You can really understand a real Why if you realize this:

A real Why opens the door to handling.

If you write down a Why, ask this question of it: "Does this open the door to handling?"

If it does not, then it is a wrong Why.

Backtracking to find how it is wrong, one examines the ideal scene and the situation one already has.

The outpoints should be checked. The completeness of data should be checked. One may find he is in a wrong area of the scene.

Correct that, correct the ideal scene, correct the situation and look for more data.

With the outpoints of more data one can achieve the real Why that will open the door to handling.

Quite often an "evaluator" "knows" the Why before he begins. This is fatal. Why evaluate?

Some of the most workable Whys I've ever found surprised me! So usually I also ask, did I know this? Am I surprised? The chances are, if I "knew" it already (and the situation still exists) it is a wrong Why. And needs proper evaluation.

When you have a right Why, handling becomes simple. The more one has to beat his brains for a bright idea to handle, the more likely it is that he has a wrong Why.

So if you're not a bit surprised and if the handling doesn't leap out at you the Why has not opened the door and is probably wrong.

I have seen evaluators take weeks to do an evaluation. In such cases they went on and on reading as they did not know how to find a real Why. Actually they did not know what one was.

By going through the total current files of an activity looking for outpoints just by randomly glancing at data sheets from all sources, you can find the area. Outpoints lead you straight to it.

An ideal scene for that smaller area is fairly easy to envision.

The type of outpoint will generally give you how the departure is. One can then get the situation.

By looking over (in detail now) the data of that smaller area and counting the outpoints, one can find the Why.

The Why will be how come the situation is such a departure from the ideal scene and will open the door to handling.

If it doesn't, then review the whole thing, do the steps again. Don't just sit and sag!

Let's say we find outpoints of added inapplicable data in all reports. And they lead to Reception. The ideal scene of Reception is easy: attractive pleasant atmosphere, welcoming in the public.

We find more detailed reports that the place is full of junk and filthy and we get our situation, "public repelled by filthy messy Reception."

Now why?

So back to the real data and we find the janitor never cleans it. Or anything else. The easy out is just sack the janitor (and leave the post empty). But that won't handle so we have no Why.

So we dig and dig and suddenly we find that the staff refer to the janitor in lowly and disrespectful terms: "Janitor has no status." Well, the outpoints all say so. And it opens the door to a handling.

So we handle by transferring the janitor org board position from treasury where it went as he "looks after assets" to the Office of the President with the president's secretary as his direct senior.

We write up a program for clean offices.

Magic!

The offices get clean!

The public again comes in.

The ideal scene is attained.

(You may think this example is pretty unreal. But actually it once happened and worked!)

So a right Why opens the door to handling.

If it doesn't, look harder.

There is always a reason for things.

And if your ideal scene and situation are correct, you can find the real Why that opens the door.