The use of the A3 management process

Revision as of 00:22, 21 February 2021

Abstract

As revealed by the headline, this article will provide a general description of the A3 tool. The tool is to be utilized by an assembled group of people^[1] and is most commonly used for problem-solving by implementing PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) management[1]. The tool is utilized by following a series of specific steps, such as describing the current condition, making a root cause analysis, deciding on countermeasures etc. and can be applied to almost any kind of problem across several industries [2]. The A3 tool was developed by Toyota in the 1960s [1] and its name derives from the A3 paper dimension, as this format was the largest faxable format, which enabled the Toyota employees to share their newly acquired knowledge [3].

In addition to the description of each step contained in the A3, this wiki will also provide a description of the mindset and way of thinking that one must approach each step with, and the A3 holistically. This is presented through seven elements that each address their own aspect of the mindset which, when combined, make up the entirety[2].

Although there are additional applications of the A3, this wiki focuses on the A3 as a tool for problem-solving. An example of another application for the A3 is e.g. for training and learning purposes with regards to root-cause analysis[1].

Lastly, the limitations of the A3 will be stated, by defining when, where and by whom the tool is not applicable. It is important to know that not every problem needs to be anchored and solved by the utilization of an A3 approach as this will take too much time[2].

What is an A3?

The A3 is a problem-solving tool that consists of, usually, 7 steps, which follow the PDCA cycle. Overall the steps can be divided into a "Plan" section, consisting of step 1-4, and a "Do-Check-Act" section, consisting of step 5-7 [2].

1. Background
2. Current condition
3. Goal
4. Root-cause analysis
5. Countermeasures
6. Effect confirmation
7. Follow-up actions

The idea of the tool is to obtain a detailed understanding of both the problem to be solved and the setting (a machine, a process, an organisation or a completely different setting) in which the problem exists. By obtaining a detailed understanding of how the setting functions, it inherently becomes easier to pinpoint what the problem is, where in the setting the problem is located, the potential cause(s) of the problem and finally how to solve the problem. When performing an A3 it is intended to get rid of the problem along with its cause for good, and not only implement solutions that will mitigate the problem leading to a re-appearance in the future.

A3's are data-driven. That means no assumptions are to be made unless it is backed up by data. However, the A3 format encourages short and precise formulations. A good way to accommodate this is by using a visual representation of data whenever it is possible. Using visual representation enables participants to quickly get an overview whenever the A3 is being re-visited.

It is important to mention that it is not advised to perform an A3 single-handedly as the idea of the tool is to include multiple points of view in order to grasp and understand the total overview of both the setting as well as the problem itself [2].

The following section will provide a description of each step contained in the A3 process.

1. Background

The purpose of the background section is to provide the participants with a sufficient amount of background data in relation to why the targeted problem is a problem, and why it is pursued to solve it. It is essential that the background of the problem is tied to a goal of the company [2], as one might find oneself wasting time trying to solve a problem, which might not be perceived as a problem from the company perspective.

When formulating the background of the problem, it is essential that one considers what kind of audience it is presented to. If the audience is characterised by people who are more detailed and technical, they might be more interested in the technical background data, where an audience consisting of people from management, might be more interested in what costs are tied to the problem.

2. Current condition

Setting up and presenting the current condition is one of the most important steps in the A3. The current condition functions as the baseline, and therefore decisions are often based on what the current condition is stating about the problem. It is therefore important to state the current condition objectively, precise and backed by data. As for the Background section, understanding the composition of the audience is key.

Usually, problems fail to be solved as a result of either not understanding the current condition sufficiently, or underestimating the importance of this specific section.

3. Goal

Defining a goal of the A3 means that it is established at what time the problem you are trying to solve, will be perceived as "solved". It is important to try and set up the goal as a measurable quantity, as this will make it easier to conclude whether your result is a success or not. Depending on the type of problem, several measurable quantities might be necessary to set up, as the result of achieving the scoped goal might have an undesired, negative impact on other factors. Therefore, it is important that your current condition is well-understood, so the entirety of the problem is grasped and the correct goals can be set up.

4. Root-cause analysis

The root-cause analysis is where the problem is finally taken on. As the name indicates, it aims to identify the root cause of the problem. The common mistake in a root-cause analysis is to solve the problem at a too high level, meaning that the underlying problem is not solved, and the problem will most likely re-appear in the future. A root-cause is the very thing causing the problem, and therefore a good rule-of-thumb is to ask yourself: "If I fix this (the plausible root-cause), is the problem likely to occur again?". A very popular tool for identifying the root cause is the 5 why's (or the 5 times why).

5 why's

The 5 why's is essentially a tool to help the applier in tracing down the source of the problem. This is done by stating the overall problem you want to solve, and continuously ask the question "why is this the case?". After having performed the first "why?" a new problem will occur as the source of the first problem, and the same question is then asked: "why is this the case?". Having done this five times, the initial problem is broken down into five levels, each going deeper than the previous, and the root cause may be identified. However, it is not always the case that the root cause is identified in the first attempt, and therefore the 5 why's is often beneficial to repeat several times.

Another useful tool to identify the root cause is the Fishbone diagram.

Fishbone diagram

The Fishbone diagram (also known as the cause-and-effect diagram) is a tool that states the problem and seeks to identify potential causes to the problem, within separate categories. Typical examples of the categories could be Man, Machine, Material, Method, Process, Suppliers etc. Once the categories are established, the dedicated team performs a brainstorm on what might cause the problem, using the categories as a baseline. Once potential causes have been listed, the most likely ones are investigated and evaluated based on data gathered. Has the root-cause not been found the process starts anew while utilizing the learnings achieved by the unsuccessful investigation. Alternatively, The Fishbone diagram can advantageously be followed by a 5 why's analysis, as the Fishbone diagram is a broad tool, identifying multiple causes, while the 5 why's is great at providing a deeper understanding of a selected potential cause.[4]

5. Countermeasures

Once the root-cause analysis has been performed and a root-cause has been identified, it is time to introduce countermeasures. Countermeasures seek to eliminate the root cause of the problem. The countermeasures section on an A3 is usually presented by a list where the countermeasures which have been executed are posted. A countermeasure on the list should contain information on: "what is the cause of the problem?", "how has the countermeasure been investigated or implemented?", "who is responsible?", "when was it implemented?" and lastly " what was the result, or what learnings were achieved?". Included in the list, it should also be clear in what order the countermeasures have been implemented.

6. Effect Confirmation

It is important to measure the impacts of the countermeasures, as this is an indicator of whether your countermeasure is working as intended and reducing the problem or if it is not working as intended and does not provide the intended effect. The Effect Confirmation is the section that makes sure of just that. Often, countermeasures are being implemented but the impact they cause are being neglected. To really confirm that your countermeasures have delivered a successful contribution to your problem, they must be verified by data. For this section, it is important that an effect confirmation plan is prepared, stating how the impacts of the countermeasures are to be measured and who the responsible persons are.

Should the results of your countermeasures not turn out as you expected; perhaps the countermeasures did not affect the causes they were intended to affect, you might want to initially discuss the reason for this with your established team. Consider going through the A3 from the beginning to the end, and evaluate if the followed steps make sense, or an alternative path might need to be considered. An A3 is an iterative process, and seldom are the specific steps only visited once upon completion.

7. Follow-up Actions

The seventh and last section of the A3 is reserved for reflection on the outcome and learnings. An example of a reflection could be if there are any other locations, processes or machines that the outcome of the A3 could also be exploited. Another possibility that is more closely related to the follow-up action headline would be to investigate some of the other potential causes for the problem, or even to dig deeper into the root cause itself. Often it is possible to reach deeper levels of a root-cause than the level you can actually do something about. It may be a supplier who is responsible for levels deeper than the one chosen to act on. Therefore, as a part of the follow-up actions, this may be essential to look further into, as it will probably also create value to the supplier.

When can an A3 not be used?

Usually one would find the section describing when the tool can be used before the section describing when it cannot be used. The reason for this is that this section will describe the prerequisite for the utilization of the tool.

Even though the A3 is a very general and broad tool that can be utilized almost everywhere using the correct approach, there are limitations. Numerous companies have in their pursuit of success in problem-solving tried to implement the A3 into the company structure, but ended up short compared to the results achieved at Toyota. The probable reason for the failed implementations of the A3 is to be found in the mindset towards the approach of an A3. Companies failing to implement the A3 are often focusing on solutions that show immediate results which often relate more to "fire fighting" than to the actual root-cause. Understanding and following the mindset and approach of an A3 is just a great success factor as the ability to follow and fill out each section. In conclusion, one must first familiarize themself with the A3 thinking, before rushing into the problem-solving process. As formulated by Durward K. Sobek II and Art Smalley, there are seven elements of A3 thinking one should reflect upon before they embark on the actual A3[2]:

1. Logical Thinking process

skriv alle 7 elements op og skriv et tilstrækkeligt stykke tekst til

When can an A3 be used?

skriv at det er vigtigt at have et diverst team - gerne så sagen kan ses fra flere forskellige perspektiver

References

1. ↑ D.K. Sobek, Art Smalley, Understanding A3 thinking, Productivity Press, 2008

reference code to relevant places will be added later. For now:

[1] Schwagerman III, William C., Ulmer, Jeffrey M., The A3 Lean Management and Leadership thought process, The Journal of Technology Management, 2013

[2] D.K. Sobek, Art Smalley, Understanding A3 thinking, Productivity Press, 2008

[3] Slootmans, Stijn, Project Management and PDSA-Based projects, Springer International Publishing, 2018

[4] Munro, Rodrick A., Ramu, Govindarajan, Zrymiak, Daniel J., The Certified Six Sigma Green Belt Handbook, 2nd Edition, ASQ Quality Press, 2015

Further Reading

link to PDCA wiki article or other PDCA material