Process Improvement:
Using Toyota’s
A3 Reports
Satya S. Chakravorty
Kennesaw State University
In order to drive process improvement, Toyota uses
A3 reports as a tool to identify and solve problems.
A3 reports are usually written on paper size 11 inches
by 17 inches and are enriched with visuals such
as pictures, diagrams, and charts to improve com-
munication. To date, the author has found no study
explaining how to implement A3 reports in manu-
facturing operations. The purpose of this exploratory
study is to show how A3 reports were implemented in
a successful process improvement project in aircraft
maintenance and repair operations. In doing so, he
shows a systematic approach, improvement event,
and the process used to implement and document
A3 reports. The duration of an improvement event
is generally four weeks and has four distinct phases:
1) preparation and training; 2) process mapping and
current state analysis; 3) process mapping and future
state analysis; and 4) implementation and ownership.
Important for both practitioners and academicians,
the author also discusses implications of A3 report
implementation and directions for future research.
Key words: lean, process improvement, Six Sigma,
theory of constraints
© 2009, ASQ
INTRODUCTION
In order to drive process improvement, Toyota created
A3 reports as a tool to identify problems, find solutions,
and report results of improvement activities (Sobek and
Jimmerson 2004). The A3 report got its name from the
paper size on which the report is printed. In its purest
form, A3 reports are printed on a single sheet of 11-inch
by 17-inch paper (Radeka 2005). The A3 report is an
effective tool because it contains not only text, but also
pictures, diagrams, and charts, all of which enrich and
clarify the data. The thought behind the A3 report is
to include all relevant information and to establish a
clear representation of the current problem, eliminat-
ing “waste” in the form of information that is not
absolutely pertinent to the problem at hand. The idea
is to streamline the report so it focuses only on the
problem and its solution, and nothing else. A3 reports
are adopted in operations (Sobek and Jimmerson 2006)
and promoted by the Shingo Prize for Operational
Excellence (Chakravorty, Atwater, and Herbert 2008a).
To date, the author has found no study explaining how
to implement A3 reports in manufacturing operations.
One purpose of this exploratory study is to show how
A3 reports were implemented to improve the perfor-
mance of aircraft maintenance and repair operations.
The author demonstrates a systematic approach to the
improvement event, and the implementing and doc-
umenting of A3 reports. Each improvement event is
conducted at a target shop by an experienced facilitator
with a team of workers or process owners from the shop.
An improvement event consists of a host of activities, is
generally completed in four weeks, and has four distinct
www.asq.org 7
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
phases: 1) preparation and training; 2) process map-
ping and analysis of current state; 3) process mapping
and analysis of future state; and 4) implementation and
ownership transfer. Important to both practitioners and
academicians, this article discusses three implications
of A3 report implementation and includes directions for
future research.
TOYOTA’S A3 REPORTS
According to Sobek and Jimmerson (2004), Toyota
has developed many kinds of A3 reports for different
applications. An example of an A3 report format is
included in Appendix 1. Other examples of completed
A3 reports can be found in Sobek and Smalley (2008),
Shook (2008), Jimmerson (2007), and Abilla (2007).
Typically, the report has left and right sections, and
each section has many headings.
On the left section, there are four headings. The first
heading is the “Theme,” which succinctly states the
problem(s) being addressed in one or two sentences.
The second heading is “Background,” which contains
a description of all pertinent information needed to
understand the scope of the problem at hand. The third
heading is “Current Condition,” which deals with devel-
oping an understanding of what is happening currently
using a value-stream map (Rother and Shook 1998).
The map should be enhanced by inserting quantita-
tive information (for example, takt time, setup times,
and so on), storm bursts, or notes at appropriate places
to develop a good understanding of all existing con-
ditions. These illustrations use words and pictures to
enhance readability and understand the problem. See
Tufte’s (1983) and Cleveland’s (1985) books for several
examples of illustrations. The fourth heading, “Cause
Analysis,” deals with determining the cause of the
current problem. Sobek and Jimmerson (2004) recom-
mend the “5 Why’s” method where participants ask the
“why” question five times to get to the bottom of the real
problem. There are, however, additional methods for
performing root-cause analysis (see Lepore and Cohen
1999; Womack and Jones 2003; and Keller 2005).
On the right section, there are three headings. The
first heading is the “Target Condition,” which consid-
ers possible improvement ideas that could rectify the
8 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
problem. In pursuit of operational excellence, Toyota
calls these improvement ideas “countermeasures” to
imply that a solution is currently being reached for a
specific problem only until a better solution is found
(Sobek and Jimmerson 2004). With the objective of
countermeasures, participants draw the target condi-
tion or future state. The future state diagram shows
how the modified or improved process will work when
countermeasures are in place. The second heading
is the “Implementation Plan,” which identifies the
steps that need to be completed in order to realize the
improvements outlined under the future state map.
The participants clearly write the changes necessary to
improve the process, define a priority for the changes,
establish a timeline to complete the changes, and
identify the results expected from the process improve-
ment steps. The third heading is “Follow-Up,” and it
involves activities that are not completed in the time
outlined. Follow-up activities also are necessary to docu-
ment problems or obstacles encountered during the
implementation so the future implementation can be
improved. In addition, results of the implementation are
also written, which outline what specific improvements
have been realized.
METHODOLOGY
Action research is a collaborative process of critical
inquiry that fosters the learning of theory and practice
(Argyris 1985). The author used action research to
document how to implement process improvement pro-
grams using Toyota’s A3 report. According to Kemmis
and McTaggart (2000), there are two reasons why
action research is appropriate for these objectives. First,
action research focuses on “… learning from trying
to bring about change….” (Kemmis and McTaggart
2000, 572), where the typical participants are shop-floor
employees, middle managers, and outside consul-
tants. In this case, there is very little known about how
to implement Toyota’s A3 reports, so the researcher,
as a participant, academic researcher, and process
improvement expert, was essential for this exploratory
investigation. Second, action research does not require
control over the behavioral elements. Instead, it relies
on reflection and participation of subjects to evaluate
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
phenomena rather than control and objectivity. As
participant-observer, the researcher was able to observe
how a host of activities were identified and coordinated
in implementing Toyota’s A3 reports.
The action research methodology that was
employed is based on Susman and Evered’s (1978)
seminal work on how to conduct rigorous scientific
action research, which is so highly regarded that it is
commonly referred to as “canonical action research”
(Davidson, Martinsons, and Kock 2004), or “action
science” (Kemmis and McTaggart 2000). Davidson
clearly articulates five stages of rigorous action research.
They are the principles of: 1) researcher-client agreement
(RCA); 2) cyclical process model (CPM); 3) theory;
4) change through action; and 5) learning through
reflection. Next, the author briefly discusses each stage
and shows how the study generally complemented, as
well as differed, with his recommendations.
The RCA articulates the relationship among stake-
holders in the study, and is a key to establishing the
internal validity of the research findings. Stakeholders
include the researcher, workers, managers, owners,
and all who will potentially benefit from the effort. The
researcher participated in the steering committee and
with shop-floor work groups. An acceptable RCA must
ensure the researcher’s access to all pertinent data and
personnel who can provide insight into the “cause and
effect” phenomenon observed during the study. The orga-
nization agreed to these conditions as long as proprietary
data were excluded from external review.
CPM is a procedure for systematically applying solu-
tions in an action research study (Davidson, Martinsons,
and Kock 2004). Susman and Evered (1978) describe
five stages for systematically applying solutions in action
research. In summary, they are: 1) diagnosis (identify-
ing the cause of a problem); 2) planning (identifying
prospective solutions and how best to apply them to a
problem); 3) intervention (actually applying the pro-
posed solution); 4) evaluation (analyzing outcome
data); and 5) reflection (the process of reviewing the
results of the effort).
The primary form of “diagnosis” in this study was
the reflection by the researchers on their own experi-
ences. They spent several hours brainstorming ideas
and reflecting on what had happened during the day’s
events with several participants—including a steer-
ing committee that was initially formed and chaired
by the vice president (VP) of operations. It would have
improved reliability to have the author’s findings evalu-
ated by an independent source; however, many of the
findings were considered proprietary by the organization
and were not available for review by others. This process
also satisfies the “reflection” stage of CPM. The ideas
and events that improved performance were noted, as
well as the researcher’s preliminary insights into why
they worked. This satisfied the “evaluation” stage of
the CPM. The events observed while coordinating dif-
ferent activities related to improvement projects were
compared with previous experiences of the researcher.
Discrepancies in proposed causes and sequencing of the
events were noted for further examination. Solutions to
problems in one stage of implementation were tried in
others. Each morning, based on consensus, the partici-
pants chose the problems and events to first attack that
satisfied the “planning” stage of the CPM. The planned
solutions were implemented during the first shift opera-
tions of the organization, and new events were noted.
During this period, the researcher focused solely on
assisting with the implementation efforts and docu-
menting the process. This satisfies the “intervention”
stage of CPM. This procedure occurred on an iterative
basis throughout the study.
The findings in this study are explained through
existing theories, and suggest how a theory or model
for implementation of process improvement should be
developed. The processes of action and the resulting
changes are indivisible, because both exist in successful
problem solving. According to Davidson, Martinsons,
and Kock (2004), if action does not bring about change,
then: 1) no problem truly existed; 2) the intervention
(action) was inappropriate; or 3) the problem could not
be solved because of practical obstacles. To strengthen
reliability in learning through reflection, the author’s
team had at least two judges evaluate the consistency
of their results (internal validity). In this study, the
researcher independently evaluated the information
from participants, and then resolved the discrepan-
cies through reflection and argument. The team then
presented its findings back to the VP of operations and
steering committee to evaluate the results.
www.asq.org 9
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
This 12-month study was conducted in aircraft
maintenance and repair operations with in-house
manufacturing capability located in the southern
United States. As suggested by Yin (2008), the team
used multiple sources of evidence such as documents,
archival records, interviews, participation, and direct
observation. Essential steps of these operations con-
sist of performing disassembly of aircraft, separating
nondefective parts from defective parts, replacing
defective parts with high-quality parts, and carrying
out assembly of the aircraft. The parts to replace the
defective parts were produced in the manufacturing
shops. The redesign effort was initiated to stay com-
petitive in the domestic and international markets. The
pressure from the VP of operations was to drastically
reduce turnaround time for aircraft maintenance and
repair operations while improving the quality of overall
maintenance and repair operations.
DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS
IMPROVEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Initial Initiative
Four major steps were necessary before implementation
of process improvement was carried out. First, the VP of
operations, along with divisional managers and branch
heads of functional areas, established a core team called
“Speed” to develop a strategic intent and to drive the
process improvement. The Speed team consisted of
managers and workers from the functional areas who
were experienced in process improvement, and outside
experts or researchers (the author) in process improve-
ment strategies. The core team also included trainees
from the functional areas. The RCA stipulated that:
1) the client was committed to improving mainte-
nance and repair operations, and was willing to provide
all pertinent data to the researcher; 2) the researcher
would document the application of process improve-
ment in a research log and provide findings to the VP of
operations and to the divisional managers as requested;
3) the researcher would provide training and participate
in improvement efforts in exchange for publishing
the results; and 4) all participants and the Speed team
10 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
would be available for at least two hours per day to
reflect and provide feedback to the researcher. The Speed
team was responsible for strategizing process improve-
ment with active participation from all functional areas,
implementing process improvement, and following up
on implementation results.
Second, the focus was to adopt an improvement tool
and an instrument to document and communicate the
implementation of process improvement ideas. Over
the years, the manufacturing operations had initiated
many process improvement tools such as Six Sigma
(Keller 2005; Pyzdek 2003), lean (Chakravorty and
Hales 2004; Womack and Jones 2003; Robinson 1990),
and theory of constraints principles (Chakravorty and
Atwater 2006; Goldratt and Cox 2004; Chakravorty
2000) (see Appendix 2). One problem with these initia-
tives was that they were fragmented and rarely worked
together to synergistically improve the performance of
various operations. One objective of this initiative was
to integrate all of these improvement strategies into one
core strategy that was simple to understand and to drive
operational excellence from the bottom up. While the
Speed team recognized the need for sophisticated tools
(for example, statistical process control), the general
census was that the majority of managers and workers
did not possess the needed skills to either fully under-
stand or to implement such tools. Implementation of
sophisticated tools was left to the discretion of indi-
vidual facilitators and to the specific needs of a given
situation. The Speed team worked diligently to develop
the contents of the training program, including illus-
trations, examples, and interactive simulation games
to provide training in the basics of process improve-
ment. Essentials of the training program included the
concept of waste, process or value-stream mapping,
and applying the problem-solving steps: identify the
problem, gather information, generate solutions, pri-
oritize solution, and implement solutions (similar to
Six Sigma’s approach of define, measure, analyze,
improve, and control). As an instrument to document
and communicate the progress of all process improve-
ment efforts, the Speed team decided to use a version of
Toyota’s A3 report as Speed A3 report (see Appendix 3).
This report was usually printed on one page of 11-inch
by 17-inch paper, but sometimes it was printed on two
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
pages of 11-inch by 8 ½-inch paper. To reinforce the
understanding of A3 reports among managers and
workers in the application of the report, the team devel-
oped examples of trial reports, and supervised a session
where the managers and workers applied the report to
eliminate waste from the process.
Third, the Speed team performed high-level pro-
cess mapping of maintenance and repair operations.
This was designed to understand the flow of parts and
information into the existing operations. Although
these operations involved complex and intertwined
flows, the Speed team determined that there are four
distinct stages. In stage 1, aircraft are scheduled for
maintenance. Once they physically arrive at the main-
tenance area, they are pulled into a hanger, and an
in-depth inspection is performed. In stage 2, they are
disassembled, and defective parts are separated from
nondefective parts. Some parts are replaced as man-
dated by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) guidelines.
In stage 3, orders are released to produce component
parts in manufacturing operations consisting of 14
different shops. Once the parts are produced, they are
transported to the assembly area. In stage 4, final
assembly of the aircraft is performed, testing and
inspection is done, and, finally, the aircraft is sent out
for use.
Fourth, since the Speed team could not effectively
address all of the problems simultaneously, they strug-
gled to decide which ones to address first. The Speed
team documented many wasteful activities in different
departments, and segregated them using the frequency
of their occurrences. After several iterations, there was
agreement on the problems based on two possible
outcomes, either potential cost savings or revenue gen-
eration. When applicable, the potential cost savings were
computed in terms of reduction in defects, inventory,
returns, or temporary workers’ payroll, and so on. When
applicable, the revenue generation ideas were calculated
in terms of faster response time, increased throughput,
or better utilization of bottleneck operations. Combing
the two potential outcomes, the Speed team prioritized
process improvement projects based on those with the
strongest support from the workers and managers. The
Speed team then held a meeting with the VP of opera-
tions, divisional managers, branch heads, and outside
consultants for their input and approval. After delib-
erations, the Speed team developed the final priority
for 25 process improvement projects in various stages
of the entire maintenance and repair operations, and
immediately began application of A3 reports.
Application of Speed A3 Report
The Speed team developed an appropriate human
infrastructure to drive improvement from the bottom
up. The Speed team established low-level improve-
ment teams involving processes, and chose champions
to manage these teams. In addition to communicating
with the Speed team, the champions worked with the
low-level improvement teams on various improve-
ment events. These events involved coordinating a
host of activities to apply A3 reports. Each event was
orchestrated by an experienced facilitator along with
a couple of Speed team trainees. The trainees are
included so they can become future facilitators by
learning the latest process improvement strategies
and their deployment to improve actual operations.
The trainees also saved the facilitator’s valuable time
by providing assistance in gathering and organiz-
ing relevant data to accelerate implementation. It is
important to understand that no two events are alike,
and that each event had to be treated as a separate
entity. In general, each event took four weeks, and
each week involved different activities.
Phase 1: Preparation and
Training (First Week)
There were five major activities in this phase. First, once
the target shop was designated, the first objective was to
form a team to lead improvement efforts in the shop. The
team consisted of an experienced facilitator, Speed team
trainees, and workers from the shop. Generally, four to
nine shop workers were chosen, and each worker devoted
at least 20 hours per week for the first three weeks, and
40 hours per week for the fourth week. To get an idea of
the extent of possible improvements, the facilitator made
arrangements for workers to visit another shop where an
improvement event was previously conducted.
www.asq.org 11
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
Second, the team members spent time studying
the existing shop operations. They obtained the latest
shop layout drawings, identified shop boundaries, and
noted material flow through the shop. They walked
through the process, observed material flow, and noted
various machines and tools used throughout the process.
In doing so, they identified and “red tagged” old and
unused machines and/or tools for their removal from
the shop. The team collected preliminary data, which
included actual output, customer demand, on-time
percentages, start times, breaks, shifts, lunch times, and
similar information. The team also discussed target goals
and measurements (for example, travel time reduction,
work-in-process reduction, take time reduction, mistake
reduction, and so on), and documented all suggestions
for improvement coming from shop workers.
Third, after studying the shop operations, the team
deliberated on verbalizing a problem statement for the
shop. Typically, the first time a problem statement was
written, there was no clear agreement among workers.
While each worker was very familiar with his or her job,
he or she still lacked an understanding of flow through
the shop. The facilitator and the Speed trainees played
an important role, and used the Socratic approach
to seek the shop workers’ input in order to refine the
problem statement. After several iterations, patiently
considering the workers’ input and the Speed trainees’
suggestions, the facilitator wrote the actual problem
statement on the A3 report.
Fourth, a conference room close to the target shop
was secured in order for workers to meet frequently
and to openly discuss ways to improve the process. To
incorporate management’s suggestions, an invitation
to the kick-off meeting was sent to the VP of operations,
divisional managers, branch heads, managers, and shop
supervisors. In addition, a suggestion box was set up near
the shop to encourage the rest of the workers, especially
those who were not included in the team, to give their
input about the shop’s problems and their solutions for
improvement.
Fifth, process improvement training was provided
in the conference room. The training was delivered
by the facilitator in an interactive manner by using
presentation slides with audio and video enhance-
ments. To cover all aspects of process improvement
12 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
strategies, three training sessions for two hours each
(with a lunch break and other breaks) per day were
scheduled. At the end of each session, the workers were
given simulation games or Tinker Toy® games to apply
their process improvement strategies. Throughout the
training session, open discussions were encouraged, so
workers felt comfortable providing their input. Finally,
the team secured a digital camera to archive before
and after implementation pictures, and later used these
pictures to document the implementation.
Phase 2: Process Mapping
and Analysis of Current State
(Second Week)
There were three important activities during this
phase. First, with active participation from work-
ers, the facilitator orchestrated the development of a
current state map of the shop operations. They used
sticky notes to describe an operation (or machine),
and Sharpies® (permanent dry markers) to connect
each operation in order to highlight the flow through
the target shop. The team used sticky notes and
Sharpies® because they were simple to use. They tried
to use electronic display boards, but they encoun-
tered problems due to power or battery failure, and
lost many hours of work. Often, they used red sticky
notes to show non-value-added activities and green
sticky notes to show value-added activities. While
creating the process map, discussions among work-
ers, Speed trainees, and the facilitator were crucial for
the success of an improvement event. In all of these
improvement events, workers acknowledged they were
aware of wasteful activities (for example, wait time,
transportation, and defects) in their shop, but they
were not aware that these activities could occupy the
majority (for example, 80 percent) of their time.
Second, the team used both qualitative and quanti-
tative data to analyze the existing shop. Qualitative data
were gathered through independent surveys, interviews,
observations, and participation. In addition, they found
that casual discussions with workers and supervisors
during breaks and lunch hours were very effective in
gaining insights into the existing shop’s difficulties. In
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
fact, many times these discussions provided insights
into the type of quantitative data necessary to better
understand the existing conditions. These insights (or
qualitative data) provoked their interest in searching for
a type of quantitative data that they would otherwise not
have discovered.
Quantitative data were collected through a variety
of sources, including personal observations and mea-
surements. First, the team obtained layout drawings
of the existing shop and ascertained that there were
no major discrepancies between the drawing and the
physical layout of the shop. Second, they obtained as
much shop information as possible, which included
shop routing, down times, setup times, quality
reports, and efficiency reports. Third, they collected
data by observing and measuring cycle time, travel
time, square footage of each area, type of defects, and
similar data associated with the shop. It is important
to note that the facilitator needs to use experience
and judgment in collecting just enough data (opti-
mum amount) to perform a thorough analysis of the
existing conditions. They found that many facilitators
got bogged down in collecting an exhaustive set of
data, and then were left with insufficient time to per-
form an adequate analysis, which resulted in a poor
implementation.
Third, a thorough analysis was performed to find the
root cause of the problem. Qualitative techniques used to
perform analysis ranged from simple procedures such as
“5 Why’s” and fishbone charting to a current reality tree.
Similarly, quantitative techniques to perform analysis
ranged from simple procedures that included histograms
(content analysis), Pareto charts, and “t” tests, and
sophisticated procedures such as analysis of variance
(ANOVA), regression, and design of experiments (DOE).
In general, they found that simple procedures often
worked better than sophisticated procedures. Although
a majority of the workers did not have a college degree,
they easily understood simple procedures, and experi-
enced little or no trouble in applying such procedures
to perform current state analysis. In other words, the
team had to rely on simple procedures, rather than
sophisticated procedures, to drive process improvement
from the bottom up. Many times, however, the facilitator
augmented worker’s analysis with additional analysis
using sophisticated procedures. Once a thorough analysis
of the current state was complete, the facilitator filled the
appropriate section in the A3 report.
Phase 3: Process Mapping
and Analysis of Future State
(Third Week)
There are four activities involved in this phase. First,
with active participation from workers, the facilitator
orchestrated the development of a future state map of
the shop operations. Once again, the facilitator played
an important role, and using the Socratic Method,
guided the workers to improve the current state of the
shop operations. To start discussions, the facilitator
challenged non-value-added activities and asked sim-
ple questions like, “Do we need this step?” “How can
we eliminate this step?” or “Can we move this machine
here to reduce travel time?” Usually workers answered
these questions, and soon they started to actively par-
ticipate in providing suggestions for improving their
existing shop operations. The facilitator should exercise
utmost caution, however, and not hastily provide solu-
tions to the problems. It took a little longer, but the
workers eventually provided suggestions for improving
their shop’s problems, an absolute must for ownership
and “buy in” to occur. After several iterations, there
usually was an agreement among the workers on the
future state of the shop operations.
Second, once the future state of the shop operations
was decided, the facilitator and Speed team train-
ees developed a “to do” list, which included action
items, responsibilities, and deadlines to complete all
tasks. The facilitator went through the list diligently
and made sure that all supporting functions were
informed. For example, there were usually layout
changes involving moving machines and tools from
one location to the other. The facilitator coordinated
with plant operations to be sure that machine founda-
tion requirements, machine preparations, availability
of electricians, and, if necessary, that heavy machinery
movers, would be available.
Third, the facilitator held a meeting with the
entire shop to explain the forthcoming changes or
www.asq.org 13
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Table 1
Speed A3 Report Date 06/02/08

Target Shop: 3553

Facilitator: Satya Chakravorty
Speed Trainees: James Ivey, Lewis Carroll, Dave Davies, John Johnson, Kenneth John
Process Owners: John Copland (Supervisor) and Heat Treatment Artisans

1. Problem Statement
The heat treatment is designed to deliver treated parts to the foundry components and the manufacturing components. Parts processed
through heat treatment are frequently delayed, which in turn negatively impact the performance of the manufacturing components.

2. Current State Analysis

Process map of the existing conditions reveal that only about 25 percent of activities are adding value. Many activities are
performed manually.

Non-value-added activities Value-added activities

Artisan from another Verify Create heat treat Transport to Treat part with
area carries part paperwork requisition oven / solution solution and
to heat treat (1 min) document (5 min) (20 min) remove (8 min)

Non-value-added activities Value-added activities Value-added activities

Value-added = 24.64%
Put in freezer (9 min) Stamp off Non-value-added = 75.36%
Transport to Rinse
Note: Part sets in freezer until artisan paperwork, 1st heat
glyco-solution chemical
retrieves it for re-form / re-shaping treat completion
(20 min) (1 min)
and sets it on the incoming table for (5 min)
2nd heat treat process

Turn Around Time—Before Heat Treat Area

90 Interview and a walk-through with Hubert Suggs
80
70
60 Artisans bring the work with the paperwork to the heat treat area. Parts
50
Hours

going to the oven then SW (solution wash to make material soft) after SW
40
30 goes to clear water to wash off the chemical. After SW and water go back
Part 3456
20 Part 3407 to where they came from to be reform/straighten, then go back to heat
10
0 Part 4006 treat to be aging (check AMS standard American Metal Society) then go to
1 2 3 4 standard machine, if meet the standard then for sale. 2-3 times heat treat.
Quarters Heat, average temperature 925 degree for 30 minutes, after the oven to
solution 100 degree for 8 seconds (glycol solution) then go into the water
(wash off the chemical) go into the freezer –60 degree, stay in the freezer
until they need it. (Aging) test machine.

Quincy oven / furnace (underground unit), can only process 1 job at a time,
utilized 3-4 times a year. This furnace primarily processes 5' exhaust duct.
New furnace (walk-in furnace has 4235 generated) can do multiple jobs
(Waltz)
Need better working tools for efficient job.

Clean up the area-5S plus 1 event

Better equipment to work with
Better tools to work with
Only have
Better test equipment for accuracy (certain parts require stress test accuracy.
Every two weeks 30 parts small parts) save time.
©2009, ASQ

Recommend walk-in-freezer
Recommend a replacement “Quincy” oven/furnace that is above ground
and can handle multi-job requirements

14 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ

 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Table 1 (continued)
3. Future State Analysis
After implementation, value-added activities will increase to about 60 percent. There are additional opportunities for buying new
machines to speed up the treatment process.

Non-value-added activities Value-added activities

Artisan from another Verify Create heat treat Treat part with
area carries part paperwork requisition solution and
to heat treat (1 min) document (5 min) remove (8 min) Many activities before
and after treatment
could be automated.
Non-value-added activities Value-added activities Value-added activities
Two software packages
have been contacted.
Put in freezer (9 min) Stamp off
Rinse
Note: Part sets in freezer until artisan paperwork, 1st heat
chemical
retrieves it for re-form / re-shaping treat completion
(1 min)
and sets it on the incoming table for (5 min)
2nd heat treat process

Heat treatment engineer

informed that newer models
of this process could cut down
processing by 50%.

4. Implementation
Implementation was generally smooth. Oven-solution and glyco-solution baths were moved closer to the heat treatment area.
Follow-up visits revealed that new equipment was not purchased. The shop now has a new supervisor. After four weeks, results
showed the performance of the shop improved and results are included here.

Value Analysis: After Turn Around Data—After

45
40
35
30
25
Hours

20
Value Add 15 Part 3456
Non-Value Added 10 Part 3407
5
0 Part 4006
1 2 3 4
Weeks ©2009, ASQ

The turnaround time performance also improved. The shop supervisor indicated that turnaround time for many other parts have
gone down. That area has not received any complaints about treated parts from manufacturing components. Automation of order
processing is under way. IT department is evaluating two software vendors.

improvement initiatives. At this time, the team mem-
bers shared the details of changes with rest of the
workers. Many workers provided additional sugges-
tions for improvement in the future state map, and
the facilitator incorporated those suggestions to refine
the future state map of the shop operations.
In the fourth and final stage, the facilitator started
to impart all of the upcoming changes to the shop
operations. The facilitator compared the current state
map with the future state map to estimate reduction
in all non-value-added activities. For example, a 40
percent reduction in travel time, an 80 percent reduc-
tion in transportation, and a 20 percent reduction
in wasteful activities in the shop. Once all of these
estimates were complete, the facilitator completed the
appropriate section in the A3 report and made a final
check before all the changes were implemented the
following week.

www.asq.org 15
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
Phase 4: Implementation
and Ownership Transfer
(Fourth Week)
There were two major steps taken during this phase.
First, the facilitator orchestrated actual imple-
mentation in the target shop. Good planning and
participation of the workers in the previous stages
facilitated a smooth transition to all of the changes
in the shop. Since this phase involved all aspects of
a shop (machines and tools, method, materials, and
personnel), there were often last-minutes glitches. The
facilitator provided assistance in coordinating these
activities to make the implementation a success. The
workers followed through with the changes, discussed
the benefits of the changes openly, and began to oper-
ate under the changed conditions. As the changes
were introduced, the performance of the shop did not
immediately improve, even in the next week. In fact,
the performance of the shop deteriorated as workers
were transitioning into new ways of operating. There
was chaos and confusion in many areas of shop oper-
ations. In a couple of weeks, however, as the workers
became accustomed to operating in the new way, their
individual performance improved and, eventually,
the target shop’s performance improved. At the end
of this week, the facilitator took pictures of the shop
to document “after” implementation conditions, and
assisted the workers in preparing for the presentation,
which included all the changes. The presentation was
done by the shop workers for the VP of operations,
divisional managers, branch heads, managers, and
shop supervisors.
Second, once the implementation was complete,
a follow up was necessary. The facilitator visited the
target shop to learn from the improvement event. The
facilitator documented specific methods that worked,
specific methods that did not work, and determined
how to modify the future process improvement event.
It is important to note, however, that many times all
activities could not be completed, despite the team’s
best efforts. The facilitator diligently documented
all unfinished activities and developed a follow-up
list of activities, specifying action items, individual
16 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
responsibilities, and a timeline to complete those
activities. The facilitator followed up and made sure
that all unfinished activities were completed on time.
As the last activity of an improvement event, four to
six weeks following the implementation, the facilita-
tor completed the appropriate sections of the Speed A3
report. Examples of three implementation reports are
provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PROCESS
IMPROVEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
There are five implications of this process improve-
ment effort involving A3 report implementation. First,
the team encountered many problems in developing
A3 reports. Initially, the facilitator along with many
participants who were involved in the actual process
improvement wrote parts of A3 reports. There was pro-
pensity among the participants to fill every space on
A3 reports with descriptions, pictures, and diagrams.
Often times, the handwriting of many participants
was barely legible. In addition, many A3 reports got
soiled with manufacturing oil or grease as participants
wrote on them. These initial attempts cluttered many
A3 reports and created confusion among participants,
facilitators, and process owners. In fact, many of the
initial reports had to be either completely rewritten, or
additional pages of explanation had to be attached.
Later, as they gained experience, instead of filling out
the entire A3 report, only the most important descrip-
tions and pictures or diagrams were included. Typically
the facilitator or another participant with satisfactory
handwriting completed the A3 report. There was no
readily available solution to protect the A3 reports from
manufacturing oil or grease. More research is necessary
to determine the feasibility of developing a software
system to create A3 reports. Once the required infor-
mation is provided, such a system should be able to
generate a digital version of A3 reports.
Second, A3 reports implementation was successful
because the team developed an appropriate human
infrastructure to drive improvement from the bot-
tom up. The approach was to establish low-level
improvement teams along product flows and choose
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Table 2
Speed A3 Report Date 07/01/08

Target Shop: 3675

Facilitator: Satya Chakravorty
Speed Trainees: Jeff Anderson, Nick Johnston, and Mike Rogers
Process Owners: Jim Grant (Supervisor) and Manufacturing Component Artisans

1. Problem Statement
The manufacturing component produces parts needed for the assembly process of maintenance and repair operations. The workers
suspected that there were too many jobs in work-in-process causing long lead-times, and the bottleneck resource was poorly utilized
(and working on wrong jobs).

2. Current State Analysis

Process mapping revealed that “form material” (Farquar) machine was the bottleneck. This implies that this machine will dictate
the output of the line.
Layout changes were difficult in this shop.

Obtain work order Review WK pkg. Travel to Verify & match metal
from PC area & pull sheet metal room with pull sheet Bottleneck time = 45 min
(2 min) (5 min) (5 min) (10 min) Output (8 hours) = 10 jobs

Is template in Yes Template in pkg. travel Scribe Travel to Trim material

pkg. or need to to workbench template bard saw to template
obtain? (2 min) (10 min) (1 min) (7 min)

No
Obtain template
from rack
(2 min)

Debur Is form Yes Transport to QA Transport to

Form material
material required? workbench heat treatment
(Farquar: 45 min)
(3 min) (2 Min) (2 min)
No
Transport to
Is part good Good
brake shop
(1 min) or defective?
The analysis confirms that
Bad too many jobs were in the
Defective part is scrapped and process process and bottleneck is
re-starts at travel to metal room. not properly utilized.

Work in Process—Before Bottleneck Utilization—Before

80 60%
70 50%
60
50 40%
40 30%
30
20 20%
©2009, ASQ

10 10%
0 No. of Jobs
1st Wk 2nd Wk 3rd Wk 4th Wk 0%
Setup Breakdowns Utilization

www.asq.org 17
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Table 2 (continued)
3. Future State Analysis
A drum buffer rope (DBR) solution was developed. First, drum was developed for the bottleneck machine. Second, buffer size
was developed to protect the drum. Third, rope was tied to properly release jobs into manufacturing component area.

Obtain work order Review WK pkg. Travel to Verify & match metal
from PC area & pull sheet metal room with pull sheet
(2 min) (5 min) (5 min) (10 min)

Is template in Yes Template in pkg. travel Scribe Travel to Trim material

pkg. or need to to workbench template bard saw to template
obtain? (2 min) (10 min) (1 min) (7 min)

No
Obtain template
from rack
(2 min)

Debur Is form Yes Transport to QA Transport to

Form Material
material required? workbench heat treatment
(3 min) Buffer Drum
(Farquar: 45 min)
(2 Min) (2 min)
No
Transport to
Is part good Good
brake shop
(1 min) Rope or defective?

Bad
Defective part is scrapped and process
re-starts at travel to metal room.

4. Implementation
Development of the initial drum schedule and rules to improve the efficiency of the bottleneck was difficult. The bottleneck had
some maintenance issues, which were studied by the maintenance department. The number of jobs in the system decreased and
bottleneck utilization improved.

Work in Process—After Bottleneck Utilization—After

14 70%
12 60%
10 50%
8 40%
6 30%
4 20%
2 10%
0 No. of Jobs
1st Wk 2nd Wk 3rd Wk 4th Wk 0%
Setup Breakdowns Utilization
©2009, ASQ

Four weeks after the implementation, bottleneck performance had increased. The shop supervisor confirmed that parts lead-time
decreased. The supervisor also knew that many steps of the operation were manually done and that there was an opportunity
for automation.

18 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ

 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Table 3
Speed A3 Report Date 09/01/08

Target Shop: 4095

Facilitator: Satya Chakravorty
Speed Trainees: Maggie Davis, John Anderson, and Ivey James
Process Owners: Kevin Rice (Supervisor) and Tubing Area Artisans

1. Problem Statement
The problem in the tubing area was that there was high variability in processing time through the area. The artisans pointed out
that the problem was around one machine “process tube.”

2. Current State Analysis

After interviewing workers and completing the process map, the improvement team observed variation in processing time for
“process tube” operation. The facilitator suggested a statistical process control chart to pinpoint the problem and applied Six
Sigma’s DMAIC method.

Obtain work Verify print Travel to Retrieve conversion code from

order from box matches P/N on computer computer or cabinet for tubing
by aisle way work document or cabinet machine setup sequence
Samples were obtained
(1 min) (2 min) (5 min) (1 min)
from this machine

Cut tube to Clean tube in Stamp off

Debur tubing Process tube
length varsol tank paper work
(2 min) (20 min)
(3 min) (5 min) (1 min)

Travel to clock station Deliver completed 3R

UCL = X +
and clock-off work tubing to PC d2 n
(1 min) (1 min)
3R
LCL = X −
d2 n
n = Sample size
X = Average of mean of each sample
R = Range of each sample (largest-smallest)
R = Average of all sample’s range

Tubing Area
Interview and walk-through simulation with 50.00
Change of raw material/new vendor
Wesley King 45.00
40.00
Processing Time

93553 Tubing Area 35.00 UCL

This shop has 4 people on 1st shift and 1 30.00
“Loaner” from H-53 AC line. 25.00 X
1/4" to 3/4' tubing has 30 minute setup 20.00
15.00 LCL
2" plus tubing machine has 8 hr. set up 10.00
Concerns and Recommendations 5.00
a. Have “conversion code”computer and 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
tubing “machine” computer communicate Days
together. Once conversion code is retrieved
at front desk it would automatically
download conversion to tubing machine.
This would eliminate duplicate effort of
©2009, ASQ

work. Three new machines, if possible,

have capabilities that computer can talk to
the machine. (Conversion not accurate.)

www.asq.org 19
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Table 3 (continued)
b. Machines are set too close together, need more room.
c. Pines mfg. tube bender (new machine) was ordered without additional tooling support, agreed by upper management to
share tooling support from “old” tube bender and new tube bender. With new additional tooling, could produce double the
work. Some of the “old” tooling support will not work with new setup.
d. Needs more room, people, air conditioner, workbench and no tools for the particular machine, tube bender. (PIN NC25
Green)

3. Future State Analysis

The variation in shop performance was due to several vendors supplying same raw materials with slightly different specifications
to the shop. The raw materials were delivered to the shop where there was no inspection or quality check of the incoming raw
materials. Using operators’ input, inspection strategy (for example, number of times in a day, what to check, and how to check)
and a vendor scorecard (for example, quality and delivery) were developed. The purpose was to choose one main and one
back-up vendor, based on high performance as evidenced by vendor scorecards.

Obtain work Verify print Travel to Retrieve conversion code from

order from box matches P/N on computer computer or cabinet for tubing
by aisle way work document or cabinet machine setup sequence
(1 min) (2 min) (5 min) (1 min)

Incoming material
(1) Inspection
(2) Vendor scorecard Cut tube to Clean tube in Stamp off
Debur tubing Process tube
length varsol tank paper work
(2 min) (20 min)
(3 min) (5 min) (1 min)

Travel to clock station Deliver completed

and clock-off work tubing to PC
(1 min) (1 min)

4. Implementation
Vendor scorecards were implemented, and one vendor was chosen. This vendor supplied material to the shop, and after about
four weeks, shop performance stabilized. (A back-up plan was in place until success with the single vendor was confirmed.)

30.00 UCL
25.00
X
Processing Time

20.00
LCL
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Days
©2009, ASQ

Five weeks after the implementation, the shop performance continued to be stable. The purchasing department wanted to
implement statistical process control and vendor scorecards for all of their vendors.

champions to manage the teams. In addition to com- literature. For example, according to Liker (2004),
municating with the Speed team, champions worked low-level improvement teams and champions are
with the improvement teams on various improve- essential to drive improvement projects from the
ment projects. This approach is well supported in the bottom up. According to McManus (2007, 20):

20 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ

 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
“Every organization should have a process
improvement team approach in place that
engages a high percentage of the work force.
Such an approach is mandatory for sustained
progress toward process excellence…. If you
want to sustain your improvement efforts over
time…give a training [to the improvement
teams], and turn teams loose.”
The human side of the improvement initiative is crit-
ical for successful improvement implementations. While
implementing improvement programs, Vavra (2008)
found that human (or organization) culture issues dom-
inate when compared with tools (or technology) issues.
According to Chakravorty and Dulaney (2010), effective
management of human aspects is critical for improve-
ment initiatives. Chakravorty (2009) points out that
companies need to pay attention to the human side of
improvement initiatives. Often times, more importance
is given to intricate details of improvement tools and not
to how humans adapt to such improvement tools. Future
research should focus on identifying human aspects
(for example, team composition, communications, and
incentives) of A3 reports to facilitate implementation in
their business environment.
Third, in order to implement A3 reports, the team
experienced substantial difficulty in identifying and pri-
oritizing improvement projects aligned to overall process
improvement objectives. To prioritize these improvement
projects, they used cost reduction and revenue genera-
tion (or throughput based) potential, along with input
from workers and management. It is important to learn
more about how to identify improvement projects, and
how to prioritize them. One reason many improvement
programs fail is because improvement projects are not
correctly identified and prioritized (Zimmerman and
Weiss 2005). Over the years, many researchers have
worked on prioritizing improvement projects by mixing
tools such as Six Sigma, lean, or theory of constraints.
For example, Draman and Chakravorty (2000) and
Chakravorty and Atwater (1998) showed how to pri-
oritize quality improvement projects using theory of
constraints. Chakravorty (1996) and Chakravorty and
Sessum (1995) showed how to blend lean improvement
projects using theory of constraints. More research is
necessary on how to mix these tools to correctly identify
and prioritize improvement projects to align them with
the overall process improvement objectives to achieve a
sustained competitive advantage in the ever-changing
global market.
Fourth, the A3 report is an improvement tool, and
various implementation activities need to be coordi-
nated for its successful adoption. The author believes
this A3 report implementation was a success because
various implementation activities (for example, stra-
tegic intent, core improvement team, and so on) were
properly coordinated. Many process improvement
programs fail not because improvement tools are inad-
equate; they fail because implementation activities
related to such programs are not properly coordinated
(for example, Chakravorty 2009). Unfortunately, a
lot of academic research tends to focus on uncovering
intricate, many times unnecessary details of improve-
ment tools (for example, Schroeder et al. 2008), rather
than on how to coordinate activities to implement such
tools. In the real world, the author believes that practic-
ing managers do understand the definition of process
improvement tools. They simply lack an understanding
of different activities critical to implementation, and
how to coordinate those activities in a systematic man-
ner. Research in developing an implementation model
for coordinating various activities related to A3 reports
is an important area for future research.
Fifth, A3 reports are promoted as improvement tools
primarily for lean (for example, Sobek and Smalley
2008; Shook 2008; Jimmerson 2007). Likewise, different
improvement tools are endorsed by Six Sigma or theory
of constraints. Consistent with the team’s implementation
experience, it is not surprising that there is a good bit of
confusion among managers attempting to select specific
improvement tools for their business environment. The
problem is that managers waste their time in adopting
the newest improvement tool and using consultants, and
spend very little time in driving process improvement from
the bottom. Hayes et al. (2004) argue that improvement
tools fail to show a significant increase in performance
because, prior to implementing them, most companies
do not develop deep problem-solving capabilities in their
employees. They refer to the development of these capa-
bilities as “learning by doing.” As the name implies,
www.asq.org 21
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
managers and workers must practice the art and science
of problem solving to use it effectively. Further, they write
“…you are not likely to be able to make substantial
progress through analysis and detailed improvement pro-
grams, no matter how many consultants you hire…”
This research shows that deep problem-solving capability
could be developed using A3 reports. In doing so, A3 reports
could be used to implement lean, Six Sigma, or theory
of constraints. Additional insights are available on deep
problem-solving capability in various real-world settings
(for example, Chakravorty, Hales, and Herbert 2008b;
Chakravorty and Hales 2008; Chakravorty and Franza
2009). More research on A3 implementation is necessary
in different business environments to enhance the team’s
experience from this implementation. This research will be
greatly helpful for practicing managers wanting to effec-
tively implement improvement programs using A3 reports.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the author described how Toyota’s A3
reports were implemented at a facility in the southern
United States to improve aircraft maintain and repair. He
provided a systematic approach, improvement event, and
a process to implement and document A3 reports. Each
improvement event was conducted at a target shop by an
experienced facilitator with a team of workers from the
shop. An improvement event consists of a host of activi-
ties, and they are generally completed in four weeks and
consist of four distinct phases: 1) preparation and train-
ing; 2) process mapping and analysis of current state;
3) process mapping and analysis of future state; and
4) implementation and ownership transfer. Important
for both practitioners and academicians, the author
provided five implications of the process implementation
experience with directions for future research.
This research shows how to effectively guide process
improvement effort using A3 reports to reduce waste
from the operations. This is particularly important
because today’s hard economic times demand that
companies reduce waste to stay in business, retain
employees, and nurture customers. There is increasing
pressure to pursue new and innovative ways of thinking
as a source of competitive advantage. More research
in this area is necessary to contribute to the science
22 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
and practice of implementation of A3 reports to reduce
waste and create value.
REFERENCES
Abilla, P. 2007. Toyota A3 Report, March. http://www.shmula.
com/363/the-toyota-a3-report
Argyris, C. 1985. Action science: Concepts, methods, and
skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 136-148.
Chakravorty, S. S., and R. E. Dulaney. 2010. ERP systems: An
implementation experience. International Journal of Business
Excellence, in press.
Chakravorty, S. S. 2009. Six Sigma programs: An implementa-
tion model. International Journal of Production Economics 119,
no. 1:1-16.
Chakravorty, S. S., and R. M. Franza. 2009. Implementation
of design for Six Sigma (DFSS): A development experience.
International Journal of Product Development 9, no. 4:329-342.
Chakravorty, S. S., and D. N. Hales. 2008. The evolution of
manufacturing cells: An action research study. European Journal
of Operational Research 188:153-168.
Chakravorty, S. S., J. B. Atwater, and J. I. Herbert. 2008a. The
Shingo Prize for operational excellence: Rewarding world-class
practices. International Journal of Business Excellence 1, no.
4:418-433.
Chakravorty, S. S., D. N. Hales, and J. I. Herbert. 2008b. How
problem solving really works. International Journal of Data
Analysis Techniques and Strategies 1, no. 1:44-59.
Chakravorty, S. S., and J. B. Atwater. 2006. Bottleneck manage-
ment: Theory and practice. Production Planning & Control 17, no.
5:441-447.
Chakravorty, S. S., and D. N. Hales. 2004. Implications of cell
design implementation: A case study and analysis. European
Journal of Operational Research 152, no. 3:602-614.
Chakravorty, S. S. 2000. Improving a v-plant operation: A
window manufacturing case study. Production and Inventory
Management Journal (Third Quarter):37-42.
Chakravorty, S. S., and J. B. Atwater. 1998. Implementing qual-
ity improvement programs using the focusing steps of the theory
of constraints. International Journal of Technology Management
16(4/5/6):544-555.
Chakravorty, S. S. 1996. Robert Bowden Inc.: A case study
of cellular manufacturing and drum-buffer-rope implementa-
tion. Production and Inventory Management Journal (Third
Quarter):15-19.
Chakravorty, S. S., and J. L. Sessum. 1995. Developing effective
strategies to prioritize setup reduction in multi-machine produc-
tion system. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 15, no. 10:103-11.
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
Cleveland, W. 1985. The elements of graphing data. Monterrey,
Calif.: Wadsworth, Inc.
Draman, R. H., and S. S. Chakravorty. 2000. An evaluation
of quality improvement project selection alternatives. Quality
Management Journal 7, no. 1:58-73.
Davidson, R., M. Martinsons, and N. Kock. 2004. Principles of
canonical action research. Information Systems Journal 14, no.
1:65-86.
Hayes, R. H., G. P. Pisano, D. M. Upton, and S. C. Wheelwright.
2004. Operations, strategy, and technology: Pursuing the com-
petitive edge. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Goldratt, E. M., and J. Cox. 2004. The goal. Great Barrington,
Mass.: North River Press.
Jimmerson, C. 2007. A3 problem solving for healthcare: A prac-
tical method of eliminating waste. New York: Productivity Press.
Jimmerson, C. 2004. Unique features of the A3 problem solving
method: A breath of fresh air for ailing healthcare. Lean Health
Care West. http://leanhealthcarewest.com/
Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart. 2000. Participatory action
research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, second edition,
eds. N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln, 567-606. California: Sage
Publications.
Keller, P. 2005. Six Sigma: Demystified. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lepore, D., and O. Cohen. 1999. Deming and Goldratt: The the-
ory of constraints and the system of profound knowledge. Great
Barrington, Mass.: North River Press.
Liker, J. K. 2004. The Toyota way: 14 Management principles
from the world’s greatest manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McManus, K.. 2007. The trouble with teams. Industrial Engineer
39, no. 10:20.
Pyzdek, T. 2003. The Six Sigma handbook: A complete guide for
green belts, black belts, and managers at all levels. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Robinson, A. 1990. Modern approaches to manufacturing
improvement. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Radeka, K. 2005. Anatomy of A3 Report: Focusing knowl-
edge for better decision-making. Camas, Wash.: Whittier
Consulting Group, Inc. http://www.whittierconsulting.com/pdf/
anatomy_of_a3.pdf
Rother, M., and J. Shook. 1998. Learning to see. Brookline,
Mass.: The Lean Enterprise Institute, Inc.
Schroeder, R. G., K. Linderman, C. Liedtke, and A. S. Choo.
2008. Six Sigma: Definition and underlying theory. Journal of
Operations Management 26, no. 4:536-554.
Shook, J. 2008. Managing to learn: Using the A3 management
process to solve Problems, gain agreement, mentor, and lead.
Cambridge, Mass.: The Lean Enterprise Institute, Inc.
Sobek II, D. K., and A. Smalley. 2008. Understanding A3 think-
ing: A critical component of Toyota’s PDCA management system.
New York: Productivity Press.
Sobek II, D. K, and C. Jimmerson. 2006. A3 reports: Tool for
organization transformation. In Proceedings of the Industrial
Engineering Research Conference, Orlando, Fla.
Sobek II, D. K., and C. Jimmerson. 2004. A3 Reports: A tool
for process improvement and organizational transformation. In
Proceedings of the Industrial Engineering Research Conference,
Houston, Texas.
Susman, G., and R. Evered. 1978. An assessment of the scien-
tific merits of action research. Administrative Sciences Quarterly
23:582-603.
Tufte, E. R. 1983. The visual display of quantitative information.
Cheshire, Conn.: Graphics Press.
Vavra, B. 2008. Which way do you lean. Plan Engineering
(March):31-36.
Womack, J. P., and D. T. Jones. 2003. Lean thinking. New York:
Free Press.
Yin, R. K. 2008. Case study research: Design and methods.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Zimmerman, J. P., and J. Weiss. 2005. Six Sigma’s seven sins.
Quality 44, no. 1:62-66.
BIOGRAPHY
Satya S. Chakravorty is Caraustar professor of operations man-
agement and professor at Michael J. Coles School of Business
at Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA. He received his
doctorate in production and operations management from the
University of Georgia. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees
in engineering and sciences from BITS, Pilani (India). He is
a Certified Fellow of Production and Inventory Management
(CFPIM), and a certified academic associate (JONAH) from
Goldratt Institute. He has training in lean manufacturing and has
Six Sigma Black Belt training experience. He has also worked as
an examiner for the Shingo Prize for Operational Excellence.
Chakravorty has worked as a senior advisor for BearingPoint
and Deloitte Consulting companies. His expertise is in develop-
ing, training, and implementing process improvement (lean, Six
Sigma, and theory of constraints) programs in large organiza-
tions such as the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Shaw Industries,
Lockheed Martin, Heinz, Delta Engine Repair, Beech-Nut, 3M
Corporation, AT&T, Harlequin, Beechnut, DariGold, and Los
Angeles Times. Many of his implementation experiences can be
found in journals such as Operations Management Research;
International Journal of Production Economics; European
Journal of Industrial Engineering; Production and Operations
Management; European Journal of Operational Research;
Production and Inventory Management Journal; Industrial
Management; and Quality Management Journal. Chakravorty
can be reached at satya_chakravorty@kennesaw.edu.
www.asq.org 23
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Appendix 1
A3 Report
To: ___________________
THEME: “What are we trying to do?”
By: ___________________
Date: _________________

Background Target Condition

• Background of the problem • Diagram of proposed new process

• Context required for full understanding • Countermeasures noted as fluffy clouds
• Importance of the problem • Measurable targets (quantity, time)

Implementation Plan
Current Condition
What? Who? When? Where?
• Diagram of current situation (or process)
• Highlight problem(s) with storm bursts
Actions to Responsible Times,
• What about the system is not IDEAL
be taken person dates
• Extent of the problem(s), i.e., measures

Cost:

Cause Analysis Follow-Up

• List problem(s) Plan Actual Results
• Most likely direct (or root) cause • How will you • In red ink/pencil
Why?
Why? check the effects • Date check done
Why?
Why? • When will you • Results, compare
Why?
check them? to predicted

Downloaded from Web site: http://www.coe.montana.edu/IE/faculty/sobek/A3/report.pdf

24 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ

 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Appendix 2
Process Improvement Training Program
• Six Sigma simply means a measure of quality that strives for near perfection. Six Sigma is a disciplined,
data-driven approach and methodology for eliminating defects (driving toward six standard deviations between
the mean and the nearest specification limit) in any process from manufacturing to service operations and from
product to service. Six Sigma tools include:
o Process identification and mapping
o DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, and control) methodology
o Statistical process control
o Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
o Multiple regression
o Taguchi’s experimental design

• Lean operations principles categorize activities into value-added and non-value-added activities. The focus of these
principles is on eliminating all forms of non-value-added activities. There are seven forms of non-value-added (or
waste): waste of over production, waste of inventory, waste of defects, waste of motion, waste of processing, waste of
waiting, and waste of transportation. Lean operations tools include:
o Value-stream mapping
o Lean events
o SMED (a.k.a quick changeover)
o Manufacturing cell design
o Poka-yoke (a.k.a. mistake proofing)
o 5S Plus One (sort, straighten, shine, standardize, sustain, and safety)

• Theory of constraints (TOC) challenges the belief of functional independence with the view of an organization
as a chain of dependent activities. According to TOC, every organization has a constraint or bottleneck, and the
existence of a bottleneck provides an opportunity for process improvement priority. In addition, TOC provides a
set of measures that link local actions to the measures of organization-wide measures. TOC tools include:
o Bottleneck analysis
o Drum buffer rope
o Buffer management
o Buffer sizes and locations
o Throughput maximization
o VAT operations analysis

1) Keller (2005)
2) Womack and Jones (2003)
3) Goldratt and Cox (2004)

www.asq.org 25
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Appendix 3
Speed A3 Report Date _____________

Target Shop
Facilitator ______________________
Speed Trainees _________________
Process Owners _________________

1. Problem Statement
This section delineates problems associated with the target shop.

2. Current State Analysis

This section documents data collection and analysis to understand the current conditions.

3. Future State Analysis

This section summarizes the future conditions after improvements are introduced.

4. Implementation
This section highlights implementation, shows results, and provides follow-up activities.

Adapted from Toyota’s A3 Report and printed on one page of 11-inch by 17-inch (A3) paper or two pages of 11-inch by 8.5-inch paper.

26 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ