Womack’s Lean versus Ohno’s TPS

Do we imagine that Womack set out to develop a separate body of Knowledge?
Of course not.
His team of researchers were trying to understand a (very) successful foreign company’s way of operating such that for a given output they consumed 1/2 the resources, etc.
Any differences are mostly due to superficial knowledge appropriate to beginner students. Does anyone remember when the success of TPS was considered explainable by QC Circles … then by JIT … and so on??
Like Graham says, we’ve had to give inherently Japanese concepts and words an American English translation and its an approximation – something does get lost in translation.
/Dr. Pete

I would counsel against analysing the differences between Lean and TPS. This can only lead to a theological discussion about the competing toolkits, and possibly sectarian strife. There is far too much copying of the Toyota Toolkit without understanding why each tool was developed: what may apply in automotive or in the Japanese culture, may be inappropriate in a completely different environment. For example, Henry Ford’ s contribution to Lean was the moving production line: bringing work to the person; not making the person go to work (the waste of movement). This is a great principle, but highly inappropriate in a hospital: would you like to be a patient on a bed which moved down a dragline from medical station to medical station?

The real question we should be asking ourselves is whether both Lean Thinking (I hate that term “Lean Manufacturing”) and TPS (I prefer TBS)deliver the waste reduction, the quality improvement, and the consequential cost reductions which will allow us to survive in the volatile environment we have today. Do they encourage every colleague to be enthusiastic about continuous improvement (kaizen)? Do they help us see waste? Do they develop the skills required for people to look at and tackle improvement opportunities in a structured way? Do they turn kaizen from something we do when we have the time, something we do naturally, without stress all the time? Do they help us all recognize the ravages of entropy? Eventually, do they turn kaizen from a Japanese expression to a positive form of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?

Toyota has been a great example, but we must move beyond just mimicking what they have done and understanding why they did what they did. I’m not sure this could be measured, and one way of determining whether an organisation is lean would be to measure the gap between the knowledge of each individual, and the knowledge required to do their job: a Lean organisation would have a small gap between the two, but both growing as the organisation “kaizened” its people. Many lean transformations still rely on “Just Do It” whether this comes from management of the consultants.

I hope this helps.

Without taking anything away from people like J. Womack, J. Liker and J. Shook who have brought the TPS into the popular consciousness by writing books about and speaking about lean manufacturing, I do think lean manufacturing and TPS are two very different things.

First, you can say that lean manufacturing is a subset of TPS, or more properly, the Toyota Way. As a manufacturing system or manufacturing system, the TPS has a huge human resource component, marketing component, product design aspect, business planning and execution approach, etc. undergirding it. The very fact that we have had to add “lean office” “lean design” “lean distribution” “lean management” etc. to the conversation is proof that the study of TPS resulting in the coining or branding of lean manufacturing was a partial one.

Second, the Toyota Production System lives and belongs within Toyota. Any company emulating the TPS needs to study it deeply and then announce a never-ending commitment to developing the YOUR COMPANY business / operating / production System. Lean manufacturing is just a small part of it. Companies that do this are ridiculously successful.

Third, lean is a brand, like Toyota is a brand. It gives people a choice. You don’t like Japanese words? Fine. A lot of people in the US don’t. Call it lean manufacturing. Or call it lean six sigma or call it TOC or anything else and dilute it as far as you want. You don’t have to drive a Toyota, but you do have to respect the world’s most successful business system and call it what it is: the Toyota Production System, not lean manufacturing. But only if you don’t want to fail.

All that said, lean manufacturing is great. And it sure is a lot easier than the Toyota Production System.

Dear Senseis,

Thank you so much for taking time to answer my question, and thank you Mr. Pereira for posting my question.

Taichi Ohno said that American go for the tools (Lean Manufacturing), and not the real philosophy (TPS) behind it. That can be the reason why only few companies succeed.

Sincerely,
Harish

JWDT,
I am aware of Prof Emiliani and I did have the privilege of listening to him when he came to Cardiff for an alumni event a year ago. He is one of the few people who avoid the term “Lean Manufacturing” and refer to the subject as Lean Thinking. I have not seen his series on Real Lean.
I agree with your thoughts on current accounting and financial analysis. The Ford Production System was accused by acountants of “destroying value” by making things lean. These were people who were located in the plants but had never or rarely visited the shop floor. There is a doughty band of people trying to revolutionise accounting philosophy, and I get various invitations to join them at Lean Accounting seminars, but I have not taken up the challenge yet. To my simple, de-frocked engineering mind, if accountants moved away from quantifying the value added during the production process, there might be more encouragement to make things Leaner. For example, if you take a blank casting, and machine it, the time and resource taken to machine is seen as adding value. This flies in the face of reality: would you get more for the blank or the partially machined casting if you had to liquidate the company? My guess is that the blanks would be worth more. So in my mind, the raw materials would be worth something, and WIP would be worth zip, or just the scrap value. If we thought like that perhaps the Lean movement would get a boost from the accountants.
On the subject of gurus, I’d recommend Peter Scholtes, and the Leaders Handbook. Lean is not mentioned once, but it is probably the best book on the subject I have come across.

Best wishes,
Owen

Owen,
I suppose MBA focuses people on winning battles. To implement TPS/Lean you should be Builder and Teacher, not Warrior.

Best wishes,
Alexander

Kristi,
I agree Lean is a cultural journey. The grass-roots of the floor help sustain, but in the end does not guarantee the success or sustainment. That is the job of leadership &/or management. It has been my experience most Lean cultures/implementations fail because the managers/leaders did not realize they needed to change. Another reason is the way the ‘savings’ are accounted for, if the method of keeping score does not change, the company will receive conflicting numbers and make erroneous decisions based upon this information.
Great analogy of the differences between the MBA & TPS Leader, Alexander!
Thanks,
JWDT

hi Alexander,
I think it is a bit harsh to pit Lean against Toyota. I think the MIT group which began the study of Toyota and the books that followed were trying to blow away the myths which had built up around the Japanese as “super humans” since the late 70s.
I remember the senior management in my company coming back from Japan after their “sushi run”, and nonsense developed by their bench marking attempts. As you can imagine, none of the findings included anything about the limitations of the management philosophy then common in the West, which was holding people back. After a flurry of short-lived activity (akin to headless chickens) we went back to the same old same old. This was in spite of the roasting these benchmarkers were given by Konosuke Matsushita, founder of Panasonic. (I can forward the text of Matsushita-san’s comments to Ron if anyone is interested.)
Womack, Jones, et al did a great service to everyone interested in improving the way businesses were managed by cutting through the myths. Did they get every fact right about Toyota? Probably not, and I will concede that there is more to be learnt from Toyota and other well-managed companies (to only focus on Toyota might be a bit blinkered). From my experience, Lean is a great step forward in developing a new management philosophy, but the journey is not finished. I don’t think Womack and Jones can be blamed for the ways in which the essence of Lean has been distorted by some people.

Alexander,
Reading you response, I don’t think we are a million miles apart. The Russian Managers who see Lean as a bag of tools are like the majority of managers in Europe and the US (and perhaps elsewhere) who want instant results. They see Lean as a “tick box” exercise which can be completed quickly. They are probably the biggest obstacle to going Lean.

I would accept your comparison of Lean and TPS as the relationship between a model and reality. I believe George Box is quoted as saying, “all models are wrong, but some are useful”. I accept Lean as a useful “model” on which a new management philosophy can be built, the model being based largely on what we “outsiders” know about TPS. But I think we have suspended our ability to think if we believe TPS and only TPS is the way to manage. That way lies a sterile theological argument. John Bicheno has complied the Lean Toolbox, which is an excellent Lean primer for those who are begining their Lean journey. John takes an inclusive view of Lean, not just basing it on TPS (or should it be TBS?). In it you will find references to tools and techniques which come from all over the world. John has, for example, included TRIZ, which is Russian in origin! The theologist would cry foul saying that was not Lean, but it is an example which proves that good ideas are not tohe sole preserve of Toyota management.
I have to declare an interest as John was my supervisor when I did my Masters in Lean at Cardiff, but I hope this helps clear up any misunderstanding.

“The least cost method of manufacture is the Toyota Production System”.
Paul,
I do not disagree with that statement, and John Shook has said something similar recently.
However, painful experince (of which I have my fair share) has taught me that if something can be taken out of context, it will by people who either don’t understand the principles behind Lean or TPS or have a distorting agenda. Why is the vast majority of managers and leaders obsessed with “off-shoring”? I believe because they want a quick fix, see Lean or TPS as too long winded and “difficult” (because it involves getting the best out of their people), and believe that out-sourcing to a low-wage ecomony is a quicker alternative. The cynic in me thinks that these same people know it is only a cosmetic solution, but by the time the chickens of their decision come home to roost they’ll be off to greater glory and some poor sap will have pick up the pieces.
Deming, TPS, Lean (not sure about Six Sigma even though I’m a Black Belt) are pointers to an alternative management philosophy, which we are only just begining to understand. Unlike the natural sciences, engineering and technology, the understanding of “management” has been clouded by a zillion crack-pot books which many have dubbed the Heathrow Business School (for the simple reason they are meant to appeal to travellers who think they might spend sometime improving themselves while they are crossing the pond).
Ford, Deming, Ohno, Shingo, Kano, Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor, the unknown heroes of TWI (perhaps even Taylor) and many, many more have tried to define this better philosophy. Not all the names are Japanese, so just pointing our prayer mats in the direction of TPS might be a tad blinkered: what works specifically in building cars may not be appropriate in other sectors or in hospitals. But the concepts of Waste and Value; the powerful and critical contribution of a healthy kaizen culture; and getting the whole workforce battling the ravages of Entropy (rather than bringing in the consultant) are some of the developments which have revolutionised our understanding of what is meant by Leadership.
Is there a gap between Lean and TPS? Probably. Is the gap narrowing as our understanding of the essentials of TPS increases? Perhaps. Dialogues like this help, and may even nudge TPS to new heights. From my contacts with friends in Toyota, I get the impression they are one of the very few which would qualify as one of Peter Senge’s Learning Organisations, and that separates them from the rest of the herd. But there is no guarantee that Toyota may never suffer from organisational dementia, as for example Ford did for some of its history.

Dear Harish

What is the Significant difference between the TPS & Lean ?

I Understand , both are required for the Organisation Growth .

Can you clarify ?