A problem-solving method is chosen because it seems to fit, but the work may expose a different question. The right technique can be used briefly and its result returned to the original reasoning thread.
In the first article in this series I argued that methods are interchangeable lenses. This is what that means in practice. The first lens is chosen because it appears to fit the problem in front of us. It does not own the problem. As evidence emerges or changes what we need to understand, another lens may become the better technique to handle that particular matter. The main reasoning thread remains.
The result of the second technique must return to the original line of problem-solving. A technique may be temporary, but the work cannot become a collection of disconnected reports.
The first lens is only a starting point
Imagine that deliveries are repeatedly late. The team may start with Failure Modes and Effects Analysis because it wants to see where the process could fail and what effects those failures could create. While working through the failure modes, one cause may remain poorly understood. The right move is not to force a guess into the FMEA row. Open a bounded root-cause excursion: Five Whys, an Ishikawa diagram, process analysis, or another technique that fits the question.
That excursion has a job and a stopping point. Once it has clarified the relevant cause or uncertainty, its result returns to the original FMEA position. The FMEA can then continue with better information, revise the failure mode, effect and control assessment, and move into action planning.
The other technique did not replace the FMEA. It supplied what the FMEA could not establish on its own.
FMEA can also work backwards
There are two different moves here. First, ordinary FMEA can be used on a planned change to find more granular failure modes: unclear decision rights, measures that reward the wrong behaviour, lack of time to learn, unowned exceptions, or the old way surviving in parallel. That is still failure-mode analysis.
The second move is different, starting with the intended end state. Point is to ask what had to be true immediately before it, what action created that condition, and what had to be ready before that. Continue backward until the chain reaches the present. Then reverse the chain into an implementation plan.
This resembles the backward mission planning used by some military organizations, but the point is not to imitate a military procedure. It is to make the intended change concrete enough that the required actions and conditions can be seen before implementation starts.
Change the lens without losing the thread
A process map, Five Whys, an Ishikawa diagram and FMEA do different jobs. None should be expected to produce the answer belonging to another method. Their results should still connect.
The starting condition, intended result, relevant evidence, uncertainty and open questions have to remain with the problem-solving work regardless of the lens. A new lens should inherit what is already established, add what the previous lens could not show directly, and return its conclusion to the original line of reasoning. One process may use multiple lenses and techniques, but it still needs one main line of problem-solving.
Without that continuity, one workshop produces causes, another produces risks and a third produces actions. Each separate report may look reasonable, but nobody can say how the action was supposed to change the original situation. This way of working exposes many little problems that otherwise remain hidden.
The lens alters during the problem-solving work. The starting point and planned result remain.
A method is not a commitment
Before starting a method, ask what question it is meant to answer and what decision its result could change. During work, ask whether that is still the question. If it is not, changing the lens strengthens the work. Continuing with the same lens merely because the template is open is not discipline.
That is why I do not believe in automatic chains such as 'we always do this, then that, then the other.' Sometimes a sequence is justified. Sometimes it is only a way to keep every familiar tool busy.
A professional method is a way of seeing more clearly. When it stops doing that, alter the lens and carry the reasoning with you.
My service: It always includes discovery and diagnostic as well as briefing of findings and actionable plan on how to deal with those. Best way to initialize this is to contact me here in LinkedIn and book the initial discussion. Or go straight to my work at www.baleteworks.com. No strings attached.