Safety Knights

I answered on LI. I was taught "5-Why" is but ONE tool to use in RCA! I was taught it was just that, and if used you would probably have to use other tools like Fishbone, 8D, Low hanging Fruit Matrix, and/or Pareto. I like- 5 Wy because I think it is simple and just helps guide you a bit! However, I do agree it is rarely a stand alone thing. if you have ever had kids and/or grandkids, they love to use this method at 3-5 years of age, you'll get the concept!

My former company started pushing Lean in 2002! By 2006 it was just the way we did everything!! In 2007, we were using the A3 process and used it for everything! For an example an A3 was (and is) required on ALL OSHA Recordables and most Near Serious Near Misses! 5-Why was a tool in the process. A3's almost always require a Team and sometimes take months to complete. I hated them at first but they soon just became part of our culture and I actually learned to LOVE them!

Problems that are put through the A3 process get fixed, but most importantly THEY STAY FIXED!. there is no falling back! Simple RCA may fix the problem. We were using it in the early 1980s! But often we would put a Corrective Action in place, only to see what ever we put in place fall away and we would be back to where we started!!!!!

A3 Process is better for two major reasons in my experience:

I think it all depends on the type of accident/incident/near miss you're dealing with, as some RCAs work better than others in various situations. As Tom mentioned, you often have to use multiple RCA methods to completely investigate all aspects of the accidents/incident/near miss.
• To start, I'll say I strongly dislike the "5 Why" method for two main reasons: (1) Not every questions has a direct answer to the question "Why?", and (2) using the "5 Why" method implies that there's only one causal factor, when in reality, there's often multiple causal factors, so it makes people stop their investigation too soon.
• The fishbone diagram is very effective if you're already applying six sigma concepts, as it's generally the most commonly used for organizations that practice the six sigma principles. However, a properly-conducted fishbone takes a lot of time since you're going through nearly every potential scenario and evaluating whether it contributed or not, so you may "waste" a lot of time.
• FMEA works well for equipment failures in both the planning/design stages, but can also be used after the equipment has been commissioned. Overall, for machinery/equipment, FMEA is very beneficial.

At the end of the day, there's over a dozen types of RCA methods, so, in my opinion, they all have their pros and cons, and one method isn't the best for every single scenario. For a minor near miss, a fishbone or 8D may be overly complicated, whereas a 5 Why method may be too simplistic for a major injury/illness/fatality. You just have to keep them all in your "toolbox" and find what works best for your specific scenario at your specific organization with your specific team because everyone will have different experiences.

There's a banner up on our website right now, Origami is having a webinar on the topic - feel free to attend!

My mentor sent me to a TapRooT course. I thoroughly enjoy utilizing its worksheets, and methods for RCA. I have found a lot of Managers really dig into the "5 - why" and I have noticed the lackluster corrective actions.
I believe the "5-why" is most common because of its simplistic idea of investigations. When discussed with leaders it tends to be where they stop investigating or exploring other areas of an incident.

Any program implemented, needs to work and be effective. If it is not, then Leaders need to direct its focus on a new practice or be guided by Safety Leaders to a program that can offer more to its business or industry.