to isolate a single root cause, whereas each question could elicit many different root causes
  • Considered a linear method of communication for what is often a non-linear event

John shares an example from his tutorials at the Velocity Conference in New York.

  • A new release disabled a feature for customers. Why? Because a particular server failed.
  • Why did the server fail? Because an obscure subsystem was used in the wrong way.
  • Why was it used in the wrong way? The engineer who used it didn’t know how to use it properly?
  • Why did he know? Because he was never trained.
  • Why wasn’t he trained? Because his manager doesn’t believe in training new engineers because he and his team are “too busy”.

This causal chain effectively ends with a person’s individual attributes, not with a description of the multiple conditions that allow an event like this to happen.

John says that when we ask “how”, we ask for a narrative or story. In these stories, we get to understand how people work. From the book Behind Human Error here’s the difference between “first” and “second” stories of human error:

First Stories

Second Stories

Human error is seen as cause of failure

Human error is seen as the effect of systemic vulnerabilities deeper inside the organization

Saying what people should have done is a satisfying way to describe failure

Saying what people should have done doesn’t explain why it made sense for them to do what they did

Telling people to be more careful will make the problem go away

Only by constantly seeking out its vulnerabilities can organizations enhance safety

John says that in the Five Whys example above, asked questions frame the answers that we will get in the form of first stories. When we ask more and better questions such as “how”, we have a chance at getting at second stories.

John gave tutorials on why “Five Whys approach” is suboptimal, and the alternative of this is “Five How” approach. This is in four parts, 45 minutes each.

Part I – Introduction and the scientific basis for post- hoc retrospective pitfalls and learning

Part II – The language of debriefings, causality, case studies, teams coping with complexity

Part III – Dynamic fault management, debriefing prompts, gathering and contextualizing data, constructing causes

Part IV – Taylorism, normal work, ‘root cause’ of software bugs in cars, Q&A

Rate this Article

Adoption Stage
Style

Hello stranger!

You need to Register an InfoQ account or or login to post comments. But there's so much more behind being registered.

Get the most out of the InfoQ experience.

Tell us what you think

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

It's the facilitation that makes 5 times why work by Ben Linders

I use both 5 times why and asking why exercises in agile retrospectives. If properly used these exercises help to get a deeper understanding of the problems at hand, which helps to define actions to effectively address them.

You mentioned the risk that asking why might be felt as blaming people. I know that some people find it difficult to ask why, because they fear that people feel offended. I have less difficulty with asking the why question, most probably because I have a genuine interest to understand situations and find out how people work together, without judging them. Ones people know me, a “why” question doesn't scare them, as they know that my motives are to sincerely support and help them in the best possible way that I can.

So in my opinion 5 times why or asking why is useful in retrospectives. My recommendation is to set a culture where people are interested to know what happened and really want to learn from it. A good retrospective facilitator knows how to do this, and will adjust the retrospective when people start feeling offended.

There are better ways than 5 Whys by Steven Swarthout

I have to side with the author here. The identified short-comings of the 5 Whys renders it useless for determining root causes. It is too linear; incidents are seldom caused by one event. It is not reproducible; you may be fixing the wrong issue. It can play a role in information gathering and as an assist in completing an Event and Causal Factor chart, but by itself, will seldom yield good root causes.

Re: There are better ways than 5 Whys by Ben Linders

I tend to agree with Steven, if you repeatedly ask why you get a limited view.

I have collected information about how to do Root Cause Analysis in the blog post Root Cause Analysis: Practical Tools.

I use the Apollo method when I do Root Cause Analysis. It explicitly looks for multiple causes and adds a time relationship to the cause-effect. In my opinion that makes it a better method than 5 times why or drawing ishikawa diagrams.

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

3 Discuss

Login to InfoQ to interact with what matters most to you.


Recover your password...

Follow

Follow your favorite topics and editors

Quick overview of most important highlights in the industry and on the site.

Like

More signal, less noise

Build your own feed by choosing topics you want to read about and editors you want to hear from.

Notifications

Stay up-to-date

Set up your notifications and don't miss out on content that matters to you

BT