A3 is a simple mechnism that
Toyota designes for problem solving and deeper thinking. To better understand
the pros and cons of A3, I reasearch other popular and widely used problem
solving models to compare. I am going to compare A3 with two other models in
this blog, General Problem-Solving Model and Cause & Effect Diagram (Fish
Bone).
General Problem-Solving Model
This problem solving model is
a quite basic process that people will go through unconsciousely when
they meet a problem. After defining the problem, one will consider the
possiblilites solutions based on facts, then creating an action plan and
implememting to the problem. If the problem is solved, the process will be
ended. If not, one needs to go over the process once again starting from
gathering facts. It’s obvious that this process lacks efficiency and
flexcibility and cause waste. Firstly, it’s aimless in gathering facts phase.
People will waste time on gathering useless facts that won’t help with the
problem. Secondly, one consider possibilities based only on facts but not on
certain analysis. Thirdly, it only allow one action plan at a time. This whole
process may be suitble to solve small problems that won’t involve with too many
situations and changes.
Cause & Effect Diagram
The Cause & Effect
Diagram is a problem-solving tool that focus on figouring out the cause and
effect relationships. The first step is to identify the problem as other models
(Fish head). The second step is to list factors that contribute to or affect
the problem as many as possible. These factors (Site, Task, People, Equipment
and Control) can be listed along side the main line as “Bones”. The third step
is to identy the causes of these “Bones” and subcauses of the causes. The last
step is to analyze the whole diagram and reach out conclusions.
The best part I like about
this fishbone is that people will be able to figour out the the root causes of
the problem. However, it requires further analysis on the situation. For example,
which root cause is the most important one and has the biggest correlation?
Further rearch is needed. Also, people won’t be able to figout out certain
action plans from this diagram and the afterwards problem solving steps. It
will require another model to figour the following strategy.
Toyota’s A3
Compared to the above two
problem solving models, A3 is better in many aspects. Firstly, the model has
many flexibilities. People can innovate on how to design the content by
themselves. Secondly, by following the process, people will be able to understand
the whole situation with the main goal in mind. Thirdly, as the article said,
the model stimulate people to think deeper of the problem. With better
understanding of the problem, people will be able to make better decisions on
what actions to take to solve the problem.
In my eyes, if one can
complete a comprehensive model of A3, it will be a very effective way to solve
the problem. The possibility of the successful of solving the problem is also
higher than using other models since A3 takes many factors into consideration,
the background, the goal, the analysis of the problem, and the comparision of
action plans. It should be noticed that one should avoid having a already-known
solution in mind to the problem. Knowing where to go at the end will create
bias for the analysis.
All in all, I become a fan of
A3 model after reading the article and comparing it with other models. I think
I will consider using this model in the future.
Reference
Toyota’s Secret: The A3
Report
Cause and Effect Analysis
Trouble Shooting Guide
Menting, I enjoyed reading your comparisons of the 3 different problem solving models. I agree with you that A3 process encourage creative thinking. By going through the different sections of the report, the author needs to understand the background, current conditions, analyze the causes, and propose countermeasures. In order to complete the different sections, one need to out down his/her thoughts in a concise way, which gives the author much needed incentive to innovate.
ReplyDeleteI believe each model may be effective in unique situations or they may be combined to solve the same problem. For example, the general model may be better suited when the problem only has one 2 two alternatives. Cause and effect model may be used for the analysis section in A3 report. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Tianming,
DeleteI really like your idea about applying fishbone model to A3 model. It's quite an innovation! What I think one of the natures of A3 is innovation. Employees can adopt any analysis and reasearch methods to complete the model, as long as they are effective and can solve the problem.
Menting, nice comparison of different problem-solving techniques. In my opinion, they are all valuable processes depending on the task at hand, as Tianming suggested. I really like the idea of combining the processes as well. When performing the A3, an issue may come up that deserves more detail, which could be completed using the fishbone technique, kind of "behind the scenes" and then a more simplified version of the resulting fishbone process could then be incorporated into the A3 report where appropriate. As is evident, the work of problem solving is not clear-cut, black and white, there are many grey areas. The complexity of the dilemma definitely determines which process to use and how to present the predicament, the sources of the trouble and countermeasures effectively.
ReplyDeleteMengting, excellent work on comparing the different models. As the other comments have stated, I think this is critical in understanding exactly what the A3 model has to offer over traditional or competing methods. While we will always find employees that prefer one model over another, I think there is a business case at play that needs to be considered and the rest of the effort will fall from that.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought I had as I was going through your analysis is the fact that at time these models involve steps or try to instigate a thought process that could be considered "common sense". This a loose term and not well-defined, but I would agree that most times it seems like we should inherently be acting on these steps (or at least some of these steps). I have seen a defined process make so much headway in situations where all of the people involved think they are either already doing or have a handle on all of the steps. With a more defined process, we've made great strides and seen a much better return for our time.