Is asking what is being done equivalent to asking what could or should be done in fact-finding techniques?

When considering fact-finding techniques in system analysis, the distinction between asking what is being done and what could or should be done is critical. The primary purpose of fact-finding techniques is to gather information about existing processes, systems, and practices in order to understand the current state before making recommendations for improvements or changes.

Asking what is being done focuses solely on the current operations and behaviors within a system or organization. This inquiry aims to establish a baseline of knowledge regarding existing practices without suggesting any alterations or enhancements. On the other hand, asking what could or should be done introduces subjective elements, guiding the discussion toward potential future improvements, innovations, or changes that may not yet be considered by the stakeholders involved.

The methodologies used during the fact-finding phase, such as interviews, surveys, or observation, are designed to capture the reality of current processes, thereby validating that the two types of questions address distinctly different aspects: one is descriptive, and the other is prescriptive. Since the question seeks a foundational understanding of current practices, it does not equate to envisioning future possibilities or improvements, which makes the correct response that they are not equivalent.