Background PLAN A3: <problem statement>

Owner:

Mentor:

Date:
Current condition PLAN
Countermeasures (experiments) DO

Goal / Target Condition PLAN

Confirmation (results) CHECK

Root Cause Analysis PLAN

Follow up (actions) ACT

A3 Problem Solving Template v1.2 (April 2015) by Henrik Kniberg and Tom Poppendieck
License: Creative Commons Attribute 4.0 International
Original link: http://www.crisp.se/lean/a3-template
Background PLAN A3: <problem statement>
● Why is this important?
Owner: Leads the problem solving and maintains this A3 doc
● Why should the reader care about this situation and be motivated to participate in
improving?
Mentor: Guides and assesses the process
Assessment Questions Date: Current version Date
1. Is there a clear theme for the problem report that reflects the contents?
2. Is the topic relevant to the organization’s objectives?
3. Is there any other reason for working on this topic (e.g. learning purposes)?

Countermeasures (experiments) DO
Current condition

U I D E PLAN
● Proposed countermeasure(s) to address each candidate root cause (this should be a series

G
● How do things work today? of quick experiment to validate causal model analysis)
● What is the problem? ● Predicted result for each countermeasure
● Baseline Metrics?
Assessment Questions
Assessment Questions 1. Are there clear countermeasure steps identified?
1. Is the current condition clear and logically depicted in a visual manner? 2. Do the countermeasures link to the root cause of the problem?
2. How could the current condition be made clearer for the audience? 3. Are the countermeasures focused on the right areas?
3. Is the current condition depiction framing a problem or a situation to be resolved? 4. Who is responsible for doing what, by when (is “5 Why - 1 How” clear?)
4. What is the actual problem in the current condition? 5. Will these action items prevent recurrence of the problem?
5. Are the facts of the situation clear, or are there just observations and opinions? 6. Is the implementation order clear and reasonable?
6. Is the problem quantified in some manner or is it too qualitative? 7. How will the effects of the countermeasures be verified?

Goal / Target Condition PLAN Confirmation (results) CHECK

● What outcomes are expected for what reasons? ● Actual result of each countermeasure (experiment)
● What changes in metrics can be plausibly expected? ● How does the system actually behave with the countermeasures that are being proposed for
implementation in place?
Assessment Questions
1. Is there a clear goal or target? Assessment Questions
2. What, specifically, is to be accomplished? 1. How will you measure the effectiveness of the countermeasures?
3. How will this goal be measured or evaluated? 2. Does the check item align with the previous goal statement?
4. What will improve, by how much, and when? 3. Has actual performance moved in line with the goal statement?
4. If performance has not improved, then why? What was missed?

Root Cause Analysis PLAN

Follow up (actions) ACT
● What is the root cause(s) of the problem?
● Use a simple problem analysis tool (e.g. 5 why’s, fishbone diagram, cause/effect diagram) to ● What have we learned that does or does not improve the situation?
show cause-and-effect relationships. ● In the light of the learning, what should be done?
● How should the way we work or our standards be adjusted to reflect what we learned?
Assessment Questions ● What do we need to learn next?
1. Is the analysis comprehensive at a broad level?
2. Is the analysis detailed enough and did it probe deeply enough on the right issues? Assessment Questions
3. Is there evidence of proper five-whys thinking about the true cause? 1. What is necessary to prevent recurrence of the problem?
4. Has cause and effect been demonstrated or linked in some manner? 2. What remains to be accomplished?
5. Are all the relevant factors considered (human, machine, material, method, environment, 3. What other parts of the organization need to be informed of this result?
measurement, and so on?) 4. How will this be standardized and communicated?
6. Do all those who will need to collaborate in implementing the countermeasures agree on the
cause/effect reasoning?

A3 Problem Solving Template v1.2 (April 2015) by Henrik Kniberg and Tom Poppendieck
License: Creative Commons Attribute 4.0 International
Original link: http://www.crisp.se/lean/a3-template
Background PLAN A3: Slow game development
Games out of date, 2 years time to market
● Missed market windows ➔ revenue declining Owner: Lisa
● Demotivated teams ➔ key developers about to quit
● Overhead costs ➔ Time to develop games steadily increasing due to declining technical quality Mentor: Henrik
● Pressure to Work FASTER!
Date: 18 May, 2009

LE
MP
EX A
Countermeasures (experiments) DO
1. Cross-functional teams - Graphics design through deployment
Current condition (value stream map) PLAN ○ Predict 2x faster delivery
=> End dependencies - now spend 75% of time waiting/negotiating
3 months value add WTF!
2. Abandon all but most promising 3 games in each queue. Do ONE game at a time per cross-
= 12% process cycle
25 months cycle time efficiency Design-ready Production-ready 2 years?! functional team.
Game backlog games games ○ 4x faster delivery from reduced task switching
○ Eliminating queues will cut 1.3 years from schedule
8 15 12 3. Engage developers in playing games and selecting ideas
○ 30% more profit to par with best competitor
Concept Resource Graphics Sound Integrate
=> improved filtering on which games to develop
Dev
pres. allocation design design & deploy => more fun games, more popular
Idea Delivery
Waste: 1 month 6 months 1 week 6 months 2 months 6 months
Value: 4 hours 1 day 3 weeks
1 month 3 weeks 1 month
Confirmation (results) CHECK

Goal / Target Condition PLAN 1. Cross-functional teams

=> Half as much time waiting
● 8x faster cycle time 2. One game at a time
● 5x fewer escaped defects => Queues eliminated, time to complete game is 3-4 months (6-8x faster)
● 20% improvement in revenue => Technical Debt is decreasing - escaped defects down by 2x so far.
3. Engage developers in playing games and selecting ideas
=> One team taking to to play is producing more innovative games.
=> Impact on profit is to be determined.
Root Cause Analysis (cause-effect diagram) PLAN

Declining sales
Key engineers about Competitive
revenue
to quit Problem market
Problem Company has not
grown people to
Engineers not Games stale & Pressure from vet game ideas Follow up (actions) ACT
proud of their work out of date business to work
Founder/CEO
faster
no longer has
time to vet new
1. Consider more cross training of team members to reduce waiting for expertise.
Copying 2. Reduce difficulty of integration and deployment steps
Taking ever longer to game ideas
Game quality competitors
declining
complete a game games 3. Improve processes for generating and selecting game ideas
a. Recruit talent if identifiable/available
Defects
Tech Debt tolerated b. Improve skills/process of best people already in company
increasing No c. Broaden both participation in selection and game playing experience of everyone in the
Too many effective
Endless delays No Time to new game selection
company
& thrashing Refactor ideas filter 4. Continue improvement of reused game components/engines to improve development throughput
Queues
Teams focus on
and reduce defects.
their own parts Work in Progress Weak understanding
only exceeds capacity of market needs
Features cannot be Root cause
built by single team. X-
team dependencies. Teams divided by Engineers don’t get
architecture No unified view of to play games A3 Problem Solving Template v1.2 (April 2015) by Henrik Kniberg and Tom Poppendieck
priorities Root cause License: Creative Commons Attribute 4.0 International
Root cause
Original link: http://www.crisp.se/lean/a3-template
FAQ But why is it called A3? isn’t that a paper size?
What is this?
Yeah, it’s named after the A3 paper size (297x420mm). The idea is that you
It’s a template for A3 problem solving. Well, the first page is. The second page
should constrain yourself to that space, because it forces you to express
is a check list for the types of questions you should be asking when using it.
yourself briefly and visually. And that increases the likelihood that people will
The third page is a real-life example from a software product development
read and maintain the doc.
context. The fourth page is this here FAQ.
So A3 problem solving isn’t really about the paper. It’s about the problem
A3? What the heck is A3? solving approach. But the A3 doc is there as a guide to keep you focused on
the right questions, and keep the content short and sweet.
“A3 thinking” is a problem solving approach. It is pretty central to Toyota and
other companies with a Lean mindset. Especially useful for systemic Do I have to follow it strictly?
problems, the kind of nasty, thorny problems that just keep coming back
despite your best efforts to solve them.. No, feel free to tweak the headings and questions as needed. Just keep in
mind that the left half of the page should normally be devoted to understanding
How does it work? the problem, and the right side devoted to solving & following up. That way you
get a good balance between analyzing and acting.
A3 problem solving is about understanding the problem first, before
jumping to solutions. For systemic problems, the obvious solution is often Should I print it or use it electronically?
the wrong one, because it just addresses the symptoms rather than the
underlying problem. Take your pick. Sometimes a physical paper is best. Sometimes a shared
google doc is best. Sometimes it’s best to start on paper and then transcribe to
Use the template to guide yourself through a series of questions to make sure the google doc. Sometimes it’s best to start in the google doc and then print on
you understand the problem properly before thinking about the solution. The paper. Experiment and find what works best for you!
left column is all about the problem, and how you would recognized when
you’ve solved it. The right column is all about the solution (or more specifically, What is the “owner” and “mentor”
experiments that you think might solve the problem).
The owner is the person (or team) who is primarily driving the problem-solving
effort, and making sure the ball doesn’t get dropped. The mentor is a person
well-versed in A3 thinking, who is helping the owner learn this technique by
Understanding Experimenting guiding him/her through the process.
the problem & to solve the
desired state. problem Is this a one-off document, or a living document?
A problem solving A3 is a living document. Go back and update it as you gain
better understanding of the problem, and document your experiments.

Give it a shot! These types of lightweight tools can be surprisingly effective

when applied appropriately.

The A3 also serves as a high-level journal, or log, of your problem solving

initiative. A3 Problem Solving Template v1.2 (April 2015) by Henrik Kniberg and Tom Poppendieck
License: Creative Commons Attribute 4.0 International
Original link: http://www.crisp.se/lean/a3-template