Jul 27 2018
Lean Thinking: ingredients, incubation and diffusion | John Shook | Planet Lean
“What does it really mean to say that lean thinking is not uniquely Japanese? First, it indicates that not all Japanese companies are ‘lean.’ […] Secondly, we have successful examples of lean applications all around the world – not just in Japan […]. We know these things to be true.
To say, however, that lean is not uniquely Japanese doesn’t mean that there is nothing Japanese about it. So, let’s explore this second, little explored, idea. […] by asking more questions. One critical question we can ask ourselves is: “Could have TPS emerged anywhere other than Japan?” And finally, “What, if anything, is Japanese about lean thinking?”
My attempt to address these questions – an ever-changing effort as I reflect more and the world around us keeps evolving – has taken the shape of the graph you see below, which illustrates what I call the “Toyota double funnels”. There are three main sections to the graphic:
- The left funnel represents a selection of key ingredients that, combined, have led to the creation of Toyota’s way of working.
- The spiral in the middle of the graphic represents the actual genesis of the Toyota Way, TPS, TPD, TMS and lean thinking, which can be traced back to a 30-year period of incubation, between 1950 and 1980.
- The right funnel represents the diffusion of this body of knowledge around the world, which started around the time of the NUMMI experiment, in 1984.
John Shook’s double funnel is reproduced here. Click on it to enlarge or view it on Planet Lean to click on each item and see more details.
Sourced through Planet Lean
Michel Baudin‘s comments: As usual, John Shook’s post is both grounded in deep knowledge and well written. The infographic is also clear and the popup boxes of information attached to each item on Planet Lean are a valuable enhancement. But I still don’t buy everything in it.
Aug 5 2018
Why I was wrong about 2- second Lean | Dan Markovitz
“It’s time to admit that one of my consulting approaches has failed. I’m a huge fan of Paul Akers’ 2 Second Lean philosophy. It’s simple, easy to understand, and has an intrinsic appeal: “fix what bugs you.” “Figure out how to do your job two seconds faster each day.” Who wouldn’t sign on to a lean program that promotes that mindset?
So off I went to my clients, with Paul’s videos embedded in my PowerPoint presentation, ready to show them how 2 Second Lean is the answer to their productivity problems, their low employee engagement and morale scores, their mediocre customer service, and their too-high defect rates. And I failed.
When I look back at the clients I introduced to Paul’s method, I have to be honest and admit that a more traditional, kaizen event-driven approach would have served them better. 2 Second Lean didn’t hurt them, but they didn’t reap the rewards that they wanted, and that I promised.
I missed the most obvious fact: 2 Second Lean is simple. But it’s not easy. The commitment required of the president is enormous.”
Sourced from Marcovitz Consulting
Michel Baudin‘s comments:
Is the approach simple or simplistic? Perhaps, the mistake is assuming that a single method is all you need, whether it is the “2-second” approach or the oxymoronic “Kaizen event.” It’s the panacea fallacy. To improve a factory, you need a range of different approaches, from tiny improvements an individual can make within his or her area of responsibility without asking anyone’s permission to projects like line redesigns that may occupy dozens of people for months.
Continue reading…
Share this:
Like this:
By Michel Baudin • Blog clippings • 9 • Tags: Paul Akers