TL;DR: Continuous improvement stalls when teams skip disciplined problem solving. Jon Miller’s overview of Toyota’s 8-step framework shows how slowing down to clarify, analyze, and learn ultimately accelerates sustainable results.

In a KaiNexus webinar, I had the pleasure of hosting Jon Miller of Gemba Academy to discuss Toyota’s 8-step practical problem-solving approach. The session was titled Go Slow to Go Fast, and that phrase captures something that many organizations struggle to internalize.

Click here to get slides (registration required), or watch the recording here:

We say we want faster improvement. We want more engagement, more implemented ideas, and more measurable impact. But what often slows us down is not a lack of effort -- it is a lack of disciplined thinking.

What stood out to me in Jon’s teaching was how frequently improvement efforts stall because teams rush the early stages of problem-solving—especially when the're in the early stages of learning and practicing. We move quickly to solutions without investing enough time to understand the problem deeply.

The Bias for Action

Many organizations pride themselves on having a “bias for action.” That can be a healthy reaction to bureaucracy or endless planning. But as Jon pointed out during the webinar:

“If we spend enough time in the planning and checking phases of PDCA, we can be more effective. Too often, management problem solving is a bias for action -- let’s just do it [without planing properly].”

I have seen this repeatedly in healthcare and other industries. A team identifies a problem. Someone proposes a fix within minutes. The group aligns around it and implements it quickly.

Then the problem resurfaces. Or a new one appears. Or the fix creates additional work somewhere else in the system.

Speed without clarity creates rework. It actually slows down our improvement. We face a longer time to results by rushing things.

Going slow at the beginning -- clarifying, breaking down, analyzing -- often leads to faster and more sustainable results later.

The 8 Stages of Practical Problem Solving

Jon walked through the Toyota 8-stage framework, sometimes referred to as Toyota Business Practices:

1. Clarify the problem
2. Break down the problem
3. Set a target
4. Analyze root causes
5. Develop countermeasures
6. See countermeasures through
7. Check process and results
8. Standardize, share, and start again

On paper, the sequence looks linear. In reality, it is iterative. Teams often revisit earlier thinking as new insights emerge. Clarifying the problem might change after deeper observation. Root cause analysis might reshape how the problem is framed.

The framework is not about filling in boxes on an A3 problem-solving template. It is about improving the quality of our thinking.

Slowing Down to Clarify the Problem

One of the most common mistakes I see is teams stating problems as conclusions.

“The problem is lack of training.”

“The problem is poor communication.”

Those statements already assume a cause and a solution, such as more training or more communication. They short-circuit the analysis.

Jon shared three criteria for a strong problem statement.

1. It should not contain a cause,

2. it should not contain a solution, and

3. it should clearly define a gap.

That gap might be between current performance level and a standard, or between current performance and a strategic goal (raising the bar on performance).

When teams skip this discipline, root cause analysis becomes guesswork. And guesswork leads to wasted effort.

Root Cause Analysis Is Exploration

Another insight that resonated with me was Jon’s description of root cause analysis as exploration rather than a straight line.

He cautioned against oversimplifying it as merely “asking why five times.” Sometimes that works. Often, especially in complex systems, it does not.

As he explained:

“Root cause analysis is not a straight well you drill down into. It’s more like a tree root system. You go down one branch. It splits. You explore another.”

In healthcare, manufacturing, or software development, there is rarely one single root cause. There may be multiple contributing factors. There may be false starts. That is not failure. That is learning.

The key is to stay disciplined and curious rather than jumping to a favored explanation prematurely.

Committing to a Target Early

One part of the 8-stage process that often generates debate is setting a target before completing root cause analysis.

Why commit before you know everything?

Jon’s perspective was practical. Setting a target focuses the effort and clarifies what level of improvement the team is committing to achieve. If we wait until after developing countermeasures to set a target, we are effectively saying, “We will improve by whatever this solution happens to deliver.”

That removes discipline and challenge.

Committing early requires psychological safety. If missing a target leads to blame, people will hedge or avoid commitment. If missing a target leads to reflection and learning, capability grows.

Countermeasures Versus Containment

Another distinction Jon emphasized was between containment and countermeasures.

Containment protects the customer immediately. It might involve extra inspections, temporary checks, or workarounds. Countermeasures, on the other hand, address root causes. Some refer to these as "short-term countermeasures" and "long-term countermeasures," respectively."

Many organizations become highly skilled at containment. Firefighting becomes normalized. But without addressing root causes, the same problems resurface. The fires come back.

Practical problem-solving helps teams move from reacting to improving. That transition takes patience and leadership support.

Checking Process, Not Just Results

The final stages of the framework remind us to check both process and results. It is not enough to see improvement in an outcome metric. We also need to verify that the new process is being followed and that it is stable.

Improvement is not complete when the numbers move. It is complete when standards are updated, adherence is monitored, and lessons are shared with others who might benefit.

That is how Kaizen spreads.

A Leadership Reflection

Jon closed the webinar with a simple but powerful suggestion:

“Take the time at the end of the day and just think about what happened. Even five minutes is incredibly powerful.”

That reflection is part of going slow.

Leaders shape whether slowing down to clarify and analyze is seen as discipline or delay. If we want sustainable continuous improvement, we cannot rely on urgency alone. We need structured thinking and the willingness to practice it consistently.

Where does your organization tend to rush? In clarifying the problem? In setting the target? In checking the results?

That might be the place to start going slow -- so you can go faster later.

Frequently Asked Questions About 8-Step Problem Solving

What is the 8-step problem-solving method?

The 8-step problem-solving method is a structured Lean approach used at Toyota to identify root causes and implement sustainable improvements. It includes defining the problem, setting a target, analyzing root causes, developing countermeasures, checking results, and standardizing successful changes.

Why does Toyota say “go slow to go fast”?

Toyota emphasizes slowing down early in the problem-solving process to clearly define the issue and identify root causes. Spending more time upfront prevents wasted effort, reduces rework, and leads to faster, more sustainable results.

How is a countermeasure different from a solution?

A solution implies the problem is permanently fixed. A countermeasure recognizes that improvement is iterative. Teams test countermeasures against root causes, evaluate results, and adjust as needed — reinforcing continuous learning instead of assuming finality.

When should you set a target in the 8-step problem-solving process?

In Toyota’s approach, teams commit to a measurable target before deep root cause analysis. This creates focus and challenge, helping teams align their investigation and countermeasures toward closing a meaningful performance gap.