Lean Manufacturing Seen in “How Toyota Became #1”
Toyota is iconic for its instrumental role in popularising the Japanese principles of Kaizen in the manufacturing industry. Kaizen translates to ‘improvement’ or ‘change for better’, which is the basis for the Toyota Production System (TPS). TPS is a system of lean manufacturing with the objective of providing the highest quality, at the lowest cost, with the shortest lead time. In How Toyota Became #1, David Magee details these principles, their application within the company, and the impact they have had within.
The Westernised concept of Kaizen has really been transformed to represent continuous improvement and lean workstyles. Given the basis of Kaizen is about improvement, it is natural that Kaizen could be considered a response to an issue, inefficiency, or suboptimality. The process cycle of Kaizen can then be stated as “Plan, Do, Check, Act” – Plan the improvement or system, trial (Do) the improvement, Check it has worked as intended without any adverse unexpected consequences, then Act by implementing, systemising, or standardising (or making changes and starting again!).
Ideally this process isn’t merely a response to an issue or new idea though, but something that can be applied to any process as an integral part of an environment. It can be used to simply reassess existing processes or methodologies, and could produce improvements, even if a prior fault hadn’t been identified. Stemming from Kaizen’s widespread application, other tools have emerged such as the 5S’s (or 4S’s in the TPS) or the 5 Whys.
5S Methodology in Lean Manufacturing
The 5S methodology originated in Japan as Seiri, Seiton, Seiso, Seiketsu, and Shitsuke. The Westernised form was neatly enough adapted to maintain the ‘5S’ phrasing, it is Sort (remove unnecessary items or waste), Set in order (arrange and organise), Shine (clean), Standardise (procedures to keep everything in place), Sustain (follow the processes in place, reassess, enforce). The real benefit here, beyond general satisfaction of a tidy and clean environment, is the potential for productivity improvements. Reducing time spent searching for items, reducing lost items, maintain good condition of items, and the ability for others to then find items. This is essentially Tidy & Organised 101, which is going to be natural to many people. However, on an organisational level it can be difficult to maintain order due to the environment of shared work-areas and accountability, which is where the value in this methodology can actuate. By properly implementing the 4th and 5th S’s, Standardise and Sustain, a workplace could theoretically be maintained to a tidy standard. In a manufacturing environment, or any really, having tools and equipment in a set place will help ensure they are available when required – reducing downtime, frustrations, and costs of replacement. The 5S’s is a valuable methodology that when implemented in shared work environments should bring great value, but a question worth asking is: how granular should its application be to personal work environments? Is it reasonable to enforce a tidy desk? Is it even practical, will it be maintained with an untidy person?
Lean People and Culture
Magee’s book partially addresses these questions. Toyota have a great focus on hiring by mindset. Skills can be taught, but certain mindsets tend to be more ingrained in people and can be difficult or uncomfortable to address. By actively seeking people who are congruent with the Toyota way they’re able to maintain an environment harmonious with the founding principles, but also likely increase employee satisfaction, retention and compatibility.
“Toyota have a great focus on hiring by mindset. Skills can be taught, but certain mindsets tend to be more ingrained in people and can be difficult or uncomfortable to address.”
5 Why Problem Solving
The 5 Whys is a troubleshooting methodology that in its formal sense has been inspired by Japanese manufacturing principles. This methodology is again one that will come naturally to many, it involves finding the root cause of an issue to solve it and prevent reoccurrences, rather than repeatedly dealing with the symptoms. The procedure is to repeatedly ask the question ‘why’ of factors believed to have contributed to a problem or defect, until the root cause is identified. For example: There is ice-cream on the floor, why? Because my ice-cream is dripping, why? Because it is melting, why? Because it’s too hot, why? Because I’m standing in the sun. Solution: Move out of the sun. Anecdotally this process takes about 5 ‘whys’ before a root cause is reached, although more or less ‘whys’ could be used as necessary. Note that the root cause should never be human error, as any human error is likely the result of an imperfect procedure and guards should be engineered to prevent human error.
The concept behind this methodology is sound, however the rigidity of the tool when taken in its simplest form tends to present issues in practical application – it is likely best used in conjunction with other tools. While the tool has a linear nature, it is very unlikely in any complex case that would require the formal use of troubleshooting tools for root cause analysis that there would be only a single symptom and a single possible answer to any ‘why’. Often a ‘why’ really leads to several responses, each of which could stem off to further interrogation – creating more of an inverted tree structure. Some might say that the user must apply their own discretion to adapt the tool as required, but it could also be argued that a tool should be presented in a flexible manner when it is standardised. The common graphical representation of the tool should reflect the likely requirement for branching, which would make the tool more accessible for new users. The greatest flaw of the tool though is that it is greatly restricted by the investigators own knowledge. Without suitable knowledge and experience in the area of the fault, it is very unlikely a user could identify a root cause, even with this tool at their disposal. In a manufacturing environment, a defect on a products packaging may be a result of any number of machine components and without intimate knowledge of those components and their function an investigator will likely find themselves unable to resolve an issue no matter how many ‘whys’ are asked. Their inexperience may even lead them down the wrong path, as they guess or grasp to the simplest solutions available to their own level of comprehension. The solution to this is that verification should be made for each answer before proceeding to the next ‘why’, although in certain cases this will impede progress.
Lean Manufacturing Toyota Mindset
It’s really the concepts and mindsets behind these methods that are so valuable, the formal tools themselves can seem superfluous at times, particularly to those who apply these techniques innately. Dennis Cuneo, former Toyota Motor North America Executive says, “people try to adapt parts of TPS, and they find it is not a panacea… It takes years to develop through patience and experience” (pg. 41), and this really highlights that the tools themselves are not the solution, but the continual application of a certain mindset: “eliminate waste, point out problems and system weaknesses, and make firsthand observations and recommendations for improvement.” Interestingly, the TPS is stated to have a lack of specific, step-by-step instructions (pg. 45). This is likely an area where organisations would go wrong in its application – over application to the point of diminished returns. The system is about teaching people to think for themselves, allowing them to take ownership over tasks and to make improvements where possible. For example, Toyota explains waste in 7 categories, however in practice employees are encouraged to identify all types of waste and the waste categories are not formally instituted.
Toyota during its expansion would conduct business in a different way to other automotive manufacturers. Primarily, it would keep manufacturing lean by using a pull ordering system, rather than the push system most manufacturers would use. This means it would create to order, allowing orders to ‘pull’ production, rather than building and trying to ‘push’ product onto customers. This concept would reduce inventory requirements, a system phrased ‘just-in-time’ – what is needed, when it is needed, and in the amount needed. Another key concept, known as ‘jidoka’, is the ability to stop a production line to ensure quality. The amount of waste in some manufacturing is staggering, and a system like this aims to reduce it. If the quality of a product is in question, completing a large production run with the risk of creating a defective product is in most cases plainly irresponsible.
Kaizen, and the Toyota Production System, are more than just a series of tools, they’re mindsets. Individuals with this capacity will apply these not only in manufacturing or their workplace, but in their homes and personal lives – reducing waste and applying continuous improvement in every aspect of life. Organisations should try to avoid being bogged down in the methodology or tools, and instead embrace the ideas behind them.
