In Lean Thinking, standardization is often seen as a condition for continual improvement. In particularly, standards are seen as the means to be able to detect problems. But that is not the only role standards play. Standards are also important in actually eliminating problems in a structured, methodical way. A role that is often overlooked in popular problem- solving methods typically in use in companies. A short blog post about the 3 As of problem-solving: availability, adherence and adequacy.
Solving problems typically follows a path very similar to this one: we go from a clear definition, to the analysis of causes, to the definition of counter measures and the study of the effectiveness of our proposed counter measures. Among others, standards are used in defining the problem: a problem can be defined as the gap between a standard (the expectation) and reality. Without standard therefore no problem.
In most companies that embrace Lean Thinking, teams – after defining the problem – often go straight to the analysis of potential causes using techniques like “5x Why?”. I have written about this technique and its pitfalls before in this blog post about “5x Why?”.
Before jumping to this technique, however, I typically advocate to first list potential causes. A technique like the Ishikawa diagram (also known as a cause & effect or C&E diagram or a fishbone diagram) may be useful in this step. In this step as well, standards play an important role. Then standards typically relate to the 6M’s of the fishbone diagram (man, machine, material, method, mother nature and measurement). So when an organization is well organized in terms of standards, teams often can quickly get to a list of possible causes.
This also is a pointer to the further use of standards in the next steps of a structured problem-solving method.
Standards and the 3 As: Availability, Adherence and Adequacy
As may be deduced from the foregoing, possible causes should be derivable from standards. To ensure a methodical approach to this process after having applied the fishbone technique, I typically follow an approach that I refer to as the 3 As:
1. Available: the first question in identifying a possible cause for a problem is to ask whether there actually even is a standard for the identified factor. When there is no standard for a potential factor, a team cannot actually conclude in any way whether the potential cause may be the cause of the problem. To do so, a standard first needs to be defined (“plan”), to repeat the process with this standard in place (“do”) and to subsequently evaluate the outcomes of this experiment (“study”). So if a problem-solving team suspects a certain factor, its first reflex should be to look for availability of a standard, and if it doesn’t exist, to first define one before continuing its problem-solving efforts.
2. Adherence: when a standard for a potential factor is available, the second question for the team is to determine whether the standard was actually applied in the case where the problem presented itself. Through a thorough search for evidence, I ask teams to demonstrate whether the available standard was actually used and respected in the specific case at hand. If this is not the case, the team cannot come to the conclusion that the standard for the possible factor in itself is a cause for the problem. It was not used after all. Like with the first A, teams in this case should first try and find out why the available standard for this possible factor was not adhered to in the specific case. When the standard for the factor, however, was found to be respected in the problem case, the team can move on to the third A.
3. Adequacy: the third and last question after having determined that a standard is available and demonstrated it was also respected, is whether the standard is adequate. As only in this third case, the standard in itself should be questioned as it may be a true cause. After all, a standard for the factor exists, it was used, and the problem still presented itself. Here the team finally arrives at the question how the problem could present itself despite the standard being in place. If the team demonstrates and concludes there is no relation between the standard and the problem, the factor is dismissed from further analysis. When, however, the team finds there is a relationship between the factor and the problem, the team should conclude it is a true cause. It can then move on to the “5x Why?”-technique and ultimately define a new and improved standard for the concerned factor.
Focused, Effective Action
In line with my previous blog post about harmonizing, standardizing and improving I hope it is clear that true improvement in fact “only” takes place in the third case. In the second case, where there is a standard available but where it is not respected, the focus should be on stabilizing the process and ensuring standards are even followed.
The above structure is a key component of structured problem-solving in a Lean environment. In my opinion, it also illustrates nicely how the Deming or PDSA-cycle (see also my blog post about the broken PDSA cycle) and the use of standards in this cycle, play a central role in continual improvement. I sincerely hope that it may help you and your organization to identify the situation at hand and to define the correct way forward.