SiliciumHex FieldKit

Problem Solving & Quality · State

5W2H Questioning

Answer seven plain questions — what, who, where, when, why, how, how much — to turn a vague complaint into a factual description.

  • Time30 min
  • FormatSmall group
  • StageState

5W2H Questioning: what it is and why it works

5W2H is a structured questioning routine that converts a vague report into a factual problem description. The seven questions (What, Who, Where, When, Why, How and How much) are answered with observable facts, and any gap is written as 'unknown' rather than filled with a guess. The Why question is deliberately kept at the level of impact: why this matters to the customer, the plant or the budget, not why it happened. The answers are then condensed into a short description that the person who raised the issue confirms.

Its strength is discipline rather than insight. Many problem-solving efforts go wrong early because the team starts analyzing a problem nobody has actually described, and different people hold different versions of it. Seven fixed questions make the gaps visible and turn them into named data-collection tasks. 5W2H is lighter than Is / Is-Not and suits the first contact with a problem, including calls from customers or field technicians. Once the facts are in, a deviation statement tightens the description into one sentence, and Is / Is-Not adds the contrast needed to narrow down causes. A gemba walk is often the fastest way to answer the Where and How questions.

What you need

  • The original complaint, ticket, email or verbal report
  • Access to the person who raised the issue
  • Relevant records: work orders, batch records, customer returns, alarm logs
  • A standard 5W2H template so the questions are asked in the same order every time

What you get

  • Seven answered questions with sources, or explicit 'unknown' entries
  • A data-collection list with an owner and date for each unknown
  • A two-line problem description confirmed by the reporter
  • A first estimate of impact (How much) to judge priority

When to use it

When the first report says “it doesn’t work” and nothing more.

How to do it, step by step

  1. Write the seven questions on a sheet: What, Who, Where, When, Why, How, How much.
  2. Answer each with observable facts; write “unknown” rather than guess.
  3. Keep the Why at the level of “why is this a problem for us” — not the cause.
  4. Turn every “unknown” into a data-collection action with a name.
  5. Condense the answers into a two-line problem description and have the reporter confirm it.

Worked example: A field complaint about a chemical dosing skid

Illustrative scenario — figures are realistic but not from a real company.

A water-treatment equipment supplier receives a one-line email from a municipal customer: 'Your chemical dosing skid doesn't work.' The service manager, who has seen similar vague reports turn into week-long disputes, runs 5W2H with the inside-sales contact and a phone call to the plant operator.

  1. What: the sodium hypochlorite dosing pump on skid 2 loses prime, and free chlorine residual at the clearwell drops below the plant's 0.5 mg/L target.
  2. Who: noticed by night-shift operators; the customer's instrumentation contractor had worked on the skid the week before.
  3. Where and when: skid 2 only, in the east building; three events in ten days, all between 2 and 5 a.m.
  4. How and how much: the pump runs but delivers no flow; operators restore it by bleeding air from the suction line. Each event lasts 40 to 90 minutes, and the plant doses manually in the meantime.
  5. Why it matters: the plant risks missing its disinfection residual requirement, and the contract has a performance clause. Two unknowns (tank level and suction-line temperature at each event) became data requests with named owners.

Result. The confirmed description read: 'Hypochlorite pump on skid 2 loses prime at night, three times in ten days, 40 to 90 minutes each; residual drops below 0.5 mg/L.' The level data later showed every event followed a low tank level, pointing to gas binding from hypochlorite off-gassing at low suction head, a lead nobody had considered while the complaint said only 'doesn't work'.

Open it in the FieldKit Problem Solving app → Get the Problem Solving template pack — join the waitlist

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

  • Answering Why with the suspected cause.Keep Why about impact and priority; cause analysis comes later, once the description is agreed.
  • Filling blanks with assumptions to finish the form.Write 'unknown', then create an action to find out, with a name and a date.
  • Treating Who as 'who is to blame'.Use Who to identify who detected the problem, who is affected and who holds information.
  • Never going back to the reporter.Read the condensed description back to the person who raised the issue; their correction often changes the scope.

Frequently asked questions

What does 5W2H stand for?

What, Who, Where, When, Why, How and How much. The five W questions and the first How come from the classic journalistic questions; the second H, How much, adds quantity, frequency or cost. In French-speaking plants the same tool is often called QQOQCCP. The exact order matters less than asking all seven every time and answering each one with facts.

Is 5W2H a root cause analysis tool?

Not by itself. 5W2H describes the problem; it does not find the cause, and its Why question is intentionally kept at the level of consequences. A good 5W2H makes root-cause work faster because the team starts from shared facts, but you still need tools such as Is / Is-Not, a fishbone diagram or 5 Whys to identify and then verify the cause.

When should you use 5W2H instead of a deviation statement?

Use 5W2H first, when information is incomplete and you need to collect it. Use the deviation statement next, to compress the facts into one precise sentence with expected and observed values. The two work well in sequence: 5W2H gathers, the deviation statement distills. For a simple, well-documented issue you can go straight to the deviation statement.

Origin

Rooted in the journalistic 5W1H questions (cf. Kipling’s “six honest serving-men”, 1902); the 5W2H / QQOQCCP form is common quality practice with no single author.

Related methods

More in “State”

Describe the problem as a measurable gap — no cause, no culprit, no solution yet.