Inquiry into the Use of Five Whys in Industry
Abstract
Purpose: This research seeks to understand the purpose five whys is used for in industry as well as what quality tools are used together with five whys.
Methodology/Approach: A survey was sent to organizations previously identified for an unrelated survey. The survey was sent to 98 organizations in Poland and 47 organizations responded. There were four respondents who reported being unfamiliar with five whys and their responses were discarded. The reported uses of five whys were assessed using a Chi-square goodness of fit test. The way in which five whys is used, either as a brainstorming tool or a method that requires investigation, and the purpose of five whys were compared to the intended use using a hypothesis test of two proportions. The quality tools used with five whys was then assessed using a Chi-square goodness of fit test.
Findings: Although more respondents use five whys as a root cause analysis (RCA) tool, the difference was not statistically significant. Respondents who used five whys with investigation used five whys as both a method for quality improvement and RCA more often than those who used five whys as a brainstorming tool without investigation. There was no statistically significant difference in using five whys for RCA and those who used five whys as a brainstorming tool reported using five whys for quality improvement more often. Although many different quality tools were reported, the Ishikawa diagram is by far the quality tool used the most with five whys.
Research Limitation/Implication: This paper used a survey that was limited to one region of Poland.
Originality/Value of paper: This paper provides the first insights into the use of five whys in organizations; as a method for quality improvement, RCA, or both.
References
Andersen, B. and Fagerhaug, T.N., 2014. ASQ pocket guide to root cause analysis. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.
Barsalou, M., 2017. Square in the crosshairs. Quality Progress, 50(1), pp.24-28.
Barsalou, M. and Smith, J., 2018. Applied statistics manual: a guide to improving and sustaining quality with Minitab. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.
Benbow, D.W. and Broome, W.H., 2009. The certified reliability engineer handbook. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.
Benjamin, S.J., Marathamuthu, M.S. and Murugaiah, U., 2015. The use of 5-WHYs technique to eliminate OEE’s speed loss in a manufacturing firm. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, [e-journal] 21(4), pp.419-435. DOI: 10.1108/JQME-09-2013-0062.
Boukendour, S. and Brissaud, D., 2005. A phenomenological taxonomy for systemizing knowledge on nonconformances. Quality Management Journal, [e-journal] 12(2), pp.25-33. DOI: 10.1080/10686967.2005.11919247.
Chadha, R., 2015. Back to basics: why ask why?. Quality Progress, 48(5), p.64.
Cheng, J.-L., 2010. Stock option. Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 9(4), pp.27-33.
Christensen, E.H., Coombes-Betz, K.M. and Stein, M.S., 2013. The certified quality process analyst handbook. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.
de Mast, J., 2013. Diagnostic quality problem solving: a conceptual framework and six strategies. Quality Management Journal, 20(4), pp.21-36.
Dentch, M.P., 2017. The ISO 9001:2015 implementation handbook: using the process approach to build a quality management system. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.
Donauer, M., Peças, P. and Azevedo, A.L., 2015. Nonconformity trackingand prioritisation matrix: an approach for selecting nonconformities as a contribution to the field of TQM. Production Planning and Control, [e-journal] 26(2), pp.131-149. DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2013.867377.
Easton, G.S., 1995. Discussion. Quality Management Journal, [e-journal] 2(4), pp.81-87. DOI: 10.1080/10686967.1995.11918701.
Fogle, A. and Kandler, E., 2017. One good idea: five whys and a why not. Quality Progress, 50(1), p.63.
Fonseca, L., Lima, V. and Silva, M., 2015. Utilization of quality tools: does sector and size matter? International Journal for Quality Research, 9(4), p.605-620.
Force, S., 2012. Back to basic: creative combination. Quality Progress, 45(4), p.72.
Gangidi, P., 2019. A systematic approach to root cause analysis using 3 × 5 why’s technique. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, [e-journal] 10(1), pp.295-310. DOI: 10.1108/IJLSS-10-2017-0114.
George, A., Ranjha, S. and Kulkarni, A., 2021. Enhanced problem solving through redefined 8D step completion criteria. Quality Engineering, [e-journal] 33(4), pp.695-711. DOI: 10.1080/08982112.2021.1969665.
Hopen, D. and Rooney, J.J., 2017. Getting to the root of the problem. Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 14(1), pp.27-29.
Jing, G., 2008. Flip the switch. Quality Progress, 41(10), pp.50-55.
Keller, G., Warrack, B. and Bartel, H., 1994. Statistics for Management and Economics. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
Lenort, R., Staš, D., Holman, D. and Wicher, P., 2017. A3 method as a powerful tool for searching and implementing green innovations in an industrial company transport. Procedia Engineering, [e-journal] 192, pp.533-538. DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.092.
Mateos, M.C., 2021. Nuts and bolts: let’s get visual. Lean and Six Sigma Review, 21(1), pp.28-29.
McElroy, D.I., 2017. Get at the core. Quality Progress, 50(8), pp.16-20.
Murugaiah, U., Benjamin, S.J., Marathamuthu, M.S. and Muthaiyah, S., 2010. Scrap loss reduction using the 5‐Whys analysis. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, [e-journal] 27(5), pp.527-540. DOI: 10.1108/02656711011043517.
Patyal, V.S., Modgil, S. and Koilakuntla, M., 2021. Application of Six Sigma methodology in an indian chemical company. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, [e-journal] 70(2), pp.350-375. DOI: 10.1108/IJPPM-03-2019-0128.
Perry, W. and Mehltretter, N., 2018. Applying root cause analysis to compressed air: how to solve common compressed air system problems with the 5-whys. Energy Engineering, [e-journal] 115(4), pp.56-62. DOI: 10.1080/01998595.2018.12016673.
Pyo, S., 2005. Choosing quality tools. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, [e-journal] 6(1-2), pp.1-8. DOI: 10.1300/J162v06n01_01.
Sandesh. A. and Pawan, C., 2014. First pass wield improvement by eEliminating base plug leakage in feed pump manufacturing. International Journal of Science and Research, 2(3), pp.2049-2056.
Sarkar, S.A., Mukhopadhyay, A.R. and Ghosh, S.K., 2013. Root cause analysis, Lean Six Sigma and test of hypothesis. The TQM Journal, [e-journal] 25(2), pp.170-185. DOI: 10.1108/17542731311299609.
Scott, H.J., 2002. Charting methods for RCA. In: W.T. Becker and R.J. Shipley, eds. 2002. ASM Handbook Volume 11: Failure Analysis and Prevention. ASM International.
Serrat, O., 2010. The five whys technique. Knowledge Solutions, [online] Avilable at:
Shainin, R.D., 2011. Methods vs. leadership: what matters most?. Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 11(1), pp.29-31.
Smith, G.F., 1994. Quality problem solving: scope and prospects. Quality Management Journal, [e-journal] 2(1), pp-25-40. DOI: 10.1080/10686967.1994.11918673.
Smith, G.F., 1998. Determining the cause of quality Problems: lessons from diagnostic disciplines. Quality Management Journal, [e-journal] 5(2), pp.24-41. DOI: 10.1080/10686967.1998.11918852.
Stamatis, D.H., 2003. Failure modes and effects analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. 2nd ed. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.
Starzyńska, B. and Hamrol, A., 2013. Excellence toolbox: decision support system for quality tools and techniques selection and application. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, [e-journal] 24(5-6), pp.577-595.
Starzyńska, B., 2014. Practical applications of quality tools in polish manufacturing companies. Organizacija, [e-journal] 47(3), pp.153-164. DOI: 10.2478/orga-2014-0014
Vidyasagar, V., 2016. Best of back to basics: the art of root cause analysis. Quality Progress, 49(1), pp.48.
Williams, P.M., 2001. Techniques for root cause analysis. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, [e-journal] 14(2), pp.154-157. DOI: 10.1080/08998280.2001.11927753.
Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.