Why is this so important to Toyota?

Many authors writing about A3 approach refer t how it addresses the need to build consensus around a particular “solution”, however few talk about the need to build a lasting capacity for continuous improvement.

It is not just one of many problem solving techniques, it is the pre-eminent approach / tool / method.

Rather like most organisations have a preferred “personal productivity suite” (MS Office / Open Office etc) Toyota has a preferred organisation wide “problem solving approach”.

I noticed a few people expressing concerns on the Linked-in Discovering A3 Framework and Thinking forum about getting to the bottom of problems (root cause analysis) and feel this is actually to do with a deeper problem; the misconception that all problems can be treated in the same way.

Dave Snowden has developed a really interesting framework that basically catergorises problem situations into four types (oversimplification, but hey…). Simple, complicated, complex and chaotic largely based on how clearly linked cause and effect are within this situation.

If I understand him properly I think he is arguing that it is futile to try to solve problems that are in complex or chaotic situations using root cause analysis because the link between cause and effect is either broken or really unclear / open to debate.

This does not mean that the A3 approach is futile.

In complex situations no single best solution will be available. The best approach is therefore to probe / experimenting (multiple times!) rather than get too hung up on trying to establish the root cause.

In chaotic situations I take his argument to be that the best approach is to just go for it.

If you want to take a look one of his videos is really interesting.

Where the external environment is dynamic and power is centralised the archetypal organisational form will be Entrepreneurial.

Where the external environment is stable and power is centralised the archetypal organisational form will be Machine like.

Where the external environment is stable and power is decentralised the archetypal organisational form will be Professional.

Where the external environment is dynamic and power is decentralised the archetypal organisational form will be an Adhocracy.

In my opinion A3 reports work best in the Machine type organisation. A stable business environment generally lends itself to data gathering and “centralised” power means you can impose a strucutered problem solving tool / approach.

Outside of this area things get far more complicated!

Unfortunately I have to confess that several of the techniques covered in the book did make me feel that I was guilty of overselling. OK, I have highlighted the limitations of paper based A3 reports in service environments, but beyond this I have written very little.

So here goes.

A3 reports are very suited to “tame” linear (cause -> effect) thinking. Not a problem for most ordered situations but maybe I need to post something about A3 Thinking and “messy” non linear problems /situations. A3′s can still be a very useful but when I get time I will clarify how “tame” and “messy” problems require different approaches.

More interestingly I came across an approach in the book called “Solution Focus” which threw up a more fundamental problem.

The Solution Focus approach has it’s roots in family therapy and in situations where a fuller understanding of the problem doesn’t really help you to find a solution. For example attempting to investigate the root causes of a persons addiction might simply lead to resistance. Because of this the SF approach does not focus on the past, but instead, focuses on the present and future; on building a vision of a preferred future and finding areas where elements / examples of this can already be found.

On an organisational level, A3 Thinking generally encourages root cause analysis (although to be fair some would argue A3 Thinking should start with a blank sheet).

If past problems have lead to a breakdown in trust / goodwill between various groups in an organisation then root cause analysis may well make matters worse. It might make sense in this situation to use the Solution Focus approach rather than an A3 approach. Alternatively you could amend the basic A3 template by simply replacing the root cause section with something that allows you to capture examples of positive practice (as per the SF method).

Yesterday I had a conversation with my colleague Oliver Kohll about A3 reports that got us talking about how people learn.

He said he was finding the A3 approach quite an eye opener, using the reports to help him in problem solving was far more helpful than he had expected. Oliver had actually written a small software tool to allow you to complete and store A3 reports on-line a while back so this seemed surprising, but at that time he admits to being better versed in the theory than the practice. Oliver felt that using the A3 tool over an extended period of time had helped internalise a set of questions to kick start discussing and thinking through problems.

Some Systems Thinkers like John Seddon seem to have a real aversion to tools. For me the proverb “If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail” seems to sum up this “toolheads” position.

If I understand their position correctly it’s not just that the tool user has to have a thorough knowledge of how and when to use them. It’s not even that Lean tools developed by a car manufacturer (Toyota) may never be of any use in different organisational environments (such as the Service Sector).

The argument is that focussing on how to use a hammer (or any other tool) won’t ever make you a master craftsman / woman, let alone a world class designer!

In the world of Systems Thinking it is higher level knowledge that is seen as critical. Management Thinking needs to change first, appropriate tools and techniques can then be brought to bear on the problem.

However, what if the only viable way to change management thinking is via tools? Systems Thinking and a consultancy led approach may make sense for larger organisations that can afford the cost and upheaval, but what about the vast majority of organisations that cannot.

In truth most SME’s tend to use a mixed learning approach. A few courses, a few books / magazine articles etc. but very few trust advisors. In 2008 a survey by Pulse showed 38 per cent of SMEs view their accountant as the first port of call for business advice, an increase of five per cent on the previous study. Whereas management consultants, solicitors and banks fell from 22 per cent, 18 per cent and 24 per cent in 2008 to nine per cent, two per cent and four per cent respectively in 2010. And what about the 60% who do not appear in the above stats?

Maybe a tools approach makes sense given this lack of trust, provided some guidance is given about which tools might work in any problem given situation.

I think some tools actually encourage Systems Thinking and that A3 reports (along with SPC) fall into this category.

Maybe a counter to the toolheads argument is “you can’t learn to ride a bike by reading a book” let alone build a World Class cycling organisation.

One thing that is mentioned in most books and which I find true from my experience is that the process of creating an A3 should be iterative. The report author will not only need to gather data and opinions from all those effected by the issue but also, in carrying out this process, create a shared and more holistic understanding of the issue amongst all  these stakeholders. Clearly the report will be incomplete during it’s drafting.

What is not covered in any of the writings I have come across is what an ongoing “blank” space means.

For me the answer is that it can show a lack of either consultation or consensus. Sometimes it even shows both! Maybe you intuitively know that it is critical that you get input from and the support of a particularly stakeholder and yet for whatever reason you have not been able to get this (for all your trying).

How urgent is the problem? Is their lack of input a sign that they do not see the issue you are tackling as important? Does the evidence you present lack in credibility?

Or is there a conflict of interests? Is it likely that the logical outcome of your efforts would negatively impact this stakeholder?

Another explanation, one that I blogged about a couple of weeks ago, might be that the cause of this impasse is that none of the stakeholders feels they know enough to offer up any credible countermeasures. Maybe some learning / input is required from outside? Maybe the organisation needs to pilot / prototype a solution?

There an no pat answers for this situation, however understanding the situation for what it is, can be the first step in the right direction.

Although not strictly about A3 reports / thinking I thought you still might like to know it has now gone live.

If you want to take a look you will find it here.

In the process of shooting this video we had various conversation about how the level of an organisations learning needs to be reflected in the fabric of any IT systems. There is nothing worse than watching organisations struggling to get to grips with software applications that are completely inappropriate for their business.

Coming from a Lean / Systems Thinking background we believe there is no such thing as “best practice” or a “single best way” partially because organisations come in many different varieties or types. Small organisations have completely different needs to larger ones, creative industries are very different to those that have very predictable types of demand (like retail banking).

However there is another issue here.

Even when organisations appear similar in type, they can still be very different. Organisations can be at very different points on their learning curves.

There is a often a hope that somehow this learning curve issue does not matter as software products that have captured “best practice” will magically move those who purchase it to a higher level of performance.  Our experience is that this is generally not so. If anything a highly developed system will probably decrease the effectiveness of any team that does not understand the logic underlying the system.

A3 reports are based on the notion that organisations are always able to learn and perform in better ways. But what does this mean when IT changes are being considered?

Oliver and I take for granted the need for the underlying systems to be agile. But in our conversations we have also come to believe in the need for decisions to be delayed until what is often called the “Last Responsible Moment”.

Software and systems are  far easier to build than to dismantle once in use. The most successful  projects we have been involved with normally adopt an incremental and minimalistic approach.

What does this mean for A3 thinking? Well if the countermeasures that are being put forward in the “Do” phase of an A3 involve uncertainty or ambiguity make sure you give yourself enough time to learn in the “Plan” phase.

Most authors who write about A3 thinking emphasise the need to involve all stakeholders in the creation of the A3 document, but I think one should go way beyond this when looking at IT systems.  Where longer term decisions are being considered one should wait until the “Last Responsible Moment” and use working prototypes to pilot changes.

The aim is to combine top-down planning (cascading objectives etc) with bottom up planning (continuous improvement etc) in a truly visual way by using entire walls.

Rather like the use of “War Rooms” in agile project management the aim is to achieve a far more participative planning approach, but by drawing policy deployment frameworks on the walls and populating them with A3 reports we offer some structure to help align all the various departmental initiatives we are expecting to be brought forward.

Will keep you posted!

A3 thinking certainly helps organisations move from a resolving to solving mode by encouraging the adoption of a structured approach to problem solving. However this solution is is not without it’s own hidden pitfalls.

A3 thinking can unleash amazing levels of enthusiasm and creativity and there is a danger that the generated countermeasures can be overly ambitious.

Generating countermeasures without regard to the resources available to implement them must be one of the most common problems I have seen in A3 thinking.

In the current economic climate ROI is king. Those crafting countermeasures in A3 thinking must recognise resourcing and commercial constraints, without this you encourage scope creep that can lead to the A3 approach being axed!