This problem analysis method examines an issue from twelve different viewpoints. It is based on the words of the poem by Rudyard Kipling:
I keep six honest serving men, they taught me all I knew.
Their names are What and Why and When
and How and Where and Who.
We probe the topic using these questioning words from a positive and negative perspective. The issue is defined as a question and then 12 sheets of flip chart paper are arranged around the room. On each sheet one of the 12 questions is written as the heading and the team then comes up with answers to that question. Suppose the issue is, ‘How can we improve customer service in our retail centres?’ The questions could be constructed as follows:
1. What is good customer service?
2. What is not good customer service? (Or what is bad customer service?)
3. Why do we get good customer services?
4. Why do we get bad customer service?
5. When is there good customer service?
6. When is there bad customer service?
7. How do we get good customer service?
8. How do we get bad customer service?
9. Where is there good customer service?
10. Where is there bad customer service?
11. Who gives good customer service?
12. Who gives poor customer service?
By repeatedly approaching the questions of good service and bad service and by forcing people to come up with new answers and inputs a broad picture is painted of the issue and the underlying factors. The ideas on the sheets are analyzed, prioritized and combined to give a deeper understanding of the problem and some insights as to why it is happening. These ideas then become the starting point for a plan to address the issue.
Paul Sloane
In trying to improve quality and looking for improvements we tend to focus our attention on what went wrong. We try to fix problems. A typical management meeting consists of a group of people who are looking at what is not working and trying their hardest to come up with ways to put things right. But in the process they are often allocating blame, arguing, becoming negative and getting frustrated.
‘It happened because during my first year at Berkeley I arrived late one day to one of Neyman’s classes. On the blackboard were two problems which I assumed had been assigned for homework. I copied them down. A few days later I apologized to Neyman for taking so long to do the homework–the problems seemed to be a little harder to do than usual. I asked him if he still wanted the work. He told me to throw it on his desk. I did so reluctantly because his desk was covered with such a heap of papers that I feared my homework would be lost there forever. About six weeks later, one Sunday morning about eight o’clock, Anne and I were awakened by someone banging on our front door. It was Neyman. He rushed in with papers in hand, all excited: “I’ve just written an introduction to one of your papers. Read it so I can send it out right away for publication.” For a minute I had no idea what he was talking about. To make a long story short, the problems on the blackboard which I had solved thinking they were homework were in fact two famous unsolved problems in statistics. That was the first inkling I had that there was anything special about them.’