Dieser Artikel ==> Lean Thinking Applied for Organizational Change
ist eine gute Basis, aktuelle "Denkmuster" in Business und Management in Bezug auf LOA zu reflektieren. Hier essentielle Textauszüge daraus:
A3 problem solving is a technique based upon Kaizen or continuous improvement:
You take a series of steps to systematically frame, analyse and eradicate the problem, following a PDSA cycle (Plan, Do, Study, Adjust). At each step, you'd use the report to capture and validate your understanding with others at the "gemba" — the place where the value-creating work happens.
A3 problem solving can be used to gain and share insights, guide and capture the story of a problem, establish powerful conversations, expand your circle of influence and much more.
In the traditional Lean literature, there is typically a strong emphasis on root cause analysis. This makes it an ideal method to cope with issues in the complicated domain (e.g. technical issues, where causes can be found) but perhaps not so useful in truly complex domains where a better strategy involves probing rather than cause analysis. In reality, A3 reports are very flexible and "proposal A3s" replace the root cause analysis with options and recommendations.
The underlying thinking sequence is important, however. First, you need to grasp the situation and clearly frame "the problem" (the "what"). A problem is typically expressed as a gap between a standard (or shared expectation) and the current situation. You see? There is no "why" (cause) at this stage and certainly no "who" (to blame)!
Then you'd typically define a target, a step in the right direction. Only then you go to deeply analyse "why" a problem occurred. Once the causes are established, you proceed with the "how" by identifying necessary and sufficient countermeasures (hypotheses of how to neutralise the causes), an action plan, and progress indicators.
Hier sehe ich einen inneren Widerspruch beim A3-Ansatz: Wenn es einerseits heisst: "... not so useful in truly complex domains where a better strategy involves probing rather than cause analysis. In reality, A3 reports are very flexible and "proposal A3s" replace the root cause analysis with options and recommendations." dann kann ich nicht nachvollziehen, wieso dann das doch sinnvoll ist: "Then you'd typically define a target, a step in the right direction. Only then you go to deeply analyse "why" a problem occurred." Mir scheint, dass der Abschied vom Ursache-Wirkungs-Denken beim A3-ansatz nicht recht gelingen will.
Popcorn Flow, a Lean based change method:
The word "popcorn" stands for Problems & observations, Options, Possible experiments, Committed, Ongoing, Review, Next.
Let's say we quickly discuss and agree that we have a general code quality problem. Rather than digging into root cause analysis, what options could we exercise that would likely address the issue? TDD, unit tests, code reviews or, perhaps, pair programming. Rather than forcing people to permanently commit to a full option, however, we simply create one or more explicit experiment, typically lasting only one or two weeks, with a reason, an action, a clear expectation (qualitative and/or quantitative) and a review date.
At regular intervals, we review these experiments using a very specific review kata — a predicable sequence designed to highlight the gap between expectation and reality.
The kind of experimentation I'm talking about here is much closer to an entrepreneurial Lean Startup approach than the one a scientist would run on a laboratory.
The difference between A3 Thinking and Popcorn Flow
For an A3 thinker, Popcorn Flow may seem like heresy. In A3 thinking, you try to be as objective as possible and take the time to gather all the facts and analyse the data. With Popcorn Flow, you create urgency and generally rely on tons of short, cheap, and intuitively good experiments to converge to perfection. A3 Thinking uses facts and rationale to "pull" others and reach consensus. Popcorn flow enables subjectivity to play a massive role and involves others through options and experimentation co-design. The scope is simply different. Popcorn Flow tends to elicit options that are actionable by a team and require taking a decisions rather than massive investigation. It is also true that, for problems that are outside a team's circle of influence or require further analysis, a viable option may involve creating an A3 report.