Mentoring using A3 Thinking

www.leanuk.org
David Brunt & John Kiff
November 2nd & 3rd 2010
Lean Enterprise Academy1
“Managing to Learn”
Mentoring Using
A3 Thinking

www.leanuk.orgLean Enterprise Academy2
Objectives
 To explore the lessons & insights of Managing
to Learn from 4 perspectives:
 The requirements of sound A3 Thinking &
Management
 To develop your own eyes & ears to recognise
effective A3 stories
 To start applying the A3 problem solving
methodology to your own work
 Learn the basic formats of A3s

Agenda
 What is an A3?
 Understanding PDCA
 Practice using a Real Problem
 Using Problem Solving A3s
 How to review A3s
 Applying A3 Thinking to your
own work

Managing Expectations
 This workshop will address the
objectives………. But it won’t make
you an expert in A3 Thinking
 Only practice will

Background
 Problem solving
deeply influenced by
the methodology
developed by Walter
Shewart at Bell
Laboratories in the
1930’s
 Later adopted & made
popular by
W. Edwards Deming
 Methodology based
on Plan-Do-Check-
Act (PDCA) – The
Deming Cycle
Key texts: John Shook (2008) “Managing to Learn”
Durward Sobek II & Art Smalley (2008): “Understanding A3 Thinking”

The A3 Thinking Steps
 What is the problem?
 Who owns the problem?
 What is the root cause of the problem?
 What are some possible countermeasures?
 How will you choose which countermeasure to propose?
 How will you get agreement among everyone
concerned?
 What is your implementation plan? What timetable?
 How will you know if your countermeasure works?
 What follow-up issues can you anticipate?
 How will ensure learning and continuous improvement?

How do you Want to Manage?
 Make your own list (5 minutes)
 Then discuss with the person next
to you (5 minutes)

Lean Managers do Two
Things
 Get each person to take
initiative to solve problems and
improve his or her job
 Ensure that each persons’ job
is aligned to provide value for
the customer and prosperity for
the company
Ref: John Shook: Leadership for Value Stream Management

Lean Managers do Two
Things
 Get each person to take initiative
to solve problems and improve his
or her job
 Ensure that each persons’ job is
aligned to provide value for the
customer and prosperity for the
company
 A3 process designed to make it
easy:
 To see problems
 To improve
 To learn from

How do you Want to Manage?
 Do you want to manage…..
 With a process or structure that
makes it easier to:
 Gain agreement (alignment?)
 Clarify responsibilities (ownership?)
 Mentor people on the job (ask questions
& develop people?)

Agenda
 What is an A3?
own work

Problem Solving
 In order to learn by doing we will
practice on real problems
 Let me tell you about a production
problem that a certain Supervisor
had to solve

Solving Problems
What is the problem?
Date: _____Dept. ________________Name _______________________
List of possible causes List of possible countermeasures
Exactly what should be done about it? When by? Who do you need to help?

Smith’s Problem Handout
Brown, the drill press operator in Department A was working
at his job, drilling the #1 hole in angle plates.
He had cut his finger while moving tote pans of material to the
work area.
The standard specifications for the job called for gauging one
piece in twenty for size. Brown did this and although the pain
from his finger was diverting his attention all that he gauged
seemed to be good.
He therefore had no indication that the drill was dull nor that
the machine wasn’t running at the correct speed. It was just
as the set-up man had left it. By mid-morning he had
completed five tote pans for a total of 100 pieces.
Smith the Supervisor suddenly called Brown to his desk and
reprimanded him for carelessness in his work.
Brown was angry and felt discouraged. He told the supervisor
he was going home at noon.
Smith the Supervisor was worried because Department B
needed the work now or they would stop production. The
Inspector had told him that a great many of the angle plates
were off specifications

What is a Problem?
 A “problem” is… the gap between the way things are
now & the way they’re supposed to be, or you want
them to be, in the future
 A manager has a problem when the work assigned fails
to produce the expected results
(Ref: TWI Training Materials)

Problem Solving Process
1. Initial Problem Perception
(Large, vague, complicated problem)
2. Clarify the problem
The “Real” Problem
3. Locate Area/
Point of Cause
POC
7. Standardise
6. Evaluate
5. Countermeasure
Root Cause
Direct Cause
Cause
Cause
Cause
Cause
Basic Cause & Effect
Investigation
4.5-Why? Investigation
Of Root Cause
Cause
Investigation
Grasp the
Situation
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Clarify the goal
Relate the importance of the
problem
Clarify the scope & purpose
of your effort
Gather necessary facts & data
Determine the root cause
Generate ideas
Test ideas
Confirm Results
Develop Implementation Plan
Implement the Plan

5 Whys
The machine stopped
The overload circuit tripped
The pump was seized up
Metal shavings damaged the shaft
Shavings entered lubrication system
No filter on the inlet pipe
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?

Agenda
 What is an A3?
own work

www.leanuk.org
Lean…
Lean is “process-focused”.
 Which process is most important?
 The process where the work is being done because that’s
where things are happening or not happening that are
contributing to the GAP in performance.
 What is the process of A3 Problem Solving?
 The process of Grasping the Actual Situation first-hand to
link problems in performance to the process problems that
are contributing to them & looking for the causes of those
problems in the work process.
20

www.leanuk.org
Go See…and Listen
21
“Data is of course important,
but I place greater emphasis
on facts.-Taiichi Ohno
And where do you find the FACTS of a situation?
At the Gemba – the place where the problem is
actually happening. Not in a conference room or
at a desk.
Grasp the actual condition firsthand

www.leanuk.org
How We Can Solve Problems
More Effectively?
Our Natural Human Tendency?
22
Perception
of a
Problem
The
SOLUTION
Impressions
&
Assumptions
TheoryFACTS
BLACK
HOLE
22
Developed by David Verble

www.leanuk.org
How We Can Solve Problems
More Effectively?
Ask Questions to Help Ourselves SEE:
What’s Actually Happening?
What do I actually know?
23
The Real
or Main
Problem
A
SOLUTION
Impressions &
Assumptions
Theory
FACTS
FACTS
FACTS
FACTS
Developed by David Verble

www.leanuk.org
The Three Most Common
Problems in Problem Solving
1. Assuming you know what the problem is
without seeing what is actually happening
2. Assuming you know how to solve a
problem without finding out what is
causing it
3. Assuming the action you have taken to
solve a problem is working without
checking to see if it is actually doing what
you expected
In other words - Not Grasping the Situation
24

I. Background
New domestic plant expansion has massive
technical requirements that must be translated
from Japanese to English. The size and
complexity of the project are creating errors and
delays
A3#1 Create Robust Process for Translating Documents
II. Current Conditions
Cost overruns, delays, and errors due to:
• Sheer volume of documents
• Multiple and varied vendors (pricing, quality,
ease)
• Involvement of various departments and working
styles
III. Goals/Targets
• Simplify and standardise the process
• Reduce costs by 10%
IV. Analysis
• Challenge of translating from Japanese to
English
• Multiple varied vendors create a complex,
nonstandard process
• Overall improvement can be defined by
reduction in cost overruns
VI. Plan
Evaluate current vendor
Identify new vendor candidates
Develop bid package, distribute, and choose
winning bid
VII. Followup
Monitor cost to proposal
Review performance at end of one-year contract
V. Proposed Countermeasures
Simplify and improve process performance by
choosing one vendor based on competitive bid
process
DP
6/1/08

I. Background
Acme plant to double capacity!
Much document translation required!
• Poor English translations of Japanese documents caused many
problems at original plant start up
• Expansion plans call for aggressive launch timeline and cost
reduction
A3#2 Deliver Perfect Translations
IV. Analysis
VI. Plan
VII. Followup
DP
6/3/08
Problems in document
translation at time of
initial plant launch:
Cost = High
Delivery = Highly variable
Quality = Many errors!
Problems in
document translation
process have not been
corrected!
2
5
0
Document translation problems could impede plant launch!
5
0
0
Document
translations
tsunami
Current Expansion
Now Begin translation Launch
12 months 6 months
Translators
Engineering
HR,
other Job
instructions
Office
documents
Technical
engineering
document
IT
Gen
Documents by
department
Documents by
type

I. Background
• Poor English translations of Japanese documents caused many
problems at original plant start up
• Expansion plans call for aggressive launch timeline and cost
reduction
A3#2 Deliver Perfect Translations
IV. Analysis
VI. Plan
VII. Followup
DP
6/3/08
Problems in document
translation at time of
initial plant launch:
Cost = High
Delivery = Highly variable
Quality = Many errors!
Problems in
document translation
process have not been
corrected!
2
5
0
5
0
0
Document
translations
tsunami
Current Expansion
12 months 6 months
Translators
Engineering
HR,
other Job
instructions
Office
documents
Technical
engineering
document
IT
Gen
Documents by
department
Documents by
type
Don’t get
ahead of
yourselves
How high?
How variable?
How many errors?
Is this the right title?

Breaking Down Porter’s
Problem
 Why don’t the employees
have the translated
documents when they
need them?
 The documents don’t get
into the system on time
 Why don’t the documents
get into the system on
time?
 Because the translators
take too long to
complete them
 Why do the translators
take too long to complete
them?
 Because the translators
work at different paces
 Why do they work at
different paces?

Porter’s Problem Analysis
Tree

Tree

Porter’s Current State Map
“Cost overages come from rework,
Expediting, and overtime – most
of which come from errors!”

A3#3 Support Launch Objectives with Accurate, Timely Document Translation
Next Steps
IV. Analysis
DP
6/6/08
I. Background
• Poor English translations of Japanese documents caused many problems at
original plant start up
• Expansion plans call for aggressive launch timeline and cost reduction
III. Goals/Targets
Problems in document translation at
time of launch:
Cost = 10% over budget
Delivery = Over 50% late
Long, variable lead times
Quality = Much rework >50%
Many errors reach
customer
Overall = Constant expediting
Poor quality
Much rework
Overtime
Everyone unhappy
Problems in document translation
process have not been corrected!
2
5
0
5
0
0
Document
translations
tsunami
Current Expansion
12 months 6 months
Translators
Office
documents
Gen
Engineering
HR,
other Job
instructions
Office
documentsIT
Gen
Documents by
department
Documents by
type
Job
instructions
Office
documents
Technical
engineering
document
Quality - 0 defects at launch
- Rework less than 10%
Delivery - 100% on-time
Cost - 10 % decrease – Rework down; overtime down
What Who When
Confirm agreement of the analysis Porter Next week
Begin generation and evaluation Porter Next two weeks
of countermeasures
Volume Delivery
and LT
problems
Error
generation
100%
Job
inst’s
Tech
eng
docs
Office
docs
Current-state map
Lostintranslation
Lost
Translation
problems
In physical transit
In cyberspace
In in-basket
In out-basket
Random causes:
 No ability to track
 Unclear expectations
Large batches of work
Confusing formats
Random use of vocabulary
Written explanations of
complex operations
Unclear expectations,
lack of training
Selection
Training
No standard vocabulary
No or poor editing
Unclear expectations
Uneven and
unpredictable workloads
Poor original
Translator’s
skills
Wrong technical
vocabulary
Poorly written
or expressed
Translator can’t
understand original
Translator
understands
original but still
poor translation
Processcharacteristics
andweaknesses
Vendor
processes
Acme
internal
processes
Original
document
creation
Vendor’s document
processing variance
Translator’s different
expertise
No quality check
No timing check
Send to random
translators
Varying technical
expertise
Varying English
ability
Varying document
formatting ability
Varying skills
in writing
documents
Different
vocabulary for
same item
Varying language
used by different
shops and depts
No central oversight Each shop or department
handles independently
No monitor of
quality or timing
Poor process to
select vendors
No ability to
standardise
Huge variation
in process
Random sending to
random vendors
Have you
clearly
shown the
problem
breakdown?
Is the root
cause clear?

A3#4 Support Launch Objectives with Accurate, Timely Document Translation
Next Steps
DP
6/13/08
I. Background
• Poor English translations of Japanese documents caused many problems at
original plant start up
• Expansion plans call for aggressive launch timeline and cost reduction
III. Goals/Targets
Problems in document translation at
time of launch:
Cost = 10% over budget
Delivery = Over 50% late
Long, variable lead times
Quality = Much rework >50%
Many errors reach
customer
Overall = Constant expediting
Poor quality
Much rework
Overtime
Everyone unhappy
Problems in document translation
process have not been corrected!
2
5
0
5
0
0
Document
translations
tsunami
Current Expansion
12 months 6 months
Translators
Office
documents
Gen
Engineering
HR,
other Job
instructions
Office
documentsIT
Gen
Documents by
department
Documents by
type
Job
instructions
Office
documents
Technical
engineering
document
Quality - 0 defects at launch
- Rework less than 10%
Delivery - 100% on-time
Cost - 10 % decrease – Rework down; overtime down
What Who When
Confirm agreement of countermeasure evaluations Porter Next two weeks
And target-state map
Begin consolidation of plan and overall timeline Porter Next three weeksVolume Delivery
and LT
problems
Error
generation
100%
Job
inst’s
Tech
eng
docs
Office
docs
Current-state map
IV. Analysis
Lostintranslation
Lost
Translation
problems
Large batches
Random causses:
Poor document creation skills
Many document formats
Random use of technical vocabulary
Written descriptions of complex
operations
Poor or wrongly skilled translator
No or poor editing
Large batches and uneven and
Target-state map
Cause Counter Description Eval.
Benefit
-measure
A
B
Central
document-flow
Tracking
process
Overall process ownership established
V. Countermeasures
How much consensus does
the organisation have
around the
countermeasure?
Who agrees/disagrees?
How did you
determine the
evaluations?
Is this doable?
Is there any risk?
What is the incremental
cost?
What is the expected ROI?

Tree: 3 Root Cause GroupingsLostintranslation
Lost
Translation
problems
Lost & never found 5%
Lost & found 40%
Just stuck 40%
Never lost 15%
Large batches
Random causes:
Incomprehensible
original documents
Incorrect or difficult to
understand translations
(even with clear originals)
Poor document creation skills
Many document formats
Random use of technical vocabulary
Written descriptions of complex
operations
Poor or wrongly skilled translator
No or poor editing
Large batches and uneven and
3 common issues: 1) Lost documents, 2) translation problems due to
problematic originals, and 3) translation problems due to a poor translation process

Porter’s Target State Map

Set-Based Decision Making
Learn how to learn
 Focus on real problems
 Learn by doing & “Go See”
 Teach the correct process for closing gaps
 Prioritise the “vital few”
 Design a series of experiments
 Set based concurrent development
 No one best intervention method, but a mix that we
test to find out the best ways
Specifications
Launch
Analyse
& Test
Detail
(repeat for sub-
systems, then assemble)
Improve
Pick One
Concept
s
Diagram Ref: Allen C. Ward, “Lean Product & Process Development” (2007)

Porter’s Countermeasures

Agenda
 What is an A3?
own work

Review Questions
 What is the problem or issue?
 Who owns the problem?
 What is the root cause of the problem?
 What are some possible countermeasures?
 How will you decide which countermeasures to propose?
 How will you get agreement from everyone concerned?
 What is your implementation plan
 Who, What, When, Where, How?
 How will you know if your countermeasures work?
 What follow-up issues can you anticipate? What
problems may occur during implementation?
 How will you capture and feed back the learning?

Root Cause Analysis
Countermeasures
Effect Confirmation
Follow-up Actions
Background
Goal
 Is there a clear theme for the report that
reflects the contents?
 Is the topic relevant to the organisation’s
objectives?
 Is there any other reason for working on this
topic (e.g. learning purposes)?
Theme: Review Questions For Problem Solving A3s
Ref: Sobek & Smalley 2008 pp 50
Current Situation
 Is the current condition clear & logically
depicted in a visual manner?
 How could the current condition be made
more clear for the audience?
 Is the current condition depiction framing a
problem or situation to be resolved?
 Are the facts of the situation clear, or are
there just observations & opinions?
 Is there a clear goal or target?
 What, specifically, is to be accomplished?
 How will this goal be measured or evaluated?
 What will improve, by how much, and when?
 Are there clear countermeasure steps
identified?
 Do the countermeasures link to the root
cause of the problem?
 Are the countermeasures focussed on the
right area?
 Who is responsible for doing what, by
when (is 5W1H clear)?
 Will these action items prevent recurrence
of the problem?
 Is the implementation order clear and
reasonable?
 How will the effects of the
countermeasures be verified?
 How will you measure the effectiveness of
the countermeasures?
 Does the check item align with the
previous goal statement?
 Has actual performance moved in line with
the goal statement?
 If performance has not improved, then
why? What was missed?
 What is necessary to prevent recurrence of
the problem?
 What remains to be accomplished?
 What other parts of the organisation need
to be informed of this result?
 How will this be standardised and
communicated?
 Is the analysis comprehensive at a broad
level?
 Is the analysis detailed enough and did it
probe deeply enough on the right issues?
 Is there evidence of proper 5 whys thinking
about true cause?
 Has cause and effect been demonstrated or
linked in some manner?
 Are all the relevant factors considered
(human, machine, material, method,
environment, measurement, and so on?

Current Situation
Root Cause Analysis
Countermeasures
Effect Confirmation
Follow-up Actions
Background
1. Corporate Goals 2006
 Increase global market share
 Improve quality & service
 Increase corporate profits
2. Manufacturing Goals 2006
 Improve reduce cost by 5%
 Reduce scrap 15%
 Improve productivity 7%
 Improve HSE index 10%
*Health, safety & environment
Not meeting goal
for 2006
1
2
3
Overall
Scrap %
3.2
2.7 2.6
2004 2005 2006
(YTD)
2.3%
Goal
Current Situation
1
2
3
£K 700
200
86
2004 2005 2006
(YTD)
4
5
6
Scrap by Department
Breakdown of Machine Shop
Scrap Rates
Status*
460150232740
Scrap
£K
8.73.70.70.91.5
Scrap
%
Final
Grindi
ng
Roug
h
Grindi
ng
Drillin
g
Turni
ng
Milli
ng
Proces
s
*Legend 0–1% 1–2% 2+%
Goal  Reduce scrap in rough grind from 3.7% to less than
2% by December 2006
 Reduce scrap in final grinding from 8.7% to less than
2% by December 2006
Undersized
Shaft defect
Contamination
Grinding wheel
Set up
Manual offsets
Dimensions
Hardness
Surface finish
MAN MACHINE
MATERIAL METHOD
Spindle
Clamp & locator
Grinding wheel
Grinding conditions
Coolant
concentration
Wheel
dressing
72% of grinding defects
Suspected Cause Action Item Responsible Dat
e Finding
1. Dirt & contamination Daily 5S & PM tasks Tony (T/L) 2/11 Conducting daily. No issues.
2. Grinding wheel set up
check
Grinding wheel set up
check Tony (T/L) 4/11 Checked out O.K.
3. Manual offset function Check offset function Tony (T/L) 4/11 Checked out O.K.
4. Spindle bearing loose Check spindle bearing Ed (Maint) 5/11 Loose bearing cap. Tightened.
5. Clamp & locator damage Check camp & locator Ed (Maint) 5/11 Nothing abnormal.
6. Grinding wheel balance Check grinding wheel Tony (T/L) 5/11 Nothing abnormal.
7. Incoming part
dimensions
Measure part
dimensions Janet (QC) 9/11 Within spec.
8. Poor material hardness Measure hardness Janet (QC) 9/11 Within spec.
9. Abnormal surface finish
spec. Check surface finish Janet (QC) 9/11 Within spec.
10 Grinding conditions
abnormal
Check grinding
conditions Mary (Eng) 13/1
1 Nothing abnormal.
11. Coolant concentration Measure concentration Joe (Maint) 13/1
1
Contaminated tanks.
Replaced.
12. Wheel dressing check Check conditions Mary (Eng) 13/1
1 Nothing abnormal.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Dates of action items & results confirmation
Defect%
Finish grinder
Rough grinderSpindle bearing
tightened
Coolant replaced
Target level
YTD
Average
Pending29/11Tom Engineering Mgr.4. Discuss bearing issue with
OEM
In-process22/11Tom Engineering Mgr.3. Communicate findings to
similar plants
Complete15/11Ops & maintenance2. Establish bearing check PM
Complete15/11Ops & maintenance1. Establish coolant check PM
StatusDateResponsibilityInvestigation Item
Pending29/11Tom Engineering Mgr.4. Discuss bearing issue with
OEM
In-process22/11Tom Engineering Mgr.3. Communicate findings to
similar plants
Complete15/11Ops & maintenance2. Establish bearing check PM
Complete15/11Ops & maintenance1. Establish coolant check PM
StatusDateResponsibilityInvestigation Item
Theme: Reducing Scrap in the Machine Shop
To: Chuck O.
From: Art S.
Date: 10/12/06
Ref: Sobek & Smalley 2008 pp48-49

Acme Stamping Steering Bracket Value Stream Improvement
Background
 Acme supplies stamped steel steering brackets (LH & RH) to State
Street Assembly. The product goes through 5 manufacturing processes &
shipping.
 The customer uses 18,400 pcs/month & requires daily shipments in
pallets of 10 trays of 20 brackets. A pallet is either all RH or LH.
Current Situation
 Lead time for steering bracket from coil steel to shipment = 23.6 days.
 Of 23.6 days, only 188 seconds are spent making a bracket.
 Large inventories of material between each process.
 Long changeover times, downtime in welding.
State Street
Assembly
Michigan
Steel Co.
1x daily
I
Production
Control
Daily
Orde
r
Weekly
Fax
6 Week
Forecast
90/60/3
0 Day
Forecast
Weekly Schedule
Daily
Shipp
ing
Sche
dule
Analysis
 Each process operates as isolated islands, disconnected from the
customer.
 Push system, material builds up between each process.
 Each process builds according to its own operating constraints
(changeover, downtime etc.)
 Plans based on 90 & 30 day forecasts from customer. Weekly schedule
for each department. System is frequently overridden to make delivery.
Goals
 Improve profitability of steering bracket value stream.
 Reduce lead time - 23.6 days to 4.5 days.
 Reduce inventories:
 Stamping 7.6 days to 1 day.
 Welding 6.5 days to 0 days.
 Shipping 4.5 days to 2 days.
Recommendations
 Create continuous flow through weld & assembly
 Establish TAKT time . Base the pace of work through weld & assembly
on customer demand.
 Set new weld - assembly cell as pacemaker for entire value stream.
 Establish EPE_ build schedule for stamping based on actual use of
pacemaker cell & pull steel coils from supplier based on actual usage by
stamping.
 Improve uptime in weld.
 Establish material handling routes for frequent withdrawal & delivery.
 Establish new production instruction system with Levelling Box.
Follow Up
 Reviews & involvement of related departments TBD.
Other functions: Production Control Material Handling, Purchasing,
Maintenance, Human Resources, Finance.
Production
Control
Daily
Order
Daily
Order
6 Week
Forecast
90/60/30
Day
Forecast State Street
Assembly
Michigan
Steel Co.
Daily
Order
20
OXO
X
Current State Map
Future State Map
Deliverables Responsible Review
CCF at pacemaker
Kaizen each CT to >TT
Weld uptime to 100%
CO reduction to < TT
Pull at pacemaker
FG = 2 days
KB
Matl handling
Levelling Box
Pull from Stamping
WIP = 1 day
CO < 10 min
Pull from supplier
Info flow
Daily delivery
RM = 1.5 days
Action Plan

Agenda
 What is an A3?
own work

Your Turn
 Using a subject from your own
work area think about how you will
attempt to start the A3 process
 What factors will you have to
consider
 You have 15 minutes

www.leanuk.org
Problem Situation
What I Know – the Problem How to Confirm
What I Need to Know How to Learn it

www.leanuk.org
Final Discussion
 What makes a “good A3” good?
 What is good use of an A3?
 What benefits to an organization
do you see in the A3 process?
52

www.leanuk.org
The A3 Tool as a Process
for…
 Problem Solving
 Proposing Improvements
 Standardizing
 Planning
 Reporting
 Reflection
 Project Management
 Change Management
 Alignment and Agreement
 Organizational Development
 Mentoring, coaching
 Developing people
53
All based
on PDCA

www.leanuk.org
ACT PLAN
CHECK DO
Grasp
the
Situation A P
C D
A P
C D
A P
C D
A P
C D
A P
C D
A P
C D
A P
C D
GTS
(GTS)
Strategy
A3
Proposal
A3
Problem
Solving
A3
Status
A3
Problem
Solving
A3
Status
A3
Problem
Solving
A3
Reflection
A3
Yokoten
A3
Uses Of the A3: P-D-C-A Cycle of
Implementation & Problem Solving
54
AGREE ON
THE PROBLEM,
A HYPOTHESIS,
AND THE PROCESS
TO TRY
DECIDE WHAT ADJUSTMENTS
NEED TO BE MADE, WHAT TO
STANDARDIZE OF THE PROCESS
THAT WORKS, AND
WHAT TO DO NEXT
STUDY BOTH THE
RESULTS AND THE PROCESS.
REFLECT ON WHAT WAS LEARNED
-ABOUT CAUSE AND EFFECT.
- ABOUT OUR CAPABILITY
IMPLEMENT AS PLANNED,
ADJUST AS NECESSARY.

www.leanuk.org
What Makes an A3 a Good
One?
 It tells a story
 It contains objective facts, data
 It “resolves” a problem
 But being technically “right” is only half
the battle…
 Engages and aligns the organization
 What really makes an A3 a “good one”
isn’t the specific collection of facts and
data that tell a perfect problem-solve. A
good A3 is a reflection of the dialogue
that created it.
55

www.leanuk.org
David Brunt & John Kiff
November 2nd & 3rd 2010
“Managing to Learn”
Mentoring Using
A3 Thinking

Mentoring using A3 Thinking

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Mentoring using A3 Thinking

Similar to Mentoring using A3 Thinking (20)

More from Lean Enterprise Academy

More from Lean Enterprise Academy (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Mentoring using A3 Thinking