The Right Tool for the Right Job
A maintenance technician walks up to you during a gemba walk. "We've got a problem on Line 3."
Do you pull out a formal A3 template and start filling in substeps? Or do you ask a few quick questions to understand what's happening?
The answer depends on what you're dealing with. A local machine issue needs different background clarity than a major product recall. Both need context-setting, but the depth and structure should match the audience and magnitude of the problem.
Here's what most people get wrong: they either over-document small problems or under-document big ones. They waste time on elaborate background for a minor scrap issue, or they show up to a cross-functional meeting with barely enough context to orient the room.
The solution isn't to pick one approach and force it everywhere. It's to understand when to use rapid-fire questioning and when to build a structured background.
Two Approaches, Same Goal
Background clarity serves one purpose: get everyone oriented to the situation quickly so problem-solving can proceed. But the path to clarity changes based on your circumstances.
You have two basic approaches:
Rapid 5W1H - Quick verbal exchange using six fundamental questions. Perfect for local problems, daily huddles, shift handoffs, and gemba walks where you need to frame a situation in under two minutes.
Structured 5-Substep Method - Comprehensive background documentation covering Situation Overview, Stakeholders, Business Context, Scope and Boundaries, and Evidence. Essential for complex problems involving multiple departments, external stakeholders, or formal presentations.
Neither approach is superior. They're designed for different contexts. The mistake is using the wrong tool for the situation.
The Rapid 5W1H Approach
The 5W1H framework gives you six questions that quickly establish context:
Where did this happen? (Facility, product line, process, equipment)
What exactly happened? (Downtime, quality issue, scrap, delay)
When did it begin or occur? (Shift, time, date, duration)
Who was affected or knows the details? (For follow-up, not for blame)
How did it happen? (Current level of understanding, not root cause)
How Much is the impact? (Gap from standard in time, quality, cost, productivity)
Here's what this sounds like in practice:
"Where did the machine breakdown occur?"
"In the casting plant outside of Saint Louis."
"What happened?"
"A ball screw on machining center number 10 was damaged."
"When did it happen?"
"Second shift last night."
"Who knows about this?"
"The maintenance technician Greg was the first to respond and made the repair."
"How did it break or happen?"
"It appears to be foreign debris in the ball screw."
"Why did this happen?"
"It looks like there's a missing cover and the machine PMs might not have been done on time."
Notice the rhythm. Each question builds on the previous one. Within two minutes, you have enough context to decide next steps. You're not solving the problem yet. You're establishing what you know and what you need to find out.
This approach works beautifully for:
- Machine downtime on the shop floor
- Local scrap or quality issues
- Shift handoff updates
- Gemba walk observations
- Daily huddle board discussions
- Minor safety or housekeeping concerns
The key is verbal efficiency. You're gathering just enough background to orient people and determine if deeper investigation is needed.
The Structured 5-Substep Method
Some problems can't be clarified in a two-minute exchange. When you're dealing with major quality issues, warranty claims, product recalls, or safety infractions that span multiple departments, you need a more comprehensive approach.
The structured method uses five substeps to build complete context:
Situation Overview - Describe what is happening, where it occurs, and when it started. Give the basic facts that orient anyone to the situation.
Stakeholders - Identify who is affected and how they experience the problem. This might include customers, employees, suppliers, or regulatory bodies.
Business Context - Explain why this issue matters to the organization. Connect to strategic goals, customer commitments, financial impact, or competitive positioning.
Scope and Boundaries - Define what's included and excluded from this analysis. Clarity here prevents scope creep and misaligned expectations.
Evidence - Gather data, trends, or observations that confirm the issue exists and help quantify its magnitude.
This approach is essential when:
- Multiple departments or functions are involved
- External stakeholders need to understand the situation
- Senior management requires formal presentation
- The problem has significant cost, quality, or safety implications
- You're documenting for regulatory or audit purposes
- The solution will require cross-functional resources
A major warranty claim needs this treatment. So does a product recall. So does a serious safety infraction that could result in regulatory action.
The structured approach takes more preparation time, but it prevents the chaos that happens when you try to brief executives or external partners without adequate context.
Knowing When to Escalate
Here's the practical reality: most problems start local and some grow complex.
You might begin with a quick 5W1H exchange on the shop floor. "Ball screw failure on machining center 10. Foreign debris. Missing cover. Preventive maintenance might be overdue."
Then you discover this is the third ball screw failure in six months. The parts are expensive. The downtime is affecting customer delivery. Suddenly you need to involve procurement, maintenance management, and operations leadership.
That's when you stop and provide the bigger picture details.
The trigger for escalation is simple: when you need to involve more people in the problem discussion, scale up your background approach. Harder, bigger, complicated problems get escalated naturally. When senior management gets involved, they need comprehensive context.
This isn't bureaucracy. It's respect for people's time and the seriousness of the situation. The structured substep approach becomes your escalation tool.
The "Who" Trap
Here's where background clarity often goes wrong: people turn the "Who" question into a blame exercise.
"Who messed up?"
"Who do we blame?"
"Whose fault is this?"
Weaker organizations employ the "5 Who's" instead of the "5 Why's." They're searching for someone to hold accountable before they understand what actually happened.
The proper "Who" question in background clarity isn't about blame. It's about information:
"Who was affected by this problem?"
"Who has direct knowledge of what happened?"
"Who should we talk to for follow-up?"
"Who needs to be involved in the solution?"
The "Who" in 5W1H points you toward sources of understanding, not targets for punishment. When you turn background clarification into a witch hunt, people stop sharing information. They hide problems. They delay reporting issues.
Root cause analysis will come later. The 5 Why's will help you understand causation. But during background clarification, you're simply establishing facts and context.
If you find yourself asking "Who's responsible?" during background work, stop. You're not ready for that question yet. First, understand what happened.
How to Know You're Ready
Whether you're using rapid 5W1H or the structured substep approach, you need a test to know if your background is sufficient.
Ask yourself: "Could someone unfamiliar with this situation understand the context within two minutes?"
If you're doing a quick verbal update, can you answer the six W/H questions clearly and concisely?
If you're preparing a formal presentation, can you address all five substeps without confusion or gaps?
Here's another test: "Would the room erupt with clarifying questions, or could we proceed directly to problem definition?"
If people need to ask basic questions to orient themselves, your background work isn't complete. If they can jump straight into analyzing the problem, you've done your job.
The amount of detail should match the audience and magnitude. A local scrap issue needs less background than a major warranty claim. But both need enough context that people can engage productively.
The Common Thread
Whether you're using rapid 5W1H or structured substeps, the underlying principle is the same: establish shared understanding before trying to solve anything.
The framework scales to fit the need. Small problems get quick treatment. Big problems get comprehensive documentation. But skipping background clarity entirely guarantees confusion and wasted effort.
The best problem-solvers I know are fluent in both approaches. They can rattle off 5W1H during a gemba walk, and they can prepare thorough background documentation for an executive review. They recognize that the tool should match the situation.
They also recognize that good background work isn't about perfect documentation. It's about bringing people into focus quickly so the real work can begin.
What's Next
Background clarity sets the stage, but it doesn't present itself. In the next article, we'll explore how leaders bring background to life in meetings and presentations. How do you show context, not just tell it? How do you bring gemba to the room when the room can't go to gemba?
The tools matter, but so does the human element. The best background work combines systematic thinking with respect for people and their need to understand.
For now, practice choosing the right approach for your situation. Ask yourself: "Who's my audience, and how much context do they need?" Then match your background method to that need.
The next time someone brings you a problem, don't assume you know which approach to use. Ask a few quick questions first. Listen to the answers. Let the magnitude and complexity of the situation guide your choice of tools.
And remember: no matter which approach you choose, the goal is always the same. Get everyone on the same page quickly so you can solve problems together.