Operations Operating practice

A3 Problem Solving

A3 Problem Solving moves from evidence-based problem understanding through cause hypotheses to testable countermeasures.

A3 Problem Solving moves from evidence-based problem understanding through cause hypotheses to testable countermeasures. The method connects the problem picture, causal reasoning, and the next decision point.

Core question

Which gap between current and target condition is evidenced, and which countermeasure will we test first?

Prepare plan Method guide

Start comparison

Give feedbackIs this method useful to you?

Participants: 2-5
Time: 45-90 min

Phases may be revisited; their order supports the work but does not replace domain judgment.

A3 Problem-Solving workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.

Problem
Describe problem and target
Define scope, affected outcome, current gap, and desired measurable result.
Current state
Study the current condition
Observe work at the gemba and separate facts from assumptions.
Countermeasure
Test a cause hypothesis and countermeasure
Choose a changeable cause; define countermeasure and expected signal.
Impact
Track action and effect
Assign owner and review date; compare results and revise the hypothesis.

Review the result and open assumptions at the next suitable checkpoint. Record changes, ownership, and new evidence.

A good fit when

Use when: One bounded, recurring problem with access to observations and process owners.

Ideal for

Operational Issues
Continuous Improvement
Manager Coaching

Not good for

Trivial micro-issues
Open ideation

Outputs

Working picture
The working picture describes scope, the affected outcome, the current gap, and the desired measurable result.
Testable evidence
The countermeasure addresses a cause within the team’s influence and identifies the expected signal of its effect.
Next step
The action plan names owners and a review date. At review, it records the comparison of results and any revisions to the hypothesis.

Problem, countermeasure, and outcome check

Fictional worked example

Guide a team from evidence-based problem understanding through cause hypotheses to testable countermeasures.

Problem

State the observed gap with measure and scope.

Fictional: 18% of tickets exceed 2 days; April, Team A.

Target

Map the actual process and mark reliable facts.

Below 8% by end of June, same ticket definition and data source.

Cause hypothesis

Link an evidenced cause to the countermeasure’s expected effect.

Uncategorized tickets wait longer for assignment; timestamp sample shows association, not proof.

Countermeasure

Record trial, owners, review date, and standard change.

Test required intake classification in Team A for two weeks; inspect >2-day share weekly.

Fictional support process: 18% of tickets exceed the two-day target. Timestamps show long waits when category data is missing. Hypothesis: required intake classification reduces unclear handoffs. Countermeasure is tested for two weeks in one team and checked with the same definition.

A3 Problem-Solving · Lean Enterprise Institute

First step

Start with a bounded question, clarify access and participants, and collect available evidence. Guide a team from evidence-based problem understanding through cause hypotheses to testable countermeasures.

Open the method guide

Good to do first

Operations

Gemba Walk

Supplies the direct observation from which the actual measure and problem emerge.

Where to go next?

Delivery

Value Stream Mapping

Checks how the implemented countermeasure changes the whole value stream.

Operations

PDCA Cycle

Carries the planned countermeasure into a repeatable improvement cycle.

Deep dive

Purpose

For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together.

How it works

The argument follows a compact logic from the current state through causes to the measure. Every assumption becomes visible so selection and prioritization stay traceable. This produces a decision picture that doesn't stop at symptoms and makes implementation connectable.

In detail

A3 Problem Solving forces a problem onto a concise, checkable argument surface. The approach is strong when current state, cause, measure, and follow-up hang together logically. The value lies not in the form but in the thinking process: assumptions become visible, decisions become connectable, and learning after implementation becomes possible.

Facilitation

Prepare the current state, target state, and the most relevant data so the page can really serve as a shared thinking space. The format becomes solid when cause, measure, and evidence hang together logically and nothing lands on the sheet just out of habit. Close with an actionable experiment, responsibilities, and a clear date for the review.

The method guide walks execution through 4 phases, timing, 4 pitfalls, and clear stop criteria.

Open method guide

Your perspective

Does this method help with your work?

Your feedback helps shape the next improvements to methodatlas.

Sources and topics

Topics

Lean Problem solving Coaching Operations

Sources

A3 Problem-Solving · Lean Enterprise Institutelean.orgMethod reference reviewed to support the scope and workflow of A3 Problem-Solving. Examples and editorial guidance are original and explicitly fictional.

In playbooks

Conduct Root Cause InvestigationMove from symptom to contributing causes, patterns, and effective countermeasures.

Artifact templates

A3 Problem Solving: WorksheetPrepare A3 Problem-Solving with a clear question, roles, and sources.

markdown

a3-problem-solving-working-template.md

Prepare A3 Problem-Solving with a clear question, roles, and sources.

A3 Problem Solving: Worksheet

Question

To be confirmed

Desired outcome

To be confirmed

Scope

Plan the full method Time: Set according to scope and available evidence

Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

Materials: Shared workspace, accessible sources, and a decision log.
Roles: Problem owner · frontline staff · coach
Advance information: Clarify the question, timeframe, data access, roles, and known uncertainties in advance.
Overall time needed: Several work blocks over days or weeks; scope follows cause investigation and countermeasure.
Setup: Create a shared version. Label facts, assumptions, and decisions separately.