Mentoring using A3 Thinking

www.leanuk.org

David Brunt & John KiffNovember 2nd & 3rd 2010

Lean Enterprise Academy1

“Managing to Learn”

Mentoring UsingA3 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 ProblemUsing Problem Solving A3sHow to review A3sApplying 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


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 ProblemsWhat 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 Process1. 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 CauseCause

Cause

Cause

Cause

Basic Cause & EffectInvestigation

4.5-Why? InvestigationOf Root Cause

Cause Investigation

Grasp theSituation

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


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. BackgroundNew 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

DP6/1/08



I. BackgroundAcme 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


DP6/3/08

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!

250

Document translation problems could impede plant launch!

500

Documenttranslations

tsunami

Current Expansion

Now Begin translation Launch

12 months 6 monthsTranslators

EngineeringHR,other Job

instructions

Officedocuments

Technicalengineeringdocument

IT

Gen

Documents bydepartment

Documents bytype



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


DP6/3/08

Problems in document translation at time of initial plant launch:

Cost = High

Delivery = Highly variable

Quality = Many errors!


250


500


tsunami

Current Expansion




instructions

Officedocuments


IT

Gen


Documents bytype

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


Porter’s Problem Analysis 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

DP6/6/08



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


III. Goals/Targets

Problems in document translation at time of launch:Cost = 10% over budget

Delivery = Over 50% lateLong, variable lead times

Quality = Much rework >50% Many errors reach customer

Overall = Constant expeditingPoor qualityMuch reworkOvertimeEveryone unhappy


250

500


tsunami

Current Expansion



Officedocuments

Gen


instructions

OfficedocumentsIT

Gen


Documents bytype

Jobinstructions

Officedocuments


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 weeksof countermeasures

Volume Deliveryand LTproblems

Errorgeneration

100%Job

inst’s

Techeng

docs

Officedocs

Current-state map

Los

t in t

rans

lation

Lost

Translationproblems

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 ofcomplex operations

Unclear expectations,lack of training

Selection

Training

No standard vocabulary

No or poor editing

Unclear expectations

Uneven andunpredictable workloads

Poor original

Translator’sskills

Wrong technicalvocabulary

Poorly writtenor expressed

Translator can’tunderstand original

Translatorunderstands

original but stillpoor translation

Proc

ess

chara

cterist

ics

and

weakne

sses

Vendorprocesses

Acmeinternal

processes

Originaldocumentcreation

Vendor’s documentprocessing variance

Translator’s differentexpertise

No quality check

No timing check

Send to randomtranslators

Varying technicalexpertise

Varying Englishability

Varying documentformatting ability

Varying skillsin writingdocuments

Differentvocabulary for

same item

Varying languageused by differentshops and depts

No central oversight Each shop or departmenthandles independently

No monitor ofquality or timing

Poor process toselect vendors

No ability tostandardise

Huge variationin process

Random sending torandom 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

DP6/13/08



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


III. Goals/Targets

Problems in document translation at time of launch:Cost = 10% over budget

Delivery = Over 50% lateLong, variable lead times

Quality = Much rework >50% Many errors reach customer

Overall = Constant expeditingPoor qualityMuch reworkOvertimeEveryone unhappy


250

500


tsunami

Current Expansion



Officedocuments

Gen


instructions

OfficedocumentsIT

Gen


Documents bytype

Jobinstructions

Officedocuments


Quality - 0 defects at launch- Rework less than 10%

Delivery - 100% on-timeCost - 10 % decrease – Rework down; overtime down

What Who When

Confirm agreement of countermeasure evaluations Porter Next two weeksAnd target-state mapBegin consolidation of plan and overall timeline Porter Next three weeks

Volume Deliveryand LTproblems

Errorgeneration

100%Job

inst’s

Techeng

docs

Officedocs

Current-state map

IV. Analysis

Los

t in t

rans

lation

Lost

Translationproblems

Large batchesRandom causses: No ability to track Unclear expectations

Poor document creation skillsMany document formatsRandom use of technical vocabularyUnclear expectationsWritten descriptions of complexoperations

Poor or wrongly skilled translatorNo or poor editingUnclear expectationsLarge batches and uneven and unpredictable workloads

Target-state map

Cause Counter Description Eval.Benefit

-measureA

B

Central document-flowTrackingprocess

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?


Porter’s Problem Analysis Tree: 3 Root Cause Groupings

Los

t in

tra

nsla

tion

Lost

Translationproblems

Lost & never found 5%

Lost & found 40%

Just stuck 40%

Never lost 15%

Large batches

Random causes:

No ability to track


Incomprehensibleoriginal documents

Incorrect or difficult tounderstand translations

(even with clear originals)

Poor document creation skills

Many document formats

Random use of technical vocabulary


Written descriptions of complexoperations

Poor or wrongly skilled translator

No or poor editing


Large batches and uneven andunpredictable workloads

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 MakingLearn 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

Specific

ations

Launch

Analyse& Test

Detail(repeat for sub-

systems, then assemble)

ImprovePick One

Concepts

Diagram Ref: Allen C. Ward, “Lean Product & Process Development” (2007)


Porter’s Countermeasures


Agenda


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

OverallScrap %

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 ShopScrap Rates

Status*

460150232740Scrap £K

8.73.70.70.91.5Scrap %

Final Grindi

ng

Rough

Grinding

Drilling

Turning

Milling

Process

*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 than2% by December 2006

Undersized

Shaft defect

Contamination

Grinding wheelSet up

Manual offsets

Dimensions

Hardness

Surface finish

MAN MACHINE

MATERIAL METHOD

Spindle

Clamp & locator

Grinding wheel

Grinding conditions

Coolantconcentration

Wheeldressing

72% of grinding defects

Suspected Cause Action Item Responsible Date 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) 13/11

Contaminated tanks. Replaced.

12. Wheel dressing check Check conditions Mary (Eng) 13/11 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

Defe

ct

%

Finish grinder

Rough grinderSpindle bearing

tightened

Coolant replaced

Target level

YTDAverage

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 ShopTo: Chuck O.From: Art S.Date: 10/12/06

Ref: Sobek & Smalley 2008 pp48-49

Acme Stamping Steering Bracket Value Stream ImprovementBackground 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 StreetAssembly

Michigan Steel Co.

1x daily

I

ProductionControl

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.

ProductionControl

Daily

Order

Daily

Order

6 Week

Forecast

90/60/30

Day

Forecast State StreetAssembly

Michigan Steel Co.

Daily

Order

20OXOX

Current State Map

Future State Map

Deliverables Responsible ReviewCCF at pacemakerKaizen each CT to >TTWeld uptime to 100%CO reduction to < TTPull at pacemakerFG = 2 daysKBMatl handlingLevelling BoxPull from StampingWIP = 1 dayCO < 10 minPull from supplierInfo flowDaily deliveryRM = 1.5 days

Action Plan



Agenda


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 SituationWhat 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

Graspthe

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

A3Status

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 KiffNovember 2nd & 3rd 2010


“Managing to Learn”

Mentoring UsingA3 Thinking

Education

Mentoring using A3 Thinking