A3 Thinking: Problem Solving, Coaching & Examples

A3 thinking is a structured, collaborative approach to understanding a problem, testing countermeasures, and following through on the results. An A3 report summarizes that thinking, traditionally on a sheet of A3 paper. The value comes from the investigation, coaching, and learning that produce it.

A3 thinking can support improvement in manufacturing, healthcare, service operations, logistics, and office work. It is particularly useful when a problem needs a shared understanding across roles or departments and the causes and effective countermeasures are not yet clear.

Go deeper: Watch A Deep Dive into A3 Thinking with Jess Orr. The KaiNexus webinar explores problem selection, root-cause analysis, engaging people, countermeasure testing, and sustainment.

Thinking and coaching · What an A3 includes · A healthcare example · When to use A3

A3 thinking is more than filling in a template

In Lean Hospitals, Mark Graban emphasizes structured problem analysis and the PDSA cycle over paper size or a particular form. The A3 should make the team's reasoning visible: what it knows about the problem, what remains uncertain, and what it plans to test.

Start by observing the actual work and talking with the people who do it. Gather evidence about the current condition before choosing a countermeasure. A template completed afterward to justify a preferred solution misses much of the learning.

Writing an A3 should also involve dialogue. A coach can ask questions that help the author examine assumptions, strengthen the analysis, and decide what evidence is needed. Sharing work in progress with affected teams can reveal missing information and improve the proposed approach before a change is introduced.

What should a problem-solving A3 include?

Layouts and labels vary. The following elements provide a useful guide to the reasoning, rather than a mandatory sequence of boxes:

Problem and background: What matters to the customer or organization, and why does this problem deserve attention?
Current condition: What is happening now? Show relevant observations, data, and process information.
Target condition: What specific improvement is needed, and how will the team judge progress?
Cause analysis: What evidence helps explain the gap? Distinguish confirmed causes from assumptions that still need investigation.
Proposed countermeasures: What changes address the causes, and what does the team predict will happen?
Testing and implementation plan: Who will do what, with what support, and when will the team study the result?
Results, follow-up, and learning: What happened, what remains unresolved, and what will be adjusted, sustained, or tested next?

A concise report helps others follow the story. It does not mean all supporting evidence must fit on one sheet or that analysis should stop when the boxes are full. Keep the key reasoning clear and make supporting information available when needed.

A3 illustration from Healthcare Kaizen, by Mark Graban and Joseph E. Swartz. View the larger A3 illustration in a new tab.

A healthcare example: define the problem without prescribing the answer

Lean Hospitals contrasts an A3 framed around bringing all patients to a surgical preparation area by a specified early time with one framed around improving first-case on-time starts or operating-room flow.

The first framing already assumes an answer: earlier arrival. The second invites investigation of the actual delays. Before choosing a change, the team needs to understand the work across the people and departments involved and what affects the patient's experience.

The distinction applies across industries. “Buy another machine” names a proposed solution; “reduce missed delivery commitments” identifies a performance problem to investigate. “Add another approval” proposes a process step; “reduce invoice errors” leaves room to understand why the errors occur. These are illustrative applications of the same principle.

A stronger problem statement helps the team test its assumptions rather than build a case for a decision already made.

Coaching questions that improve an A3

A coach helps the author examine the problem, test assumptions, and decide what to learn next. The conversation should develop the author's thinking and involve the people who understand the work. Use these questions where they help the discussion, rather than as a script to recite or a checklist to complete before taking any action.

Separate direct observation from assumptions

“What did you observe directly, and what are we assuming?” Ask the author to describe a recent example of the problem and how the team learned about it. What did they see at the workplace? What do the data show? Which parts of the explanation came from memory or someone else's interpretation?

The purpose is to identify what needs verification. If the team believes a handoff regularly causes delays but has not followed the work through that handoff, going to see it together may be the most useful next step.

Understand the effect on customers and employees

“How does the problem affect customers and the people doing the work?” Help the author connect the performance gap to an experience that matters: a late order, repeated requests for information, avoidable waiting, or difficult work. Ask who experiences the problem and what happens to them.

This can also reveal a scope problem. A proposal that makes one department's task easier may shift work or delays downstream. The A3 should make those effects visible, so the team can pursue an improvement in the overall process.

Examine the evidence behind the proposed causes

“What evidence connects the proposed causes to the problem?” A cause-and-effect diagram or a five-whys discussion can organize the team's thinking, but the diagram itself does not establish that the explanation is correct. Ask what observations support each important connection and what evidence might challenge it.

If the analysis ends with “people need more training,” explore what the team saw that suggests a knowledge gap. Are instructions unclear, materials unavailable, or working conditions making the task difficult? Keep unverified explanations visible as assumptions to investigate.

Connect the countermeasure to a prediction

“Why do you expect this countermeasure to help?” Ask the author to explain how the proposed change addresses the cause they have identified. What should be different after the change, and what would the team expect to observe?

If the connection is weak, return to the analysis before approving a preferred solution. The coach should also be willing to question their own suggestion. Experience can inform a prediction, but it does not make the outcome certain.

Design a test that can teach the team something

“What is the smallest appropriate test, and what would tell us it did not work?” Discuss a limited setting where the team can learn before making a larger commitment. Agree on the observations or measures, the test period, and possible side effects. Keep the necessary safety, quality, and approval requirements in place.

Ask what decision the result will support. If the team cannot say what would cause it to adapt or stop the approach, it may be planning a rollout rather than a genuine test. A disappointing result should be discussable without requiring the author to defend the original idea.

Bring affected people into the thinking

“Who else needs to contribute before we act?” Identify the people doing the work, upstream and downstream teams, and anyone whose expertise or authority is needed. Ask what they have contributed so far and whether their input changed the team's understanding.

Sharing an A3 in progress allows others to identify missing information, constraints, or a better approach. Seeking a signature after the decision is settled gives them much less opportunity to improve the thinking.

Agree on follow-through and continued learning

“When will we review the results, and who will maintain the change if it helps?” Make the next review specific: what will be studied, who will participate, and what help may be needed. If the test succeeds, discuss communication, standard work, and responsibility for monitoring the process.

If it does not succeed, agree on how the team will revise its understanding or test another countermeasure. The coach's contribution is to keep the learning moving and help remove obstacles. An A3 that changes as evidence emerges can be more useful than a polished report that nobody is willing to question.

When should you use A3 rather than a small PDSA test?

Match the effort to the problem's complexity, uncertainty, risk, and need for coordination. A recurring issue with unclear causes or cross-functional effects may benefit from A3 thinking. A straightforward, low-risk local improvement may need only a short discussion and a small PDSA cycle.

Do not choose the method solely by a project's calendar length. A3 is not a requirement for every employee idea, and using a shorter form does not remove the need to check whether a change helped. For large, complex work, the A3 may summarize one part of a broader investigation or coordinated improvement effort.

Jess Orr's A Deep Dive into A3 Thinking webinar discusses matching the approach to the problem, along with practical challenges in analysis, team engagement, and sustaining changes.

Study the result and plan the follow-through

Completing a countermeasure does not establish that it improved performance. Agree on the observations and measures before the test, review what happened, and look for unintended effects on other people or parts of the process.

If the change does not help, record the result honestly and revise the analysis or countermeasure. If it does help, update the relevant standard work, communicate the change, and agree on who will monitor it and how the team will respond if the problem returns.

The A3 should remain a record of learning and a basis for discussion. KaiNexus can support organizing improvement work and sharing that learning. Explore A3 improvement work with KaiNexus.

Further learning and resources

A Deep Dive into A3 Thinking, a KaiNexus webinar with Jess Orr.
Mark Graban, Lean Hospitals: Improving Quality, Patient Safety, and Employee Engagement, third edition, the A3 Problem Solving section in Chapter 7.
John Shook, Managing to Learn.
Durward K. Sobek II and Art Smalley, Understanding A3 Thinking.
Cindy Jimmerson, A3 Problem Solving for Healthcare.