In looking at Toyota, or any other example, for that matter, there is a choice been interpreting observations cultishly or scientifically.

A cultish approach is to determine that something was observed at Toyota, Toyota is the role model, so whatever was seen must be done too.

A scientific approach is to understand that actions have consequences in certain circumstances, and that achieving the causality and not the rote repetition of what was recorded is what is desired.

Copy flapping feathered wings and it is hard to recreate flight.  Understand thrust and lift and you can construct flying devices of many forms and functions.

So too with standardization/specification and myriad other tools associated with Toyota via the lean movement.

The cultish approach is to copy exactly the charts (or any other practice) seen at Toyota.  The handicap is that unless you recreate the circumstances of the time and place of observation, the practice may well be ineffective elsewhere, and that assumes the practices were the best solution for the particular circumstance of the time rather than one in a cycle of iterations.

The scientific approach is to recognize that declaring in advance what approaches are expected to accomplish what outcomes accomplishes two objectives:
1: Helps capture the best _known_ approaches for achieving successful results.
2: Makes more clear when those best known approaches are failing and are in need of improvement–either because the approach is not clear or easy enough to follow, or, even if followed, it does not achieve the results it promises.

We do a grave disservice to the community of practice with the cultish approach as it is inherently constraining, decreasing dramatically the situations in which greatness can be pursued and overly complicating the pursuit in situations it can be chased.

In contrast, a scientific approach opens up a wealth of possible applications, while simplifying the system of principles that have to be practiced to be applied.

With best wishes,
Steve Spear

With that in mind, we can understand tools like heijunka as making clear expected output for a process and when that process is running ahead or behind; value streams as indicating what work has to be done by whom in what order, and when there are departures from those expectations; kanban cards and other pull tools as indicating what requests have to be met and when the responses are not keeping up; and standard work, etc. as indicating the best known method for someone to accomplish his or her work and when that method is failing.

www.TheHighVelocityEdge.com
Twitter @StevenJSpear

Related posts:

1. Standardization the prerequisite for any meaningful improvement…
2. Womack’s ‘Beyond Toyota’ is wrong challenge…’beyond lean’ is…
3. Process excellence and innovation: Conflict or compliments?
4. Success at the Right Speed: Healthcare’s Learning from Toyota
5. Why to Learn from Toyota for Those Who Haven’t Already…Improvement and Innovation Needed Now More than Ever