5 Why's Help Needed

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Leader
Super Moderator
Why are you even trying to fill out a 5 why form on a problem that happened that long ago?
5-why can only work when the evidence and trail are still available…otherwise it’s just guessing. You have no evidence other than I suppose of the ‘problem’
You obviously think you know the cause - or more accurately the solution you want to implement so why don’t you just do it?
 

Miner

Forum Moderator
Leader
Admin
In that case I would stop at that point, develop separate 5 whys for the escape cause and the systemic cause and focus your corrective actions on those.
 

TacitBlue

Involved In Discussions
Bev,

I agree, I am essentially guessing at this point, and I don't want to do that, I want to be objective, but I don't have all the facts, nor will I ever have them due to this being a long past issue.

Miner,

At this point, since I don't have all the facts, wouldn't I still be guessing even if I developed 5 whys for the escape and systematic cause?
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Leader
Super Moderator
This is a long past issue? I assume then it is a single incident. Or at least it hasn’t recurred in quite some time. A missing rev number or whatever is an internal requirement and really a trivial thing. It certainly had no real negative effect on your company in any material way. So who cares about the cause? Seriously. Add a number (correct it) and move on. Surely there are more important problems to solve….
 

Big Jim

Admin
Some issues have more than one cause. When that happens, each of them should move to individual corrective actions.
 

Miner

Forum Moderator
Leader
Admin
Miner,

At this point, since I don't have all the facts, wouldn't I still be guessing even if I developed 5 whys for the escape and systematic cause?
In most cases, I would agree, but in this case, it is pretty apparent that it escaped because there were no controls in place to monitor, and there would be a systemic reason for the lack of a control method.
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Leader
Super Moderator
IF this IS a single incident from many years ago (which tacitblue has stated and correct if not true) and there have been other such escapes (which tacitblue has implied) THEN using a 5-Lie 5-Why is a lot like using a 20 pound sledge to drive in a finishing nail.

It seems clear to me (with additional evidence from their duplicate posting on the QFO) that tacitblue is only trying to ‘justify’ their agenda of additional reviews for an administrative process by checking the box of a 5-why form.
 

Ed Panek

QA RA Small Med Dev Company
Leader
Super Moderator
PLAN DO CHECK ACT. As the leader of quality, you need to make sure you have the ability and oversight of each part of this process and all processes involved in product quality. The first why response, where you are unable to verify an output, is a problem and should be addressed.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Hi Miner, to look at this objectively, I don't know 100% certain that the BPR process was never conducted, as this document dates back to 2017 or 2018; however, if the process was indeed followed, a BPR number would have been issued per our process. We just dont have any record of it being followed or completed. Nor does anyone else have record of it. So, I think we can say that the process was never followed in this case. And the person who posted the document simply didnt follow the process and posted it.

Also, its important to know here, that the BPR process can only be completed if first a new BPR form within SharePoint is initiated, so I think your right, but in reverse order.
Why are you doing this now, some five or six years after the fact, when there are important factors that are unknown and presumably unknowable? How did this come up, and what do you hope to accomplish with it?
 
Top Bottom