FEATURE – Effective problem solving through A3 requires shared observation and dialogue, not perfect documents; when teams learn together across boundaries, improvements address root causes and endure.

Words: Rémi Pigeol

At Aramisgroup, every vehicle in our reconditioning process goes through a precise set of stages: inspection, mechanical work, bodywork, finishing, cleaning, quality control, and photo shoots for online listing. Each stage has its own challenges, from meeting deadlines to ensuring flawless quality and preparing the vehicle for sale. In such a connected flow, a small issue never stays small for long. If something slips through the cracks, it will show up later, downstream, often at a worse moment and a higher cost.

That’s exactly why continuous improvement matters. In a system like this, you don’t need “more fixes,” but a better understanding—seeing the real causes, not the symptoms. And that is where the A3 becomes much more than a piece of paper and proves to be a way to think together.

I have often seen A3s that looked perfect: clear visuals, detailed analyses, and trends pointing steadily upward week after week. On paper, they were impeccable. One could almost frame them. Yet, a few months later, the same problems persisted or reappeared. Why? These A3s were largely created away from the teams, filled out remotely, and only reviewed occasionally. They failed to trigger the necessary dialogue and did not fully engage the teams on the ground.

One example illustrates this perfectly. After reconditioning, several vehicles parked in the storage yard came back with flat batteries just a few days or weeks later. At first glance, the causes seemed obvious. We thought they were technical: prolonged non-use, temperature swings, outdoor exposure. The team launched an A3 to tackle the issue.

On paper, it looked perfect. The analysis highlighted the technical risks, countermeasures were clear, and time-based checks were added to the process. Weekly tracking followed. Step by step, the results improved, but only slightly. Batteries still failed from time to time, and no one could explain why the improvement had stalled.

So, the team went back to the floor and dug deeper. That’s when the real issue merged and it had nothing to do with technology.

The mindset until then had essentially been: “If the vehicle starts, it’s fine.” Even when operators had doubts, the assumption was that any problem would be handled later by the sales agencies before delivery. In other words, potential defects were being quietly pushed downstream instead of being solved where they first appeared. And because there was no real dialogue with the teams in charge of final delivery, the problem remained invisible throughout the process.

The A3 had identified the symptoms but missed the system. It fixed the visible, but not the way people thought about quality. Without a conversation between the reconditioning sites and the sales teams, there was no shared understanding and, without that, no sustainable improvement.

So, the team reset the approach. Operators from the storage yard went to agencies to observe deliveries and see the real impact of a failing battery on customers. Agency staff came onsite to learn how a battery ages and how to detect early signals. A short, hands-on “battery basics” dojo helped everyone build the same technical eye. And a weekly flash connection between reconditioning and sales teams turned every incident into shared learning.

Little by little, batteries stopped just being checked and started being understood. Quality stopped being a hand-off and became a commitment across the flow.

A TOOL, NOT A RECIPE

The failure did not stem from the A3 template, but from the absence of dialogue. This teaches us that a perfect A3 built in isolation remains just a document. Without a shared understanding and cross-team ownership, no checklist can fix a quality issue.

In the Toyota Production System, the A3 was never meant to be a miracle fix. It’s not the document that solves the problem, it’s the thinking behind it. A beautifully structured A3 that lives only in a folder or a meeting room does nothing by itself.

The A3 is a framework to think, a way to make reality discussable. The tool is not the solution. The conversation it triggers is. Without that dialogue, nothing shifts in our understanding and, therefore, in our behaviors.

DIALOGUE AT THE HEART OF THE A3

The real power of the A3 is the dialogue it forces us to have. It makes us go back to the floor, look and listen again, and ask different questions. Sometimes it’s a small comment from someone on the line that reframes the whole issue, something no KPI will ever pick up.

This is where the manager’s role changes. Instead of bringing answers, the manager creates the space where questions can be explored together. Improvement doesn’t start with a plan, it starts with shared understanding. And when the A3 does become a space for dialogue, the impact is completely different.

WHEN THE A3 BECOMES COLLECTIVE AND EFFECTIVE

One concrete example demonstrates the A3’s power when it engages all stakeholders: the turnaround time for trucks unloading vehicles and reloading others (typically 8 vehicles at a time) at our reconditioning sites.

At first, turnaround times regularly exceeded two hours. This wasn’t just inconvenient; it created a chain reaction. A truck stuck on the bay meant the next one had to wait. Drivers lost time, routes were disrupted, tensions built up, deliveries were delayed, and costs accumulated. Everyone could feel the pressure, but nobody could clearly see its source. The flow was structured in theory, but unclear in practice, and when reality isn’t visible, it cannot be improved.

To address this, an A3 was created by logistics teams from the plant, headquarters and our transport partners, with active involvement from all relevant staff. That was the turning point: the problem stopped belonging to “one team” and became a shared challenge.

The first breakthrough came from visualization. The storage yard already had clear markings, but the loading/unloading area did not. There was no visible link between a truck bay and the zone where the vehicles were being prepared. Once the bays and their matching zones were color-coded, the flow became readable—no need to explain it, it was just obvious. As we know, once something is visible, it can finally be discussed and improved.

The second learning emerged from the relationship with the drivers. Creating a small rest area with free coffee may sound anecdotal, but it shifted the dynamic. Drivers felt welcome rather than processed; partners rather than outsiders. Respect turned into cooperation—which is operational efficiency in disguise.

The third breakthrough was synchronization. After better understanding what was happening in the bay, the logistics team at headquarters began sharing loading plans ahead of time. This meant operational teams and drivers could prepare together instead of reacting step by step. Alignment replaced friction, not through tools or dashboards, but through better understanding and shared rhythm.

The shift from over two hours to roughly one was just the visible part of the change. What sustained the improvement was not the paint on the ground or the time saved, but the way the teams learned to work together, through continuous dialogue, collaborative adjustments, and team ownership.

That is what a successful A3 really produces: not a better plan, but a better way of working together.

THE DISCIPLINE OF THE A3 AT ARAMISGROUP

At Aramisgroup, the A3 is not something we use “when needed.” It’s part of the rhythm of the organization. Every week, teams come together to share what they have learned, not just what they have done. The A3 becomes a place where practice and reflection meet.

Over time, this builds problem-solving capability: people start to connect cause and effect more easily and to see across functions—not just within their own part of the process. The A3 helps improve the process, yes, but more importantly, it helps develop the people who improve the process.

That is why discipline matters: not because we want more documents, but because we want deeper understanding and stronger teamwork.

THE TRUE MEANING OF THE A3

These two stories—the batteries and the trucks—illustrate the dual nature of the A3. If it is reduced to a communication tool, it produces no real change. But when it becomes a learning space, it accelerates progress.

What makes a difference is never the quality of the document, but the quality of the dialogue. A good A3 mobilizes people, deepens reflection, and builds collective capability, turning improvement from an “action plan” into an act of shared understanding.

Ultimately, the A3 captures the essence of Lean Management. The role of the manager is not to “fix the problem,” but to grow the team that will fix the problem. The A3 is a pretext to go to the floor, observe reality, ask questions, explore causes, test adjustments, and learn in the process. It develops both people and performance at the same time.

A SHARED STORY

A good A3 is not a perfectly filled form. It is a story the whole team can tell, a story of a problem understood, discussed openly, and improved together. This practice embodies a true learning culture, where customer value is created through people development, and where teams operate as a “team of teams”, sharing methods, rhythm, and purpose.

This cultural shift also brought us more stability in the flow, with fewer problems passed downstream and issues resolved closer to where they appeared.

Indeed, the impact on Aramisgroup has been very tangible. Over the past four years, NPS has increased by more than 10 points, and eNPS by more than 15 points—a reflection of stronger teamwork, clearer ownership, and better alignment across the value chain. In the end, the A3 did not only lead to better processes; it contributed to building stronger teams. And in a fast-moving industry like this one, that is the real competitive advantage.

When people see together, they improve together. And when they improve together, the impact lasts, far beyond anything a piece of paper could deliver.

_{THE AUTHOR}