Method guide · Root cause analysis and problem solving
A3 problem solving: the A3 report format, the steps and a filled example
Short answer
A3 problem solving is a lean method that takes one problem from background to confirmed result on a single sheet of A3 paper. The left half of the sheet describes the problem and its root cause; the right half holds the countermeasures, the plan and the check of results, in plan, do, check, act order.
An A3 is a one-page report with seven boxes: background, current condition, goal, root cause analysis, countermeasures, implementation plan and follow-up. One person owns it, writes it in pencil, takes it to the floor and to everyone the fix affects, and rewrites it after each conversation. A coach reviews it box by box. The page limit forces facts over opinions, and the finished sheet tells anyone who picks it up what went wrong, why, what was done and whether it worked. A3 thinking is the habit behind the sheet: understand the problem before choosing the fix, and prove the fix with numbers.
Last reviewed:
What is A3 problem solving?
A3 problem solving is a structured way to work a problem from first report to a result you can prove, written up on one A3 sheet. The sheet follows plan, do, check, act: most of it is plan, because that is where teams usually rush. It is used for problems too big for a quick fix at the line and too small, or too local, for a full Six Sigma project.
The name is the paper. A3 is the international size 297 x 420 mm, close to the 11 x 17 inch tabloid sheet used in North America. Toyota made the one-page report its standard way to write up problems, proposals and progress, and the size stuck as the name of the method. Two books describe it from inside that practice: Understanding A3 Thinking by Durward K. Sobek II and Art Smalley (Productivity Press, 2008), and Managing to Learn by John Shook (Lean Enterprise Institute, 2008). Our pages on Understanding A3 Thinking and Managing to Learn summarize each one.
The word A3 is used three ways. The A3 report is the sheet. A3 problem solving, sometimes called the A3 process or A3 methodology, is the sequence of steps the sheet records. A3 thinking is the discipline under both: go and see, separate facts from guesses, test causes before choosing fixes, and agree the plan with the people it affects. A plant can fill in A3 forms without any of the thinking, which is the most common way the method fails.
The A3 format: the seven boxes
Layouts vary by company, but nearly every A3 report has the same seven boxes. The left side is the story of the problem. The right side is what the team will do about it and how they will know it worked. A title, the owner, the coach and the date sit across the top.
An A3 from first box to close
- 1Plan
Background
- 2Plan
Current condition
- 3Plan
Goal
- 4Plan
Root cause analysis
- 5Plan
Countermeasures
- 6Do
Implementation plan
- 7Check
Follow-up
- 8DecisionAct
Did the result meet the goal?
- Yes:
- standardize, share and close the A3
- No:
- back to root cause analysis
| Box | Side | What goes in it | The coach's question |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Background | Left (plan) | Why this problem matters now, in safety, quality, delivery or cost terms, and who feels it | Why should anyone spend time on this? |
| 2. Current condition | Left (plan) | What happens today, from the floor: a chart, a sketch of the process, the gap between the standard and reality | Did you see it yourself, and where are the numbers? |
| 3. Goal | Left (plan) | A measurable target and a date, ideally tied to the gap in box 2 | How will we know when this A3 is finished? |
| 4. Root cause analysis | Left (plan) | Fishbone, 5 Whys, is / is not or a Pareto: how the team got from symptom to cause, and how each cause was checked | How do you know that is the cause and not a guess? |
| 5. Countermeasures | Right (plan) | One or more actions per confirmed cause, with the effect each is expected to have | Which cause does each action remove? |
| 6. Implementation plan | Right (do) | Who does what by when, and the status of each action | Who has agreed to this, and what is late? |
| 7. Follow-up | Right (check, act) | The result against the goal and the prediction, what becomes standard, and where else it applies | Did it work, and how do we keep it? |
Some A3s split box 7 into confirmation of results and follow-up actions, or add a separate box for the target condition; the order does not change. The free [A3 problem solving template](/templates/a3-problem-solving-template) has these seven boxes as a PDF and an Excel file with a worked example.
Write the left side before the right side, and do not put a solution in the title. "Porosity rework on weld cell 3" names a problem; "New gas hoses for cell 3" names an answer before anyone has looked. Keep the boxes small on purpose: if the current condition does not fit, the team has not yet decided which facts matter.
How to do A3 problem solving, step by step
- 1
Pick a problem that deserves an A3, and one owner
A gap against a standard that keeps coming back, costs real time or money, or needs more than one department to fix. One person owns the sheet. On a shop floor that is often the engineer or supervisor closest to the problem, with a manager as coach.
- 2
Go to the floor and draw the current condition
Watch the process, collect the numbers, and sketch what happens. Split the data by shift, machine, part or operator until the problem has a shape. A Pareto chart of reasons is usually the first picture on the sheet.
- 3
Set the goal
A number and a date, such as rework on cell 3 at or below 2.0% for four weeks in a row by week 12. Where one machine or shift already runs well, its level is a fair first goal for the others.
- 4
Find the root cause and test it
List the candidate causes, then check each one on the floor or in the data and strike out the ones the facts rule out. Dig into the survivor with 5 Whys. A cause is confirmed when removing it stops the problem.
- 5
Propose countermeasures and get agreement
Write at least one countermeasure per confirmed cause and predict what it will do to the number. Take the draft to everyone the change affects, listen, and rewrite. Lean teams call this round of conversations nemawashi.
- 6
Run the plan
Each action has an owner and a date. Review the plan in the team's regular huddle so late actions are seen the day they slip, not at the next monthly review.
- 7
Check the result against the goal and the prediction
Measure the same thing the same way as the baseline. If the result misses, go back to the cause analysis: either a cause was wrong or there was a second one.
- 8
Standardize, share and close
Change the work instruction, the check sheet or the maintenance plan so the fix outlives the project. Copy it to similar lines (yokoten). Then close the A3 and pick the next problem from the new Pareto.
A first A3 usually takes a few weeks of elapsed time and several drafts. That is normal. The drafts are where the learning happens, and the A3 thinking post explains why a sheet finished in one sitting is usually a weak one.
A3 example: porosity rework on a robot weld cell
This A3 is illustrative: a realistic problem with made-up numbers, filled in box by box as it would be on the sheet. Cell 3 in a fabrication plant has two welding robots, A and B, that weld the same steel base frame, 1,600 frames a week. The owner is the cell's process engineer; the coach is the production manager.
Box 1, background
Rework on cell 3 is the largest internal quality loss on the frame line. Each reworked frame is ground out and welded again by hand, about 20 minutes of a skilled welder's time, and late frames make the paint line wait.
Box 2, current condition
Over four weeks the cell welded 6,400 frames and sent 240 to rework, a rate of 3.75%. A Pareto of the rework tags shows porosity, gas pockets in the weld, as two thirds of it. Split by robot, almost all the porosity is on robot B, although both robots weld the same frame with the same wire from the same parts rack.
| Rework reason | Frames | Share of rework |
|---|---|---|
| Porosity | 160 | 66.7% |
| Spatter | 40 | 16.7% |
| Undercut | 24 | 10.0% |
| Other | 16 | 6.7% |
| Total | 240 | 100% (3.75% of 6,400 frames) |
Check: 160 + 40 + 24 + 16 = 240, and 240 / 6,400 = 0.0375, so 3.75%. The other way: 6,400 x 3.75% = 240. Porosity is 160 / 240 = 66.7% of the rework and 160 / 6,400 = 2.5% of all frames.
Illustrative rework on weld cell 3, four weeks, as a Pareto chart
Example numbers- Porosity: 160, 67% of the total, cumulative 67%.
- Spatter: 40, 17% of the total, cumulative 83%.
- Undercut: 24, 10% of the total, cumulative 93%.
- Other: 16, 7% of the total, cumulative 100%.
Bars for porosity 160, spatter 40, undercut 24 and other 16 frames, with porosity alone at two thirds of the rework.
| Robot | Frames welded | Porosity rework | Porosity rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Robot A | 3,200 | 24 | 0.75% |
| Robot B | 3,200 | 136 | 4.25% |
| Cell 3 | 6,400 | 160 | 2.5% |
Check: 24 / 3,200 = 0.0075 and 136 / 3,200 = 0.0425; 24 + 136 = 160. Robot B makes 136 / 160 = 85% of the porosity on half of the frames.
Box 3, goal
Rework on cell 3 at or below 2.0% of frames for four weeks in a row by the end of week 12. The number comes from robot A: if robot B ran at robot A's 0.75% porosity, the cell would have 6,400 x 0.75% = 48 porosity frames instead of 160, and rework of 48 + 40 + 24 + 16 = 128 frames. Then 128 / 6,400 = 2.0%.
Box 4, root cause analysis
The team listed candidate causes on a fishbone and checked each one against the fact that only robot B is affected.
| Candidate cause | How it was checked | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Wire lot | Both robots feed from the same wire lot | Ruled out: same wire, different result |
| Oil or rust on the steel | Both robots take frames from the same press and rack | Ruled out: same steel, different result |
| Draft from the dock door near robot B | One shift with the door kept shut: 6 porosity frames out of 140 on robot B, about 4.3% | Ruled out: no change from 4.25% |
| Shielding gas flow at the torch | Flowmeter held on the nozzle of each torch; the weld procedure calls for 15 to 20 litres a minute | Confirmed: robot A 17, robot B 8, while both regulator gauges read 18 |
Gas leaves the regulator at the right rate on both robots, so robot B is losing it on the way to the torch. A soapy-water test on robot B's gas hose showed a leak where the hose rubs against the robot arm.
A 5 Whys from the confirmed cause: porosity on robot B, because too little shielding gas reaches the weld. Too little gas, because the hose leaks where it rubs on the arm. It rubs, because the clamp that holds the cable bundle clear of the arm was not refitted when the torch was replaced eleven weeks ago. Not refitted, because the torch change procedure has no step for it. And nobody saw the low flow, because the daily check reads the regulator gauge, which still showed 18. Two causes to remove: a missing step in the torch change procedure, and a daily check that measures in the wrong place.
The team turned the cause off to prove it: with a new hose and the clamp refitted, robot B read 17 litres a minute at the nozzle and had 3 porosity frames in its next 400, which is 0.75%, the same as robot A.
Boxes 5 and 6, countermeasures and plan
| Countermeasure | Cause it removes | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Replace robot B's gas hose and refit the cable clamp | The leaking hose (a correction, done first) | Maintenance technician | Day 1, done |
| Add "refit the cable clamp, then read flow at the nozzle" to the torch change procedure | The missing step | Maintenance planner | Week 6 |
| Change the daily check to read gas flow at the nozzle, with the 15 to 20 range printed on the check sheet | The check in the wrong place | Cell 3 team leader | Week 6 |
| Check clamps and nozzle flow on the other five robot cells | The same risk elsewhere (yokoten) | Maintenance planner | Week 7 |
Prediction written on the sheet before the change: porosity on robot B falls to robot A's level and cell rework falls to about 2.0%.
Box 7, follow-up
| Four-week period | Frames welded | Reworked | Of which porosity | Rework rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weeks 1 to 4 (baseline) | 6,400 | 240 | 160 | 3.75% |
| Weeks 7 to 10 (after) | 6,400 | 118 | 44 (22 on each robot) | 1.84% |
Check: 118 / 6,400 = 0.0184, so 1.84%, under the 2.0% goal. The 118 is 44 porosity + 38 spatter + 22 undercut + 14 other. Porosity per robot is 22 / 3,200 = 0.69%, at or below robot A's old 0.75%. The small falls in spatter and undercut are within normal week-to-week noise, so the A3 does not claim them.
What the result is worth: 240 minus 118 is 122 fewer reworked frames in four weeks, at about 20 minutes each, so 2,440 minutes, roughly 40.7 welder hours. Checked the other way: 40.7 hours x 60 = 2,440 minutes, and 2,440 / 20 = 122 frames.
The goal is met, but the A3 stays open for a second four weeks before it closes, because one good month can be luck. The yokoten check found a loose clamp on one more robot. Spatter is now the top reason on the cell's Pareto, which makes it the next problem to pick up, as a quick kaizen or a new A3. For three more filled A3s, one of each kind with a coach's note on every box, see A3 examples.
Types of A3: problem solving, proposal, status and strategy
Sobek and Smalley describe three kinds of A3 report, each answering a different question. Many companies add a fourth for strategy.
| Kind of A3 | The question it answers | Typical shop-floor use |
|---|---|---|
| Problem-solving A3 | Why does this keep happening, and what fixes it? | Scrap, rework, a recurring breakdown, a safety near miss that repeats |
| Proposal A3 | Should we do this, and which option is best? | A new fixture, a layout change, a capital request, a changeover project |
| Status A3 | Is the project on track against its goal? | A monthly review of a long improvement project |
| Strategy A3 | What must this site or department achieve this year, and how? | The yearly plan that feeds hoshin kanri and the plant's improvement projects |
The strategy A3 is a later use of the same page discipline rather than one of the book's three; see [hoshin kanri](/hoshin-kanri) for how yearly goals cascade to projects. The [A3 report post](/blogs/a3-report-project-management) covers using an A3 to run a project.
A3 vs 8D vs PDCA vs DMAIC
A3 is PDCA laid out on a page. 8D and DMAIC are longer, more formal sequences for particular kinds of problem. The right choice depends on who will read the result and how big the problem is.
| A3 | 8D | PDCA | DMAIC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| What it is | One-page report and process that follows PDCA | Eight disciplines (D1 to D8, with D0 to prepare) in a set report format | The four-step improvement cycle | Five-phase Six Sigma project method |
| Best for | An internal problem that takes weeks, owned by one person | A customer complaint or quality escape | Testing a change quickly, often several times | A chronic, data-heavy problem over months |
| Containment | Optional, inside the countermeasures | Required early, in D3 | Not a set step | Not a set step |
| Who reads it | Your own managers and teams | The customer and the quality team | The team running the test | Project sponsor and finance |
| Output | One sheet: problem, cause, fix, result | An 8D report the customer accepts | A decision: adopt, adjust or drop the change | A project storyboard and verified savings |
The steps of an 8D overlap with an A3: D2 is the current condition, D4 the root cause, D5 and D6 the countermeasures, D7 the standardization. The [8D post](/blogs/8d-problem-solving-eight-disciplines-manufacturing) explains each discipline and the [8D report template](/templates/8d-report-template) is free.
Use an A3 when your own plant will read the result. Switch to an 8D when a customer asks for one. A problem that has beaten two A3s, with months of data and many causes, may need a DMAIC project; Lean Six Sigma teams often summarize that project on one page too, on a DMAIC storyboard. The problem solving methods guide has a decision table for the full set, and the PDSA cycle guide explains the cycle the A3 follows.
A3 thinking and the coach
In Managing to Learn, Shook tells the story of a young manager and his boss working through one A3 over many drafts. The point of the book is that the sheet is a tool for coaching: the boss does not fix the problem, he asks questions until the owner can see the gaps in his own thinking. That is the part of A3 that most plants skip.
A coach reviewing an A3 asks the same few questions every time. Print them on the back of the template:
- Did you see the problem yourself, on the floor, and where are the numbers?
- Is the problem statement free of a solution?
- What else could cause this, and what did you check to rule each one out?
- If we remove this cause, does the problem stop? Have you tried it?
- Which cause does each countermeasure remove, and what do you predict will happen to the number?
- Who will this change affect, and have you talked to each of them?
- How will we know in three months that the fix is still in place?
Thin answers show up as thin boxes, which is why an A3 is a good way to coach a new engineer or supervisor. A gemba walk is the natural place to review one: what is a gemba walk covers how leaders go and see.
Common A3 mistakes
- Starting with the answer. The title or the background already names the fix, and every box after it is written to justify it.
- A current condition with no numbers. Without a baseline there is no goal, no prediction and no way to say the A3 worked.
- Causes agreed in a meeting room. Each cause on the sheet should say how it was checked: in the data, by a trial, or by turning it off and on.
- Countermeasures that do not match a cause. If an action does not remove a confirmed cause, it is a guess, however sensible it sounds.
- Writing the A3 alone at a desk and presenting it finished. The conversations with operators, maintenance and the next shift are the method, not a step after it.
- Closing at implementation. The follow-up box is where you find out whether the problem is solved; many A3s stop the week the actions are done.
- Treating the template as the method. A neat form with weak thinking is worse than a rough sheet with the right facts.
Most of these show up as soon as a coach asks the questions above. The A3 problem solving post goes through a ten-step version of the process with more on each step.
A3 template and tools
Start on paper or a whiteboard in pencil, because the first drafts change a lot. The free A3 problem solving template is a PDF that prints at A3 or 11 x 17 with a worked example on page 2, and an Excel version that works out the defect rate, flags late actions and shows whether each follow-up period met the goal.
For box 2 and box 4, the free Pareto chart maker builds the Pareto from a list of reasons, and the fishbone diagram maker lays out the candidate causes. The root cause analysis guide explains which cause tool fits which problem, and the fishbone diagram and Pareto chart guides go deeper on each.
In LeanSuite, Lean Studio has an A3 board with the seven boxes on one landscape canvas, and a tag raised on the floor that keeps coming back can be escalated into a Kaizen or A3 project in one click, keeping the tag's history. Kaizen & Projects then tracks the project through to results. If you are comparing digital tools, the best A3 problem solving software lists the options.
Continuous Improvement Software
Run A3 problem solving in LeanSuite
Use A3, DMAIC, PDCA, PDSA or just-do-it templates, or define your own method and phases.
Go deeper
This page is the short version. These guides cover each part in full.
- A3 Problem Solving: The A3 Report and the 10-Step ProcessA ten-step version of the A3 process, with more detail on each box.
- A3 Thinking: Beyond the Template in ManufacturingWhy the thinking matters more than the form, and how leaders coach through an A3.
- A3 Report as a Project Management Tool in ManufacturingUsing the A3 to plan and report on a project, not only to solve a problem.
- 8D Problem Solving: The 8 Disciplines (D0-D8) ExplainedThe 8D method in full, for customer complaints and quality escapes.
- What is the 5 Whys Root Cause Analysis Method?The 5 Whys used in box 4, with how to keep each answer to a checked fact.
- PDCA Cycle: Plan, Do, Check, Act Steps ExplainedThe cycle an A3 follows, stage by stage.
All our articles on this subject are in the root cause analysis and problem solving topic.
Free templates and tools
- Fishbone (Ishikawa) boardA Lean Studio board for listing candidate causes in box 4 of an A3, with a printable file.
- A3 problem solving templateThe standard seven-box A3 from background to follow-up, with a filled-in worked example. PDF and Excel.
- 8D report templateD0 to D8 with targets, containment counts, occurrence, escape and systemic causes, verified actions and a worked example.
- 5 Whys templateA problem statement, a why chain that can branch, evidence for every answer, root causes and countermeasures that are checked.
- PDCA templateOne improvement cycle on one page: plan, do, check against the goal, then standardize or adjust. PDF and Excel.
- Pareto chart makerPaste categories and counts: sorted bars, cumulative percentage line and the vital few at the 80% line, as a PNG or SVG.
- Fishbone diagram makerName the problem, list causes under the 6M bones, and download the Ishikawa diagram as a PNG or SVG.
- Kaizen savings calculatorYearly savings, payback in months and first-year ROI of an improvement, from time saved, scrap avoided and its costs.
Doing this in LeanSuite
Lean Studio
LeanSuite's whiteboard for lean teams, with 30 ready-made boards including the fishbone, 5 Whys, A3 and 8D.
See Lean StudioKaizen & Projects
Manage every improvement project in one visual hub, from a small kaizen event to a full DMAIC project, and track each one through to results.
See Kaizen & ProjectsAI Root Cause Analysis
Describe a problem, answer the AI's questions, and get the likely root causes and an action plan.
See AI Root Cause Analysis
Open this board in LeanSuite
The A3 problem solving board is one of the 30 ready-made boards in Lean Studio, LeanSuite's whiteboard. Try the interactive demo in your browser with sample data, or pilot LeanSuite on your own lines for 90 days, with the setup done by our team.
What Lean Studio isFAQ
Questions about a3 problem solving
A3 problem solving is a lean method that works one problem from background to a confirmed result on a single A3 sheet. The left side holds the background, current condition, goal and root cause; the right side holds the countermeasures, plan and follow-up. It follows plan, do, check, act, and one owner writes it with a coach reviewing it.
A3 is the paper size the report is written on: 297 x 420 mm, close to an 11 x 17 inch sheet. Toyota used one sheet of that size for problem reports, proposals and status reports, and the size became the name of the method.
The seven boxes, in order: background, current condition, goal, root cause analysis, countermeasures, implementation plan and follow-up. The first four describe the problem and its cause. The last three say what will be done, who does it by when, and whether the result met the goal.
It is the practice Toyota developed of writing a problem, a proposal or a project status on one A3 sheet, in PDCA order, and using the sheet to coach the person who owns it. Durward Sobek and Art Smalley describe it in Understanding A3 Thinking and John Shook in Managing to Learn, both published in 2008.
A3 thinking is the discipline behind the sheet: go and see the problem, separate facts from guesses, confirm the cause before choosing the fix, predict the result, and agree the plan with the people it affects. A plant can fill in A3 forms without it, and that is the most common way the method fails.
An A3 is a one-page report for internal problems, owned by one person and read by your own managers. An 8D is a longer report in eight disciplines, used when a customer asks for one after a quality escape, with containment required early in D3. The thinking overlaps: both define the problem, confirm the root cause and verify the fix.
An A3 is PDCA written on one page. Background, current condition, goal, root cause and countermeasures are the plan; the implementation plan is the do; the follow-up box is the check and act. PDCA is the cycle, and the A3 is a format and a coaching routine for running it.
A3 comes from lean, not Six Sigma, but Lean Six Sigma programs use it in two ways: as the method for problems too small for a full DMAIC project, and as a one-page summary of a DMAIC project for reviews. The thinking is the same: define the gap, find the cause, fix it and prove it.
It is a blank A3 sheet with the seven boxes laid out, the problem side on the left and the action side on the right, so the owner fills in the story in order. A good template also has room for a chart in the current condition and a table that checks the follow-up against the goal.
No. It started in manufacturing at Toyota, but hospitals, offices and software teams use the same one-page format for problems and proposals. The boxes stay the same; only the data in the current condition changes.
Related guides and tools
- A3 examples: three more filled A3 reports (problem solving, proposal, status) with a coach's note on every box
- A3 problem solving template: the seven boxes as a free PDF and Excel file, with a worked example
- Understanding A3 Thinking by Sobek and Smalley: our summary of the book on the A3 report and its three types
- Managing to Learn by John Shook: our summary of the book on coaching through an A3
- PDCA, DMAIC and A3 poster: the three methods side by side, free to print
- Problem solving methods compared: when to use A3, 8D, DMAIC, PDCA and the cause tools
More method guides
- The 6 Ms of production
- Poka-yoke
- Model area 90-day plans
- Moving from Excel to one system
- Reducing machine downtime: a worked month
- Andon
- Cycle time vs lead time, worked through
- Root cause analysis
- How many operators a line needs
- Reducing scrap and rework: a worked month
- Unsafe acts and unsafe conditions
- Just culture
- Stop-work authority
- Material review board (MRB)
- Nonconformance and NCRs
- Problem solving methods
- Quad chart
- OEE calculation
- Quality assurance vs quality control
- SOP meaning and format
- Job hazard analysis
- Near miss reporting
- Fishbone diagram
- Pareto chart
- Histogram
- Control chart
- What is a gemba walk
- What is lead time
- What is operational excellence
- How to improve product quality
- Preventive vs predictive maintenance
- Kanban
- FMEA
- PDSA cycle
- Safety moments
- Just-in-time manufacturing
- Kaizen
- 5S
- Total quality management (TQM)
- CAPA (corrective and preventive action)
- Layered process audit (LPA)
- Lean tools
- Lockout tagout (LOTO)
- Preventive maintenance
- APQP
- High reliability organization (HRO)
- Manufacturing KPIs
- Quality metrics
- Practical problem solving
- CMMS
- Risk assessment
- Production efficiency
- Total productive maintenance (TPM)
- Reliability-centered maintenance (RCM)
Or browse the topics, the full library and the lean glossary.
Rather see it on your own problem?
Bring the problem you are stuck on, and we will show you on a call how LeanSuite handles it.

