Season 3 – Episode 028: With Ed Wells
Let’s be honest: most managers don’t know how to solve problems.
They spend their days firefighting issues they don’t understand, slapping on plasters, and praying the next disaster waits until they are on holiday. Enter Ed Wells, Chief Strategy Officer of What Caused This, who’s here to explain why your organisation’s approach to problem-solving is probably as effective as the proverbial chocolate teapot.
This episode explains the messy, often ignored world of root cause analysis—not just as a buzzword, but as a way to stop repeating the same mistakes. Ed breaks down why complexity isn’t going away, why your quick-fix mentality is costing you more than it’s saving, and why the “five whys” method is just the start.
Ed explains to Jimmy and James, ever the sceptics, that this is just for specialists and pointy heads. Whether you’re dealing with a train company blaming “lack of staff” for delays (while ignoring the fact they sacked half the workforce) or a football club sacking managers like it’s a hobby, the lesson is clear: if you don’t dig deep, you will never understand the causes of your problems.
Key points:
- Complexity isn’t a trend—it’s the new normal, and your old problem-solving habits won’t cut it.
- Root cause analysis isn’t just for disasters; it’s for preventing them (and maybe even improving things).
- The “golden four” criteria for solutions: Will it work? Can I do it? Can I afford it? Will it backfire spectacularly?
- Teams solve problems better than lone wolves—but good luck getting one when the budget’s been slashed.
- If you don’t track your fixes, you’re doomed to repeat the same mistakes.
So, if you’re tired of putting out fires only for them to reignite the second you turn your back, this is your wake-up call. Or, as Ed might say, your chance to stop being the hare and start being the tortoise—before the race ends.
An experienced and creative strategist in complex problem-solving, Ed has worked directly with 1000s of senior professionals across all major industries, developing their root-cause analysis knowledge and skills to create safer, more efficient, and more successful organisations.
Ed’s focus is on creating a unified, collaborative approach to problem-solving, risk, and performance through root-cause analysis thinking
Connect with Ed or find out more:
On his website: https://whatcausedthis.com/
On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edwardwellspm/
Via e-mail: ed.wells@whatcausedthis.com
Topic: Root Cause Analysis with Ed Wells (What Caused This)
[0:03] James: Hello, I’m James.
[0:05] Jimmy: Hi, I’m Jimmy, and welcome to A Job Done Well, the podcast that helps you improve your performance and enjoyment at work.
[0:15] James: Hello, how are you doing?
[0:16] Jimmy: I’m doing well. What are we covering today?
[0:18] James: Well, today we have got a fascinating conversation about root cause problem analysis. I can see you’re excited already, aren’t you?
[0:29] Jimmy: I should be!
[0:30] James: We have a gentleman called Ed Wells with us, who is the Chief Strategy Officer of an organisation called What Caused This. They talk to organisations that have issues and help them work their way through them. If you listen to this podcast, you’ve probably got a load of problems and issues anyway, so this will be useful to you.
[0:51] Jimmy: I think the world is becoming ever more complex; we are constantly bombarded with problems we need to improve. Ed has some really neat ways of approaching this. I hope he sorts both of us out, as we’ve got complex problems.
[1:16] James: We’ll have you back! So, Ed, without further ado, how about you introduce yourself?
[1:23] Ed: Thank you, James and Jimmy. My name is Ed Wells. I’m the Chief Strategy Officer and a founder of What Caused This. We’ve been around for a couple of years. We are a root cause analysis business. All of our team are professionals in the field with at least a decade’s worth of experience in complex problem solving.
[1:59] James: It’s an obvious question, but do organisations really need root cause analysis? Why bother? I’ve seen plenty of organisations get by without getting to the root cause of anything.
[2:12] Ed: It leans back into what Jimmy said about complexity. In the three decades I’ve been in the workplace, there hasn’t been a reduction in complexity. They say two things are constant: death and taxes. I think a third is increasing complexity.
My son turned thirteen this week and still loves Lego. He got a huge “One Piece” kit with thousands of pieces. It got me thinking about when I was thirteen. I had a Tupperware box of plastic blocks, and with enough imagination, I could make a race car. It was nothing like what my son has now. If you ask him about Lego, he’ll tell you about a “Lego Universe.” Lego is a great metaphor for organisations dealing with complexity. The short answer is: organisations need root cause analysis because the methods used in non-complex environments are no longer fit for purpose as complexity grows.
[4:09] Jimmy: If I’m running a team, why is complex problem solving important to me?
[4:19] Ed: Because you want to move from a reactive environment where you are constantly firefighting. As a manager, you are likely in your role because you are an effective problem solver. But the “holy grail” is to shift from reactive to proactive, and ultimately toward continuous improvement.
Take “marginal gains,” a term used heavily by Dave Brailsford and British Cycling. They won fourteen medals under him after winning only two in the previous 70 years. Marginal gains is essentially root cause analysis personified. Instead of looking backward, you look forward. It’s about breaking a problem into constituent parts so you can pick them off individually rather than hoping for a magic bullet. In mature organisations, the “low-hanging fruit” was picked a long time ago.
[7:13] James: As managers, we are problem solvers by nature. Why do we need a specific method? What is wrong with current approaches?
[7:25] Ed: Problems differ as you move up an organisation. Early in your career, you are rewarded for quick thinking. We build on that “quick thinking” approach. This serves us well when problems aren’t complex and don’t have huge negative implications. As you move up, the ramifications of being wrong are significant. The very behaviours that rewarded you early on—jumping to conclusions and making assumptions—are the ones that trip you up in management.
[9:00] Jimmy: When you start your career, being decisive is helpful. It builds confidence. I remember thinking I couldn’t make a mistake, then suddenly you start making them and realise it’s much more difficult. That blind confidence can blind you to possibilities.
[9:40] James: So what is the better way? What should we be doing instead?
[9:43] Ed: Root cause analysis follow a “hero’s journey.” Step one: Ensure you have all the verifiable information possible. Step two: Ensure you understand the problem. Define it clearly. If you don’t define the parameters, you won’t know when it’s fixed.
[10:39] Jimmy: Ed, James is getting excited because that is what will be written on his gravestone. Everyone who works with James knows his first question: “What is the problem we are trying to fix?”
[10:55] James: I should!
[10:55] Ed: You have to define it, particularly if you are collaborating. Bigger problems are inevitably collaborative.
[11:18] Jimmy: A small subtlety—we talk about “problems” as things that have gone wrong. But as a leader, I want to do more things right. Can I apply this thinking to how I get better outcomes?
[12:10] Ed: Completely. The same processes can be pivoted towards understanding success. Some of our most exciting work recently has been around strategy—starting with “This is what we want to achieve; how do we do it?”
[13:11] Jimmy: So, step one is evidence, step two is a clear problem statement. What’s next?
[13:19] Ed: Problem solving is better when conducted by teams. You get multiple perspectives, better evidence gathering, and less bias.
[14:05] James: And a good team is a diverse team.
[14:11] Jimmy: The reality is often you’re on your own or with a minimal number of people.
[14:30] Ed: Collaboration is one of those effective, non-negotiable pillars.
[14:46] James: What’s the next bit?
[14:51] Ed: Step one (evidence gathering) actually comes before the problem statement. Information should give you a hypothesis, not the other way around. From there, you move to the analytical stage. This involves visual mapping—like the “Five Whys” or “Fishbone” methods. We want to move away from verbal storytelling and toward a visual presentation of granular parts.
[16:21] James: So, it’s about drawing out a tree diagram of all possible causes to get a granular understanding?
[16:48] Ed: Absolutely.
[16:49] Jimmy: How do you know when you’ve gone far enough?
[16:54] Ed: You are looking for three distinct levels of causes: Primary causes (immediate), Contributory causes (the “fat middle”), and Root causes (systemic). There is a paradox here. Stakeholders always say we must find “the” root cause. In reality, root causes are often systemic challenges involving slow, painful trade-offs. Don’t overlook the contributory causes—policies, tasks, and structures—because we can fix those.
[21:21] James: To use a train analogy: The train didn’t turn up (Primary). Why? No staff. Why? They were off sick. Why? They don’t like the new rota. Why? The organisation is cutting headcounts (Root). At what point do you cut in?
[21:46] Ed: Exactly. In football, if a team underperforms, they sack the manager. That’s fixing a primary cause. If you don’t solve the incentives, you’ll have a poor squad and a new manager in the same position next year. Fixing primary causes is stabilization; contributory causes is strengthening; root causes is transformation.
[25:32] James: What makes a good solution?
[25:43] Ed: Getting away from the mindset that there is a “right” answer. Complex problems are rarely solved by a single solution. To evaluate an intervention, use the “Universal Four” criteria: Is it effective? Is it implementable? Is it affordable? And are there unintended consequences?
[29:26] James: Once everyone is happy, you implement it?
[29:26] Ed: You try it. You also need to recognize if it’s a short, medium, or long-term fix.
[29:54] James: I’ve seen people implement a fix and then just leave it.
[30:11] Ed: That is the biggest failing. Organisations often fail because they never tracked the implementation.
[31:09] Jimmy: Organisations often want to put a problem behind them and move on. Once it’s “solved,” they don’t want to talk about it anymore.
[31:47] Ed: Of course. Like COVID—once it was done, people just wanted to move on and not look over their shoulder.
[31:59] James: A quick summary:
Decide where to attack.
Get your data first.
Assemble a diverse team.
Define the specific problem.
Draw out the causes as a branched route.
Listen On:
