Using the Fishbone Diagram and 5 WHYs analysis tools, analyze why the chatbot failed. Apply McKinsey's Insight-Value Chain to structure your analysis.Required Elements (all combined in one):Completed Fishbone Analysis showing:Technology Issues Process Failures People/Testing Gaps Management Decisions ... 5 WHYs Analysis of core problems (for each) Insight-Value Chain mapping of failure points Expected deliverable: Diagram + 400 words explanation

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Begin by outlining the composite requirements: a completed Fishbone (Ishikawa) diagram analyzing why the chatbot failed, a 5 WHYs analysis for each core problem, and an Insight-Value Chain mapping of failure points, all presented as a single deliverable with roughly 400 words of explanation.

Fishbone Analysis considerations:
- Technology Issues: The chart should identify root technical drivers such as an underperforming NLP engine, insufficient integration with legacy systems, and slow response times. Each sub-branch should connect to how these issues degrade user experience, produce misinterpretations of intent, or increase latency, all of which can cause user frustration and escalation.
- Process Failures: This branch should capture failures in the software engineering lifecycle, notably lack of thorough testing prior to deployment, weak incident response, and an unclear feedback loop from users to developers. The connections should explain how incomplete testing allows latent bugs to slip through, how slow or absent incident handling compounds user impact, and how non-systematic feedback prevents learning cycles.
- People/Testing Gaps: This area covers human factors and capability gaps, such as insufficient QA training, limited expertise in conversational design, and over-reliance on external consultants. Link these to outcomes like insufficient test coverage for dialogue flows, poor detection of edge cases, and inconsistent QA standards.
- Management Decisions: This branch reflects strategic and resourcing choices, including rushed timelines, budget cuts, and limited stakeholder engagement. Show how these decisions compress schedules, reduce investment in quality assurance, and overlook the necessity of cross-functional alignment, ultimately weakening the chatbot’s resilience.

5 WHYs Analysis for each core problem:
- A) Technology Issue (e.g., NLP engine inadequate): Why did inputs get misunderstood? Because the NLP model lacked training on representative data. Why? Training data did not reflect real customer queries. Why? Data sets were not updated with fresh, representative samples. Why? Data curation resources were underfunded or deprioritized. Why? Underinvestment in ongoing data quality and model maintenance. Root cause: insufficient funding and processes for continuous NLP data improvement. 
- B) Process Failures (e.g., shallow testing): Why did bugs remain post-launch? Because test cases missed edge scenarios. Why? There was no robust, end-to-end test strategy. Why? Design of tests was limited by time and scope. Why? Project deadlines were prioritized over comprehensive validation. Why? Management constraints encouraged speed over thorough QA. Root cause: compressed schedules and a culture that undervalues extensive testing.
- C) People/Testing Gaps (e.g., QA training lacking): Why were key usage patterns missed? Testers lacked domain-specific training in conversational UX. Why? Onboarding for new tools was insufficient. Why? Budget leaned toward tools rather than staff development. Why? Leadership underestimated the impact of specialized QA skills. Root cause: underinvestment in specialized training for QA staff and lack of ongoing capability building.
- D) Management Decisions (e.g., rushed go-live): Why launch despite readiness concerns? Pressure to beat competitors or hit a market window. Why? Fear of losing share led to risk acceptance. Why? No contingency plan for quality setbacks. Why? Short-term gains were prioritized over sustainable value. Root cause: strategic misalignment toward speed and optics rather than robust, iterative learning.

Insight-Value Chain mapping: Data → Information → Insights → Recommendations → Implementation → Value
- Data: Outdated or unrepresentative training data that fails to cover real user intents.
- Information: Poor synthesis into actionable requirements due to silos or inadequate stakeholder involvement.
- Insights: Faulty interpretation of user needs, leading to missed warning signs and misguided priorities.
- Recommendations: Process improvements that are incomplete or misaligned with reality, resulting in weak corrective actions.
- Implementation: Execution flaws including testing gaps, rushed rollout, and hasty fixes that fail to stabilize performance.
- Value Realization: The intended benefits (accurate responses, user satisfaction, reduced support load) are not realized, with higher user frustration and elevated support costs.

Overall interpretation:
- The failure emerges from interdependent gaps across technology, process, people, and leadership. Inadequate data handling degrades insights, which in turn weakens recommendations and implementation, preventing value realization. A robust solution must treat data quality, testing rigor, specialized QA capability, and strategic governance as an integrated system, emphasizing iterative learning, continuous data curation, and disciplined deployment practices. The narrative should reflect how each root cause propagates through the value chain, reinforcing the need for holistic remediation rather than isolated fixes, and should end with actionable steps like establishing a continuous data-refresh protocol, instituting a formal end-to-end test strategy, investing in conversational design training, and aligning go-live decisions with explicit quality gates and stakeholder sign-off.

25_4 - CP315 - Innovating with AI: transforming business and customer experience

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

The CVP and break-even analysis are supported by a range of important assumptions. Which of the following is not an assumption of the CVP:

The break-even point is that at which:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler