> The car didn't start... because the battery is dead... because the alternator wasn't charging it... because the alternator belt broke... because the belt was beyond its useful life but wasn't replaced... because it wasn't maintained according to recommended schedule.
This isn't "five whys" except in the most superficial sense. It can be useful to do this to build reliable technology but it isn't what five whys is trying to solve.
> because the battery is dead... because the alternator wasn't charging it... because the alternator belt broke... because the belt was beyond its useful life but wasn't replaced...
All of these are a single "why" (call it "technical faults" or something).
> It turns out that when you start doing this root-cause analysis and really keep after it, the "squishy human realm" is actually the no-longer-hypothetical "layer eight" from those T-shirts.
Is this actually a revelation to anyone? These hard questions are exactly what five whys is designed to address.
This isn't "five whys" except in the most superficial sense. It can be useful to do this to build reliable technology but it isn't what five whys is trying to solve.
> because the battery is dead... because the alternator wasn't charging it... because the alternator belt broke... because the belt was beyond its useful life but wasn't replaced...
All of these are a single "why" (call it "technical faults" or something).
> It turns out that when you start doing this root-cause analysis and really keep after it, the "squishy human realm" is actually the no-longer-hypothetical "layer eight" from those T-shirts.
Is this actually a revelation to anyone? These hard questions are exactly what five whys is designed to address.