Toyota Kata : Managing People for Improvement, Adaptiveness and Superior Results

by Rother, Mike

  After some time the American learned that the mentor does not, and should not, have a preconceived solution in mind. The mentor must answer quickly, but he only has to see what the next step is. The mentor cannot fully know the way ahead, but he must grasp the situation deeply enough to know what the next step is so he can lead his mentee to and through it. And if the next step is unclear, then the answer is almost always, “Let’s go and see.” In most cases the next step is in fact to get more specific facts or data. Once I learned this, my own efforts to experiment with mentoring became considerably more effective.

  Tina does not have in mind a solution to the problem. It is Dan’s responsibility to solve the problem and her responsibility to develop Dan’s capability to do that. But she does know that the damage to the threads on the studs is likely to be occurring when the nut is driven onto the stud. She has an inkling about the point of cause, and is guiding Dan in that direction.

  Go and see.

  Imagine in what direction this effort might be going if Tina had stayed in her office and Dan was reporting his impressions to her there. Tina could not do this mentoring if she was not at the process with Dan understanding the current situation firsthand.

  Overlap of responsibility.

  Although Dan is responsible for the doing and Tina cannot just tell him what to do, since her job is to teach Dan, she knows that she in turn bears a lot of the responsibility for the results.

  In what step of Practical Problem Solving are Tina and Dan?

  Tina has recognized that the point of cause is probably where the nut is driven onto the stud, but Dan has not. Tina would be ready to enter Step 3 (Investigate causes), but since Dan is the one who has to solve the problem, they are still in Step 2 (Grasp the situation). Tina is guiding Dan to the next step in a way that allows him to learn the lesson for himself.

  Chapter 7

  Then Dan noticed that the team member had to install the nut through a hole in the side panel, and that the team member could not see the end of the stud to assure that the nut was correctly located. The team member had to rely on feel to determine if the nut was aligned. Dan told Tina that now he knew what the problem was. The side panel trim installation had two new team members working on it in the past month. The new team members just didn’t have the feel for the nut alignment yet, and that was why the threads were getting damaged and the parts were being scrapped.

  Dan suggested that they would need to do a better job of training new team members so they wouldn’t strip the threads on the studs.

  Analysis

  No mentoring activity by Tina in Chapter 7

  If you were Tina what would you do next?

  (Dan has made a proposal, to which you must respond.)

  Chapter 8

  Tina suggested that first they should confirm the relationship between the number of scrap parts and new team members on the process. She and Dan reviewed the scrap records for the group and compared any increase in the amount of scrapped side panel trim pieces to the dates that new team members were on the process. They found a direct relationship. Each time there was a new team member, there was a significant increase in the number of trim pieces that were scrapped.

  Dan told Tina that he would have a meeting with all the team members who worked on that process immediately and tell them they needed to be more careful. He also said he would retrain all of them on installing the nut.

  In what step of Practical Problem Solving are Tina and Dan?

  Analysis

  What mentoring/coaching behaviors is Tina using?

  Show me.

  Mentors prefer facts and data over opinion.

  In what step of Practical Problem Solving are Tina and Dan?

  Tina and Dan have reached Step 3: Investigate causes.

  If you were Tina what would you do next?

  (Dan has made a proposal, to which you must respond.)

  Chapter 9

  Tina asked Dan if he knew what the team members were doing when the threads stripped. Dan replied that he didn’t know what they were doing but he knew they weren’t doing it correctly. Tina suggested they revisit the process and take a closer look at what the operators were actually doing and what the circumstances were when the threads stripped out.

  When they observed the process again, they saw the team member on the process load the nut into the driver socket. Next, the team member started the driver to spin the socket and improve the setting of the nut in the socket. The trigger is then released to locate the nut on the stud. Then the driver trigger is depressed again to install the nut on the stud. Tina and Dan didn’t see anything abnormal about the way the team member they were observing did the process. This team member didn’t create any stripped threads while he was on the process that shift.

  Tina suggested to Dan that they observe one of the new team members on this process. Then they saw a different technique being used. This team member kept the trigger of the driver depressed while he was locating the nut on the stud.

  Tina suggested that she and Dan conduct an experiment to confirm that what they had seen could create stripped threads.

  In what step of Practical Problem Solving are Tina and Dan?

  Analysis

  What mentoring/coaching behaviors is Tina using?

  Focus on understanding the process, not on implementing countermeasures.

  Tina and Dan are at Step 3 (Investigate causes), but with his proposals, Dan is skipping over this and going right into Step 4 (Develop and test countermeasure). This is not unusual.

  We often think that good problem solving means applying countermeasures. In contrast, the focus in problem solving at Toyota is on understanding the current situation so deeply that the countermeasure becomes obvious. Mentees are prevented from introducing countermeasures before they sufficiently grasp the situation.

  If we introduce countermeasures before understanding the situation, we create more variables, which interferes with identifying root causes. In the worst case, the wrong countermeasure might temporarily reduce occurrence of the problem, making us believe our effort was a success.

  Focus on the process, not the people.

  Mentors know that the vast majority of problems are caused by the system within which people work, not by the individuals themselves. They assume that the operators are doing their best, that if they were in the operators’ shoes, the same thing would still have happened, and that training alone does not improve a process.

  An important point to realize here is that if we did carry out Dan’s suggestion of retraining the new operators, then the scrap rate is likely to decrease. However, this would not be because the root cause had been identified and eliminated, but because extra managerial attention had been paid to the process. The same problem would return again later, because the process itself has not actually been improved in any way.

  To instill this thinking in their mentees, mentors will ask questions such as, “What is preventing the operator from working to standard?” or, “Do you know what the person was doing when the problem occurred?”

  Dan is proposing training, but training in what? How does the process, the standard, need to be changed so the process is actually improved? He has not yet answered this question.

  Testing over talking.

  Conduct small-scale tests before implementing something on a broad scale. As always, seek facts and data.

  In what step of Practical Problem Solving are Tina and Dan?

  Tina and Dan are in Step 3: Investigate causes.

  Chapter 10

  Tina and Dan took some scrap trim pieces and a driver over to a vehicle and tried installing the trim using the method they had seen at their process. They noticed a feeling in the driver when the nut was properly located. This was an important point, because the positioning of the nut to the stud is a blind operation in the installation of the side panel trim. Next they tried installing the nut using the method they had seen at the other process.

  During th
e second trial, they kept the driver running while trying to align the nut and stud. Of the 10 tries, four resulted in stripped threads. Tina and Dan now knew that the only way to be sure the nut and stud are properly aligned is to perform the positioning with the driver in the off position.

  Next, Tina and Dan went to look at the work standard for the side panel trim process again. There was no information that instructed the team member to make the positioning of the nut and stud before triggering the driver. Dan told Tina that now he could hold a meeting with the team members to discuss the results of their investigation and instruct each of them on the correct procedure for installing the nuts.

  Tina directed Dan to also correct the work standard based on their findings. In addition, she asked him to report their findings the next morning at the team leader meeting and to work with the other team leaders to identity other processes in the group with the potential for having the same problem.

  In what step of Practical Problem Solving are Tina and Dan?

  Analysis

  What mentoring/coaching behaviors is Tina using?

  Conduct small-scale tests before implementing.

  Refer to the work standard or target condition.

  In what step of Practical Problem Solving are Tina and Dan?

  Tina and Dan are now in Step 4: Develop and test countermeasure.

  If you were Tina what would you do next?

  Chapter 11

  Tina and Dan tracked the Section B scrap for the next three months and had no further occurrences of assembly-damaged side panel trim pieces.

  Dan confirmed the adoption of the new standard by observing the operators and the process. The team leader on the second shift was instructed to do the same.

  Tina reported her experiences in the problem solving to Paul, the trim shop assistant manager.

  Why did Tina insist on three months of follow-up tracking on the trim scrap?

  To confirm that the root cause was found and eliminated.

  Summary Discussion of the Mentor/Mentee Case

  Now that you have gone through the case example, we can get into a somewhat deeper discussion about the mentor/mentee dialogue and problem solving at Toyota.

  1. How Did You Feel as You Read Through the Case?

  I have taken a few hundred people through this case example in a classroom setting, and a common feeling among many participants was some exasperation that Tina and Dan’s effort to solve the problem seemed to proceed slowly. As Tina sends Dan back to look at the situation again and again, some participants start visibly shifting around in their seats. “When are they going to implement something?”

  It is important to see that at Toyota the emphasis in problem solving is on Step 2 (Grasp the situation) and Step 3 (Investigate causes). If these steps are done thoroughly, then the countermeasure (Step 4) often comes quickly and almost by itself. Conversely, if the countermeasure is not yet obvious, then it usually means that more study of the situation is necessary, rather than more thinking about countermeasures. It is a classic case of greater diligence up front being more effective and, overall, quicker. To really solve a problem, you have to understand why it is happening.

  Supposedly, Albert Einstein was once asked, “You have one hour to solve a problem, how do you proceed?” According to the story, his answer was something like, “I would analyze the problem for 55 minutes and in the last five minutes I would introduce my countermeasure.” The funny thing is that in our companies, we proceed in exactly the opposite manner. Within a very short time after recognizing a problem, we are proposing a variety of countermeasures in the hope that one of them will stop the problem. This is a very different approach from Toyota’s, where the goal is not to implement countermeasures but to better understand the work system so we can improve it based on what we are learning about its processes.

  If we throw countermeasures at a problem or have a list of countermeasures, then what that really means is we do not know enough about the situation causing the problem. Instead of causing more chaos and complicating our analysis by introducing several countermeasures, we would be better off more carefully observing the situation before deciding and acting. We have taught our managers to think about what will solve the problem, whereas Toyota managers like Tina are thinking about how their mentees should be approaching the problem.

  2. How Long Do You Think the Story in the Case Took?

  I do not have information about the actual elapsed time that Tina and Dan took, but most of the story is likely to have occurred, from beginning to end, within only one shift. This is a critical point, and one that has implications for how our managers and leaders organize their work days.

  If mentors want their mentees to grasp the situation thoroughly, proceed step by step, and change only one thing at a time, then the cycles from step to step should be short and follow without delay. If our managers and leaders try to fit this mentoring into their existing schedules—for example, waiting for a prescheduled weekly review to come around—it will be far too slow and mechanical. Two things will happen:

  The situation in and around the process is likely to change.

  Because it takes so long to move forward, the pressure to solve the problem increases, which causes us to skip steps and jump to countermeasures.

  For effective PDCA, the mentor’s review of the last step should occur as soon as possible, so you can adapt based on what you find. As described in Chapter 6, progress is by rapid small steps, always adjusting to the present situation. Toyota mentors tend to insist on a short deadline for taking the next step, and to review the result of that step immediately through short, often stand-up, meetings at the process. Turnaround time is minutes or hours, with the mentor placing particular emphasis on the next step. There is no need for lengthy discussions about activities or steps beyond that, because whenever one step is taken, the situation may be new anyway.

  I have observed a Toyota mentor asking the fifth question, “When can we go and see what we have learned from taking that step?” and when the mentee responded with, “In two days” the mentor simply repeated his question until the mentee finally said, “How about this afternoon?” To that, the mentor said, “Okay, good.

  3. What Would Have Happened If Tina Had Stayed in Her Office Instead of Going to Observe the Process Herself?

  Tina would very quickly have not been able to give good advice to Dan if she had relied on his reports alone, rather than going to see for herself. Going and seeing keeps the mentor closer to the real condition at the process—not so the mentor can develop a solution, which is the mentee’s responsibility, but so the mentor can use the details of that condition to appropriately guide the mentee into improvement-kata thinking and acting.

  4. How Was Tina Teaching Dan?

  Tina was teaching Dan by making an actual improvement in an actual process, rather than in a classroom. This kind of teaching occurs one-on-one on the shop floor, in contrast to periodic project reviews conducted in an office.

  5. What Do You Think of the Countermeasure Dan Developed?

  The countermeasure was: “Hold a meeting with the team members to instruct each of them on the correct procedure for installing the nuts, update the job instruction sheet to indicate positioning of the nut with the gun in the off position, and report the findings at the team leader meeting.”

  Many people who have gone through this case example wanted a more fail-safe countermeasure, such as a device that would prevent the gun from spinning while the operator is locating the nut on the stud. Yet the countermeasure in the case example is acceptable at Toyota. Why? Keep in mind that Toyota’s production processes are closely managed by team leaders, who observe the process every shift and compare its operation to the work standard. If our production processes are largely unmanaged—and many of ours are—then of course we will tend to prefer fail-safe mechanisms, or “poka yoke,” as they are often called. Interestingly, Toyota does not like to add too many poka yoke devices to its processes because
they increase maintenance requirements, and because Toyota wants its operators to have to think as they do their jobs.

  There is also another more subtle but important point here. Sometimes in our experiments with Toyota’s mentoring routines the mentor would see an even better or more elegant solution than the mentee had developed. The mentor would then be inclined to propose his solution over what the mentee had developed.

  At Toyota the goal is not necessarily to develop the very best solution today, but to develop the capability of the people in the organization to solve problems. The mentor gets no extra points for having a better idea than the mentee. Of course the solution must be good enough to serve the customer, but beyond that, having the most perfect solution now is not what Toyota is thinking about. Toyota is thinking about developing the capability of its people.

  Although the mentor is often a tough customer who leads the mentee through the problem solving via questioning—like Tina in the case example—ultimately the mentee is the person who must analyze the problem and develop the countermeasure. It may be tempting, especially for inexperienced mentors, to try to lead the mentee to a different solution that the mentor has in mind. But this is not Toyota-style mentoring. If the mentee sufficiently solves the problem in a way that meets the target condition, then the mentor must accept this.