Beyond the 5 Whys: How Scientific Deduction Solves Your Company's Most Chronic Problems
The business world is plagued by "wicked" or chronic problems: issues that persist despite repeated efforts to solve them. Think of flat sales, endless inventory disputes, or recurring quality errors. Traditional problem-solving methods, such as the famous Fishbone Diagram or the 5 Whys, often fail to resolve these complex issues. They tend to produce contradictory, biased opinions—sales blames operations, operations blames sales—and can be easily manipulated by selective data.
To truly diagnose and solve these sticky problems, management must adopt the methodological rigor of a hard science, specifically borrowing a technique from Historical Field Sciences, like forensic investigation or paleontology.
The Problem with Business Diagnosis
Unlike laboratory sciences, management cannot easily run controlled experiments. A company can't change its pricing to observe the demand impact while simultaneously guaranteeing that competitors will remain static. This lack of control and the polarization of data mean a better approach is needed to sort fact from fiction.
The solution lies in the Hypothetical Deductive Method (HDM).
The Three Steps of Hypothetical Deduction
HDM works on the principle that a single cause will always produce multiple effects. By observing one effect and deducing what other effects must logically exist, managers can test the validity of their initial assumptions without relying on potentially biased data.
Observe the Effect and Hypothesize the Cause: Start with the obvious problem (Effect A), such as "Delivery is a known issue." Hypothesize a primary cause (Cause X), such as "The plant is running inefficiently."
Predict Other Effects: If Cause X is the true reason, logically deduce other, less obvious effects (Effect B, C, D) that must be present. For example, if the plant is inefficient, you should also expect:
High rates of customer requests to reschedule orders.
A massive skew in dispatches toward the month-end or quarter-end.
Empirically Verify the Predicted Effects: Check the organization for Effects B, C, and D. If they exist, the hypothesized cause is likely correct. If the data shows dispatches are perfectly smooth and there are no rescheduling requests, then the original hypothesis—that the plant is running inefficiently—is false, regardless of what the initial data suggested.
This methodology provides a rigorous framework to cut through organizational bias and pinpoint the genuine root of the problem.
Three Guidelines for Scientific Rigor
To apply HDM effectively and ensure the diagnosis is not based on vague generalities, three strict guidelines must be followed:
1. Demand Precision and Literal Language
Avoid using broad, metaphorical, or subjective terms like "incompetent," "lack of motivation," or "bad culture." When diagnosing a problem, every word must have a precise, literal definition. For example, if a team says errors are due to "incompetency," you must precisely define what that means. If it means "lack of written procedures," then you should only see errors on complex tests where tacit knowledge is required. If errors are also happening on simple, well-documented tests, your definition of the cause (competency) is wrong.
2. Ask "Why" and "How" to Find the Mechanism
It's not enough to know why a problem exists; you must understand how the cause creates the effect. This reveals the causal mechanism and greatly improves predictability. For instance, knowing the Sun rises in the East because of the Earth's west-to-east rotation (the how) allows you to predict that on a planet with an opposite rotation, the Sun would rise in the West.
In business, understanding the causal mechanism behind lab errors may reveal that the issue isn't competence, but that analysts are overloaded with multiple work-fronts. The mechanism is that this overload taxes their short-term memory, leading to skips and misses on detailed tasks. Finding this how leads to a far more effective solution (reducing workload) than the superficial why (retraining).
3. Never Blame the Problem on a "Lack of Solution"
Do not define a problem by the solution you don't have. Avoid reasoning like: "My sales team has low productivity because I don't have CRM software" or "Our product development is slow because we don't have enough R&D budget."
This faulty logic leads to expensive IT products and tools being implemented without ever delivering full results. Instead, focus on what you are doing with what you already have. By diving deeper into existing processes and resources, you will invariably find the genuine insights needed to resolve the chronic problem.
The combination of rigorous Scientific Thinking (HDM) and Holistic Thinking (understanding how all wicked problems are interlinked) is the only reliable path to solving the most persistent business challenges.
發表文章
