5W2H is a problem description checklist built from seven questions — what, why, where, when, who, how and how much. Answering all seven produces a description someone who was not there can understand without asking follow-ups, which is exactly what 8D step D2 needs. The sheet below adds the column most versions leave out: where each answer came from.
Download the 5W2H template
Seven questions with prompts, a column for the evidence behind each answer, and a field for the one-sentence problem statement you build from them. No signup, no email.
5W2H Template — Excel (.xlsx)
Questions pre-filled, columns for answer and source. Works in Excel, Google Sheets and LibreOffice.
Download .xlsx5W2H Template — Word (.docx)
For pasting into the D2 section of an 8D report or a customer-facing document.
Download .docx5W2H Template — PDF (print)
Printable A4 for filling in at the line, before anyone opens a laptop.
Download .pdfThe seven questions — and the trap in each
The questions are easy. Answering them without smuggling in a cause or a solution is the part that takes discipline.
| What it asks | The trap | |
|---|---|---|
| What | Which object, and what deviation from what it should be | Describing the consequence (“customer complained”) instead of the deviation |
| Why | Why it matters — cost, risk, who is affected | Answering why it happened. That is D4, and putting it here narrows the investigation before it starts |
| Where | Where detected, and where on the object | Only answering the first half. Location on the part often points straight at a station or fixture |
| When | First seen, and the pattern since | “Recently.” Without a date you cannot line anything up against a change |
| Who | Who detected it, who is affected — by role | Naming individuals. Roles keep the record usable; names make it an accusation |
| How | How it shows up, and how it was found | Skipping how it was found — inspection, complaint and alarm imply very different detection gaps |
| How much | Quantity, frequency, trend, target | Leaving it blank, which removes any way to tell later whether the fix worked |
The column most templates leave out
Every answer needs a source: a measurement, a record, an inspection report, a ticket. An answer nobody can check is an opinion, and opinions in D2 become assumptions in D4.
The practical value shows up when the sheet is half empty. A row with a confident answer and no source is a signal to go and look; a row with no answer at all is a question for the person who reported the problem. Both are more useful than a description that reads smoothly and rests on what somebody remembered.
A worked example
Illustrative, not a real case. The complaint arrives as “the seals are failing”.
| Answer | Evidence | |
|---|---|---|
| What | Gasket on pump housing type B leaks under pressure test | Test report 4471, 14 units |
| Why | Units fail final test; each rework costs about two hours and delays shipment | Rework log, weeks 31–33 |
| Where | Assembly cell 2; leak at the lower flange face on every failed unit | Inspection photos |
| When | First seen 28 July; roughly one unit in nine since, no clear time-of-day pattern | Test records since 1 July |
| Who | Detected by final test operators; affects assembly and shipping | — |
| How | Shows as pressure drop during the 60-second hold; found in test, never at the cell | Test procedure TP-12 |
| How much | 14 of 126 units (11%), flat over three weeks; target zero | Test records |
Problem statement built from the answers: “Since 28 July, 11% of type B pump housings assembled in cell 2 fail the 60-second pressure test with a leak at the lower flange face, causing about two hours of rework each.”
Note what the sheet exposed without anyone analysing anything: the defect is never caught at the cell, only at final test. That is a detection gap sitting in plain sight in the “how” row.
5W2H and Is / Is Not do different jobs
Both live in D2 and teams often argue about which to use. They answer different questions, and the usual sequence is to do both:
| 5W2H | Is / Is Not | |
|---|---|---|
| Produces | A complete description | A boundary you can test causes against |
| Question it answers | Is anything missing from what we know? | What is affected, and what equally could be but is not? |
| Best at | Writing the statement everyone signs up to | Eliminating candidate causes before you test them |
| Order | First — it collects the facts | Second — built from those facts |
Full walkthrough of the second one, with its own grid: Is / Is Not analysis.
What follows D2
| Next | Tool | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Record the whole discipline sequence | 8D report template | D0–D8 in one document; this sheet drops into D2 |
| Sharpen the statement itself | Problem statement generator | Flags blame and hidden solutions as you type |
| Narrow to one candidate cause | Is / Is Not | The boundary eliminates causes that cannot explain both columns |
| Drill the surviving candidate | 5 Whys | Follows the chain down from a specific, verified starting point |
| Use it outside 8D | RCA report · CAPA record | Same seven questions open any structured investigation |
FAQ
What is 5W2H?
A problem description checklist built from seven questions: what, why, where, when, who, how and how much. Answering all seven produces a description complete enough that someone who was not there understands the problem without follow-up questions — exactly what 8D step D2 requires.
What do the seven 5W2H questions stand for?
What is the deviation; why it matters (cost, risk, who is affected); where it was detected and where on the object; when it was first seen and in what pattern; who found it and who is affected, by role; how it shows up and how it was found; and how much — quantity, frequency, trend and target.
What is the difference between 5W2H and 5W1H?
5W1H uses what, why, where, when, who and how. 5W2H adds a second H — how much — forcing quantification: how many, how often, what trend, what target. That extra question is what turns a complaint into something you can measure a fix against, which is why 8D generally uses 5W2H.
What is the difference between 5W2H and Is / Is Not?
5W2H produces a complete description; Is / Is Not produces a boundary by also recording what could reasonably have been affected but was not, giving you something to test candidate causes against. They are complements: answer 5W2H first, then build the grid from those answers.
Where is 5W2H used in the 8D process?
In D2, describe the problem, alongside Is / Is Not. D2 sits between forming the team and interim containment, and its job is to turn a complaint into a statement precise enough that D3 can be scoped and D4 has something specific to explain.
Should the why in 5W2H be the root cause?
No — and this is the most common mistake in the sheet. The why means why the problem matters: cost, risk, customer impact. Causes belong in D4, after containment. A description that already contains a cause narrows the investigation before it starts.
Can 5W2H be used outside 8D?
Yes. It works as the opening step of any structured investigation: before a 5 Whys chain, at the top of an A3, or as the description section of a CAPA record. Anywhere a written problem statement has to survive being read by someone who was not in the room.
Related
- Is / Is Not analysis — the other half of D2
- 8D problem solving: complete guide — all eight disciplines
- 8D report template — Excel, Word and PDF
- How to write a problem statement
- RCA report template — when there is no customer waiting for an 8D
- Problem statement generator — flags blame and hidden solutions