It's been popular recently in some agile circles to mention we use the 5 whys when asking about dysfunction. This common and misguided approach assumes - wrongly - causal relationship are linear and problems come from a single source. For example:
Estimates are the smell of dysfunction. Let's ask the 5 Whys to reveal these dysfunctions
The natural tendency to assume that in asking 5 whys there is a connection from beginning to end for the thread connecting cause and effect. This single source of the problem - the symptom - is labeled the Root Cause. The question is is the root cause that actual root cause. The core problem is the 5 whys is not really seeking a solution but just eliciting more symptoms masked as causes.
A simple example illustrates the problem from Apollo Root Cause Analysis.
Say we're in the fire prevention business. If preventing fires is our goal, let's look for the causes of the fire and determine the correction actions needed to actual prevent fire from occuring. In this example let's says we've identified 3 potential causes of fire. There is ...
- An ignition source
- Combustible material
So what is the root cause of the fire? To prevent the fire - and in the follow on example prevent a dysfunction - we must find at least one cause of the fire that can be acted on to meet the goals and objectives of preventing the fire AND are within our control.
Here's a briefing used now for our development and deployment processes in the health insurance domain
The notion that Estimates are the smell of dysfunction in a software development organization and asking the 5 Whys in search for the Root Cause is equally flawed.
The need to estimate or not estimate has not been established. It is presumed that it is the estimating process that creates the dysfunction, and then the search - through the 5 Whys - is the false attempt to categorize the root causes of this dysfunction. The supposed dysfunction is them reverse engineered to be connected to the estimating process. This is not only a naïve approch to solving the dysfunction is inverts the logic by ignoring the need to estimate. Without confirmation that estimates are needed ot not needed, the search for the cause of the dysfunction has no purposeful outcome.
The decision that estimates are needed or not need does not belong to those being asked to produce the estimates. That decision belongs to those consuming the estimate information in the decision making process of the business - those whose money is being spent.
And of course those consuming the estimates need to confirm they are operating their decision making processes in some framework that requires estimates. It could very well be those providing the money to be spent by those providing the value don't actual need an estimate. The value at risk may be low enough - 100 hours of development for a DB upgrade. But when the value at risk is sufficiently large - and that determination of done again by those providing the money, then a legitimate need to know how much, when, and what is made by the business In this case, decisions are based on Microeconomics of opportunity cost for uncertain outcomes in the future.
This is the basis of estimating and the determination of the real root causes of the problems with estimates. Saying we're bad at estimating is NOT the root cause. And it is never the reason not to estimate. If we are bad at estimating, and if we do have confirmation and optimism biases, then fix them. Remove the impediments to produce credible estimates. Because those estimates are needed to make decisions in any non-trivial value at risk work.