Problem statements at the parks reservation and facility ART Inspect and Adapt stay vague, such as "communication is bad." What should the RTE coach?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
"Communication is bad" is fog, and you cannot five-why a fog bank. Name something you could photograph: shelter permits sit two days in a shared inbox before a ranger sees them. Then the workshop has a trail to follow.
Full Explanation
Coach specific, observable problem statements the parks reservation and facility ART workshop can investigate and measure. Effective problem-solving needs a crisp gap—who is affected, where it appears, how it is measured—not fog such as "communication is bad." Broader slogans so every facility team recognizes itself cannot be five-whys'd. A single word like "alignment" is not a problem statement. Listing people to counsel converts a system issue into personal blame. Exam caveat: problem statements can start imperfect and be refined in the workshop, but they must become observable before root-cause tools are applied. Operational check: rewrite vague statements into measurable forms (for example shelter permits sit two days in a shared inbox), validate with rangers and clerks, and only then run fishbone or five whys for civic parks service delays. In municipal and civic service contexts, record the rationale in the ART working agreements or improvement backlog so future PIs preserve the control, and re-validate after the next Inspect and Adapt against resident-facing outcomes rather than activity theater. Confirm owners, success measures, and a re-check date so the practice remains inspectable.