A3 Thinking Approach to Support Problem Solving in ... - Springer Link

A3 Thinking Approach to Support Problem Solving in Lean Product and Process Development (Norhairin Mohd Saad)1, Ahmed Al-Ashaab, Essam Shehab, Maksim Maksimovic Abstract This paper presents a new A3 thinking approach of problem solving to support the Lean Product and Process Development (LeanPPD) in knowledgebased environment. The new approach allows the design team to obtain the scientific knowledge in a structured manner. It also enables them to understand the linkage between hypothesis and practice which results from the new understanding and could be considered as new learning. This knowledge will support the designers in effective decision making whilst directly attacking the waste during the next of the product development phases and future projects surrounded by the knowledge rich environment. The industrial field study has carried out among thirty six designers and engineers in European manufacturing companies. The best practices of problem solving approaches and mechanism and challenges of knowledge capture have been collected. Therefore, the A3 thinking approach is proposed to be developed that stemmed to the industries requirements. Keywords A3 Thinking, A3 Report, Product Design, Lean product Development

1 Introduction The research is a part of the LeanPPD (Lean Product and Process Development) project, which aims to develop a new model that goes beyond lean manufacturing by identifying value and non-value added activities and eliminating non-value added based on proven knowledge and experience by using lean thinking. The LeanPPD model is designed to support value creation in product design for the customer in terms of innovation, customisation and quality as well as providing

1

N. Mohd Saad() Manufacturing and Materials Department, Cranfield University, MK43 0AP, United Kingdom email: [email protected] J. Stjepandic´ et al. (eds.), Concurrent Engineering Approaches for Sustainable Product Development in a Multi-Disciplinary Environment, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-4426-7_74, Ó Springer-Verlag London 2013

871

872

N. Mohd Saad et al.

sustainable and affordable products (Al-Ashaab et al, 2010). The adoption of lean thinking into problem solving in product development enforces the creation of values for decision making and directly attacks the waste arising from such factors as reinvention and unproductive meetings during product development. This paper presents the new generation of A3 template based from the traditional A3 template as shown in Figure 1. The development of a new A3 template is supported from the reviewed literature and field study analyses, which show the need to develop the A3 thinking approach. The purpose is to provide a knowledge environment utilising an A3 thinking approach in order to support designers and engineers to make decisions surrounded by a lean environment. The A3 thinking approach will be applied in areas such as design problem solving, idea generation, knowledge communication, lessons learnt, visualisation and sharing knowledge re-use for new projects.

Fig. 1 The traditional A3 Template (Sobek and Smalley, 2008)

The paper is divided into seven sections and the remainder is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the related work of problem solving that are using template. Section 3 explains the initial field study aimed to investigate the needs of lean transformation in problem solving and knowledge capturing. The methodology used to carry out the research aims, described in Section 4. The limitation of the problem solving approaches gathered from the analysis from the state of the art reviews and the A3 thinking approach is explained in Section 5 whilst Section 6 discussed the contribution of the A3 thinking approach to support lean product and process development. Finally, the conclusion is discussed in Section 7.

A3 Thinking Approach to Support Problem Solving in Lean Product

873

2 Related Work The research addresses the problem solving approaches which provide their solutions by visualising and documenting in a structured template. The selected problem solving approaches, namely: A3 report (A3), 8 Disciplines (8D), Problem Analysis Flowchart (PAF), Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and 5 Whys. These approaches are briefly explained as follows:

2.1 Problem Solving Approaches 2.1.1 The A3 Report The A3 report is a systematic approach to problem solving on a single piece of A3 sized paper (11” x17”). It helps the user to a deeper understanding of the problem and opportunity, and guides them in addressing the problem. The A3 template is represented by providing the following seven major elements, namely: (1) background, (2) current condition, (3) goals/targets, (4) analysis, (5) proposed countermeasures, (6) implementation plan and (7) follow-up (Shook, 2009).

2.1.2 8 Disciplines The ‘8 disciplines’ (8D) is a formal and disciplined technique designed to solve complex problems and consists of eight elements , namely: (1) form the team pitfalls, (2) clarify the problem, (3) contain the problem pitfalls, (4) identify the rootcause pitfalls, (5) generate solutions, (6) implement permanent solutions, (7) prevent recurrence, and (8) congratulate the team (Arnott, 2004). The 8D aims to lead to the discovery of the root causes of problems and possible solutions with regard to cost, timing, effect on customers, quality, cost reduction and the impact on the organization.

2.1.3 Problem Analysis Flowchart The Problem Analysis Flowchart (PAF) is a single sheet problem solving tool that utilises the 5 Whys, Root Cause Analysis and charts. It contains ten major elements and is numbered sequentially, as follows: 1) problem statement, 2) symptoms, 3) changes, 4) relevant data, 5) defect free configuration, 6) distinction, 7) causal chains, 8) test, corrections, result and conclusion, 9) most probable cause and 10) short term and long term corrections and controls. This technique has been applied in a few case studies in manufacturing processes such as productivity in

874

N. Mohd Saad et al.

production, tripping overload and high-pressure faults. All these problems require continuous observation in the manufacturing process, since it is necessary in the process solution to perform the test and validate the corrections several times (Sproull, 2001).

2.1.4 Root Cause Analysis: Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is a technique designed to identify the root of the problems whilst eliminating the cause by using structured approach with designed techniques (Mahto and Kumar, 2008). The process consists of identifying and understanding the problem, analysing the effects and causes, hence defining the root of the cause and developing the corrective action in order to prevent the recurrence of similar problems in future.

2.1.5 5 Whys One of the familiar techniques used to identify the root cause of a problem is a 5 Whys technique (‘ask why five times’). Originally implemented in analysis phase of Six Sigma roadmap which is more focused on quality control (Sproull, 2001) it is one of the iterations and simple solution techniques in which data collection plans are not required. It helps the problem solver to find the root of the problem quickly by using a 5 whys tool such as a fishbone or tree diagrams. All elements in the above problem solving approaches will be analysed and customised to help in selecting the right elements that should be considered to aid the development of a new template for product design. It is important to utilise a new A3 template as it is not only to solve a design problem but also to capture and share the created knowledge after solving the problem. The following section explains the two selected learning cycles that might be considered for use in the proposed A3 thinking approach.

2.2 Learning Cycles The sustainability of lean transformation in product design requires a continuous improvement and is guided from the learning cycle. Therefore, the knowledgedriven design stemming from efficient problem solving approach and the appropriate learning cycle will provide a knowledge rich environment in order to aid the generation of a future product design. The authors have identified several learning cycles that has been and might be used for the A3 thinking approach in product design. The following are the selected learning cycles:


   

875

Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) Look-Ask-Model-Discuss-Act (LAMDA) Define-Measure-Analyse-Improve-Control (DMAIC- Six Sigma) Identify-Design-Optimise-Verify (IDOV - Design for Six Sigma)

Table 1 illustrates seven criteria identified by the authors for selecting the appropriate learning cycle that might be effective for the A3 thinking approach. In the authors’ opinion, the suitable learning cycle requires the following criteria, as shown in Table 1. The criteria (1 and 2), see Table 1, are used to identify any learning cycles that have been used in both product design and lean product development. The third criteria (Solves Problems) is designed to identify the application of the learning cycles in order to solve a problem while the remaining are the criteria developed based on the capability of knowledge capturing and sharing for the new A3 template. Table 1 The Criteria of Learning Cycle for the A3 Thinking Approach Criteria 1. Applied in Product Design 2. Used in Lean Product Development 3. Solve Problems 4. Provides single documentation 5. Used as communication tool 6. Easy and simple 7. Knowledge sharing Total

PDCA        7

Learning Cycles LAMDA DMAIC          7

IDOV  

Table 1 indicates that most of the criteria are met by PDCA and LAMDA learning cycles. However, the authors have selected the LAMDA learning cycle instead of the PDCA, as LAMDA is foundation and part of the lean product development toolkit (Domb and Radeka, 2006). Regarding the DMAIC (Six Sigma) and IDOV (Design for Six Sigma) learning cycles, Yeh et al (2010) found that they were given low priority and not commonly used in product development. The following section describes the research methodology used to develop the A3 thinking approach in order to support LeanPPD.

3 Field Study The field study was conducted by four researchers in the LeanPPD team to search for evidence of the implementation of the A3 thinking approach within European manufacturing companies. The face-to-face interviews were performed in five European companies including all the LeanPPD business partners by thirty six design engineers and managers. The following are sample of the questions developed to perform the field study and the results shows in Fig. 2.

876

N. Mohd Saad et al.

a)

Question 1: Currently what are the implemented mechanisms to capture knowledge in your organisation and how efficiently do you access them? b) Question 2: What challenges do you face with regards to knowledge capture and representation? c) Question 3: How is design problems currently resolved in your company?

Fig. 2 Results from the Initial Field Study

The first question is reflected to the current mechanism implemented to capture knowledge in manufacturing companies. The highest ranking (63%) is verbal communication followed by document templates by 53%. It proved that the document template is useful in capturing knowledge that otherwise would be difficult to document. This result supports the research in suggesting that the provision of an A3 thinking approach for documentation and visualisation of required knowledge could be effective and well-used approach. The second question shows the challenges with regard to knowledge capture and representation. The highest rankings with 78% are ‘knowledge capture which is too time consuming’, and ‘difficult to extract already captured knowledge’. Here, one can conclude that most of the manufacturing companies desired an effective approach during the decision making process by utilising a simple and easy approach. Therefore, the A3 thinking approach will be the technique with guidelines to re-use, capture or present the created knowledge. Finally, the third question presents the open-ended questions for the interviewees with regard to the problem solving technique that is currently implemented in their companies. The research has divided the techniques into four types, i.e. conventional, verbal communication, standard template and no formal process. The above result shows that the implementation of the conventional problem solv-


877

ing techniques is currently high with 31%. The conventional problem solving techniques that currently applied in most of the manufacturing companies includes 8 Disciplines, 5 Whys and Root Cause Analysis. These have shown that the approaches to solve a problem using template are well-used in collaborative companies. The above results from the field study have led the authors to evaluate the problem solving approaches through state of the art reviews. The intention is to define and measure the impact and level of performance of the approaches in design activities as knowledge creation to support the LeanPPD. As a result, the limitations are identified and the summary explains in the proceeding section.

4 Research Methodology The research methodology for this paper consists of three phases, namely: 1) to investigate the problem solving approaches and knowledge management practices in industrial perspectives, 2) to analyse and evaluate the A3 thinking appreciations and impact to enhance knowledge driven design, and 3) to develop the A3 thinking approach. As the research has been motivated and developed after consideration the needs from the European organisational companies to transform their product and process development into lean as discussed in Section 2, therefore, the field study is perform within the collaborative industries as a first phase that was explained in section 3. The details and remainder phases explains as following: Firstly, the initial findings of the problem solving approaches and knowledge management practices from the industries’ perspectives through the interviews and semi-structured questionnaires are collated. This field study was conducted by four researches in the LeanPPD team with a total of 36 respondents from the collaborative industries in different sectors: aeronautical, automotive, automotive supplier and home appliances. The aim is to identify the requirements for the effective problem solving approach for product design and to investigate the challenges faced by the designers in order to capture and represent the create knowledge. Secondly, the synthesis of the current problem solving approaches and learning cycles are performed through an extensive literature review and the summary is explained in Section 2. This is to investigate and address the needs in a knowledge rich environment by considering the good practices of knowledge management. In additional, the limitations of the current problem solving approaches and learning cycles are identified through the industrial visits and reviewed literature analyses. These findings allow the authors a foundation to develop the A3 thinking approach. Finally, the result of this analysis enables the authors to present the A3 thinking approach to be integrated within the enablers to support LeanPPD.

878

N. Mohd Saad et al.

5 Development of The A3 Thinking Approach Based on the reviewed literature of the problem solving approaches and learning cycles in Section 2, this paper identified the limitations of the problem solving approaches: the current problem solving approaches are successful to solve a problem but none provide a process to encourage the designers to capture the created knowledge. Therefore, this paper attempts to encourage the designers to capture and visualise concisely the knowledge created after solving a problem. The latter is a scientific knowledge created from problem solving activities, well-captured and shared to serve and guide the designers obtaining the knowledge to prevent recurrence or to enhance product innovation in future projects. The limitations are shown in Error! Reference source not found., illustrated as a trade-off. This figure was modelled with two important states. The 1st state refers to the learning cycles, which are LAMDA and PDCA, versus the problem solving approaches (Root Cause Analysis until the traditional A3 report). Here, the authors use both learning cycles to present their similarity graphically, as explained in subsection 2.1. The limitations presented as white dots in Figure 3 are developed based on the author’s understanding from the analyses within the problem solving approaches which the summary is explained in Section 2.

Fig. 3 The Trade-off Shows the Limitations of the Problem Solving Approaches

The second state is the A3 thinking approach versus the reviewed problem solving approaches to support knowledge driven design. The black dots portrayed at the first and second state in Error! Reference source not found. represent the aims of the A3 thinking approach; to solve a design problem, hence to support


879

knowledge driven design. In brief, the knowledge-driven design based on the A3 thinking approach enables the designers to obtain high understanding of the efficient scientific knowledge captured in the new A3 report, which can be used as a reference or solution to prevent problems before design. The most important part of the A3 thinking approach is a generation of a new A3 template structured from the modification of the core elements gathered from the analysis of the reviewed problem solving approaches and industry’s perspectives. In addition, a new A3 template will be structured with a model of reflection to help and guide the designers to verbalise their tacit understanding and recommendations based on the solutions or experience after solved the problem. This is the initial idea from the authors to enhance the process of knowledge capturing hence to be shared in product design. The A3 thinking approach is developed by considering capabilities of knowledge creation, capture and share. From these capabilities, the authors have classified several actions which the designers need to follow in order to reach knowledge driven design as illustrated in Figure 3. These actions are visualising, solving, learning, reflecting and creating, explained and separated based on the 2 states as shown in Figure 3. The details explain as the following: 1) 1st State: Problem to Solution (Problem Solved)  Visualising- to visualise the problem and the proposed solutions.  Solving- to solve the problem by following the customised elements structured in a new A3 template.  Learning- to guide the designer to solve a problem and create knowledge by presenting the process of the proposed LAMDA learning cycle as explained in subsection 2.2. 2) 2nd State: Solution to Knowledge Capture and Share (Knowledge Driven Design) 

Reflecting- to turn experience into proper learning by providing the reflection’s section.



Creating- to represent the scientific knowledge from the above actions to be shared and communicated (e.g.: design checklist).

880

N. Mohd Saad et al.

6 A3 Thinking Approach To Support Lean Product And Process Development The A3 thinking approach is developed to support lean product and process development (LeanPPD) particularly for the product design. The contribution of the approach within the LeanPPD model is the documentation and visualisation of the required knowledge in an effective manner in order to help the designers to make future decisions surrounded by a lean environment. Fig. 4 represents another two enablers in the LeanPPD project, namely Set Based Lean Design Tool (SBLDT) and Lean Knowledge Life Cycle (LeanKLC). The A3 thinking approach, as a part of the LeanKLC framework, will provide a new A3 template provided with the customised elements gathered from the reviewed literature and field study analyses. The new A3 template is consist two sections and ten elements. Each section is structured with different elements as follows: a) Section 1: Problem solving (Knowledge creation) 1. Team 2. Background 3. Current condition 4. Root cause analysis 5. Proposed solutions 6. Implementation plan 7. Prevent recurrence b) Section 2: Knowledge capture 8. Reflection of What: to define the knowledge. 9. Reflection of So-what: to formulate and standardise the knowledge to be applied (e.g.: design rule/recommendation) 10. Reflection of Now-what: to identify where is the knowledge needed. The reflection section in a new A3 template is inspired by Borton’s reflection model which is What, So-what and Now-what (Borton, 1970). The designers need to perform all the proposed actions (visualising, solving, learning, reflecting and creating) to attain the right solution, capture and document as dynamic knowledge capture in LeanKLC. Therefore, in order to solve future problems, the designer will also reuse the knowledge captured and stored in LeanKLC and be able to obtain the scientific knowledge and enables them to make right decisions hence to support LeanPPD.


881

Fig. 4 The A3 Thinking Approach to Support LeanPPD

7 Conclusion This paper presents a new problem solving approach for product design by considering capabilities of knowledge creation, capture and sharing. The limitations gathered from the state of the art review and evidence from the field study analysis have clarified several issues and also illustrate the need for the development of a problem solving approach to support the design decision. Analysis from the industrial field study clearly supports the A3 thinking approach when it is proved that the document template is useful for knowledge capture and also as a reference for the designers and engineers to use in future design projects. This could also eliminate the challenges of difficulty to extract already captured knowledge and time consuming for knowledge capture. Therefore, the A3 thinking approach integrating the aforementioned actions (visualising, solving, learning, reflecting and creating) has several, clearly indicated benefits:  It visualises the problem and proposed solutions.  It presents the customised elements in order to identify, analyse and solve the problem.  It provides the simple process (LAMDA learning cycle) to guide the designers to employ each of the elements, hence enhancing the lessons learned.  It provides the reflection’s model to encourage the designers to verbalize their tacit understanding from the solutions/experience into proper learning.  It presents all the above in one A3 standard size paper (11”x17”).

882

N. Mohd Saad et al.

8 Acknowledgement This research is a part of the LeanPPD project where all the information and data collections are gathered within the LeanPPD consortiums. The authors wish to acknowledge the University of Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) for financial support (research) and European Commission as well as collaborative consortiums for their full cooperation.

9 References 1. Al-Ashaab, A., Shehab, E., Alam, R., Sopelana, A., Sorli, M., Flores, M., Taisch, M., Dragan Stokic, D. and James-Moore, M., (2010), "The Conceptual LeanPPD Model", The LeanPD Special Session of the 17th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering 2010, 6-10 September 2010, Cracow, Poland. 2. Arnott, B. (2004), "The 8 Disciplines Approach to Problem Solving", Certified Infrared Thermographer, Infraspection institute, Ontario Canada. 3. Borton, T. (1970), "Reach, touch and teach: Student concerns and process education", New York: McGraw Hill. 4. Domb, E. and Radeka, K. (2006), "LAMDA and TRIZ: Knowledge Sharing Across the Enterprise", available at: http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2009/04/04/ (accessed 21 December 2011). 5. Mahto,D. and Kumar,A. (2008), "Application of root cause analysis in improvement of product quality and productivity", Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management. Vol.1 Issue 2, pp16-53. 6. Shook, J. (2009), "Toyota’s Secret: The A3 Report", vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 30. 7. Sobek, D. K. and Smalley, A. (2008), Understanding A3 Thinking-A Critical Component of Toyota’s PDCA Management System, CRC Press. 8. Sproull, B. (2001), "Process Problem Solving - A Guide for Maintenance and Operations Teams", Productivity Inc., Portland. 9. Yeh T.M., Pai F.Y., and Yang C.C. (2010), "Performance Improvement in New Product Development with Effective Tools and Techniques Adoption for High-Tech Industries", Quality and Quantity, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 131-152.