problem solving a3 training

An A3 Report is a Toyota-pioneered practice of getting the problem, the analysis, the corrective actions, and the action plan down on a single sheet of large (A3) paper, often with the use of graphics. At Toyota, A3 reports have evolved into a standard method for summarizing problem-solving exercises, status reports, and planning exercises like value-stream mapping.

But it is much more than a sheet a paper with facts and figures. It is a management process  learned through dialogue about concrete problems. It does this by means of a dialogue between a lean manager and a subordinate who learns lean management and leadership as she solves an important problem.

This process of solving problems while creating better employees—A3 analysis—is core to the Toyota management system. An A3 report guides the dialogue and analysis. It identifies the current situation, the nature of the issue, the range of possible counter- measures, the best countermeasure, the means (who will do what when) to put it into practice, and the evidence that the issue has actually been addressed.

The lean leader’s job is to develop people. If the worker hasn’t learned, the teacher hasn’t taught. Training Within Industry Report (Washington, DC: War Manpower Commission, Bureau of Training, 1945).

Effective use of the A3 process can facilitate the shift from a  debate  about who owns what (an authority-focused debate) to a  dialogue  around  what is the right thing to do  (a responsibility-focused conversation). This shift has a radical impact on the way decisions are made. Individuals earn the authority to take action through the manner in which they frame the issue. They form consensus and get decisions made by focusing relentlessly on indisputable facts that they and their peers derive from the gemba.

As a result, A3 management can best be understood as neither “top-down” nor “bottom-up.” The process clarifies responsibility by placing ownership squarely on the shoulders of the author-owner of the A3, the individual whose initials appear in the upper right-hand corner of the paper. This person may not have direct authority over every aspect of the proposal. Yet this owner is clearly identified as the person who has taken or accepted responsibility  to get decisions made and implemented .

Example A3s

The Many Facets of A3

• A standard paper size:  At its most fundamental, “A3” is the international term for a sheet of paper 297 millimeters wide and 420 millimeters long. The closest U.S. paper size is the 11-by-17-inch tabloid sheet. 
• A template:  Many companies and individuals use an A3-sized document pre-printed with the steps needed to conduct lean problem-solving or improvement efforts, with generous white space for “A3 owners” to record their progress. While they refer to this document as a template, an “A3” is not a template.
• A storyboard:  As users record their problem-solving or improvement project’s progress, the A3 becomes a storyboard used to facilitate communication, collaboration, and coordination with other stakeholders affected by the goal the A3 owner is working toward (e.g., solving a problem or improving a  process ). By having all the facts about the effort in one place, logically presented and summarized, the A3 owner is better able to gain buy-in from other stakeholders for recommended process changes. 
• A report:  Once the A3 problem-solving effort concludes, the A3 storyboard serves as a report of the problem-solving or improvement initiative, including the facts and data gathered, hypotheses considered, countermeasures tried, experiment results, corrective actions taken, and the overall thinking of the A3 owner and stakeholders. At Toyota and elsewhere, A3 reports have evolved into a standard method for summarizing problem-solving exercises, status reports, and planning exercises like value-stream mapping.  
• A problem-solving methodology (or process):  Most lean practitioners know “the A3” as a problem-solving process guided by specific steps or questions. The left side of the A3 focuses on various elements of the problem or current condition, and the right on the countermeasures considered, tested, and chosen that resolves the issue or creates a higher standard.
• A management discipline (or process):  At a higher level, lean leaders, managers, and supervisors use “the A3” as a means by which they oversee and guide subordinates while simultaneously helping them develop their  lean thinking and practice  — particularly lean leadership and problem-solving — capabilities. With A3 management, leaders challenge their direct reports to solve a problem. Then, with the A3 report guiding the dialogue and analysis, leaders coach them through the problem-solving process. Importantly, leaders coach by asking questions versus providing answers, ensuring responsibility remains with the subordinate to solve the problem by pursuing facts and building consensus. Through this interaction, subordinates address the issue, allowing them to make progress toward the objective and, in so doing, learn the lean approach to leadership and management and gain problem-solving capability.
• A3 thinking (or analysis):  Most A3 coaches and advanced lean practitioners refer to “the A3” as a thinking process. In this case, the term refers to a systematic approach to resolving problems or improving  work  processes. Someone can follow this systematic approach, regardless of whether they are guided by or record their findings on an A3 document.
• An alignment tool:  Advanced lean organizations that have incorporated lean thinking and practices throughout their operations use “A3s” as part of their  strategy deployment  and execution efforts. In this case, the A3 process ensures a standard approach to managing and  coaching  people, all directed toward solving problems that help achieve corporate objectives.

Additional Resources

How Do I Start My A3?

When asked “where do I start to write my A3,” David Verble responds “don’t start by writing.” His piece, the first in a series about getting started, offers lessons he has learned about the nature of thinking, and a productive way to start the A3 by recognzing it as a thinking process. 

Don’t Present Your A3: Share Your A3

When asked “where do I start to write my A3,” David Verble responds “don’t start by writing.” His piece, the first in a series about getting started, offers lessons he has learned about the nature of thinking, and a productive way to start by recognizing it as a thinking process. 

Related Books

Related Online Courses

Intro to Problem Solving

Problem-solving is critical to every position in every industry. In this course, you will learn to grasp the situation at the gemba (where the work is done) and use all of your senses to understand what is truly happening.

See: Value Stream Mapping

Privacy Overview

• Guide: A3 Problem Solving

Daniel Croft

Daniel Croft is an experienced continuous improvement manager with a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt and a Bachelor's degree in Business Management. With more than ten years of experience applying his skills across various industries, Daniel specializes in optimizing processes and improving efficiency. His approach combines practical experience with a deep understanding of business fundamentals to drive meaningful change.

• Last Updated: June 13, 2023
• Learn Lean Sigma

Problem-solving is one of the key tools a successful business needs to structure improvements and one I have been using to solve problems in a structured way in my career at a range of businesses over the years. When there is a problem in business that is leading to increased costs, waste , quality issues, etc., it is necessary to address these problems. A3 structured problem solving is a Lean Six Sigma methodology that has been designed and developed to support continuous improvement and solve complex business problems in a logical and structured process. 

The guide will give you a full understanding of what A3 Problem solving is and a breakdown of all the steps of how to apply it within your business with an example of where I have made improvements with it previously.

Table of Contents

Importance of a3 in lean management.

The A3 problem-solving method is a key tool in Lean Six Sigma and continuous improvement in business, and in my experience, it is often the standard approach all improvement activities must follow and is particularly popular in the automotive industry. This is because of the following:

Focus on Root Causes : Rather than applying a quick fix to a problem or jumping to conclusions and solutionizing, A3 requires gaining a deep understanding of the root causes of the problem. By addressing these root causes, the chances of recurrence is reduced.

Standardization : With a consistent format, the A3 process ensures that problems are approached in a standardized way, regardless of the team or department. This standardization creates a common language and understanding across the organization and ensures all problems are addressed to the same standard and approach.

Team Involvement : An A3 isn’t an individual process. It requires a cross-functional team to work together on problem-solving, ensuring that a range of perspectives and expertise is considered. This collective approach builds a stronger understanding of the problem and ensures that solutions are well-rounded and robust.

Visual Storytelling : The A3 report serves as a visual storyboard, making it easier for stakeholders at all levels to understand the problem, the analysis, and the countermeasures. This visualization enhances communication and drives alignment.

The 6 Steps of A3 Problem Solving (With Real Example)

The A3 problem-solving process can initially seem difficult if you have never done one before and particularly if you have never been a team member in one. To help you with this we will break down the 6 steps into manageable activities, followed by a real-life example to help you apply this method within your business.

As a side note, the A3 problem-solving process was actually one of the first Lean Six Sigma tools I learned to use three weeks into my continuous improvement career after being thrown into the deep end due to resource availability, so I can understand how difficult it can be to understand. 

Step 1: Describe the problem

Problem description.

The problem description is an important first step in the process as it ensures a common understanding with the team of what the issue is that needs to be addressed. This can be done by using a technique called the 5W1H Is/Is Not method to help gain a clear understanding of the problem. 

To understand the 5W1H Is/Is Not the Process, check out our guide for details of that technique. However, in short, it’s about asking key questions about the problem, for example, “What IS the problem?” and “What IS NOT the problem?”

Let’s say you have been asked to look into a problem where “Machine downtime on the automotive assembly line has increased by 30% over the past three months, leading to production delays and increased costs.”

An example of a 5W1H Is/Is Not on this may result in the following output:

 Based on this we can create a clear problem description as the focus of the project that give the team a clear and common understanding of the issue looking to be resolved in the next steps of the process. The problem description could then be written as:

“Over the past three months, machine downtime on Automotive Assembly Line No.3 has increased by 30%. This has predominantly affected the assembly line workers and leads, leading to production delays and higher labour costs. “

Current Condition

Next is demonstrating the current condition and demonstrating the impact on the business. This can often be done with data and charts to back up the problem that might show trends or changes in outputs.

This might look something like the below and demonstrate a good baseline for confirming the improvement at the end of the A3

Containment Actions

Next is containment actions. Since you have identified a problem, there is likely an impact on the business or the customer. As a team, you should consider what can be done to limit or eliminate this problem in the short term. Remember this is just a containment action and should not be seen as a long-term fix. 

In our situation we decided to “Implement temporary overtime shifts to meet production goals, leading to an increase in labor costs.”

At this stage, the A3 should look similar to the one below; you can use charts and graphics to represent the current state as well if they fit within the limit area. Remember, we must include the content of the A3 within the 1-page A3 Document.

Step 2: Set the A3 Goals

The next step of the A3 is to, as a team, set the goal for the project. As we have a clear understanding of the current condition of the problem, we can use that as our baseline for improvement and set a realistic target for improvement. 

A suggested method for setting the Target condition would be to use the SMART Target method.

If you are not familiar with SMART Targets , read our guide; it will cover the topic in much more detail. In short, a SMART target creates a goal statement that is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound. 

By doing this you make it very clear what the goal of the project is, how it will be measured, it is something that can be achieved, relevant to the needs of the business and has a deadline for when results need to be seen.

For our A3 we decided that the goal would be “Our goal is to achieve at least a 20% reduction in machine downtime on Automotive Assembly Line No.3, lowering it from 90 minutes to no more than 72 minutes per day per machine, within the next 60 days. This reduction is crucial for increasing productivity and reducing labour costs, aligning with our overall business objectives.”

I also recommend using charts in this section to visualize the benefit or improvement to ensure you have stakeholder and sponsor support. Visuals are much easier and faster for people to understand.

At this point, your A3 might look something like the one below, with the first 1/4 or section complete. The next step is to move on to the root cause analysis to get to the root of the problem and ensure the improvement does not focus on addressing the symptoms of the problem.

Step 3: Root Cause Analysis

Root cause analysis is the next step in the process, often referred to as gap analysis, as this step focuses on how to get to the goal condition from the current condition.

Tip: If at this point you find the team going off-topic and focusing on other issues, Ask the question, “Is this preventing us from hitting our goal statement?”  I have found this very useful for keeping on track in my time as an A3 facilitator.

For root cause analysis, a couple of key tools are usually used: a fishbone diagram and a five-why Analysis . Again, we won’t go into the full details of these tools within this guide, as they have been covered in extensive detail in their own guides.

But the aim at this point is as a team, to brainstorm what is preventing us from achieving our target condition. This is done by allowing all members of the team to input the reasons they think it is not being achieved. These inputs are often written on sticky notes and placed on the fishbone diagram. Following this, you may have results similar to the ones below.  Note: it is important that the inputs are specific so they can be understood. e.g. “Calibration” alone is not specific to how it’s causing the problem; specify it with “Calibration: Inaccurate measurements affecting machine settings.”

After the fishbone diagram has been populated and the team has exhausted all ideas, the team should then vote on the most likely cause to explore with a 5 Whys analysis. This is done because, due to resource limitations, it is unlikely all of the suggestions can be explored and actioned.

In this situation the team decided the “lack of preventative machines: machines not being serviced regularly” was the cause of increased downtime. This was explored with the 5 Whys to get to the root cause of why Assembly Line 3 did not have preventative maintenance implemented.

The result of this root cause analysis can be seen below, and you may end up with more ideas on the fishbone, as generally there are a lot of ideas generated by a diverse team during brainstorming.

Step 4: Solutions and Corrective Actions

Now that we understand what the root cause of the problem is, we need to address it with solutions and corrective actions. Again, as a team, consider the root cause of the problem and discuss what actions need to be taken by the team, who will do them, and when they will be done. The result should be an action plan, for example, like the one below:

This action plan needs to be carried out and implemented.

The result of this section will likely just be an action list and look like the below section.

Step 5: Validate Solution and Standardize

Within step 5 it is time to collect data to validate and confirm the actions that have been implemented resulting in solving the problem and meeting the target state of the problem. This is done by continuing to collect data that demonstrates the problem in the baseline to see if the problem is being reduced.

For example, below, the project team continued to collect Assembly Line 3 downtime data on a weekly basis. Initially, there was a steady reduction, likely due to the focus of the project on the problem, which had some impact. However, once the majority of the action was implemented, a huge drop in product downtime was seen, exceeding the target. This showed the actions have been successful

If, in the validation stage, you find that the improvement required is not being made, you should go back to step 3 and reconsider the root cause analysis with the team, pick another area to focus on, and create an action plan for that following the same steps.

Step 6: Preventive Actions and Lessons Learned

In step 6 after the confirmation of project success you should look at preventive actions and lessons learned to be shared from this project:

• Preventive Action: The new preventive maintenance schedule will be standardized across all assembly lines. This will prevent other lines having similar issues and make further improvements
• Lessons Learned: A formal review will be conducted to document the process, including challenges faced and how they were overcome, which will then be archived for future reference.

In our project, this looked like the one below and will be used as a reference point in the future for similar issues. 

And that is the successful completion of a structured A3 problem-solving technique.

The complete A3 looks like the below image. Yours may slightly differ as the problem and information vary between projects.

Downloadable A3 Reporting Template

To support you with your A3 problem solving, you can download our free A3 problem solving report from the template section of the website.

Problem-solving is important in businesses, specifically when faced with increased costs or quality issues. A3 Structured Problem Solving, rooted in Lean Six Sigma, addresses complex business challenges systematically.

Originally from Toyota’s lean methodology, A3, named after the 11″x17″ paper size, visually maps problem-solving processes. This method ensures concise communication and focuses on crucial details, as illustrated by the provided example.

Emphasized in Lean Management, A3 stresses understanding root causes, standardization across teams, team collaboration, and visual representation for clarity. This tool is not only a guide to understanding the issue but is a standardized format ensuring robust solutions. Particularly for novices, breaking down its six steps, from problem description to setting A3 goals and root cause analysis, provides clarity. Visual aids further enhance comprehension and alignment across stakeholders.

• Sobek II, D.K. and Jimmerson, C., 2004. A3 reports: tool for process improvement. In  IIE Annual Conference. Proceedings  (p. 1). Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE).
• Matthews, D.D., 2018.  The A3 workbook: unlock your problem-solving mind . CRC Press.

Q: What is A3 problem solving?

A: A3 problem solving is a structured approach used to tackle complex problems and find effective solutions. It gets its name from the A3-sized paper that is typically used to document the problem-solving process.

Q: What are the key benefits of using A3 problem solving?

A: A3 problem solving provides several benefits, including improved communication, enhanced teamwork, better problem understanding, increased problem-solving effectiveness, and the development of a culture of continuous improvement.

Q: How does A3 problem solving differ from other problem-solving methods?

A: A3 problem solving emphasizes a systematic and structured approach, focusing on problem understanding, root cause analysis, and the development and implementation of countermeasures. It promotes a holistic view of the problem and encourages collaboration and learning throughout the process.

Q: What are the main steps in the A3 problem-solving process?

A: The A3 problem-solving process typically involves the following steps: problem identification and description, current condition analysis, goal setting, root cause analysis, countermeasure development, implementation planning, action plan execution, and follow-up and evaluation.

Q: What is the purpose of the problem identification and description step?

A: The problem identification and description step is crucial for clarifying the problem, its impact, and the desired outcome. It helps establish a common understanding among the team members and ensures everyone is working towards the same goal.

Daniel Croft is a seasoned continuous improvement manager with a Black Belt in Lean Six Sigma. With over 10 years of real-world application experience across diverse sectors, Daniel has a passion for optimizing processes and fostering a culture of efficiency. He's not just a practitioner but also an avid learner, constantly seeking to expand his knowledge. Outside of his professional life, Daniel has a keen Investing, statistics and knowledge-sharing, which led him to create the website learnleansigma.com, a platform dedicated to Lean Six Sigma and process improvement insights.

Free Lean Six Sigma Templates

Improve your Lean Six Sigma projects with our free templates. They're designed to make implementation and management easier, helping you achieve better results.

Other Guides

LEI's Learning Portal

Developing structured problem-solving and leadership skills using a3 thinking: managing to learn remotely.

Join us for a seven-week learning experience and learn how to use the A3 methodology to solve important business problems. Optional one-on-one coaching package also available.

Today's unprecedented challenges require superior problem-solving skills not only from you as a leader but everyone you manage. 

Learning objectives.

What makes the A3 problem-solving approach so powerful is that it is a complete process -- a way of thinking, leading, communicating, learning, getting things done, and developing an entire organization of problem solvers.

Select, define, clarify and investigate a real problem from work.

Clarify problem situations and define problems as gaps in performance.

Visualize work processes and focus on the problems in work methods that are affecting performance.

Investigate and confirm underlying causes and analyze barriers to improvement.

Identify, evaluate and lead in the selection of countermeasures.

Lead planning for implementation of countermeasures and follow-up to resolve problems in execution and reflect for organizational learning

The A3 format puts the problem, analysis, corrective actions, and an action plan on a single sheet of large (A3) paper, often with the use of graphics.

What's Included?

• 14 hours of live, online interaction
• Feedback from facilitators and peers
• Assignments between live sessions to begin applying the lessons and complete your A3
• Opportunities to practice discrete skills with live feedback

Cohort beginning September 17

12:00 PM - 2:00 PM ET

• Session 1: September 17
• Session 2: October 1
• Session 3: October 15
• Session 4: October 29
• Session 5: November 12
• Session 6: December 3
• Session 7: December 17

Optional One-on-One Coaching Sessions

Achieve an even deeper level of learning by taking personal coaching sessions with instructor David Verble, who has 30 years of experience teaching and coaching the A3 management process to leaders and managers.

• completion of the problem situation/current situation section;
• completion of the analysis section and whole left side;
• creation of recommended countermeasures and an implementation plan at the start of the right side.

Personal coaching gives you individual "just-in-time" assistance on your challenges in a private, completely safe online space to share and ask questions.

Schedule Overview

The seven sessions are hosted over 14 weeks, with one to two hours of assignments in between and optional individual coaching sessions available for an additional $499.

Who Should Attend

• Managers, supervisors or executives who want to develop the structured problem-solving, hypothesis-testing, and fact-based, decision-making skills of teams
• Continuous improvement or change management professionals involved in leading major change improvement initiatives
• HR professionals who wish to develop a curriculum and teach introduce structured problem solving and fact-based decision-making skills within their organization

Group Discounts

Engage your whole team with our group discounts.

Technology Used

Please  click here  to run through our technology check before registering for this course.  

• Communication Channel:   A ll our documents  and assignments  will be hosted on a browser-based platform. By logging onto our e-learning website you will be able to view all related materials, announcements, and zoom links.   
• Zoom :  W e will host our live meetings on zoom. You will receive an invitation with the  meeting link.   

Cancelation Policy

You can cancel your registration for online/live-streaming workshops 2 weeks prior to the start date of the course for a full refund. A cancellation occurring within 2 weeks of the workshop dates will be subject to a $350 cancellation fee. Once you have attended a workshop session, you cannot cancel your registration. To cancel please call LEI at (617) 871-2900 or email  [email protected] .

Instructor(s)

LEI Faculty David Verble

Karen Gaudet

Interested in bringing this workshop to your company.

LEI will teach any of our workshops or develop a customized program to build capability in your team.

Whether you need coaching to develop organizational leadership effectiveness, frontline management proficiency, work team or business-unit process improvement capability, or to achieve an organization-wide transformation, LEI can customize a learning plan to meet your needs. Talk with a Coach to learn more »

Stay Connected

Subscribe to LEI's newsletters on lean thinking and practice.

Continuous Improvement Toolkit

Effective Tools for Business and Life!

A3 Thinking: A Structured Approach to Problem Solving

• 5 MINUTES READ

Also known as A3 Problem Solving.

Variants include 8D and CAPA.

A significant part of a leader’s role involves addressing problems as they arise. Various approaches and tools are available to facilitate problem-solving which is the driving force behind continuous improvement. These methods range from the advanced and more complex methodologies like Six Sigma to the simpler and more straightforward A3 thinking approach.

The power of the A3 approach lies in its systematic and structured approach to problem-solving. Although it appears to be a step-by-step process, A3 is built around the PDCA philosophy. It relies on the principle that it is much better to address the real root-cause rather than trying to find a solution. Hence, it’s important not to jump to the solution when solving a problem as it is likely to be less effective.

A3 thinking provides an effective way to bring together many of the problem-solving tools into one place. For example, techniques such as the 5 Whys and fishbone analysis can be used during the ‘Analysis’ stage to help identifying the root causes. Additionally, visual aids and graphs are highly recommended in the A3 report, as they are more effective than text in communicating ideas and providing concise project updates.

A3 thinking involves the practice of consolidating the problem, analysis, countermeasures, and action plan onto a single sheet of paper, commonly an A3-sized sheet. This brief document serves as a summary of the project at hand and is regarded as a valuable storytelling tool for project communication. Utilizing the A3 approach doesn’t require any specialized software or advanced computer skills. You may however use readily available A3 templates , or rely on basic tools such as paper, pencil and an eraser as you will need to erase and rewrite several times.

One of the characteristics of the A3 approach is that it does not get into specific details. Detailed documents are usually attached to the A3 report to prevent overwhelming the reader with an excess of information.

The A3 process is typically structured in multiple stages based on the PDCA model. The primary focus is on developing understanding of the current situation and defining the desired outcome before thinking about the solution. While the exact number of stages may vary depending on the preference of the company, what truly matters is adhering to a structured approach to problem-solving.

A3 Seven Stages Model

An A3 process is often managed by an individual who should own and maintain the A3 report. This individual takes the lead in steering the process, facilitating team involvement, and preparing the A3 report with team input. One of the most common models for A3 thinking is the seven stages model which is described in the following.

1. Background – The first step is to identify the business reason for choosing this problem or opportunity. In this stage, you need to identify the gap in performance and the extent of the problem.

2. Current situation – The purpose of this stage is to document the current state of the problem. You may need to refer to the process map or go to the Gemba to truly understand the current situation.

3. Target – The purpose of this stage is to define the desired future state. Clearly identify the expected benefits from solving the problem, the scope, and the key metrics that will help measure the success of the project.

4. Analysis – The objective of this stage is to conduct an in-depth analysis of the problem and understand why it’s happening. It might involve tools like the 5 Whys and cause-and-effect analysis, as well as advanced statistical methods.

5. Countermeasures – Countermeasures are the actions to be taken to eliminate root causes or reduce their effects. The team should brainstorm and evaluate possible countermeasures based on the analysis conducted earlier.

6. Implementation Plan – To achieve the target, develop a workable plan to implement the countermeasures. Gantt charts are great ways to manage implementation plans very simply and easily. Once the action plan is finalized, the team should begin working on the activities needed to implement the countermeasures.

7. Follow-up – The final stage involves evaluating the implementation of the plan and the results achieved. Follow-up actions are important to ensure the benefits extend beyond the project’s completion.

A3 thinking is considered to be the practical form of the PDCA model.

There are many online templates that can be used to manage your problem-solving efforts. One of the simplest and most straightforward ways is to use this A3 problem solving template .

Wrapping Up

A3 thinking represents a logical and structured approach for problem solving and continuous improvement. This approach can be used for most kinds of problems and in any part of the business. Originating from the Toyota Production System (TPS), it has been adopted by many Lean organizations around the world.

A3 thinking not only provides a systematic approach for problem-solving. The development of a continuous improvement culture is at the core of A3 thinking. It has become one of the most popular Lean tools today where people and teams work together to solve problems, share results and learn from each other.

Other Formats

Do you want to use the slides in your training courses?

A3 Thinking Training Material – $18.85

Related Articles

Project Charter

Gantt Chart

Related Templates

A3 Problem Solving

Written by:

CIToolkit Content Team

• Consultancy
• Online Courses

SIGN UP TODAY

• Lean , Lean Culture , Lean Training , Lean Wiki , Tools

A Deep Dive into the A3 Problem-Solving Approach

• 11 mins to read
• June 20, 2023
• By Reagan Pannell

In today’s fast-paced and fiercely competitive business world, organisations must find ways to continuously adapt, evolve, and excel. Amidst the myriad methods and techniques for achieving improvements and driving continuous improvement, few have proven as profound and transformative as Toyota’s A3 problem-solving approach. 

A significant driving force behind the company’s rise to global prominence, the A3 process fosters a culture where problems are embraced as opportunities for growth and learning. In this article, we’ll explore the origins and underlying principles of the A3 approach and uncover the secrets to its success in unlocking the power of improvements.

Understanding the A3 Approach

The A3 methodology is an integral part of the Toyota Production System (TPS), a set of principles and practices that have shaped the company’s approach to manufacturing, management, and continuous improvement over the years. Named after the A3 sheet of paper that was historically used to capture the plan, analysis, and follow-up on a single page, the A3 process represents a simple, yet powerful, tool for addressing complex challenges and discovering lasting solutions.

At its core, the A3 approach is rooted in three key elements:

1. Thorough problem analysis: The foundation of the A3 process lies in digging deep to diagnose the true nature and root cause of an issue, rather than jumping to hastily devised fixes that merely address symptoms.

2. Structured documentation: The A3 report serves as both a communication tool and an iterative planning device, with each section building on the previous ones to guide problem solvers through a comprehensive analysis, solution development, and execution process. It’s the foundation of good continuous improvement.

3. Cyclical learning and improvement: Leadership and employees alike are encouraged to commit to hypothesis-driven inquiry, observation, experimentation, and reflection, leading to a culture that actively seeks and leverages opportunities for growth by solving problems.

How to Implement the A3 Process in Your Organisation

The Lean Thinking A3 approach can be distilled into seven essential steps:

1. Identify the problem: 

Clearly articulate and define the issue at hand, avoiding the temptation to jump to solutions or assume important facts to be self-evident..

When identifying the problem, it is important to ensure that all relevant stakeholders in the organisation are consulted. This helps to ensure that the issue is accurately described and understood from multiple perspectives. A thorough problem analysis should also include conducting research into possible causes or root issues, and clearly documenting any observed symptoms of the problem. Additionally, it is essential to identify any major risks associated with not finding a solution and recognise any constraints (both external and internal) that may exist which could limit potential solutions. Lastly, it is important to consider any potential opportunities which may arise from addressing the issue that may have been overlooked at first glance. This is the problem statement part which is a critical component that identifies the difference between the current condition and the target condition.

At this stage, we are not looking at how to solve problems being faced or at the potential solution to solving problems. It’s about developing a good understanding of how the actual results differ from the expected results and providing an in-depth systematic approach to process improvement and developing problem-solving skills.

2. Establish the context and background: 

Provide a high-level overview of the problem, describing the stakeholders involved, relevant data, and the broader organisational context in which the challenge has arisen..

It is important to ensure that all stakeholders are properly considered when identifying any potential solutions as their perspectives can play a vital role in determining an effective solution. All related data should be thoroughly analysed to understand the full scope of potential solutions. This includes resources, costs, timelines, and any legal or regulatory issues that may need to be considered. Additionally, it is important to consider how well-proposed solutions fit within existing organisational policies and procedures as this could impact implementation success. Finally, understanding how proposed solutions would interact with other initiatives or processes currently taking place in the organisation can help inform decisions about whether or not they are viable options. It may include conducting some value stream mapping to dig deeper into the current state.

It is important to fully explore any underlying factors that may be contributing to the issue at hand and ensure in-depth problem analysis. This includes looking deeper into existing systems, structures, and processes related to the problem in order to identify potential areas of improvement or optimisation. Additionally, it is essential to consider any relevant industry trends or external influences that could impact how the problem manifests within the organisation.

When analysing a problem, collecting data from various sources is important to get a more comprehensive understanding of how a particular issue can be addressed. This includes mapping the current process using the VSM, SIPOC, Process Mapping or Flowcharting techniques. Additionally, interviews and surveys can be conducted with stakeholders to gain insights into how they perceive the issue and their perspectives on potential solutions. Lastly, it is important to observe any real-world activities related to the problem to uncover key areas where time, effort, resources, money etc is being wasted. This is the time improvement that may not have been identified otherwise.

GB MASTERCLASS COURSE

Get access to our free gb mastercourse classes, free course previews, fundamentals of lean.

Ready to start your journey into the world of Lean with this free course?

FREE COURSE

Lean Thinking

A Lean focused continious improvement certification course

LSS Yellow Belt

Propel your career forward, tackle complex problems and drive change

LEAN SIX SIGMA GREEN BELT

Get 3-days free access to our green belt course, accelerate your career, 3. set a goal:, now that you have identified the problem and outlined the relevant context, it is time to set a project goal or outcome..

This involves clearly articulating the desired state of affairs and any key deliverables of the proposed solution. Whether it is reducing operational costs, increasing efficiency, improving customer experience, or something else entirely – defining specific objectives with measurable metrics can help ensure that project teams stay focused and remain aligned on their ultimate destination.

At this stage, it is also important to consider how long it will take to reach the desired outcome. Establishing an implementation timeline will help safeguard progress and provide a framework for tracking results along the way. Setting milestones for achieving particular goals at certain points in time can be especially helpful in keeping teams accountable throughout the process. Additionally, having a plan for evaluating success after reaching the end target will allow stakeholders to gain further insights into how effective their approach has been in addressing underlying problems, as well as how well-proposed solutions have fared once implemented.

4. Investigate root causes:

Use a variety of techniques (e.g., the 5 whys, fishbone diagrams, pareto charts) to probe the problem’s underlying causes and avoid settling on proximate reasons..

The process of identifying root causes is essential when using data-driven tools. We always want to find the simplest root cause approach.

One of the most widely used methods for root cause analysis is the ‘5 Whys’ technique. This method involves asking a series of ‘why’ questions to determine the underlying cause of a particular symptom or issue. The goal is to keep asking “Why?” until you reach an answer that can provide insight into how to address the problem and prevent it from occurring in the future.

Another commonly used tool for root cause analysis is the fishbone diagram (also known as Ishikawa diagrams). This approach involves visualising all potential causes which could be causing a symptom or issue in a logical format, allowing users to identify patterns and uncover links between root causes and their respective effects. This technique can be helpful in identifying and focusing on key areas for improvement, as well as helping to identify interdependencies between components within an organisation’s systems.

Finally, Pareto Charts are useful for analysing data collected from surveys, interviews, observations, etc., concerning the severity or frequency of occurrence. This type of chart helps users quickly identify which factors are contributing most significantly towards an issue, allowing them to focus resources towards addressing those areas first and foremost. Additionally, Pareto charts can also be used to prioritise different solutions based on their estimated effectiveness in addressing an issue.

In conclusion, understanding the root cause of an issue through rigorous techniques such as 5 Whys, fishbone diagrams, and Pareto charts provides invaluable insight into how best to address it effectively while preventing it from reoccurring in the future. By leveraging these tools along with other data-led approaches such as process mapping and flowcharting, organisations can ensure that any proposed solutions are well-informed by both qualitative and quantitative data sources as well as ensure they are building consensus across the entire organisation.

5. Countermeasures:

Identify the right countermeasures (corrective actions) to implement that will directly impact the root causes identified..

Brainstorming is a useful tool for identifying potential improvements. It involves coming up with ideas and solutions in an open and collaborative manner, without judgement or criticism. By allowing team members to share their thoughts freely, brainstorming can help uncover innovative solutions that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. Additionally, looking at how waste reduction, flow and pull can be used to improve processes can also provide valuable insights into where improvement opportunities lie.

Brainstorm potential solutions that directly target the root causes and create detailed action plans for implementation, complete with assigned roles, responsibilities, and timelines.

Once the countermeasures are identified, it is important to design an implementation plan and assign roles & responsibilities. This will help ensure that all stakeholders understand their part in the implementation and can work together to achieve the desired outcome. Additionally, it is important to track progress along the way – setting measurable milestones that can be tracked against goals established during the initial problem-solving phase will help keep teams accountable and allow for course corrections if needed.

By utilising A3 Problem Solving Tools such as a template, organisations can easily document and share their analyses with relevant stakeholders throughout each stage of the project. Having detailed record-keeping like this also helps teams stay on target over time while providing insights into how proposed solutions may need to be re-evaluated down the line. This implementation plan provides the entire organisation with a clear project status on a one-page report.

6. Evaluate the results:

Measure the impact of your countermeasures against the problem, using well-defined success criteria, key performance indicators, or other relevant metrics..

Once the countermeasures have been implemented, it is essential to measure and evaluate their success. This can be done by tracking performance against the initial objectives established during the goal phase, as well as establishing key performance indicators to gauge how well the proposed solutions have fared.

Additionally, stakeholders should also consider conducting a post-implementation evaluation in order to assess how successful their approach has been in addressing underlying issues and determining what lessons can be learned from the experience. This will enable teams to identify strengths and weaknesses within their existing processes and make any necessary adjustments going forward. By understanding the outcomes of their improvements, organisations are able to gain valuable insights into how well they’ve succeeded in achieving their goals and ensure continued success moving forward.

Once the countermeasures have been implemented and their success measured, it is important to compare the results against the initial objective. This can be done in a variety of ways, including graphical analysis such as charts, process maps or flow diagrams. Graphical analysis helps to visualise the differences between results achieved before and after the implementation of new measures in a meaningful way. It also provides an increased level of clarity when assessing whether the desired outcomes have been achieved or not.

Process maps can be useful in understanding how changes made during the improvement phase have impacted processes within an organisation. By mapping out existing processes and then comparing them against those following implementation of countermeasures, teams can easily pinpoint where improvements were made and analyse how they led to improved performance overall.

Charts, on the other hand, enable users to quickly identify trends that may have emerged from data collected during the project. For example, if performance metrics are tracked before and after countermeasures are implemented, users can use charts and graphs to more clearly observe any patterns that may indicate an improvement or regression in performance over time – providing further insights into which areas need further attention or adjustment moving forward.

Finally, dashboard views provide an effective means of displaying results at a glance while highlighting any anomalies that might warrant further investigation. Dashboards allow stakeholders to gain access to important information quickly and easily while also helping them keep track of progress towards goals set out during initial problem-solving phases. Additionally, because dashboards support data visualisation capabilities they offer a highly interactive user experience which can help teams understand underlying trends with greater clarity and precision.

7. Standardise and share:

If a countermeasure proves successful, integrate it into the organisation’s standard operating procedures and share it with other teams as a best practice..

Once the countermeasures have been successfully implemented and measured against the initial objectives, these changes need to be integrated into the organisation’s standard operating procedures (SOPs) and shared with other teams as best practices. This will ensure that any improvements made during the problem-solving phase are consistently applied across all teams within the organisation.

In order to ensure that these improvements become part of the organisation’s long-term strategy, process maps should be updated to reflect the new improved way of working. Process maps provide a visual representation of how workflows are structured within an organisation, and by updating them in line with newly-implemented countermeasures, organisations can ensure that their processes continue to remain up-to-date and efficient moving forward. It may also be necessary to build a follow-up plan if not all tasks are fully completed as well as develop a Lean-focused PDCA cycle to ensure long-term effective collaboration on the solutions that were implemented.

Process documentation should also be updated in order to keep track of changes made during problem-solving. By documenting not just the solutions that were proposed but also why they were proposed, teams can gain valuable insights into their decision-making process which they can leverage for similar future problems.

Furthermore, it is important to update key performance indicators (KPIs) to accurately reflect any progress made during problem-solving. By tracking performance against objectives established before and after countermeasures were implemented, organisations will be able to identify any areas that may still need improvement or require further adjustment going forward. Additionally, tracking KPIs over time will help teams understand whether or not their current strategies are leading them towards meeting their goals in a timely manner or if additional measures may need to be taken in order to achieve desired results more quickly.

Finally, organisations should share successful solutions with other teams in order to promote collaboration and knowledge sharing amongst stakeholders throughout different parts of the business. This will allow for ideas generated through one team’s problem-solving efforts to benefit multiple departments – helping foster creativity and innovation while ensuring that everyone is on board with necessary changes being made throughout the organisation. The last step is key to Toyota’s PDCA management system designed for the entire organisation.

By breaking down the problem-solving process into these seven discrete stages, the A3 method offers practitioners a comprehensive, end-to-end framework for tackling complex challenges and driving improvements in any organisation.

• Corporate Training
• Courses for Individuals

Training the team on A3

To get A3 started, everyone in the entire organisation needs to learn how to use this single-sheet or single-page document. This means training people across all parts of the company so that everyone knows how to use the A3 Problem Solving Tool and A3 template. Training will help make sure that everyone follows a structured approach when using A3.

Getting the organisation fully onboard with A3 Problem Solving is not an easy task and will require a dedicated effort to ensure its successful implementation. To this end, it is important to start with specific areas of the business – whether it be operations, finance or marketing – by setting up targeted training sessions for both operational teams and senior managers. This will help everyone understand how and why A3 is used, as well as the potential benefits it can bring to their business.

Once everyone has mastered the basics of working with an A3 template, companies should look to regularly review and evaluate its effectiveness. This could include setting up quarterly reviews or running workshops where teams discuss successes and areas for improvement when using the A3 tool. Doing this will ensure that any issues are identified early on, allowing the team to quickly adjust accordingly.

At Leanscape, we understand that transitioning to A3 Problem Solving can be a daunting task. With our team of specialists, we can provide your teams with the necessary training and coaching to ensure that they are able to adapt quickly and efficiently. Our comprehensive approach to A3 will equip your team with the knowledge and skills needed to successfully use this powerful tool for improving performance in all areas of your business.

We are committed to helping you develop a culture of continuous improvement within your organisation by teaching best practices and providing guidance through every step of the problem-solving process. Through our specialised training programs, we will help your teams learn how to use the A3 template more effectively, as well as how to interpret data visualisations quickly and accurately – enabling them to take action swiftly when required. Our experienced coaches will also share insights from industry experts on how best to integrate countermeasures into standard operating procedures (SOPs) and process maps, keeping up-to-date with industry trends in order to stay ahead of the competition.

By leveraging Leanscape’s expertise in A3 Problem Solving, you can rest assured knowing that your team is in good hands. Our team is dedicated to providing you with the support needed for successful implementation so that you can achieve sustained performance improvements over time.

100% Free Fundamentals of Lean COURSE

Take our free course.

JOIN FOR FREE

Join our Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt Certification Course

The implementation of A3 Problem Solving provides a comprehensive framework for organisations looking to successfully address complex problems in an efficient and cost-effective manner. By breaking down the problem-solving process into seven distinct stages, users can structure their approach and track the progress of their countermeasures over time.

In order to ensure successful implementation, organisations should dedicate time towards training their teams on how to use the A3 Problem Solving Tool and A3 template. This will give everyone a solid foundation for carrying out future problem-solving activities more effectively, as well as provide insights into the effectiveness of certain countermeasures over time.

Through Leanscape’s specialised training programs, you can ensure that your team is fully equipped with the necessary skills to successfully adopt and incorporate A3 Problem Solving into all areas of your business. Our experienced coaches are committed to helping you develop a culture of continuous improvement within your organisation – providing guidance through every step of the process

Final Thoughts

The A3 approach is an invaluable tool for unlocking the power of improvements within any organisation. By leveraging its structured framework and cyclical learning approach, businesses can remain agile and responsive to ever-changing conditions, allowing them to navigate change more successfully and emerge stronger than ever before. Ultimately, this makes Toyota’s A3 problem-solving process one of the most effective ways to ensure long-term success in today’s fast-paced and competitive market.

Our Newsletter

Reagan pannell.

Reagan Pannell is a highly accomplished professional with 15 years of experience in building lean management programs for corporate companies. With his expertise in strategy execution, he has established himself as a trusted advisor for numerous organisations seeking to improve their operational efficiency.

Our Training Courses

• Lean Six Sigma White Belt Course
• Lean Thinking Business Course
• Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt Course
• Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Course
• Lean Six Sigma Black Belt Course

Yellow Belt Course

View all courses, recent articles, 5 essential problem-solving strategies every business leader should know, unveiling the secrets of blue ocean strategy for business growth, the difference between strategy and strategic execution, small steps, big gains: the case for incremental improvement, maximising efficiency and profitability: exploring the benefits of lean consultancy, empowering leaders: the imperative for problem-solving training, view all articles, green belt course, other articles, principe 8: use throughly tested technology | principles of lean, 12 best lean management books, 2 proportion test: the basics, principle 7: visual management in lean | the 3 second rule, newsletter | porters five forces and how to stand out, a beginner’s guide to the mood’s median test in lean six sigma, understanding takt time | what is takt time, the power of hansei: why japanese business leaders swear by this concept, the vital role of successfully adopting lean in driving operational improvement, time thieves: how time slips away, how business and management are connected.

• | lean , lean thinking , problem solving , toolkit , tools

Related Articles

Is problem solving a skill how to improve your problem-solving skills, overall equipment effectiveness – how does it work, 5 bullet friday lean thinking newsletter | 8th sept 2023, an overview of the pugh matrix: what is it and how does it work, sources of measurement error – bias and precision, lean six sigma online courses.

FREE COURSE | YELLOW BELT | GREEN BELT | BLACK BELT | MASTERCLASS | WORKSHOPS

Lean Accelerator Progam

A Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Masterclass

LSS Green Belt

The ultimate fast-track for future leadership

LSS Black Belt

Become an expert in change management and complex problem-solving.

Subscribe to Newsletter

Keep up to date to the latest insights, courses, training, webinars and more. Join our newsletter today.

Lean Accelerator Program

Discover the power of problem-solving, 15 min per day | 3-months | only €999 | learn from experts.

• Learn center
• Project management

How to use Toyota’s legendary A3 problem-solving technique

Georgina Guthrie

February 21, 2020

If you came home one day and found your kitchen taps on full-blast and your house full of water, what’s the first thing you’d do? Grab a bucket and start scooping — or turn off the tap?

When it comes to problem-solving, many of us take a rushed, reactionary approach rather than fixing the issue at the source. So in other words, we see the water, panic, and start scooping. If this sounds like something you’ve done recently, then don’t feel too bad: when the pressure’s high, we often jump towards the quickest fix, as opposed to the most effective one.

This is where the A3 technique comes in. It’s a problem-solving approach designed to efficiently address the root cause of issues.

What is the A3 technique?

The A3 technique is a structured way to solve problems. It’s part of the Lean methodology , developed by Toyota back in the mid-’40s. This doesn’t mean you need to implement a Lean way of working to take advantage of this process — it can work as a standalone exercise.

Granted, A3 isn’t an inspiring name, but the story of its origins is actually pretty interesting. Rumour has it that Taiichi Ohno, inventor of the Toyota Production System, refused to read past the first page of any report. In response, his team created A3 address and summarize problem-solving on one side of A3-sized paper. The A3 technique played a huge part in Toyota’s success and all kinds of industries have since adopted it. Here’s how to get started.

How to solve a problem with A3

The first thing to remember is this: A3 is collaborative and relies on good communication. It’s not something you should do by yourself.

There are three main roles involved:

• Owner (that’s you or someone under your charge)

As you’ve probably guessed, these aren’t roles that already exist in your company; you must create them for the purpose of this process. Here’s what they mean.

The owner is responsible for leading the exercise. They are the lynchpin between the two other roles, fostering good communication and keeping documents up to date. It’s tempting to think of the owner as the head of this trio, but that’s not true: everyone is equal here.

The mentor is someone with solid  problem-solving experience. It’s their job to coach the owner and steer them towards finding a solution. It’s not their job to find the answers themselves.

And finally, there are the  responders . This is someone (or a group of people) who have a vested interest in the outcome of the A3 project. Responders might include the client, stakeholders, or managers. A potential problem here is gaining access to them: if you work somewhere with a strict hierarchy — and you’re somewhere near the bottom of that structure — you may face challenges. There’s no easy way around this. Essentially, you need your organization to support this way of working and make it easy for you to access those at the top if needed.

How to create an A3 report

True to its origins, the A3 report is a one-page document. It typically contains 5-7 sections that systematically lead you towards a solution. These are the most commonly used steps, but feel free to modify them.

• Background:  Explain your project in a few sentences, including its context.
• Problem statement:  Explain the current problem. You can use process mapping to see the different tasks that surround the issue. This isn’t essential, but it will make it easier for you to locate the root cause.
• Goals:  Define your desired outcome, and include metrics for measuring success. You won’t know everything until you reach the end, so you may find you need to come back and refine stages 1-3.
• Root cause analysis:  This is a big stage of the process. You need to work out what you think the root problem is. You can use different methods to help you here, including 5 whys or a fault tree analysis .
• Countermeasures:  Once you’ve worked out your root cause, you can start proposing solutions.
• Implementation:  Work out how you’ll implement these solutions, including an action list with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Project management software is a useful tool here because it can help everyone on the team track each other’s progress in real-time.
• Follow-up:  Using your metrics for success, decide whether the problem was solved. Report your results back to the team/organization. In the spirit of Lean (continuous improvement), you should go back and modify your plan if the results weren’t as expected. And if they were, you should make this process the new standard.

Final thoughts

A3 is an efficient, methodical way to solve problems at their source. When issues rear their head, rising stress can lead people to panic. Having a clearly designed system in place to guide you towards a solution minimizes the chances of people settling for a ‘quick fix’ or failing to act altogether.

Beyond being a guiding light in times of pressure, A3 is a great team-building exercise because it encourages individuals to work together towards a common goal — across all areas of the organization. Combine this with collaborative tools designed to help teams track progress and work together more effectively, and you’ll be unstoppable.

Solve problems like a pro with Root Cause Corrective Action

Lean to Six Sigma: process improvement methodologies explained

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Learn with Nulab to bring your best ideas to life

• MY LCI Login
• LCI Design & LCI Engineering Design Award
• Our Mission & Vision
• Our Strengths
• History of LCI
• How We Serve
• Board of Directors
• LCI Congress 2024
• Lean in Design Forum 2024
• Respect For People
• Communities
• New to Lean
• Learn by Pathway
• For Designers
• For Constructors
• Field Crew Huddle
• Assessments
• Classroom Learning
• Instructor Program
• LCI Publications
• Learning Videos
• Partner Programs
• Simulations
• Certification FAQs
• Certification Practice Quiz
• Designation Directory

• Lean Construction
• Lean Design
• Lean Project Delivery
• What is Lean?
• Founder’s White Papers
• Lean Construction Journal
• LCI Research
• Newsletter Archives
• Past Event Presentations
• Blog & Buzz
• Lean Consultant Members
• Member Directory

A3: Thinking, Reports, Examples & Templates

A3 thinking, an introduction to a3.

In the design and construction industry – as in all industries – complex problems arise daily. Each project contains hundreds of decisions containing thousands of variables, and sorting them out to arrive at the best outcome is critical.

A3 problem solving provides teams with a strategy to effectively and efficiently deal with problems that they encounter and decisions that need to be reached. In true Lean fashion, A3 process improvement brings the entire team into the collaborative problem-solving process and allows teams to embrace out-of-the-box solutions.

What is A3?

An A3 is a one-page report prepared on a single 11 x 17 sheet of paper that adheres to the discipline of PDCA thinking as applied to collaborative problem solving, strategy development or reporting. The A3 includes the background, problem statement, analysis, proposed actions, and the expected results.

The History

A3 thinking was developed by Toyota in the 1940s. Toyota believed that any problem should be capable of being explained and solved using one sheet of paper (an 11 x 17 sheet being the largest sized paper that is capable of being faxed and closest in size to the traditional A3). 

The company also believed that if a problem is too complex to fit onto an A3 report, it should be broken down into smaller bits that would be solved individually. If your problem cannot fit onto an A3, you should reconsider the scope of what you are hoping to accomplish.

Who Uses A3 Strategies?

Today, A3 strategies are deployed across various industries that employ Lean thinking such as:

• Design & Construction
• Manufacturing
• Project Management
• Engineering & Architecture
• Service Industries

LCI’s Meaning of A3

A3 thinking is an extremely useful tool when utilized correctly. By distilling the entirety of a problem on a single sheet of paper, A3 Lean thinking forces team members to collaborate and rationalize through the problem solving process. A3 thinking makes for more effective problem solving and produces written explanations that can then be passed on to senior management. An effectively completed A3 report will also build management’s confidence in the team and its ability to solve problems.

A3 Reporting

A well-written A3 report should show and explain the consideration that went into the counter-measure to the problem listed. Properly executed plans include the input of team members from all across the stakeholder spectrum and should allow members to emerge as leaders in its problem solving. A3 papers can also be referenced later, allowing the lessons learned during the process to be shared with future project teams.

Understanding A3 Thinking

A3 thinking does not provide a solution to the problem your team is facing. Rather, it guides your team’s process to help it reach the best possible countermeasure with the tools it has at its disposal.

An A3 report is to be filled out by one person on the team – the “champion” – who will gather assessments and intel from other members in a collaborative fashion. Bringing all of the knowledge and expertise of the team to bear when solving a problem is the best way to come to a satisfying outcome.

Problem Solving: An A3 Process

A3 thinking allows for many different types of decision-making. But ultimately, all decisions are fundamentally a form of problem solving. For example, A3 thinking can be deployed to guide the team in optimizing decisions during the design phase, or for solving a constructability challenge.

The First Step to A3 Thinking

The first step of the A3 process for problem solving is to correctly identify the problem. From unexpected lead times on materials to communication breakdowns among design teams, “problems” are in no short supply in the design and construction industry. Before engaging in A3, ask yourself the following questions about the problem you are working to solve.

Questions to Facilitate the Process

• What are you trying to address or solve?
• What is the current situation?
• What are clear Conditions of Satisfaction (CoS) I can develop?
• Where can I brainstorm and analyze the 5 whys/root cause ideas?
• What’s a recommendation I can put forth?
• What is my plan to implement the recommendation above (if applicable)?

State plan to check and adjust using the PDCA cycle.

More on the PDCA Cycle

PDCA stands for Plan, Do, Check, Adjust. Explore each element of this acronym for more information about how it supports both the problem solving questions above as well as A3 problem solving as a whole.

Identify an issue in your process and exercise continuous improvement by planning your course of change.

Perform your case study by applying the corrective actions outlined in the “plan” stage in an experimental manner.

Follow the performance of your experiment and measure it to determine whether it is having the desired effect.

If your plan worked, implement the change to the necessary areas of your process. If it did not, determine what you will do differently next time and repeat the cycle.

A3 Reports for Solutions

While A3 reports broadly follow the PDCA cycle, the actual journey of an A3 process is a bit more granular. Let’s analyze the various steps and sections of an A3 report.

Describe the problem, theme, or issue. List out all of the details including the champion’s name, date, and the names of all of the collaborators who will be helping with the report.

Establish the business context & importance. Provide additional information on the problem being addressed.

Current State

Describe what is currently known about the problem. Note potential variables and roadblocks that may stop your team from solving this problem and additional information you hope you acquire.

Future State or Goal

Identify the desired outcome for your experiment. Identify the Conditions of Satisfaction (CoS) for the project.

Analyze the situation and underlying cause.

Recommendation

Provide a recommendation for process improvement that your team can implement for the future.

Create a follow-up/review process.

A3 Examples

A3 thinking is frequently applied in Lean design and Lean construction during all phases of the process for the purposes of making sound decisions. In the example below, A3 thinking is applied to the process of learning Lean design and construction techniques.

A3 Template

The Lean Construction Institute seeks to educate companies all throughout the design and construction industry on Lean practices and methods. Here is our A3 template which you can use to guide your decision-making processes.

A3 Training

The Lean Construction Institute offers A3 training as well as tools , events , education , and networking opportunities for Lean practitioners in design and construction all around the world. Whether you’re a Lean expert or are just learning about Lean for the first time, LCI can provide the tools you need for problem solving and continuous improvement in your business.

Lean Assessments

How strong is your Lean knowledge? Take a Lean assessment to determine your current state so you have a baseline for improvement. Lean assessments are available for individuals, teams, and organizations alike. Whether you’re new to Lean or are an experienced Lean practitioner, Lean assessments are a great way to get started at LCI!

William R. (Bill) Seed, Executive Editor

Executive Editors: Kristin Hill, Katherine Copeland and Christian Pikel

More lean topics.

From 5s to IPD, explore more popular Lean design and construction topics below.

• A3 Problem Solving

Sales Acceleration Workshop

Lorem ipsum dolor sub title..

Do you know the best ways to solve your problems?  Are you sometimes stumped and unable to move forward?  That’s why the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center is here for you!  Plainly stated, WE HELP YOU LEARN HOW TO FIND SOLUTIONS.

Problematic?  Our approach is Automatic! Solving problems is all in a day’s work for many of us.  However, are we analyzing the symptoms of the problem correctly, with an eye to hidden elements?  Are we handling the situation in the most efficient, cost-effective way?  In short, do we really know what we are talking about and doing?

These are the problems that can cause managers to lose sleep, and cause their employees to doubt the efficacy of decisions that manager is making.

The Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center knows that successful manufacturers constantly focus on improving quality and on-time delivery while attempting to reduce operating costs. Resources are always in short supply, so effective, rapid, real-time problem-solving methods are critical. The A-3 technique, a structured problem-solving approach, teaches employees how to rapidly address manufacturing problems, effectively communicate solutions, and monitor results.

This technique seeks to clearly define the problem in measurable terms, uncover potential root causes, determine the true root cause or causes, analyze alternative answers, develop implementation plans, and communicate key performance indicators. All information is recorded in a document printed on 11-by-17-inch paper, the size designated “A-3” by ISO 216.

With the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center, the A3 Process is a successful and pragmatic problem-solving technique for creating sustainable organizational change. It is also a great plan of attack for an aggravating, stubborn and ongoing problem that prevents it from growing into a major catastrophe!  Register for The Center’s A3 Problem Solving Seminar by phone, fax or email today and . . . Sleep well tonight!

Upcoming Classes

June 04, 2024 8:00 AM- 12:00 PM 45501 Helm St. Plymouth, MI

Register Now

June 19, 2024 9:00 AM- 1:00 PM 6800 Browns Lake Rd. Jackson, MI

September 16, 2024 8:00 AM- 12:00 PM 45501 Helm St. Plymouth, MI

November 11, 2024 8:00 AM- 12:00 PM 45501 Helm St. Plymouth, MI

• Virtual Classes
• Cybersecurity
• Food Safety
• Industry 4.0
• Leadership / Culture
• 5S Workplace Organization Simulation
• 5S/Visual Management
• Advanced Problem Solving: Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt (CEUs: 2.1 | PDCs: 21)
• Digital 5S Document Management
• Lean Applications Workforce Training (CEUs: 3.5)
• Lean Manufacturing Champion Certification with Kaizen
• Lean Manufacturing Practitioner
• Lean Manufacturing Simulation
• Lean Office Champion (CEUs: 2.1 | PDCs: 21)
• Lean Office Champion Certification With Kaizen
• Lean Office Practitioner
• Lean Office Simulation
• Lean Simulation
• Lean Six Sigma Green Belt (CEUs: 5.6)
• Mistake-Proofing
• Power of Lean Series
• Standard Work
• Total Productive Maintenance/Quick Changeover
• VIRTUAL CLASS: A3 Problem Solving
• VIRTUAL CLASS: Lean Manufacturing Champion Certification
• VIRTUAL CLASS: Lean Manufacturing Practitioner
• VIRTUAL CLASS: Lean Office Practitioner
• VIRTUAL: Principles of Biomanufacturing
• Quality Management
• Safety/Environmental
• Specification Management
• Supply Chain

• Open access
• Published: 17 February 2022

Effectiveness of problem-based learning methodology in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review

• Joan Carles Trullàs   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7380-3475 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Carles Blay   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3962-5887 1 , 4 ,
• Elisabet Sarri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2435-399X 3 &
• Ramon Pujol   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2527-385X 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  22 , Article number:  104 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

31k Accesses

78 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach that shifts the role of the teacher to the student (student-centered) and is based on self-directed learning. Although PBL has been adopted in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, the effectiveness of the method is still under discussion. The author’s purpose was to appraise available international evidence concerning to the effectiveness and usefulness of PBL methodology in undergraduate medical teaching programs.

The authors applied the Arksey and O’Malley framework to undertake a scoping review. The search was carried out in February 2021 in PubMed and Web of Science including all publications in English and Spanish with no limits on publication date, study design or country of origin.

The literature search identified one hundred and twenty-four publications eligible for this review. Despite the fact that this review included many studies, their design was heterogeneous and only a few provided a high scientific evidence methodology (randomized design and/or systematic reviews with meta-analysis). Furthermore, most were single-center experiences with small sample size and there were no large multi-center studies. PBL methodology obtained a high level of satisfaction, especially among students. It was more effective than other more traditional (or lecture-based methods) at improving social and communication skills, problem-solving and self-learning skills. Knowledge retention and academic performance weren’t worse (and in many studies were better) than with traditional methods. PBL was not universally widespread, probably because requires greater human resources and continuous training for its implementation.

PBL is an effective and satisfactory methodology for medical education. It is likely that through PBL medical students will not only acquire knowledge but also other competencies that are needed in medical professionalism.

Peer Review reports

There has always been enormous interest in identifying the best learning methods. In the mid-twentieth century, US educator Edgar Dale proposed which actions would lead to deeper learning than others and published the well-known (and at the same time controversial) “Cone of Experience or Cone of Dale”. At the apex of the cone are oral representations (verbal descriptions, written descriptions, etc.) and at the base is direct experience (based on a person carrying out the activity that they aim to learn), which represents the greatest depth of our learning. In other words, each level of the cone corresponds to various learning methods. At the base are the most effective, participative methods (what we do and what we say) and at the apex are the least effective, abstract methods (what we read and what we hear) [ 1 ]. In 1990, psychologist George Miller proposed a framework pyramid to assess clinical competence. At the lowest level of the pyramid is knowledge (knows), followed by the competence (knows how), execution (shows how) and finally the action (does) [ 2 ]. Both Miller’s pyramid and Dale’s cone propose a very efficient way of training and, at the same time, of evaluation. Miller suggested that the learning curve passes through various levels, from the acquisition of theoretical knowledge to knowing how to put this knowledge into practice and demonstrate it. Dale stated that to remember a high percentage of the acquired knowledge, a theatrical representation should be carried out or real experiences should be simulated. It is difficult to situate methodologies such as problem-based learning (PBL), case-based learning (CBL) and team-based learning (TBL) in the context of these learning frameworks.

In the last 50 years, various university education models have emerged and have attempted to reconcile teaching with learning, according to the principle that students should lead their own learning process. Perhaps one of the most successful models is PBL that came out of the English-speaking environment. There are many descriptions of PBL in the literature, but in practice there is great variability in what people understand by this methodology. The original conception of PBL as an educational strategy in medicine was initiated at McMaster University (Canada) in 1969, leaving aside the traditional methodology (which is often based on lectures) and introducing student-centered learning. The new formulation of medical education proposed by McMaster did not separate the basic sciences from the clinical sciences, and partially abandoned theoretical classes, which were taught after the presentation of the problem. In its original version, PBL is a methodology in which the starting point is a problem or a problematic situation. The situation enables students to develop a hypothesis and identify learning needs so that they can better understand the problem and meet the established learning objectives [ 3 , 4 ]. PBL is taught using small groups (usually around 8–10 students) with a tutor. The aim of the group sessions is to identify a problem or scenario, define the key concepts identified, brainstorm ideas and discuss key learning objectives, research these and share this information with each other at subsequent sessions. Tutors are used to guide students, so they stay on track with the learning objectives of the task. Contemporary medical education also employs other small group learning methods including CBL and TBL. Characteristics common to the pedagogy of both CBL and TBL include the use of an authentic clinical case, active small-group learning, activation of existing knowledge and application of newly acquired knowledge. In CBL students are encouraged to engage in peer learning and apply new knowledge to these authentic clinical problems under the guidance of a facilitator. CBL encourages a structured and critical approach to clinical problem-solving, and, in contrast to PBL, is designed to allow the facilitator to correct and redirect students [ 5 ]. On the other hand, TBL offers a student-centered, instructional approach for large classes of students who are divided into small teams of typically five to seven students to solve clinically relevant problems. The overall similarities between PBL and TBL relate to the use of professionally relevant problems and small group learning, while the main difference relates to one teacher facilitating interactions between multiple self-managed teams in TBL, whereas each small group in PBL is facilitated by one teacher. Further differences are related to mandatory pre-reading assignments in TBL, testing of prior knowledge in TBL and activating prior knowledge in PBL, teacher-initiated clarifying of concepts that students struggled with in TBL versus students-generated issues that need further study in PBL, inter-team discussions in TBL and structured feedback and problems with related questions in TBL [ 6 ].

In the present study we have focused on PBL methodology, and, as attractive as the method may seem, we should consider whether it is really useful and effective as a learning method. Although PBL has been adopted in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, the effectiveness (in terms of academic performance and/or skill improvement) of the method is still under discussion. This is due partly to the methodological difficulty in comparing PBL with traditional curricula based on lectures. To our knowledge, there is no systematic scoping review in the literature that has analyzed these aspects.

The main motivation for carrying out this research and writing this article was scientific but also professional interest. We believe that reviewing the state of the art of this methodology once it was already underway in our young Faculty of Medicine, could allow us to know if we were on the right track and if we should implement changes in the training of future doctors.

The primary goal of this study was to appraise available international evidence concerning to the effectiveness and usefulness of PBL methodology in undergraduate medical teaching programs. As the intention was to synthesize the scattered evidence available, the option was to conduct a scoping review. A scoping study tends to address broader topics where many different study designs might be applicable. Scoping studies may be particularly relevant to disciplines, such as medical education, in which the paucity of randomized controlled trials makes it difficult for researchers to undertake systematic reviews [ 7 , 8 ]. Even though the scoping review methodology is not widely used in medical education, it is well established for synthesizing heterogeneous research evidence [ 9 ].

The specific aims were: 1) to determine the effectiveness of PBL in academic performance (learning and retention of knowledge) in medical education; 2) to determine the effectiveness of PBL in other skills (social and communication skills, problem solving or self-learning) in medical education; 3) to know the level of satisfaction perceived by the medical students (and/or tutors) when they are taught with the PBL methodology (or when they teach in case of tutors).

This review was guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews. The five main stages of the framework are: (1) identifying the research question; (2) ascertaining relevant studies; (3) determining study selection; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing and reporting the results [ 7 ]. We reported our process according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews [ 10 ].

Stage 1: Identifying the research question

With the goals of the study established, the four members of the research team established the research questions. The primary research question was “What is the effectiveness of PBL methodology for learning in undergraduate medicine?” and the secondary question “What is the perception and satisfaction of medical students and tutors in relation to PBL methodology?”.

Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies

After the research questions and a search strategy were defined, the searches were conducted in PubMed and Web of Science using the MeSH terms “problem-based learning” and “Medicine” (the Boolean operator “AND” was applied to the search terms). No limits were set on language, publication date, study design or country of origin. The search was carried out on 14th February 2021. Citations were uploaded to the reference manager software Mendeley Desktop (version 1.19.8) for title and abstract screening, and data characterization.

Stage 3: Study selection

The searching strategy in our scoping study generated a total of 2399 references. The literature search and screening of title, abstract and full text for suitability was performed independently by one author (JCT) based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were: 1) PBL methodology was the major research topic; 2) participants were undergraduate medical students or tutors; 3) the main outcome was academic performance (learning and knowledge retention); 4) the secondary outcomes were one of the following: social and communication skills, problem solving or self-learning and/or student/tutor satisfaction; 5) all types of studies were included including descriptive papers, qualitative, quantitative and mixed studies methods, perspectives, opinion, commentary pieces and editorials. Exclusion criteria were studies including other types of participants such as postgraduate medical students, residents and other health non-medical specialties such as pharmacy, veterinary, dentistry or nursing. Studies published in languages other than Spanish and English were also excluded. Situations in which uncertainty arose, all authors (CB, ES, RP) discussed the publication together to reach a final consensus. The outcomes of the search results and screening are presented in Fig.  1 . One-hundred and twenty-four articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis.

Study flow PRISMA diagram. Details the review process through the different stages of the review; includes the number of records identified, included and excluded

Stage 4: Charting the data

A data extraction table was developed by the research team. Data extracted from each of the 124 publications included general publication details (year, author, and country), sample size, study population, design/methodology, main and secondary outcomes and relevant results and/or conclusions. We compiled all data into a single spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel for coding and analysis. The characteristics and the study subject of the 124 articles included in this review are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 . The detailed results of the Microsoft Excel file is also available in Additional file 1 .

Stage 5: Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

As indicated in the search strategy (Fig.  1 ) this review resulted in the inclusion of 124 publications. Publication years of the final sample ranged from 1990 to 2020, the majority of the publications (51, 41%) were identified for the years 2010–2020 and the years in which there were more publications were 2001, 2009 and 2015. Countries from the six continents were represented in this review. Most of the publications were from Asia (especially China and Saudi Arabia) and North America followed by Europe, and few studies were from Africa, Oceania and South America. The country with more publications was the United States of America ( n  = 27). The most frequent designs of the selected studies were surveys or questionnaires ( n  = 45) and comparative studies ( n  = 48, only 16 were randomized) with traditional or lecture-based learning methodologies (in two studies the comparison was with simulation) and the most frequently measured outcomes were academic performance followed by student satisfaction (48 studies measured more than one outcome). The few studies with the highest level of scientific evidence (systematic review and meta-analysis and randomized studies) were conducted mostly in Asian countries (Tables  1 and 2 ). The study subject was specified in 81 publications finding a high variability but at the same time great representability of almost all disciplines of the medical studies.

The sample size was available in 99 publications and the median [range] of the participants was 132 [14–2061]. According to study population, there were more participants in the students’ focused studies (median 134 and range 16–2061) in comparison with the tutors’ studies (median 53 and range 14–494).

Finally, after reviewing in detail the measured outcomes (main and secondary) according to the study design (Table 2 and Additional file 1 ) we present a narrative overview and a synthesis of the main findings.

Main outcome: academic performance (learning and knowledge retention)

Seventy-one of the 124 publications had learning and/or knowledge retention as a measured outcome, most of them ( n  = 45) were comparative studies with traditional or lecture-based learning and 16 were randomized. These studies were varied in their methodology, were performed in different geographic zones, and normally analyzed the experience of just one education center. Most studies ( n  = 49) reported superiority of PBL in learning and knowledge acquisition [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ] but there was no difference between traditional and PBL curriculums in another 19 studies [ 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 ]. Only three studies reported that PBL was less effective [ 79 , 80 , 81 ], two of them were randomized (in one case favoring simulation-based learning [ 80 ] and another favoring lectures [ 81 ]) and the remaining study was based on tutors’ opinion rather than real academic performance [ 79 ]. It is noteworthy that the four systematic reviews and meta-analysis included in this scoping review, all carried out in China, found that PBL was more effective than lecture-based learning in improving knowledge and other skills (clinical, problem-solving, self-learning and collaborative) [ 40 , 51 , 53 , 58 ]. Another relevant example of the superiority of the PBL method over the traditional method is the experience reported by Hoffman et al. from the University of Missouri-Columbia. The authors analyzed the impact of implementing the PBL methodology in its Faculty of Medicine and revealed an improvement in the academic results that lasted for over a decade [ 31 ].

Secondary outcomes

Social and communication skills.

We found five studies in this scoping review that focused on these outcomes and all of them described that a curriculum centered on PBL seems to instill more confidence in social and communication skills among students. Students perceived PBL positively for teamwork, communication skills and interpersonal relations [ 44 , 45 , 67 , 75 , 82 ].

Student satisfaction

Sixty publications analyzed student satisfaction with PBL methodology. The most frequent methodology were surveys or questionnaires (30 studies) followed by comparative studies with traditional or lecture-based methodology (19 studies, 7 of them were randomized). Almost all the studies (51) have shown that PBL is generally well-received [ 11 , 13 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 26 , 29 , 34 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 50 , 56 , 58 , 63 , 64 , 66 , 78 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 ] but in 9 studies the overall satisfaction scores for the PBL program were neutral [ 76 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 ] or negative [ 117 , 118 ]. Some factors that have been identified as key components for PBL to be successful include: a small group size, the use of scenarios of realistic cases and good management of group dynamics. Despite a mostly positive assessment of the PBL methodology by the students, there were some negative aspects that could be criticized or improved. These include unclear communication of the learning methodology, objectives and assessment method; bad management and organization of the sessions; tutors having little experience of the method; and a lack of standardization in the implementation of the method by the tutors.

Tutor satisfaction

There are only 15 publications that analyze the satisfaction of tutors, most of them surveys or questionnaires [ 85 , 88 , 92 , 98 , 108 , 110 , 119 ]. In comparison with the satisfaction of the students, here the results are more neutral [ 112 , 113 , 115 , 120 , 121 ] and even unfavorable to the PBL methodology in two publications [ 117 , 122 ]. PBL teaching was favored by tutors when the institutions train them in the subject, when there was administrative support and adequate infrastructure and coordination [ 123 ]. In some experiences, the PBL modules created an unacceptable toll of anxiety, unhappiness and strained relations.

Other skills (problem solving and self-learning)

The effectiveness of the PBL methodology has also been explored in other outcomes such as the ability to solve problems and to self-directed learning. All studies have shown that PBL is more effective than lecture-based learning in problem-solving and self-learning skills [ 18 , 24 , 40 , 48 , 67 , 75 , 93 , 104 , 124 ]. One single study found a poor accuracy of the students’ self-assessment when compared to their own performance [ 125 ]. In addition, there are studies that support PBL methodology for integration between basic and clinical sciences [ 126 ].

Finally, other publications have reported the experience of some faculties in the implementation of the PBL methodology. Different experiences have demonstrated that it is both possible and feasible to shift from a traditional curriculum to a PBL program, recognizing that PBL methodology is complex to plan and structure, needs a large number of human and material resources, requiring an immense teacher effort [ 28 , 31 , 94 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 ]. In addition, and despite its cost implication, a PBL curriculum can be successfully implemented in resource-constrained settings [ 134 , 135 ].

We conducted this scoping review to explore the effectiveness and satisfaction of PBL methodology for teaching in undergraduate medicine and, to our knowledge, it is the only study of its kind (systematic scoping review) that has been carried out in the last years. Similarly, Vernon et al. conducted a meta-analysis of articles published between 1970 and 1992 and their results generally supported the superiority of the PBL approach over more traditional methods of medical education [ 136 ]. PBL methodology is implemented in medical studies on the six continents but there is more experience (or at least more publications) from Asian countries and North America. Despite its apparent difficulties on implementation, a PBL curriculum can be successfully implemented in resource-constrained settings [ 134 , 135 ]. Although it is true that the few studies with the highest level of scientific evidence (randomized studies and meta-analysis) were carried out mainly in Asian countries (and some in North America and Europe), there were no significant differences in the main results according to geographical origin.

In this scoping review we have included a large number of publications that, despite their heterogeneity, tend to show favorable results for the usefulness of the PBL methodology in teaching and learning medicine. The results tend to be especially favorable to PBL methodology when it is compared with traditional or lecture-based teaching methods, but when compared with simulation it is not so clear. There are two studies that show neutral [ 71 ] or superior [ 80 ] results to simulation for the acquisition of specific clinical skills. It seems important to highlight that the four meta-analysis included in this review, which included a high number of participants, show results that are clearly favorable to the PBL methodology in terms of knowledge, clinical skills, problem-solving, self-learning and satisfaction [ 40 , 51 , 53 , 58 ].

Regarding the level of satisfaction described in the surveys or questionnaires, the overall satisfaction rate was higher in the PBL students when compared with traditional learning students. Students work in small groups, allowing and promoting teamwork and facilitating social and communication skills. As sessions are more attractive and dynamic than traditional classes, this could lead to a greater degree of motivation for learning.

These satisfaction results are not so favorable when tutors are asked and this may be due to different reasons; first, some studies are from the 90s, when the methodology was not yet fully implemented; second, the number of tutors included in these studies is low; and third, and perhaps most importantly, the complaints are not usually due to the methodology itself, but rather due to lack of administrative support, and/or work overload. PBL methodology implies more human and material resources. The lack of experience in guided self-learning by lecturers requires more training. Some teachers may not feel comfortable with the method and therefore do not apply it correctly.

Despite how effective and/or attractive the PBL methodology may seem, some (not many) authors are clearly detractors and have published opinion articles with fierce criticism to this methodology. Some of the arguments against are as follows: clinical problem solving is the wrong task for preclinical medical students, self-directed learning interpreted as self-teaching is not appropriate in undergraduate medical education, relegation to the role of facilitators is a misuse of the faculty, small-group experience is inherently variable and sometimes dysfunctional, etc. [ 137 ].

In light of the results found in our study, we believe that PBL is an adequate methodology for the training of future doctors and reinforces the idea that the PBL should have an important weight in the curriculum of our medical school. It is likely that training through PBL, the doctors of the future will not only have great knowledge but may also acquire greater capacity for communication, problem solving and self-learning, all of which are characteristics that are required in medical professionalism. For this purpose, Koh et al. analyzed the effect that PBL during medical school had on physician competencies after graduation, finding a positive effect mainly in social and cognitive dimensions [ 138 ].

Despite its defects and limitations, we must not abandon this methodology and, in any case, perhaps PBL should evolve, adapt, and improve to enhance its strengths and improve its weaknesses. It is likely that the new generations, trained in schools using new technologies and methodologies far from lectures, will feel more comfortable (either as students or as tutors) with methodologies more like PBL (small groups and work focused on problems or projects). It would be interesting to examine the implementation of technologies and even social media into PBL sessions, an issue that has been poorly explorer [ 139 ].

Limitations

Scoping reviews are not without limitations. Our review includes 124 articles from the 2399 initially identified and despite our efforts to be as comprehensive as possible, we may have missed some (probably few) articles. Even though this review includes many studies, their design is very heterogeneous, only a few include a large sample size and high scientific evidence methodology. Furthermore, most are single-center experiences and there are no large multi-center studies. Finally, the frequency of the PBL sessions (from once or twice a year to the whole curriculum) was not considered, in part, because most of the revised studies did not specify this information. This factor could affect the efficiency of PBL and the perceptions of students and tutors about PBL. However, the adoption of a scoping review methodology was effective in terms of summarizing the research findings, identifying limitations in studies’ methodologies and findings and provided a more rigorous vision of the international state of the art.

Conclusions

This systematic scoping review provides a broad overview of the efficacy of PBL methodology in undergraduate medicine teaching from different countries and institutions. PBL is not a new teaching method given that it has already been 50 years since it was implemented in medicine courses. It is a method that shifts the leading role from teachers to students and is based on guided self-learning. If it is applied properly, the degree of satisfaction is high, especially for students. PBL is more effective than traditional methods (based mainly on lectures) at improving social and communication skills, problem-solving and self-learning skills, and has no worse results (and in many studies better results) in relation to academic performance. Despite that, its use is not universally widespread, probably because it requires greater human resources and continuous training for its implementation. In any case, more comparative and randomized studies and/or other systematic reviews and meta-analysis are required to determine which educational strategies could be most suitable for the training of future doctors.

Abbreviations

• Problem-based learning

Case-based learning

Team-based learning

References:

Dale E. Methods for analyzing the content of motion pictures. J Educ Sociol. 1932;6:244–50.

Google Scholar  

Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990;65(9 Suppl):S63–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bodagh N, Bloomfield J, Birch P, Ricketts W. Problem-based learning: a review. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2017;78:C167–70. https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2017.78.11.C167 .

- Branda LA. El abc del ABP: Lo esencial del aprendizaje basado en problemas. In: Fundación Dr. Esteve, Cuadernos de la fundación Dr. Antonio Esteve nº27: El aprendizaje basado en problemas en sus textos, pp.1–16. 2013. Barcelona.

Burgess A, Matar E, Roberts C, et al. Scaffolding medical student knowledge and skills: team-based learning (TBL) and case-based learning (CBL). BMC Med Educ. 2021;21:238. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02638-3 .

Dolmans D, Michaelsen L, van Merriënboer J, van der Vleuten C. Should we choose between problem-based learning and team-based learning? No, combine the best of both worlds! Med Teach. 2015;37:354–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.948828 .

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. In J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 .

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 .

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123 .

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 .

Sokas RK, Diserens D, Johnston MA. Integrating occupational-health into the internal medicine clerkship using problem-based learning. Clin Res. 1990;38:A735.

Richards BF, Ober KP, Cariaga-Lo L, et al. Ratings of students’ performances in a third-year internal medicine clerkship: a comparison between problem-based and lecture-based curricula. Acad Med. 1996;71:187–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199602000-00028 .

Gresham CL, Philp JR. Problem-based learning in clinical medicine. Teach Learn Med. 1996;8:111–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401339609539776 .

Hill J, Rolfe IE, Pearson SA, Heathcote A. Do junior doctors feel they are prepared for hospital practice? A study of graduates from traditional and non-traditional medical schools. Med Educ. 1998;32:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00152.x .

Blake RL, Parkison L. Faculty evaluation of the clinical performances of students in a problem-based learning curriculum. Teach Learn Med. 1998;10:69–73. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1002\_3 .

Hmelo CE. Problem-based learning: effects on the early acquisition of cognitive skill in medicine. J Learn Sc. 1998;7:173–208. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0702\_2 .

Finch PN. The effect of problem-based learning on the academic performance of students studying podiatric medicine in Ontario. Med Educ. 1999;33:411–7.

Casassus P, Hivon R, Gagnayre R, d’Ivernois JF. An initial experiment in haematology instruction using the problem-based learning method in third-year medical training in France. Hematol Cell Ther. 1999;41:137–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00282-999-0137-0 .

Purdy RA, Benstead TJ, Holmes DB, Kaufman DM. Using problem-based learning in neurosciences education for medical students. Can J Neurol Sci. 1999;26:211–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0317167100000287 .

Farrell TA, Albanese MA, Pomrehn PRJ. Problem-based learning in ophthalmology: a pilot program for curricular renewal. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1223–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.117.9.1223 .

Curtis JA, Indyk D, Taylor B. Successful use of problem-based learning in a third-year pediatric clerkship. Ambul Pediatr. 2001;1:132–5. https://doi.org/10.1367/1539-4409(2001)001%3c0132:suopbl%3e2.0.co;2 .

Trevena LJ, Clarke RM. Self-directed learning in population health. a clinically relevant approach for medical students. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22:59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00395-6 .

Astin J, Jenkins T, Moore L. Medical students’ perspective on the teaching of medical statistics in the undergraduate medical curriculum. Stat Med. 2002;21:1003–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1132 .

Whitfield CR, Manger EA, Zwicker J, Lehman EB. Differences between students in problem-based and lecture-based curricula measured by clerkship performance ratings at the beginning of the third year. Teach Learn Med. 2002;14:211–7. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1404\_2 .

McParland M, Noble LM, Livingston G. The effectiveness of problem-based learning compared to traditional teaching in undergraduate psychiatry. Med Educ. 2004;38:859–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01818.x .

Casey PM, Magrane D, Lesnick TG. Improved performance and student satisfaction after implementation of a problem-based preclinical obstetrics and gynecology curriculum. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1874–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2005.07.061 .

Gurpinar E, Musal B, Aksakoglu G, Ucku R. Comparison of knowledge scores of medical students in problem-based learning and traditional curriculum on public health topics. BMC Med Educ. 2005;5:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-5-7 .

Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Dauphinee D, et al. Effect of a community oriented problem based learning curriculum on quality of primary care delivered by graduates: historical cohort comparison study. BMJ. 2005;331:1002. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.582546.7C .

Abu-Hijleh MF, Chakravarty M, Al-Shboul Q, Kassab S, Hamdy H. Integrating applied anatomy in surgical clerkship in a problem-based learning curriculum. Surg Radiol Anat. 2005;27:152–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-004-0293-4 .

Distlehorst LH, Dawson E, Robbs RS, Barrows HS. Problem-based learning outcomes: the glass half-full. Acad Med. 2005;80:294–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200503000-00020 .

Hoffman K, Hosokawa M, Blake R Jr, Headrick L, Johnson G. Problem-based learning outcomes: ten years of experience at the University of Missouri-Columbia school of medicine. Acad Med. 2006;81:617–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ACM.0000232411.97399.c6 .

Kong J, Li X, Wang Y, Sun W, Zhang J. Effect of digital problem-based learning cases on student learning outcomes in ophthalmology courses. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:1211–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.110 .

Tsou KI, Cho SL, Lin CS, et al. Short-term outcomes of a near-full PBL curriculum in a new Taiwan medical school. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2009;25:282–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70075-0 .

Wang J, Zhang W, Qin L, et al. Problem-based learning in regional anatomy education at Peking University. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:121–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.151 .

Abou-Elhamd KA, Rashad UM, Al-Sultan AI. Applying problem-based learning to otolaryngology teaching. J Laryngol Otol. 2011;125:117–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215110001702 .

Urrutia Aguilar ME, Hamui-Sutton A, Castaneda Figueiras S, van der Goes TI, Guevara-Guzman R. Impact of problem-based learning on the cognitive processes of medical students. Gac Med Mex. 2011;147:385–93.

Tian J-H, Yang K-H, Liu A-P. Problem-based learning in evidence-based medicine courses at Lanzhou University. Med Teach. 2012;34:341. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.531169 .

Hoover CR, Wong CC, Azzam A. From primary care to public health: using problem-based Learning and the ecological model to teach public health to first year medical students. J Community Health. 2012;37:647–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-011-9495-y .

Li J, Li QL, Li J, et al. Comparison of three problem-based learning conditions (real patients, digital and paper) with lecture-based learning in a dermatology course: a prospective randomized study from China. Med Teach. 2013;35:e963–70. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.719651 .

Ding X, Zhao L, Chu H, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of problem-based learning of preventive medicine education in China. Sci Rep. 2014;4:5126. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep05126 .

Meo SA. Undergraduate medical student’s perceptions on traditional and problem based curricula: pilot study. J Pak Med Assoc. 2014;64:775–9.

Khoshnevisasl P, Sadeghzadeh M, Mazloomzadeh S, Hashemi Feshareki R, Ahmadiafshar A. Comparison of problem-based learning with lecture-based learning. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2014;16: e5186. https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.5186 .

Al-Drees AA, Khalil MS, Irshad M, Abdulghani HM. Students’ perception towards the problem based learning tutorial session in a system-based hybrid curriculum. Saudi Med J. 2015;36:341–8. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2015.3.10216 .

Al-Shaikh G, Al Mussaed EM, Altamimi TN, Elmorshedy H, Syed S, Habib F. Perception of medical students regarding problem based learning. Kuwait Med J. 2015;47:133–8.

Hande S, Mohammed CA, Komattil R. Acquisition of knowledge, generic skills and attitudes through problem-based learning: student perspectives in a hybrid curriculum. J Taibah Univ Medical Sci. 2015;10:21–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2014.01.008 .

González Mirasol E, Gómez García MT, Lobo Abascal P, Moreno Selva R, Fuentes Rozalén AM, González MG. Analysis of perception of training in graduates of the faculty of medicine at Universidad de Castilla-Mancha. Eval Program Plann. 2015;52:169–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.06.001 .

Yanamadala M, Kaprielian VS, O’Connor Grochowski C, Reed T, Heflin MT. A problem-based learning curriculum in geriatrics for medical students. Gerontol Geriatr Educ. 2018;39:122–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2016.1152268 .

Balendran K, John L. Comparison of learning outcomes in problem based learning and lecture based learning in teaching forensic medicine. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2017;6:89–92. https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2017/22 .

Chang H-C, Wang N-Y, Ko W-R, Yu Y-T, Lin L-Y, Tsai H-F. The effectiveness of clinical problem-based learning model of medico-jurisprudence education on general law knowledge for obstetrics/gynecological interns. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;56:325–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2017.04.011 .

Eltony SA, El-Sayed NH, El-Araby SE-S, Kassab SE. Implementation and evaluation of a patient safety course in a problem-based learning program. Educ Heal. 2017;30:44–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/1357-6283.210512 .

Zhang S, Xu J, Wang H, Zhang D, Zhang Q, Zou L. Effects of problem-based learning in Chinese radiology education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97: e0069. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000010069 .

Hincapie Parra DA, Ramos Monobe A, Chrino-Barcelo V. Problem based learning as an active learning strategy and its impact on academic performance and critical thinking of medical students. Rev Complut Educ. 2018;29:665–81. https://doi.org/10.5209/RCED.53581 .

Ma Y, Lu X. The effectiveness of problem-based learning in pediatric medical education in China: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98: e14052. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014052 .

Berger C, Brinkrolf P, Ertmer C, et al. Combination of problem-based learning with high-fidelity simulation in CPR training improves short and long-term CPR skills: a randomised single blinded trial. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1626-7 .

Aboonq M, Alquliti A, Abdulmonem I, Alpuq N, Jalali K, Arabi S. Students’ approaches to learning and perception of learning environment: a comparison between traditional and problem-based learning medical curricula. Indo Am J Pharm Sci. 2019;6:3610–9. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2562660 .

Li X, Xie F, Li X, et al. Development, application, and evaluation of a problem-based learning method in clinical laboratory education. Clin Chim ACTA. 2020;510:681–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.08.037 .

Zhao W, He L, Deng W, Zhu J, Su A, Zhang Y. The effectiveness of the combined problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) teaching method in the clinical practical teaching of thyroid disease. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:381. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02306 .

Liu C-X, Ouyang W-W, Wang X-W, Chen D, Jiang Z-L. Comparing hybrid problem-based and lecture learning (PBL plus LBL) with LBL pedagogy on clinical curriculum learning for medical students in China: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99:e19687. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000019687 .

Margolius SW, Papp KK, Altose MD, Wilson-Delfosse AL. Students perceive skills learned in pre-clerkship PBL valuable in core clinical rotations. Med Teach. 2020;42:902–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1762031 .

Schwartz RW, Donnelly MB, Nash PP, Young B. Developing students cognitive skills in a problem-based surgery clerkship. Acad Med. 1992;67:694–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199210000-00016 .

Mennin SP, Friedman M, Skipper B, Kalishman S, Snyder J. Performances on the NBME-I, NBME-II, and NBME-III by medical-students in the problem-based learning and conventional tracks at the university-of-new-mexico. Acad Med. 1993;68:616–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199308000-00012 .

Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Comparing achievement on the medical council of Canada qualifying examination part I of students in conventional and problem-based learning curricula. Acad Med. 1998;73:1211–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199811000-00022 .

Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Achievement of students in a conventional and Problem-Based Learning (PBL) curriculum. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 1999;4:245–60. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009829831978 .

Antepohl W, Herzig S. Problem-based learning versus lecture-based learning in a course of basic pharmacology: a controlled, randomized study. Med Educ. 1999;33:106–13. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00289.x .

Dyke P, Jamrozik K, Plant AJ. A randomized trial of a problem-based learning approach for teaching epidemiology. Acad Med. 2001;76:373–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200104000-00016 .

Brewer DW. Endocrine PBL in the year 2000. Adv Physiol Educ. 2001;25:249–55. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.2001.25.4.249 .

Seneviratne RD, Samarasekera DD, Karunathilake IM, Ponnamperuma GG. Students’ perception of problem-based learning in the medical curriculum of the faculty of medicine, University of Colombo. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2001;30:379–81.

Alleyne T, Shirley A, Bennett C, et al. Problem-based compared with traditional methods at the faculty of medical sciences, University of the West Indies: a model study. Med Teach. 2002;24:273–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220125286 .

Norman GR, Wenghofer E, Klass D. Predicting doctor performance outcomes of curriculum interventions: problem-based learning and continuing competence. Med Educ. 2008;42:794–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03131.x .

Cohen-Schotanus J, Muijtjens AMM, Schoenrock-Adema J, Geertsma J, van der Vleuten CPM. Effects of conventional and problem-based learning on clinical and general competencies and career development. Med Educ. 2008;42:256–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02959.x .

Wenk M, Waurick R, Schotes D, et al. Simulation-based medical education is no better than problem-based discussions and induces misjudgment in self-assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14:159–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-008-9098-2 .

Collard A, Gelaes S, Vanbelle S, et al. Reasoning versus knowledge retention and ascertainment throughout a problem-based learning curriculum. Med Educ. 2009;43:854–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03410.x .

Nouns Z, Schauber S, Witt C, Kingreen H, Schuettpelz-Brauns K. Development of knowledge in basic sciences: a comparison of two medical curricula. Med Educ. 2012;46:1206–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12047 .

Saloojee S, van Wyk J. The impact of a problem-based learning curriculum on the psychiatric knowledge and skills of final-year students at the Nelson R Mandela school of medicine. South African J Psychiatry. 2012;18:116.

Mughal AM, Shaikh SH. Assessment of collaborative problem solving skills in undergraduate medical students at Ziauddin college of medicine. Karachi Pakistan J Med Sci. 2018;34:185–9. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.341.13485 .

Hu X, Zhang H, Song Y, et al. Implementation of flipped classroom combined with problem-based learning: an approach to promote learning about hyperthyroidism in the endocrinology internship. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:290. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1714-8 .

Thompson KL, Gendreau JL, Strickling JE, Young HE. Cadaveric dissection in relation to problem-based learning case sequencing: a report of medical student musculoskeletal examination performances and self-confidence. Anat Sci Educ. 2019;12:619–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1891 .

Chang G, Cook D, Maguire T, Skakun E, Yakimets WW, Warnock GL. Problem-based learning: its role in undergraduate surgical education. Can J Surg. 1995;38:13–21.

Vernon DTA, Hosokawa MC. Faculty attitudes and opinions about problem-based learning. Acad Med. 1996;71:1233–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199611000-00020 .

Steadman RH, Coates WC, Huang YM, et al. Simulation-based training is superior to problem-based learning for the acquisition of critical assessment and management skills. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:151–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000190619.42013.94 .

Johnston JM, Schooling CM, Leung GM. A randomised-controlled trial of two educational modes for undergraduate evidence-based medicine learning in Asia. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9:63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-63 .

Suleman W, Iqbal R, Alsultan A, Baig SM. Perception of 4(th) year medical students about problem based learning. Pakistan J Med Sci. 2010;26:871–4.

Blosser A, Jones B. Problem-based learning in a surgery clerkship. Med Teach. 1991;13:289–93. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421599109089907 .

Usherwood T, Joesbury H, Hannay D. Student-directed problem-based learning in general-practice and public-health medicine. Med Educ. 1991;25:421–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1991.tb00090.x .

Bernstein P, Tipping J, Bercovitz K, Skinner HA. Shifting students and faculty to a PBL curriculum - attitudes changed and lessons learned. Acad Med. 1995;70:245–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199503000-00019 .

Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Comparing students’ attitudes in problem-based and conventional curricula. Acad Med. 1996;71:1096–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199610000-00018 .

Kalaian HA, Mullan PB. Exploratory factor analysis of students’ ratings of a problem-based learning curriculum. Acad Med. 1996;71:390–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199604000-00019 .

Vincelette J, Lalande R, Delorme P, Goudreau J, Lalonde V, Jean P. A pilot course as a model for implementing a PBL curriculum. Acad Med. 1997;72:698–701. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199708000-00015 .

Ghosh S, Dawka V. Combination of didactic lecture with problem-based learning sessions in physiology teaching in a developing medical college in Nepal. Adv Physiol Educ. 2000;24:8–12.

Walters MR. Problem-based learning within endocrine physiology lectures. Adv Physiol Educ. 2001;25:225–7. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.2001.25.4.225 .

Leung GM, Lam TH, Hedley AJ. Problem-based public health learning - from the classroom to the community. Med Educ. 2001;35:1071–2.

Khoo HE, Chhem RK, Gwee MCE, Balasubramaniam P. Introduction of problem-based learning in a traditional medical curriculum in Singapore - students’ and tutors’ perspectives. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2001;30:371–4.

Villamor MCA. Problem-based learning (PBL) as an approach in the teaching of biochemistry of the endocrine system at the Angeles University College of Medicine. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2001;30:382–6.

Chang C-H, Yang C-Y, See L-C, Lui P-W. High satisfaction with problem-based learning for anesthesia. Chang Gung Med J. 2004;27:654–62.

McLean M. A comparison of students who chose a traditional or a problem-based learning curriculum after failing year 2 in the traditional curriculum: a unique case study at the Nelson R. Mandela school of medicine. Teach Learn Med. 2004;16:301–3. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1603\_15 .

Lucas M, García Guasch R, Moret E, Llasera R, Melero A. Canet J [Problem-based learning in an undergraduate medical school course on anesthesiology, recovery care, and pain management]. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2006;53:419–25.

Burgun A, Darmoni S, Le Duff F, Weber J. Problem-based learning in medical informatics for undergraduate medical students: an experiment in two medical schools. Int J Med Inform. 2006;75:396–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.014 .

Gurpinar E, Senol Y, Aktekin MR. Evaluation of problem based learning by tutors and students in a medical faculty of Turkey. Kuwait Med J. 2009;41:123–7.

Elzubeir MA. Teaching of the renal system in an integrated, problem-based curriculum. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2012;23:93–8.

Sulaiman N, Hamdy H. Problem-based learning: where are we now? Guide supplement 36.3–practical application. Med Teach. 2013;35:160–2. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.737965 .

Albarrak AI, Mohammed R, Abalhassan MF, Almutairi NK. Academic satisfaction among traditional and problem based learning medical students a comparative study. Saudi Med J. 2013;34:1179–88.

Nosair E, Mirghani Z, Mostafa RM. Measuring students’ perceptions of educational environment in the PBL program of Sharjah Medical College. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2015;2:71–9. https://doi.org/10.4137/JMECDECDECD.S29926 .

Tshitenge ST, Ndhlovu CE, Ogundipe R. Evaluation of problem-based learning curriculum implementation in a clerkship rotation of a newly established African medical training institution: lessons from the University of Botswana. Pan Afr Med J. 2017;27:13. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2017.27.13.10623 .

Yadav RL, Piryani RM, Deo GP, Shah DK, Yadav LK, Islam MN. Attitude and perception of undergraduate medical students toward the problem-based learning in Chitwan Medical College. Nepal Adv Med Educ Pract. 2018;9:317–22. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S160814 .

Asad MR, Tadvi N, Amir KM, Afzal K, Irfan A, Hussain SA. Medical student’s feedback towards problem based learning and interactive lectures as a teaching and learning method in an outcome-based curriculum. Int J Med Res & Heal Sci. 2019;8:78–84. https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2019.60392 .

Mpalanyi M, Nalweyiso ID, Mubuuke AG. Perceptions of radiography students toward problem-based learning almost two decades after its introduction at Makerere University. Uganda J Med imaging Radiat Sci. 2020;51:639–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2020.06.009 .

Korkmaz NS, Ozcelik S. Evaluation of the opinions of the first, second and third term medical students about problem based learning sessions in Bezmialem Vakif University. Bezmialem Sci. 2020;8:144–9. https://doi.org/10.14235/bas.galenos.2019.3471 .

McGrew MC, Skipper B, Palley T, Kaufman A. Student and faculty perceptions of problem-based learning on a family medicine clerkship. Fam Med. 1999;31:171–6.

Kelly AM. A problem-based learning resource in emergency medicine for medical students. J Accid Emerg Med. 2000;17:320–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.17.5.320 .

Bui-Mansfield LT, Chew FS. Radiologists as clinical tutors in a problem-based medical school curriculum. Acad Radiol. 2001;8:657–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80693-1 .

Macallan DC, Kent A, Holmes SC, Farmer EA, McCrorie P. A model of clinical problem-based learning for clinical attachments in medicine. Med Educ. 2009;43:799–807. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03406.x .

Grisham JW, Martiniuk ALC, Negin J, Wright EP. Problem-based learning (PBL) and public health: an initial exploration of perceptions of PBL in Vietnam. Asia-Pacific J public Heal. 2015;27:NP2019-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539512436875 .

Khan IA, Al-Swailmi FK. Perceptions of faculty and students regarding Problem Based Learning: a mixed methods study. J Pak Med Assoc. 2015;65:1334–8.

Alduraywish AA, Mohager MO, Alenezi MJ, Nail AM, Aljafari AS. Evaluation of students’ experience with Problem-based Learning (PBL) applied at the College of Medicine, Al-Jouf University. Saudi Arabia J Pak Med Assoc. 2017;67:1870–3.

Yoo DM, Cho AR, Kim S. Satisfaction with and suitability of the problem-based learning program at the Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2019;16:20. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.20 .

Aldayel AA, Alali AO, Altuwaim AA, et al. Problem-based learning: medical students’ perception toward their educational environment at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019;10:95–104. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S189062 .

DeLowerntal E. An evaluation of a module in problem-based learning. Int J Educ Dev. 1996;16:303–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0738-0593(96)00001-6 .

Tufts MA, Higgins-Opitz SB. What makes the learning of physiology in a PBL medical curriculum challenging? Student perceptions. Adv Physiol Educ. 2009;33:187–95. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.90214.2008 .

Aboonq M. Perception of the faculty regarding problem-based learning as an educational approach in Northwestern Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J. 2015;36:1329–35. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2015.11.12263 .

Subramaniam RM, Scally P, Gibson R. Problem-based learning and medical student radiology teaching. Australas Radiol. 2004;48:335–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0004-8461.2004.01317.x .

Chang BJ. Problem-based learning in medical school: a student’s perspective. Ann Med Surg. 2016;12:88–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2016.11.011 .

Griffith CD, Blue AV, Mainous AG, DeSimone PA. Housestaff attitudes toward a problem-based clerkship. Med Teach. 1996;18:133–4. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421599609034147 .

Navarro HN, Zamora SJ. The opinion of teachers about tutorial problem based learning. Rev Med Chil. 2014;142:989–97. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872014000800006 .

Demiroren M, Turan S, Oztuna D. Medical students’ self-efficacy in problem-based learning and its relationship with self-regulated learning. Med Educ Online. 2016;21:30049. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v21.30049 .

Tousignant M, DesMarchais JE. Accuracy of student self-assessment ability compared to their own performance in a problem-based learning medical program: a correlation study. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 2002;7:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014516206120 .

Brynhildsen J, Dahle LO, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I, Hammar M. Attitudes among students and teachers on vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum. Med Teach. 2002;24:286–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220134105 .

Desmarchais JE. A student-centered, problem-based curriculum - 5 years experience. Can Med Assoc J. 1993;148:1567–72.

Doig K, Werner E. The marriage of a traditional lecture-based curriculum and problem-based learning: are the offspring vigorous? Med Teach. 2000;22:173–8.

Kemahli S. Hematology education in a problem-based curriculum. Hematology. 2005;10(Suppl 1):161–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10245330512331390267 .

Grkovic I. Transition of the medical curriculum from classical to integrated: problem-based approach and Australian way of keeping academia in medicine. Croat Med J. 2005;46:16–20.

Bosch-Barrera J, Briceno Garcia HC, Capella D, et al. Teaching bioethics to students of medicine with Problem-Based Learning (PBL). Cuad Bioet. 2015;26:303–9.

Lin Y-C, Huang Y-S, Lai C-S, Yen J-H, Tsai W-C. Problem-based learning curriculum in medical education at Kaohsiung Medical University. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2009;25:264–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70072-5 .

Salinas Sánchez AS, Hernández Millán I, Virseda Rodríguez JA, et al. Problem-based learning in urology training the faculty of medicine of the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha model. Actas Urol Esp. 2005;29:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0210-4806(05)73193-4 .

Amoako-Sakyi D, Amonoo-Kuofi H. Problem-based learning in resource-poor settings: lessons from a medical school in Ghana. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:221. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0501-4 .

Carrera LI, Tellez TE, D’Ottavio AE. Implementing a problem-based learning curriculum in an Argentinean medical school: implications for developing countries. Acad Med. 2003;78:798–801. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200308000-00010 .

Vernon DT, Blake RL. Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Acad Med. 1993;68:550–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199307000-00015 .

Shanley PF. Viewpoint: leaving the “empty glass” of problem-based learning behind: new assumptions and a revised model for case study in preclinical medical education. Acad Med. 2007;82:479–85. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31803eac4c .

Koh GC, Khoo HE, Wong ML, Koh D. The effects of problem-based learning during medical school on physician competency: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2008;178:34–41. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.070565 .

Awan ZA, Awan AA, Alshawwa L, Tekian A, Park YS. Assisting the integration of social media in problem-based learning sessions in the faculty of medicine at King Abdulaziz University. Med Teach. 2018;40:S37–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1465179 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Medical Education Cathedra, School of Medicine, University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, Vic, Barcelona, Spain

Joan Carles Trullàs, Carles Blay & Ramon Pujol

Internal Medicine Service, Hospital de Olot i Comarcal de La Garrotxa, Olot, Girona, Spain

Joan Carles Trullàs

The Tissue Repair and Regeneration Laboratory (TR2Lab), University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, Vic, Barcelona, Spain

Joan Carles Trullàs & Elisabet Sarri

Catalan Institute of Health (ICS) – Catalunya Central, Barcelona, Spain

Carles Blay

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JCT had the idea for the article, performed the literature search and data analysis and drafted the first version of the manuscript. CB, ES and RP contributed to the data analysis and suggested revisions to the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics declarations

Availability of data and materials.

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable for a literature review.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Characteristics ofthe 124 included studies.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Trullàs, J.C., Blay, C., Sarri, E. et al. Effectiveness of problem-based learning methodology in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ 22 , 104 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03154-8

Download citation

Received : 03 October 2021

Accepted : 02 February 2022

Published : 17 February 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03154-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Systematic review

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]