Home > The Lean Post> Stability Before Innovation

Stability Before Innovation

by James P. Womack
May 24, 2018

Stability Before Innovation

by James P. Womack
May 24, 2018 | Comments (6)

Are we in the Lean Community lacking imagination and creativity? Indeed, do we take away the time and space for creativity and imagination from employees with our focus on standardizing work and our relentless process analysis in every activity from production to product development? Or maybe this is backwards. Is it possible that in the same way a stable foundation is needed for sustainable kaizen, a stable organization with stable processes enables successful innovation? Let’s look at the history of Toyota for evidence of this possibility.

When Toyota entered the auto industry in the 1930s it had no background in automotive technologies and no ability to create innovative products. The first Toyota, launched in 1937, was a collection of reverse-engineered components from many vehicles from established foreign producers. During World War II, when Toyota produced a small number of low-quality trucks, things did not get better. By the 1950s Toyota was no closer to the frontier of technology in the auto industry than it had been twenty years earlier.

Other Japanese producers tried to catch up by licensing both product designs and production technologies from European companies. But Toyota took a different route. The company concentrated on the creation of a stable production process plus a stable product development process resting on the foundation of a stable management system. Doing this actually required a remarkable amount of innovation – TPS, Toyota’s lean product and process development system, and what we now call lean management. This was all to create competent, high-quality, low-muda products – first visible with the Corolla in 1966 -- that were decidedly notinnovative.

And for many years this was the strategy of Toyota: Strengthen management, design, supplier development, and production systems in order to design and build boring products with me-too technologies that had fewer delivered defects, better durability, and lower cost than the more innovative products of other manufacturers. It was a successful strategy that produced steady growth and ample profits. But it also created the impression that “lean” as developed by Toyota could not create innovative products for customers.

This situation began to change with the Prius project in the late 1990s. Toyota was observing that competitors were making steady progress on matching Toyota’s quality and durability, metrics where there is no further room for differentiation as a company nears perfection. And the world was changing, with growing environmental concerns and waning interest from smart, young engineers in a seemingly stodgy, mechanical engineering company. Thus, it seemed as if product innovation was an unavoidable need. The Prius was the result. However, the most interesting thing about the Prius, from the perspective of the current moment, was that it launched on time with nearly perfect quality. No managers flying out the door, no nervous exhaustion amongst those who stayed, and no “production hell” for the first truly innovative product from Toyota after more than sixty years in business.

Today, with the auto industry facing disruption due to government demands for vehicles producing less carbon dioxide and from new entrants from the software world offering asset sharing, autonomy, and hyper connectivity (which work best in combination), Toyota once more faces the need for product innovation, and not just for goods but for services too. But it is doing this on the foundation of stable and robust product development, production, supplier development, and general management systems. In the normal course of business history, the firm that is best at the currently dominant technologies often finishes far back in the pack in the new era or even fails altogether. And that could happen to Toyota. But because of its foundational strengths, I’m seeing signs of a different outcome.

A couple of examples:

  • Toyota believes that the winning energy technologies cannot be known in advance, so it is concurrently experimenting with a range of low carbon technologies – fuel cells (the Mirai passenger car and Kenworth semis equipped with two cells from the Mirai project that have been hauling containers out of the Port of Los Angeles for the past six months), solid state batteries (which may double battery power density by 2022), and further enhancements to hybrid technology (which has gotten a big boost in sales due to recent problems with diesels.) Concurrent exploration of alternative countermeasures for a problem is, of course, Toyota’s standard approach to any business or development problem as captured in A3 analysis
  • Toyota realizes that vehicles in the future, whatever their core technologies, will require massive amounts of software for energy-management, autonomy, navigation, and connectivity. This is a cost challenge and a quality challenge. Software written using today’s methods for major modules such as autonomy is costly and development is slow despite the introduction of agile and scrum, based to some extent on lean thinking. And software acceptable today for many consumers products such as cell phones and PCs (and for their periodic upgrades) is too buggy for autonomous, shared, hyperconnected vehicles. (The vehicles of the future may be cell phones with wheels but you and your family are now inside the cell phone.) So Toyota is making a massive investment in applying TPS principles to software writing and quality verification.
  • The winning approach to autonomy is also unclear. So Toyota is investing heavily in both its Guardian Angel concept and in higher levels of autonomy. Guardian Angel leaves the driving to the driver but prevents drivers from doing anything dangerous and is a giant leap ahead even if Level 4 and 5 autonomy prove to be long-term rather than near-term possibilities. (I personally look forward to a Guardian Angel equipped vehicle that I can drive as fast as possible knowing that the vehicle won’t let me run off the road in the next curve or hit the pedestrian walking out from between two cars on a dark night.)

Given the amount of risk inherent in Mobility 2.0, Toyota has accumulated a mountain of cash (nearly three times the level of comparably-sized GM and Volkswagen) to finance experimentation while protecting its employees from the inevitable mistakes of managers backing the wrong solutions in a time of discontinuity. (The cash comes from the brilliant performance over the last decade of Toyota’s development, production, and supplier management for conventional products. A virtuous circle.)

Contrast Toyota’s methods with those of other companies generally believed to have brilliant, innovative ideas but no robust development, production, supplier management or even customer support processes, and which are short of funds. Not just Tesla but the whole VC-backed auto start-up industry come to mind.

So, would “creative” organizations like Tesla and the many other new entrants in the mobility sector do better to proceed as quickly as possible in pursuit of their innovative ideas, back-filling mature and robust design, production, supplier management, and support processes? Or should they be realistic about the time and cost involved and move more slowly, building the processes they need first before they commit to launch of new product concepts? In one specific case we may well have an answer soon. But surely the larger issues of stability versus innovation merits further consideration in the Lean Community.

---

Join Jim Womack this June 19 & 20 in Traverse City, MI at the Designing the Future Summit, with speakers from Ford, Menlo Innovations, and  MIT D-Lab. Plus Jeff Liker, John Shook, and many more.

The views expressed in this post do not necessarily represent the views or policies of The Lean Enterprise Institute.
Was this post... Click all that apply
HELPFUL INTERESTING INSPIRING ACCURATE
24 people say YES
49 people say YES
22 people say YES
15 people say YES
Related Posts
6 Comments | Post a Comment
Daniel Jones May 24, 2018
7 People AGREE with this comment

Stability is the outcome of building capabilities from learning to solve todays’ problems - harnessing these capabilities and insights from customers, production associates and suppliers not just engineers lays the basis for innovation in rapid increments not big leaps- as we describe in detail in The Lean Strategy.

Reply »

Bob Emiliani May 24, 2018
9 People AGREE with this comment

Stable systems suggest "status quo." I view Ford, GM, VW, etc., as having more-or-less stable production process, stable product development process, and stable management system. In other words, a very slow rate of change, with executive mindsets tightly bound by traditional business thinking and practice (to avoid disrupting vested interests).

Conversely, Toyota's production process, product development, and management system is constantly evolving and changing more rapidly than other automakers, and is therefore dynamic (due to constant kaizen). The innovation that results from kaizen is what enables Toyota to adapt and survive.

"Stable" also suggests complacency or satisfaction, which is not a characteristic I would associate with Toyota. The rapid pace of change reflects constant dissatisfaction with the current state, despite all evidence of success.

Reply »

Peter Metlikovic May 31, 2018

Watch the formula 1 pitstop. Would anybody dream of not standardising it to the last detail, worksteps and roles? Without rigorous training of all teammembers, especially new ones? Once standardized and trained, current procedure can be improved. By teammembers, watching video, counting 1/100 of seconds, braintorming, testing ideas and creating new, better standards. Supported by leaders. 

It sounds like common sense, right? Well, common sense is less comon than one would like to think. My impression from 13 years in consulting is that leaders act more from the need to be excited, streched, they just do not know better, and they even maybe need to be exhausted to stay calm. Helping them see, work with coworkers, establish new routines, reach better results, has been extremely satisfying.

Reply »

Tim Anderson June 01, 2018

Anyone seeking certainty and stability is on the wrong planet. Pema Chodron-misquoted probably. 

Is Toyota just innovating from a known base with the innovation becoming the new stability -known base-of the future? Hence the need to explore multiple futures? 

Just a thought. 

A very humble one. Happy to be wrong.

Reply »

Viswanathan Ramesh June 02, 2018

Stability comes from standardisation. But kaizen is required to improve the standards so that level of stability can be enhanced. Present stability is a relatively better condition than the previous one;it dies not assure that you are protected from the unknown forces that will destabilise the present stability. Therefore innovation is needed even to establish stability.As and when new destabilising forces emerge again innovation is needed to improve the present stability. So stability and innovation go hand in hand. Toyota did massive innovations continuously for the last 80 plus years in mainly process improvement and stable process. Their innovation in new product introduction barring Prius is not at all appreciable. That is basically going to destabilise them . Sitting on huge cash reserve is a temporary security which Toyota has not realised. Sitting in huge reserve of innovative ideas for futuristic product is far more safer than sitting on huge cash reserve. Problem with Toyota in tge present world is their trade mark snail pace speed of decision making and refusing to break conventional path to tread courageously in new challenging terrain. Why Toyota failed in F1 race? It is all because of the character I just mentioned. Even today when the future is for electric vehicles they stubbornly sit on fuel cell. Flexibility to change in agile manner is a big pulling diwn factor for Toyota. 

 

 

 

Reply »

Kuldeep Tanwar June 05, 2018

stability means no or very less firefighting culture, and that leads to a healthy work culture, and finally the human brains can be used for improvements, innovative work. For implementing operations excelence the first step is make a smooth flow, then think about other steps, same way it's in lean. When we talk about six sigma then first we focus on making things normal. So definatelty the stability is first step before thinking about innovation.

Reply »

A Week of Kaizen in Just One Day
Ask Art: How high is up with lean?
Coaches Need Improvement Too
Everyday Kaizen