Hi Tom, thanks for the video, especially for Is / IsNot analysis which is almost not covered in RUclips. I love this tool and use it frequently, but wanna add that except these 2 columns IS and ISNOT i'm using third column named "Possible explanation". So when we're doing analysis we are forced to try to explain why Product A have defects and Product B doesnt. After proper analysis we already have proper documented input for following RCA (which actually already covers at least 60% of future RCA results)
Wonderful addition Alexey! When I use this in defining a problem definition, we’ll summarize those possible explanations in the problem statement underneath the is - is not; which certainly works, but your suggestion will make it even easier for everyone participating to understand the thinking process and assumptions.
Ah yes, that is a nice way of looking at it, right? It took me a while to figure that out: originally having learned to 'just do all the needed steps' of certain tools, but when you do them more and more you start to see that many of our CI tools are really just ways to help us structure our own (and our group's) thoughts and reasoning. Don't get me wrong - that is super useful, because our brains love taking dangerous shortcuts, but I think it is good to realise what the tools do for us. It is also sort of comforting: if our best CI tools mainly just assist us humans to think straight, AI is going to have a hard time copying that full skill stack and taking our jobs 😅
Very useful video. Thank you for posting this.
Thanks for taking the time to let me know you value my content - that's why I make these videos 😊
Hi Tom, thanks for the video, especially for Is / IsNot analysis which is almost not covered in RUclips. I love this tool and use it frequently, but wanna add that except these 2 columns IS and ISNOT i'm using third column named "Possible explanation". So when we're doing analysis we are forced to try to explain why Product A have defects and Product B doesnt. After proper analysis we already have proper documented input for following RCA (which actually already covers at least 60% of future RCA results)
Wonderful addition Alexey!
When I use this in defining a problem definition, we’ll summarize those possible explanations in the problem statement underneath the is - is not; which certainly works, but your suggestion will make it even easier for everyone participating to understand the thinking process and assumptions.
Great video Tom, I like the “thinking tool” concept.
Ah yes, that is a nice way of looking at it, right? It took me a while to figure that out: originally having learned to 'just do all the needed steps' of certain tools, but when you do them more and more you start to see that many of our CI tools are really just ways to help us structure our own (and our group's) thoughts and reasoning. Don't get me wrong - that is super useful, because our brains love taking dangerous shortcuts, but I think it is good to realise what the tools do for us.
It is also sort of comforting: if our best CI tools mainly just assist us humans to think straight, AI is going to have a hard time copying that full skill stack and taking our jobs 😅