Fixing Complex Problems? Check Out this Fish to Solve Them Easily.
Going fishing.
I need to be honest with you.
That photo of a bluefish above has nothing to do with what I want to tell you about fixing problems.
However, this is not click-bait. I promise. Keep reading as I believe this will benefit you when thinking about a complex problem you might have. Or even just a small one that you can not wrap your head around. It’s still about a fish. Just not that one in the picture.
And when I talk about a “fish”, you might already know what I am talking about: The Ishikawa Model (or fishbone diagram).
Keep thinking of a blue fish!
But why a fish? And why is it blue?
I found the blue one quite cool among all those pictures of fish I had at my disposal for this blog post. I mean, look at those large fins (on both sides, his top, and bottom). And we need to keep thinking about those fins (or fishbones, therefore) next to the color blue.
In 1943, chemist Ishikawa Kaoru (jap. 石川 馨) developed a model to simplify the breakdown of complex issues to their root causes. And because it looked an awful lot like a fish once you started drawing it, it was called the fishbone diagram.
Find the root problem.
Last week, I grew a bit frustrated. I ordered a small, used Dell mini PC for my family to connect in the living room for easy video calls. But I couldn’t get it to start. The reason: I did not have the correct power supply.
Two packages that unfortunately only carried electronic waste: Two 65w chargers that I am unable to put to work.
Source: Simon Beuse, 2022
No biggie, right? Call them up, get a new one. So far, so good - they apologized and sent a new power supply (130w is necessary, they sent 65w). Four days later, the package turned up: Again, they shipped a similar 65w power supply.
After chatting with support, now all of a sudden, they insisted that the device needed 65w anyway. However, it took them only an hour to turn 180° to tell me an hour later, they would now ship the correct one and apologize.
Not trying to make a personal public case here. Rather I want to use this as an example: How could the seller get to the root of such a problem (if this is not an absolute exception and keeps repeating once in a while)?
The first step: Note down that problem. Precisely.
It will look similar to the head of a fish (see graphic below).
The fish head (= problem).
Let’s say we want to look at how a wrong charger could have been shipped in the first place. And suppose it repeats itself with other items, such as cables or incorrect devices shipped to the wrong customers. In that case, we could call the problem that we want to explore “Shipping wrong items.”
The big fins (= problem areas).
How can this be? Which areas could lead to picking the wrong items from our warehouse?
Define all problems areas first (and don’t feel stupid if you need to add some you forgot later in the process). Then, REALLY think of this one. If you miss essential areas, you might not “get to the bottom of it”. Or, in this case, to the correct “fin."
For this example, one could use:
Human
Machine
Environment
Measuring
Material
The small fins (= main- and sub-problems).
Now, note down all the main problems and sub-problems you can think of when looking at each particular problem area. Then, just splurge whatever is on your mind onto that drawing. Think less of how difficult it would be to measure if problem X would be valid or how unlikely issue Y is. This part comes later (plus, crossing out issues with a light strike of a big black pen makes you feel smart).
Coming back to our example, problems could be:
Human
The customer ordered the wrong item, thinking he ordered the correct item.
Staff mistyped an SKU.
…
Machine
Scanner.
Scanner dirty.
Scanner slow (forcing staff to type SKU and produce errors).
Label machine.
Doesn’t print visible labels.
You get the point.
Think of a fish and its bones to break down complex problems.
Source: Simon Beuse, uncoverstrategy.com, 2022
Once you are out of ideas, you can start destroying your work. I mean, reduce it to the practical minimum. Crossing “fins” off the list, starting with the most obvious. Scanner dirty? Then an employee would not be able to check off that item on the computer, so very unlikely. Label machine? How would it end up at other consumer places if it still prints?
The further you drill down into your problem, the closer you find the potential root. And once your fish looks more barebone than anything, don’t be afraid to put in the work (depending on your problem) when finding out a root problem is hard to do and requires a lot of work. It might just be that one.
Why this works.
Ishikawa was a man of control. Quality control. He was famous for developing tools to improve quality. And often, quality is a response to consistency (just think of great artists who continually had to put in the effort to do their most outstanding work).
Drawing a fish with all the possible environments and potential root problems that could emerge from forces you to think about them equally, independently, and thoroughly. In your mind, it is easy to dismiss an issue as "definitely not the problem". And that might be true. But by writing them down, your mind is triggered to give the issues another shot.
And precisely that might just be why the Ishikawa model, in its simplicity, can help you fix complex problems.
So next time, why not think of that blue fish? I hope it will remind you of another tool in your craftmanship toolbox that helps you fix complex problems.
What do you think? Did you use the model before? Were there moments you struggled with when applying the model, or did it fail you? Did you see it in action at work? Let me know how you use it or intend to use it - I would love to hear from you.
