This post captures some of my notes from the book Toyota Kata, by Mike Rother. I started reading it in 2021 and paused after getting about a third of the way through. I'll periodically update it as I finish it.
One major take away from my reading about the Toyota Way and their system of improvement is that Toyota risks nothing in giving away how they do continuous improvement. Their competitive advantage is their culture. So many organizations attempt to improve by mimicking what successful organizations do. This exhibits a cargo cult mentality. Unless your organization is committed to changing how it operates and overhaul the culture, you won't change. Similar to how some organizations go full bore into Scrum Agile with rigid adherence rather than absorb the culture of discrete adaptability.
One major take away from my reading about the Toyota Way and their system of improvement is that Toyota risks nothing in giving away how they do continuous improvement. Their competitive advantage is their culture. So many organizations attempt to improve by mimicking what successful organizations do. This exhibits a cargo cult mentality. Unless your organization is committed to changing how it operates and overhaul the culture, you won't change. Similar to how some organizations go full bore into Scrum Agile with rigid adherence rather than absorb the culture of discrete adaptability.
Notes
The implication is that if we want our organization to thrive for a long time, then how it interacts with conditions inside and outside the company is important. There is no “finish line” mentality. The objective is not to win, but to develop the capability of the organization to keep improving, adapting, and satisfying dynamic customer requirements. This capability for continuous, incremental evolution and improvement represents perhaps the best assurance of durable competitive advantage and company survival. Why? Small, incremental steps let us learn along the way, make adjustments, and discover the path to where we want to be.
- Since humans do not possess the ability to predict what is coming, the method that generates improvement and adaptation would be content neutral; that is, it would be applicable in any situation. The method, the procedure, is prescribed, but the content is not.
- Since human judgment is not accurate or impartial, the method would, wherever possible, rely on facts rather than opinions or judgments. In other words it would be depersonalized.
- The method for improvement would continue beyond the tenure of any one leader. Everyone in the organization would operate according to the method.
Later on, critiquing flexible systems. A reminder also that premature automation is bad.
- If your purpose is “make production,” then the flexible system looks good because despite the existence of problems you can work around them and still make the numbers.
- If your purpose is “survive by continuously improving,” then the flexible system looks bad. In fact, operating this way is not permitted at Toyota. Working around problems by making the same part here and there increases the number of variables and makes understanding the cause of problems considerably more difficult. Flexible systems that autonomously bypass problems are by their nature nonimproving. You may make production today, but will you still beat the competition tomorrow?
Western management thinkers tend to view the means as subordinate to results, whereas he argues for the view that the means, or process, is nothing less than results-in-the-making. In other words, some people only focus on results, which is short-term thinking. Focus on the process.
--
Ben
In tenebra solus sto