Complete firstClear scope
One bounded, recurring problem with access to observations and process owners.
Without a boundary, data, perspectives, or flows become mixed.
Method guideOperations
A3 Problem Solving
A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.
ComplexityMedium
Time45-90 min
Participants2-5
FormatWorkshop + async
MaturityCanonical
01
Prerequisite
What needs to be finished first
Complete firstAccess to evidence
Relevant people and sources can be included.
Gaps remain visible; missing evidence must not be invented.
02
Preparation
What needs to be ready before start
Materials
Shared workspace, accessible sources, and a decision log.
People / roles
Problem owner · frontline staff · coach
Pre-read
Clarify the question, timeframe, data access, roles, and known uncertainties in advance.
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.
03
Core question
The one question this method answers
Which gap between current and target condition is evidenced, and which countermeasure will we test first?
04
Flow
Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall
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.
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.
- 1
Problem
Describe problem and target
Goal
Are current and target conditions described with the same measure?
Inputs for this step
- Problem scope, target, and current measure
Actions
- Define scope, affected outcome, current gap, and desired measurable result.
- Are current and target conditions described with the same measure?
Output
Measurable problem and target definition
Measurable problem and target definition
Quality check
Are current and target conditions described with the same measure?
Pitfall
Solution stated as the problem State the measurable gap from the user or process perspective first.
Timing: Part of the agreed work block; research may be separate.
- 2
Current state
Study the current condition
Goal
Are causes supported by data or observation?
Inputs for this step
- Process observations and time series
Actions
- Observe work at the gemba and separate facts from assumptions.
- Are causes supported by data or observation?
Output
Evidence-based current condition at the gemba
Evidence-based current condition at the gemba
Quality check
Are causes supported by data or observation?
Pitfall
Causes inferred from opinions Go see the work and test each cause with observation or data.
Timing: Part of the agreed work block; research may be separate.
- 3
Countermeasure
Test a cause hypothesis and countermeasure
Goal
Does the countermeasure address the proposed cause?
Inputs for this step
- Cause hypotheses with evidence
Actions
- Choose a changeable cause; define countermeasure and expected signal.
- Does the countermeasure address the proposed cause?
Output
Tested cause hypothesis and countermeasure
Tested cause hypothesis and countermeasure
Quality check
Does the countermeasure address the proposed cause?
Pitfall
Countermeasure lacks a mechanism Link each countermeasure to a cause and predicted signal.
Timing: Part of the agreed work block; research may be separate.
- 4
Impact
Track action and effect
Goal
Was the effect measured and the standard updated?
Inputs for this step
- Countermeasure, owner, and review date
Actions
- Assign owner and review date; compare results and revise the hypothesis.
- Was the effect measured and the standard updated?
Output
Outcome review and updated standard
Outcome review and updated standard
Quality check
Was the effect measured and the standard updated?
Pitfall
A3 ends as a report without follow-up Record owner, next experiment, and outcome date.
Timing: Part of the agreed work block; research may be separate.
05
Artifact
What comes out at the end
Sketch: what the artifact looks like
Form
Versioned result with question, evidence, open issues, next action, ownership, and review date.
Versioning / ownership
Record date, scope, sources, and changes. Preserve earlier observations.
Tool alternatives
- Whiteboard or paper
- Shared spreadsheet
- Versioned project space
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.
Prepare for the work steps
Problem: Describe problem and target
- Problem scope, target, and current measure
Current state: Study the current condition
- Process observations and time series
Countermeasure: Test a cause hypothesis and countermeasure
- Cause hypotheses with evidence
Impact: Track action and effect
- Countermeasure, owner, and review date
Problem, countermeasure, and outcome check
Problem
State the observed gap with measure and scope.
...
Target
Map the actual process and mark reliable facts.
...
Cause hypothesis
Link an evidenced cause to the countermeasure’s expected effect.
...
Countermeasure
Record trial, owners, review date, and standard change.
...
Blank worksheet: start with a bounded question. Enter observed facts only, mark assumptions, and record open questions and sources.
A3 Problem-Solving · Lean Enterprise Institute
Problem: Describe problem and target
Expected artifact: Measurable problem and target definition
Measurable problem and target definition
Entry:
...
- Are current and target conditions described with the same measure?
Current state: Study the current condition
Expected artifact: Evidence-based current condition at the gemba
Evidence-based current condition at the gemba
Entry:
...
- Are causes supported by data or observation?
Countermeasure: Test a cause hypothesis and countermeasure
Expected artifact: Tested cause hypothesis and countermeasure
Tested cause hypothesis and countermeasure
Entry:
...
- Does the countermeasure address the proposed cause?
Impact: Track action and effect
Expected artifact: Outcome review and updated standard
Outcome review and updated standard
Entry:
...
- Was the effect measured and the standard updated?
Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/a3-problem-solving/run-sheet
06
Example output
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.
a3-problem-solving-beispiel.md
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Fictional worked example
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.
All names and values are invented for illustration. Unresolved explanations remain questions.
07
Pitfalls
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow
- Describe problem and targetSolution stated as the problemView in phase
- Study the current conditionCauses inferred from opinionsView in phase
- Test a cause hypothesis and countermeasureCountermeasure lacks a mechanismView in phase
- Track action and effectA3 ends as a report without follow-upView in phase
Trap
Describe problem and target
Symptom
Solution stated as the problem
What to do
State the measurable gap from the user or process perspective first.
Trap
Study the current condition
Symptom
Causes inferred from opinions
What to do
Go see the work and test each cause with observation or data.
Trap
Test a cause hypothesis and countermeasure
Symptom
Countermeasure lacks a mechanism
What to do
Link each countermeasure to a cause and predicted signal.
Trap
Track action and effect
Symptom
A3 ends as a report without follow-up
What to do
Record owner, next experiment, and outcome date.
08
Stop criteria
When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach
The question or boundary remains ambiguous: narrow it first.
Key data or participants are missing: label the gap and arrange access.
The group mixes observation and explanation: revisit the evidence.
An immediate safety or operational risk appears: stop and use the responsible procedures.
Finished the method guide?
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.