A3 Dojo: Share and Discuss A3s with Other Lean Thinkers

As I teach problem-solving to companies, I find many common mistakes by people who are learning/using the process. It's easy when you are in the learning process to quickly develop bad habits, and important to recognize them and develop better ones. Here are questions to help you avoid some of the common mistakes people make. 

Does every individual in your organization understand the Purpose of their work? Or, better put, do they understand how their actions in solving their current problem relate to the company KPI's (Key Performance Indicators in terms of Quality, Safety, Productivity, and Cost)? Each individual should ask themselves, “Why am I selecting this problem to solve?” They should understand how this problem is aligned with the Company Business Plan (Hoshin). They should also ask: By solving this how am I contributing to the improvement of the company? Is this a value-added problem?

Is everyone utilizing the power of the GEMBA? Or, is everyone going to see the work/process? I often see teams working together in a conference room trying to solve the problem by using their experiences, hypothetical guesses, assumptions and opinions. I quickly disperse the huddle to "GO-SEE" and visualize with their own eyes, the current situation. You will always improve your ability to describe the current situation when you have talked to the worker and can confirm this with facts. Then you can utilize that information to see where you are related to the standard or ideal situation. The difference between the two would be your gap or problem. So get out from behind your desk and GO-SEE, set the standard as a leader.

Are you digging down to find root cause? Productive problem solving is based on persistently asking "WHY" until you get to root cause. Often times, because we get focused on results, we only get to the symptom level of the problem. This can only produce a short term fix at best, and ensures that the problem is destined to return.This is not a sustainable practice with your problem solving so please ask WHY more than once!!! The 5 -Why is just an expression the Japanese trainers would say to us to create a habit of asking more than once. So please don’t take it literally. Sometimes it takes two whys and sometimes ten or eleven; every why chain is unique to the gemba and is designed to gather the facts of the situation. To do this it’s essential to involve, engage and challenge the workers to assist in your investigation.

Are you measuring in specific performance terms? There are two questions that should ALWAYS be asked when you begin problem solving. First, what should be happening? Second, what is actually happening? The next level is to quantify the difference between those two questions. If you do not have a measurable gap, then the A3 or Problem Solving report will be very difficult to measure on the right side of the A3. How will you know your countermeasure is effectively addressing the root cause unless you have a quantifiable gap on the left side? When coaching A3s I often find the current situation stating that this happens a “few” times a week. When I used subjective words like this my Japanese trainer would always look at me and say, for example, “a few, I do not understand – please explain”.  What he meant by that was to get the data, do not make assumptions.  A “few” could mean various things.

Are you doing this everyday with everything you do? The last common mistake I will talk about in this post is crucial in my opinion. I often see companies "put on" Kaizen weeks, Kaizen Blitzes, Rapid Improvement Events, and so forth. These can be called many different things, and the descriptions give off the impression that problem solving is only done on "special occasions". If a company's desire is to be successful their motto should be: Problem Solving-Everyday-Everybody. This was a common practice for me during my time at Toyota. It is the biggest difference I see when visiting other organizations—this work is deemed as more "special" than the "everyday" culture. In my travels I’ve started to give a subtle nudge to not call it anything, I believe that is the root of develop habits. As Nike says, “Just do it”. No need for labels, make it a way of business.

Are you aware of whether each decision you make at the workplace is based on a fact, or on an assumption? I believe you would be amazed at how many fall into the latter category. In fact, do you even make a distinction between the two? Are we so used to reacting to a situation that assumption-based thinking is the new fact? I find it alarming when visiting organizations to discover high-level leadership down through the team member level being reactive due to a result driven environment. Simply stopping to confirm a thought is frowned upon as inappropriate behavior. Who condones this? Why is it perceived as acceptable leadership practices/skills?

So I would like to share an acronym with you to break these debilitating habits.  I’m not sure if it warrants an official acronym label since its more of a questioning process but it may help you remember to think before you act and to question your decisions a little better. Let me share:

RATA (Results > Actions > Thinking > Assumptions)

To clarify:

What are our results that were produced by our daily actions that were driven by our thinking that were based on the assumptions we made?

So let’s breakdown this process down by using this (RATA) questioning sequence to understand how we may be doing business, or how we are “thinking” as an organization. When we talk about Lean for instance, I hear many different ideas from people as to what that means to them and their company.  One of the first exercises I do in my sessions is to get a “finger on the pulse” as to how people understand or perceive Lean. I ask them to define it for me, and then we go around the room and share.  I normally get all the “buzzy” words and ideas which is usually what I expect to hear. One key point that is usually absent is the integration of people, which starts my day one morning discussion because I recognize a gap already.

So if I’m a leader in an organization that is attempting to integrate Lean thinking within the current culture then I may need to begin by asking a few questions. What is Lean? Why are we trying to implement it? What problems are we having that Lean seems to be the countermeasure for? Lastly, how is it going for you? Or what is the status of your integration?

Here are some things one could ask that relate to RATA.

What are the results I’m getting? This can be a broad-scoped question as well as one dialed in to a specific process. A broad-scoped example could be related to the Hoshin or business plan. For example: How is our productivity in regard to customer demand? A more narrowly scoped question could be: what is the productivity for a specific machine that contributes upward to the larger productivity goals? Depending upon your specific level in the organization would determine which questions you may be asking, or it could be both. 

Results are a good indicator of how we are doing, but I would like to differentiate between what you measure, and the results that themselves. I spend some time in my sessions discussing “leading versus lagging” indicators. A lagging indicator is historical in nature—something we are tracking that has already happened, such as a safety incident. A person has been hurt, we have to track it, but it’s after the fact. A leading indicator would be something process oriented that allows us to possibly prevent the incident, such as a near miss. Then we can examine what in the process allowed this to happen; it must be studied at the gemba (where the work is being done). My personal opinion is there should be a balanced scale of some type in regard to process and results (leading and lagging). If the scale is tipped heavily to the result side then we are more than likely a result-oriented company (manage by numbers). What I try to embed is that all results are affected by some type of process, so those are your leading indicators you must visualize and improve continuously.   

When I then start to ask the questions about my results, and can assess what I’m measuring then I would ask, what actions are taking place on a daily basis that are producing these? Our actions as leaders are very important because they define how we are managing our specific scope or area; it also defines how our people view an abnormality when it occurs. First off, can they see it? Is it visible to them? Is there a known standard? These are ways to assess our actions that lead us to a particular thinking process that is either learned or considered what I hear often as “tribal knowledge”.  How we answer the questions above could in turn tell us how reactive we are (fire hose), versus stopping to ask specific questions that lead us to a process that isn’t meeting expectations for internal or external customers and countermeasuring the situation.

If we can develop a discipline to assess our thinking that drives these actions then we can get to the root of an assumption versus a fact-based culture. I believe that this is one of the keys to success for Lean to take hold like a stake in the ground where people and process are the essence. I will admit that the majority of the practices I see out there are based highly on assumptions. This thinking is neither repeatable, nor sustainable and leads to symptom fighting most of the time unfortunately—back to the fire hose. It is my hope that we, as senseis in the lean community, can begin to use this questioning sequence that can change our thinking and actions which in turns improve the way we do business.  It all starts with gemba visits and knowing how to get the facts.

“Your stuff is great,” say people who come to my sessions about successful lean implementation, “but I don’t work in manufacturing so this won’t work for me.”

Perhaps these people assume my lean teachings don’t apply because I was taught at Toyota by Japanese trainers and learned through ten years of experience in production. Or maybe they’ve heard too much about lean success at other manufacturers. But I know that lean applies everywhere—and it is my Purpose as a trainer to one day eliminate this question from occurring. And my plan to do this is to address it at the root cause—which I believe is a misunderstanding about the key principles that spurred the development of the tools, methods, and procedures of TPS. I’d like to help people translate lean thinking to any organization.

Many people get confused because they believe that lean is no more than a set of tools such as 5S and kanban and ways of reducing waste that are effective (and only useful in a manufacturing setting.) But that is far from the truth.

In the wonderful book The Birth of Lean, it is pointed out that Taichii Ohno basically developed the Toyota Production System (TPS) as a set of “tools” or “countermeasures” to help them be more effective, efficient and develop people. (“Ohno-san wasn’t consciously working on any system at first. He was simply [solving problems] and ended up creating a system,” according to Michikazu Tanaka, who learned from Ohno directly.) I chuckle when I tell folks that not ALL the tools worked even within the walls of Toyota. And it's not even the tool that matters most. What counts above all is the thinking behind the tool that I try to translate.

I’ve found that people can begin to translate lean to their organization—regardless of what it does—when they study four basic principles of lean, which I call the 4Ps. I am building here on Jim Womack’s argument that lean is about 3Ps: People, Purpose, and Process. To that I would add Problems.

So when people say to me, "this is just for manufacturing", I ask the following questions:

1.  Do you have a purpose to your organization?

2.  Do you have people in your organization?

3.  Do you have processes that create some type of output or service in your organization?

4.  Do you have problems within your organization?

When they answer yes to all these questions above (I am waiting for the day when someone replies to one of these with a no), I tell them they can implement the “thinking processes” to this thing we all call LEAN by working to differentiate the tools from the process or thinking behind it.  That’s when I see the light bulbs turn on. Let's look at each one briefly.

Purpose

Purpose, to me, is all about True North: a guiding beacon that provides direction as a company and leads the company to successful thinking that fosters good leadership. At  Toyota our True North was:  Customer First thinking, making the highest quality product, at the lowest cost, with the shortest lead time, in the safest manner, all while respecting people. This cut across all our key performance indicators as a company and it was an evolutionary statement.  We never got there because if we did we raised the bar and improved. Purpose is why you are doing business!

People

Cliches may be suspect if they’re too familiar, but I’m going to let this one fly anyway since it happens to be true: people are the most important asset in your organization!  They determine the rise and fall of your business; and in the lean system, they are counted on as the key to long-term success. If we don't invest in our people then we are missing out on the extraordinary brainpower they have to make a difference. It is our job as leaders to develop their thinking every day at the gemba by asking the right questions. People are the heart and soul of lean thinking and without their buy-in, engagement, involvement, and understanding of how it ties to purpose and alignment of their work; then our gains will be short-term gains at best.  I remember when I was promoted into management at Toyota my trainer said to me, "Tracey san, do you realize that 50% of your job now is to develop your people"!  I'm here to tell you this is KEY!

Process

Do you realize as human beings that our lives are centered around processes? When you get down to it everything we do has some type of process to it. If there is an output created then there is a process involved. It is our role as a leader to document these processes and standardize them so your people understand the expectations. We are creatures of habit. To get up everyday and get ready for work you have a process or a routine that is followed. By process I mean a sequence of events/steps that have to happen to create the outcome we want. For example most people enjoy their coffee in the morning; some may have coffee pots set for a specific time to start brewing at 5am. Some prefer to start this when they wake up.  If I like mine with cream and sugar then I insert a specific amount to meet a personal standard I’ve set for taste. When there are discrepancies that occur we should be able to track back through our process steps to understand how it occurred. As Taichii Ohno says, "without a standard there can be no kaizen!" 

So standards are just the processes we do. We may not do them in the same way, which requires you as a leader to uncover or create the best known method in order to gain consensus and buy-in (as discussed above). And then, if there is a better way we improve. So in regard to standards/processes as I was taught, you first must define what you feel the best know method is, then we must achieve it by looking at repeatability and predictability.  Once its achieved then we try and maintain, and if maintained for a certain period of time (in my experience 1-2 months it was the expectation to raise the bar and improve the standard which takes us back- define again- DAMI- Define-Achieve-Maintain-Improve. That folks is the heart and soul continuous improvement.

Please understand that a solid purpose, a workforce of engaged people, and documented processes that are recognized by everyone as Standards, all set you up beautifully to recognize abnormalities…which takes us to the last P.

Problems

When we have the ability to recognize abnormality at a glance we are light years ahead of most organizations. I often ask the question:  How do you know you have a problem?  I often hear, “well it happens a lot”.  I can remember once saying that to my Japanese trainer. He replied, “Oh, a lot I do not understand, please explain”.  This was his way of teaching me NOT to make assumptions without having the facts. What did I mean by “a lot”? If we don't have documented standards, then we can not see when things are abnormal, which leaves us to guessing, which turns into symptom fighting. This also tends to remove the ability to hold our people accountable for their actions. Having Standards that enable people to identify when things are not normal, and to recognize this gap from standard as a problem, provides an opportunity for a problem-solving method that trains, teaches, improves, fosters learning. Once the abnormality is discovered and properly framed, we can apply PDCA (plan do check act) thinking in the form of the 8-step problem solving process to eliminate the gaps. To me, problem solving is the glue that makes it all stick together! Without the 4P's you probably have a fire hose on your back.  Just a guess! :)

So if you have any doubts that lean is just a manufacturing based methodology, then I would like to challenge you to think differently about the thinking behind lean and that it can be translated into ANY organization. I promise!  

Most of my clients ask me: "What should our leaders be doing"?  They’re looking for tangible actions that direct their leaders in this lean environment they are trying very hard to create.  They want a recipe to follow—a magic wand to be waved for the transformation to suddenly happen.  I wish it were that easy. But as many of you know this isn't the case. Lean has to be lived, felt, seen, and experienced. Lean must be backed up by high-level leadership walking the walk.

When I was at Toyota the Japanese trainers would commonly use the word "behave".  To me that sounded like advice for grade school, but when I thought more deeply about what they seemed to be saying I realized that action can be interpreted as a behavior—which is what I believe they were talking about.

So my quick response to this question is that lean leadership requires a way of living, of behaving—as opposed to simply doing. I’ve coined an acronym to help communicate this, which I call GTS².  What does this stand for you may ask?  Well let's remember it and start to spread it, its essential if you are trying to transform your company with lean thinking.

Here is the behavior:

Go to See & Grasp the Situation!  GTS ²

The starting point for any lean thinking (and the beginning of producing an A3) is Go To See (GTS), which can also be captured as Go To the Source (GTS). This habit is very hard to form, since we tend to rely on assumptions formed from our experience or from what someone has told us based on "tribal knowledge".  My Japanese trainers would often say to me “Please--Go Looking!!” They may have known just a minimal amount of English but we knew what they meant. When I visit the Gemba with clients they can only rarely answer my questions because they don’t have the facts. They have many assumptions, but not the facts. It is only when we Go To See that we can uncover the truth.

But remember how this is GTS²? That’s because learning to see is just the beginning. Once we GO SEE, we must then Grasp The Situation. How do you grasp the situation? By asking the right questions! When I work with others as a trainer I share many questions with them to ask.  For now let’s begin with the 2 most essential questions a company and their leaders (at every level) should be asking:

What should be happening? (Ideal State or Standard)
What is currently happening? (Current state)

The first question is aimed at defining the Ideal State, or Standard. And the second question defines your Current State. Consider your Problem as the gap between these two conditions. These 2 questions should always be quantified!  For example:

Productivity should be at 95%
Current productivity is at 85%

This will give us a 10% gap that we will begin to breakdown and ask further questions!

From my experience as a consultant of 13 years now, I find that most companies I work with (even ones that you may think should know) can't answer those two questions. They don’t track the information or are simply in the habit of making assumptions, and as a result they cannot frame a problem as a simple gap between what should be happening and what is actually occurring.

Because I was essentially raised with this thinking at Toyota, these simple questions feel natural to me. But I constantly find that helping others develop this behavior—especially leaders—is challenging. Far too many people are running around trying to fight fires or make fixes based on loose assumptions. This type of problem solving is weak at best, and surely not repeatable for long-term sustainability.  

So in response to the question of what lean leaders must do, I will respond by suggesting they consider GTS². The challenge is less about doing lean than being lean—a way of thinking that starts by Going to See, and then Grasping the Situation. This won’t feel natural at first but it can be learned. GTS² works, try it!

In a previous column I suggested that one of the best ways to get started with A3 thinking is to take the lead and basically "try" the A3 process. Run an experiment in the spirit of the Plan, Do, Check, Act cycle. This may be a challenge that forces you to take the lead as the coach or leader, something which may be daunting when you are not the formal boss. So here’s an approach to consider.

I’ve learned that a productive way to deploy an A3 is to take what you have learned and mentor the process upward with your boss. I have certainly confronted this in my own experience as I grappled with my own organization's inexperience and suspicion of the A3. When I was first working with the A3 process, I knew from experience that my organization would benefit if they would only use it. And yet a common response was “who needs another problem solving form anyway?”

So I chose to just start using the A3 process rather than convince my boss about its many benefits. In fact, with my direct boss, with process owners I was assisting and with project champions, I didn’t even refer to it as the A3 process at first. Instead I engaged them in the critical early work that is necessary, and recommend that you try this as well. The A3 was my "portable whiteboard" that I used to get the engagement of others.

So, the next time you are given a problem to resolve, take a few minutes to craft the BACKGROUND, CURRENT SITUATION and TARGET sections of the A3 (the specific headings are not as important as grasping the situation - see Managing to Learn by John Shook for more details on HOW to craft these sections).

Then, sit down with your boss for an informal meeting to review your initial A3. Explain that you want to make sure you understand the context of the problem before you spend too much time analyzing the problem. Why spend energy deeply analyzing a problem if we don’t really agree on the issue? Next move on to performing the analysis, again followed by a review. Point out, again, an important safeguard: Why start suggesting solutions if there is not agreement on how you have chosen to analyze the problem? Repeat this same process for the recommendations section and then the action plan. 

Personally, I have found this approach to be very effective. I once had a project focused on paycheck accuracy. This was a process that had high visibility, was important to everyone in the company and involved many stakeholders. An A3 was utilized with the team and with the project champion. We didn't focus on the fact that it was an A3; the focus was on engagement at all levels. I knew we were making an impact when the project champion called me one evening asking for the most recent copy of "our summary," as he had a meeting the next day and wanted to communicate the current status of the project.

Perhaps I am just lucky, but I have yet to find a boss or champion who did not like me keeping them engaged in working a problem, in a concise and easy to understand format. What's NOT to like!! In fact I have found this approach to always be successful with my bosses. They quickly came to appreciate having a synopsis of the status of the project that they, too, could share and engage others. More than once this resulted in A3s spreading within our department and then to the rest of the company.

Granted, your boss might not be the best at mentoring you with questions – but you can work on that later. Once your boss has begun to understand the power of the A3 process by seeing the specific benefit of using an A3 in a detailed manner, you can then introduce them more formally to the process either through books or training.