ASQ’s explanation treats repeated why-questions as a way to investigate causes; five is not a compulsory stopping point. The method is not a substitute for checking records or involving the people who performed the work.

Define the problem precisely

“Shipping is unreliable” is too broad to investigate. A better starting statement is: “Three prepared orders missed their agreed Tuesday collection because release approval was unavailable.” It identifies the event, consequence and suspected process stage without claiming the cause is already proven.

The following example is fictional. It illustrates a method, not an incident at WTM or any customer.

Test the chain instead of accepting it

If the evidence shows approval existed before collection, the proposed chain breaks. Investigate another explanation. Perhaps the wrong reference was presented, the goods were at another location, or the receiving desk could not find the approval.

Do not force every case into the same story. A why-chain can contain multiple contributing causes, and a confident answer from one participant still needs to fit the timeline.

Choose an action related to the cause

If the missing release task is confirmed, a useful response might assign an owner and create a release check before the vehicle is dispatched. “Tell everyone to work harder” does not change the identified process.

Separate recovery from prevention. Arranging an urgent replacement collection may solve today’s shipment, while changing the release process addresses repetition. Record both actions and who owns them.

Decide how to test improvement

Measure the proportion of orders with completed release approval before their agreed collection window. Compare a defined period before and after the change, keeping the order population comparable. Also check whether the change creates a new delay elsewhere.

WTM shipment references, quote decisions and available delivery records can help connect the transport timeline to the supplier’s records. Use the evidence to improve the handoff rather than automatically blaming either dispatch or the warehouse.

Must there be exactly five questions?

No. Stop when the investigation reaches an actionable, supported explanation, or continue when an answer only restates the symptom.

Does finding a cause prove one person was at fault?

Not necessarily. Process design, information timing and multiple decisions may contribute. Distinguish a supported operational explanation from an unsupported personal accusation.