Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A3 Thinking
A3 Thinking
Learning Objectives
&
Current Situation
Where do we stand?
Plan
References: Sobek, Durward K., Smalley, Art., (2008). Understanding A3 Thinking: A Critical Component of A3 Thinking v7.5 – Slide 5
Toyota’s PDCA Management System. Boca Raton: Productivity Press, Taylor & Francis Group © 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Current Situation
Title: What you are talking about.
Background
Why you are talking about it. Diagrams
What is the business context?
• Efficient means for
Current Situation communication
Where do we stand?
Where we need to be? Useful questions*:
Where we want to be?
• Are activities clearly
Analysis specified with regard to
-What is the root cause of the problem? content, order, and
-What requirements, constraints and intended outcome?
alternatives need to be considered? • Are the connections
between entities clear &
Goal explicit?
What is the specific change you want
to accomplish now? * Spear, S and Bowen, K, “Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production
System
A3 Thinking v7.5 – Slide 6
© 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Countermeasures
Recommendations Recommendations
• Directly address the root
What are your proposed
cause countermeasures?
• Should move the process
from the current toward Plan
the ideal state
What activities will be required for
implementation and who will be
Plan responsible for what and when?
• Define steps to correct
each cause
• Identify responsibilities, Follow - up
dates, details
How we will know if the actions have
• Use GANTT Charts, the impact needed? What remaining
tables issues can be anticipated?
A3 Thinking v7.5 – Slide 7
© 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Continuous Improvement
Recommendations
Follow - up
Counterrmeasures :
•Create continuous flow in through Weld and Assembly
Acme Stamping Steering Bracket Value Stream Improvement •Establish Takt Time: Base the pace of work through Weld and Assembly on
customer demand
Background •Set new Weld-assembly cell as pacemaker for entire value stream
• Product: stamped-steel steering brackets (left- and right-hand drive). •Establish EPEX build schedule for stamping based on actual use of pacemaker
• 18,400 brackets/month; daily shipments in pallets of 10 trays of 20 brackets. cell and pull steel coils from supplier based on actual usage by Stamping.
•Customer State Street Assembly is requesting price cuts and tightening delivery •Reduce Changeover time in Stamping and Weld
requirements. •Improve uptime in Weld
•Establish material handling routes for frequent withdrawal and delivery
•Establish new production instruction system with Leveling Box
Current Situation
Future State Map
•Production Lead time:23.6 days
Production
•Processing time: only 188 seconds. Control
•Large inventories of material between each process. Supplier Customer
•Long changeover times; downtime in welding. Daily
Order
Current State Map
Production
Supplier Control
MRP
Customer
I I I I I I
“Problem Solving
Thinking Form”
5 Whys
Photos by Earll Murman A3 Thinking v7.5 – Slide 10
© 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Rockwell Collins Accounts Payable A3 Sheet
Background
Recommendations:
• Switched to PFR system in 1993
• Add XXXXX to PFR invoices
• 80% of suppliers on PFR
• Use document imaging for invoices received
• Problem is processing remaining invoices
• Establish queued call center using Lotus Note
Current Situation • Train purchasing, receiving, AP personnel
• 6.4 wks avg cycle time for invoices & growing
• 12% past due payments and growing.
• Mailroom does not catch all PFR invoices
• 16 AP staff each have own groups of suppliers
Current State Value Stream Map
325,000 Annual 6.5
1 2
Volume minutes
minute minutes 295,000 60,000
AP? yes PO? yes PFR? no
300,000 1 minute
240,000
25,000 no 5,000 no yes Send to
5,000 Analyst
1 Re- 30 Vendor
minute minutes
pitch
route contact
60,000 Input
yes 2
4
54,000 minutes 59,000 minutes
6.5 59,000
minutes
PFR? no
Ready Batch Film
to Pay?
5 5,000
1,000 yes minutes
5,000 59,000
Park &
1 minute 2
pitch Resolve minutes
Issue
no
Courtesy of Phil Jones, Sylvia and Clement T. Hanson Professor of Manufacturing Productivity,
Tippie School of Management, The University of Iowa. Used with permission.
Analysis
• AP staff workload is 95.8%
• 42.7% analyst time spent on PFR related tasks
• Activity Time/Total Flow Time = 0.0014
Contributors
• Jackie Candido – MIT EdNet
• Earll Murman – MIT
• Steve Shade – Purdue University
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.