Home > The Lean Post> Lean Lessons from Tesla
The Lean Post
Sharing how the world is making things better through lean.

Lean Lessons from Tesla

by Tom Ehrenfeld
July 20, 2018

Lean Lessons from Tesla

by Tom Ehrenfeld
July 20, 2018 | Comments (7)

Once again Tesla is dominating the news cycle, this time by pulling a series of corporate all-nighters, makeshift workarounds, and frenzied finishing touches to reach their long-announced goal of producing 5,000 Model 3’s in one week. Never one to resist an opportunity to crack wise when it comes to dubious operations, LEI founder Jim Womack said of Tesla’s big production push:

“No other car company has ever had the need to do such a thing—in order to reach a promised production level by a certain date to keep investors happy and the founder’s reputation intact,” said James Womack, adding, “So Tesla is now a pioneer in temporary assembly, charting a course no one else will want or need to follow.”

Snap.

That said, what follows is a relatively schadenfreude-free roundup on Tesla. Tesla today serves as a highly-charged conduit for many a heated debate about the future of manufacturing, mobility, sustainability, innovation, modern business models, this year’s Red Sox team and, what, space travel. This piece examines Tesla though a lean lens. Lean thinking (or in some cases the absence of it) animates many of the key conversations about what can be learned from one of the highest-profile companies today. A brief overview of thoughtful pieces reflecting on Tesla reveal lessons such as:

Innovation is about driving on the shoulders of giants.

Fix your problems before you start making things.

Accelerate production by leveraging your people rather than your robots.  

Heroes cripple heroic campaigns.

Design your operations to optimize learning not outputs.

Let's look at each one a bit more closely:

  • Innovation is about driving on the shoulders of giants.

Two years ago Mark Donovan debated the “Tesla Way” in a passionate debate with Jim Womack about the viability and legacy of Musk’s spectacular goals. Mark touted Tesla for creating “a sense of great urgency and ‘ludicrously’ high expectations,” noting that “The earth is the burning platform quite literally. Saving the planet and the human race is a pretty compelling call to action.”

Yet random bursts of genius are rarely sufficient to produce a successful venture as bold and ambitious as that which Musk is pursuing. Moreover, while Musk initially tapped into proven lean knowledge in his early launch by partnering with Toyota for advice and even locating his primary factory in the very building that Toyota launched NUMMI, the more that Tesla approached production showtime, the more it shrugged off lessons from others. Noting that Tesla’s initial approach was broadly consistent with lean thinking, Womack said, “By selling vehicles directly to customers and keeping in continuous touch with every customer through the internet, Tesla proposed to create more value with less resources, the essence of lean”  

However, as Tesla ramped up to high volume mode, it veered far from proven operating systems (hello TPS) that demonstrated how to produce high volumes of vehicles with high quality. Instead it increasingly rested on racing at rocket speed to substantiate the wild claims of its chairman. Womack suggested that this business model was not up to the job of scaling to realize bold predictions made by Musk: “The Tesla Way is to go fast (“Let’s try ludicrous mode!”) and hope that genius and adrenaline can compensate for the lack of planning and stability. But I would advise going slower and getting the job done right the first time in accord with the Toyota Way.” 

  • Fix your problems before you start making things.

Many articles have detailed the heroic countermeasures (could somebody find Elon some PJ’s for his nights sleeping on the production floor?) Tesla has devised to hit its ludicrous production targets. Yet the question of how well they have scrambled to survive is less important than the one about identifying the source of its problems. The key time to ensure quality production on a scale such as the Model 3 is upstream—at the very beginning, says Jim Morgan in The Road to Production Hell is Paved with Lack of LPPD:

“TPS is an incredibly powerful manufacturing system. But once you are at launch, your tools, fixtures, processes, part designs, interfaces, and requirements - they are all done. The degrees of freedom remaining for the manufacturing folks are now just a small fraction of what they were during the earlier development process. Front loading your development process has long been a fundamental tenant of lean development. And the front end of the development process is where rapid learning cycles through targeted experimentation should take place. Not during the launch, let alone production. While problems may be rich learning opportunities, when it comes to launch the best problems are the ones you never have.”

  • Accelerate production by leveraging your people rather than your robots. 

Earlier this year Jeff Liker questioned the power of Musk’s essentially mechanistic approach towards his production system, taking issue with Musk’s claim that “the factory is going to be the product that has the long-term sustained competitive advantage.” And not just any factory—but the most automated factory, with the most high-end robots know, that would feature the most sophisticated robots known to man (or robots). And in his dream of a “lights-out factory” Musk was not merely harkening back to previous dreamers, but he was under-valuing the role of people as part of this socio-technical system.

“What Elon Musk is missing is exactly the point that has made Toyota so successful.  Toyota’s living system approach is exactly what has been missing from Musk’s mechanistic view and needs to be at the center of his vision, not as an occasional response to a crisis.  Toyota is a learning organization with a long memory. In 1979, Toyota launched the Lexus LS400 with the most advanced automation in the company at its Tahara, Japan, plant, including robots in assembly doing jobs normally done by people. Sales were below expectations and the plant was underutilized. Toyota’s reflection was that the high capital costs were fixed and could not be adjusted to match demand.”

The company however trudged forward adhering to a simple principle that production equipment would be “simple, slim, and flexible” to work in harmony with people. The people on the line are expected to be the source of learning and improvement; innovations can be automated only after they have been proven to work manually.

As Jeff Rothfeder writes in Fast Company, Toyota is doubling down on its people as the source of continuing innovation in the manufacturing process. The thinking behind TNGA, Toyota’s TPS 2.0, is that innovation emerges from low-tech experiments and problem-solving on the manufacturing line, and learning is captured and then operational-ized from this work:

“Among the more compelling experiments underway in Georgetown is a training exercise meant to infuse the TNGA idea that automation should solely grow organically out of human innovation. To this end, assemblers were given a karakuri assignment–a lean management drill that requires workers to build a Rube Goldberg-inspired contraption that operates under its own force to improve a workspace activity. One team is reengineering the flow rack, the ubiquitous stand next to each assembly station that holds the parts needed for the local task. Currently, as shelves are emptied, workers have to manually set them aside and then replace them with a full bin of parts. The “modernized” version will instead rely on a combination of springs, ropes, and weights to navigate this task after a button is pressed. When this decidedly low-tech device is perfected, Toyota plans to use the prototype as the blueprint for a robot to emulate the process.”

Matt Savas’s article on karakuri elaborated on this idea: “Karakuri demonstrates that Toyota’s working currency is brainpower, grown through rigorous problem-solving and mentors who challenge their students. The wallet takes a backseat to the brain. Toyota’s response to the challenge of increasing kaizen capability wasn’t to find smarter people or more clever machines. Instead, it was to 1) make kaizen more accessible by simplifying engineering and 2) develop people to make work better using the engineering.”

  • Heroes cripple heroic campaigns.

While American business culture is addicted to the heroic role played perfectly by Elon Musk, most superior lean companies thrive because they are led by humble individuals who see their job as stabilizing and improving the core elements of a business—people, process and purpose. Womack notes that the key job of a hero is to dive into a chaotic situation and quickly impose some sense of order. But organizations thrive by restoring basic stability and installing what he calls “farmers”, or value-stream-managers, who continually ask three questions: Is the business purpose correctly defined? Is action being taken to create value, flow, and pull in every step of the process while taking out waste? Are all of the people touching the process actively engaged in making it better?:

“Why do we have so many heroes, so few farmers, and such poor results in most of our businesses? Because we're blind to the simple fact that business heroes usually fail to transform businesses. They create short-term improvement, at least on the official metrics, but it either isn't real or it can't be sustained because no farmers are put in place to tend the fields. Wisely, they move on before this becomes apparent. Meanwhile, we are equally blind to the critical contribution of the farmers who should be our heroes. These are the folks who provide the steady-paced continuity at the core of every lean enterprise.”

  • Design your operations to optimize learning not outputs.

Perhaps one of the most important underlying themes of the unfolding Tesla story has to do with the idea of learning versus optimization. There’s no doubt that Elon Musk is a genius, and many of the doubtiest Tesla doubters rave about the delights of actually driving one. And yet the ongoing woes of the company reveal a built-in aversion to reflection, learning, and adaptation given the premium placed on a brilliant founder racing around fixing an ongoing string of catastrophes. The Toyota Production System, and lean, are about placing self-reinforcing system improvement above the unsustainable practice of eternal point optimization.

The recent book The Lean Strategy argues that Toyota tools serve as frames for learning that enable individuals to better understand a complex situation and find a better way of tackling a problem. In what is known by many as the “Thinking Production System,” point optimization (which rarely leads to deeper systematic gains) takes a back seat towards seeing problems as things to “fix” rather than opportunites to learn. “The TPS is, in essence, a vast mental scaffolding structure to teach people to think differently, working on the assumption that, as John Shook says, you don’t think yourself into a new way of acting, but you act yourself into a new way of thinking,” says Michael Balle, “The TPS defines challenges and exercises to help you understand your own business differently. It’s a learning method, not an organizational blueprint.”

As Michael Balle says in Why Toyota is Still My North Star, “Sadly, while I’m stunned by Toyota’s technical prowess as described by Bertel Schmitt and Ed Niedermeyer I keep having conversations with lean directors in large global companies who want to know how to further deploy their lean programs with their roadmaps, kaizen counts, savings, penetration rate (I kid you not) and other measures of process optimization. I keep asking myself: where did we go so wrong? How could we turn radically new management method based on seeking dynamic performance improvement through the intermesh of product and production engineering into corporate programs for static optimization of existing processes?” 

I’d like to close with one question: what lean lessons do you think can be gleaned from Tesla? 

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
35 people say YES
INTERESTING
64 people say YES
INSPIRING
30 people say YES
ACCURATE
28 people say YES
Related Posts
7 Comments | Post a Comment
Daniel Jones July 20, 2018
2 People AGREE with this comment

there is a deeper message here too - most evident in the German inspired Industry 4.0 ideas that flexibility is achieved through smarter automation rather than people - the mirage of the lights-out factory designed by brilliant engineers. I remember the architect of Industry 4.0 quipping at a conference how he could not imagine managing a system where different teams were conducting different experiments - which he thought would lead to chaos! Instead Tesla, drawing on this German engineering, shows the opposite. In the end it is all about people learning to do things better themselves, rather than relying only on expert designed systems.

Reply »

James Hall July 26, 2018

I'd counter that it is the system learning to do things better, and a point of i4.0 is the use of AI. Plenty of companies have human centric systems that dont learn and as the article states, the strength of LPPD is that it is a learning system with people, not a just people system. 

From what I've seen of i4.0 it can be used to rapidly change things which therefore increases the ability to learn as reults can be obtained faster even though it is digital.  So long as the digital factory can do what people can do, or people can have the same influence then it enables less people to monitor more machines with andon still in place so that problems can be solved.  To me i4.0 is a driver for bringing in LPPD because you have to program so much more into the system and not just leave issues open for someone (supplier or worker) to figure it out, asking why.

Reply »

Michael Ballé July 21, 2018
14 People AGREE with this comment

Good summary of what I hear lean guys say about Tesla, Tom, but I'm afraid I can't agree.  I believe your piece says more about the current state of lean thinking than about Tesla.

Start with the elephant in the room: over-the-air connectivity, which is a breakthrough innovation that got Akio Toyoda to sit up and listen - and react, and not in a small way.

Is lean thinking so self-absorbed and obsessed with production that it can't tell disruptive innovation when it sees it? 

Secondly, Musk is pushing the ball hard, and teaching us a lesson about storytelling we could well learn considering how lackluster the lean message has become. Humble leaders? For crying out loud, where in the current world (other than in coaching wishful thinking for more pliant clients) can we see any evidence that humility is the path to great leaderhip today?

Thirdly, and as you note with Tahara, fully automated factories (machines making machines, how perverse, as commetns C3P0 in the droid making factory), is the terms of set-based the alternative to our worker-led model, and not one to dismiss lightly as it has, overall come to mostly dominate every field since the XIXth centruy.

I find the Tesla experiment fascinating, and would love to find out more about it, technically. This is an alternative we should understand in detail, not dismiss out of hand because it doesn't fit our ideology.

I am not about to abandon lean thinking and become an advocate for old fashioned make-it-or-break-it manufacturing engineering, but I do feel that we should be more interested and respectful to the alternative to lean thinking, all the more so that, in the long run, it is runs high in management wet dreams.

Apologies for the carping tone, but I don't thing lessons are confirmations of what we already know/believe, which is the shorlist of points in this roundup (which, by the way, I don't dispute). Lessons are about the things we're not sure about and need to understand better. 

Thankfully, Toyota leaders have been less self-centered that we are, and have demonstrated their usual optimistic paranoia in trying to really figure out the implications of Tesla, not in being reassured they've been doing great all along - and moved the company accordingly to surprising places, adding connectivity to the shortlist of deep market pressures on the automobiles, which is probably a real disruption, and one that, so far, Tesla has been leading :^))

Reply »

Jim Becker July 26, 2018

Please quit all of the whining about how Tesla is not subscrbing to Leanor that Industry 4.0 is all about automation. Did you really think that an ego the size of Elon Musk would ask for input from other people? That would have been like Steve Jobs doing the same thing. There is way too much ego involved for Lean to even be considered.

Let's not even go on about Industry 4.0. In a country that is based on expert opinion, did you expect that Industry 4.0 would address people?

The whole idea of worrying about the vibes is built on Silicon Valley work ethic, not on real life. Where you really surprised at that?

The greatest failures on the part of Tesla and Musk aren't missing out on Lean, but on designing an assembly line that had no room to maintain the equipment. Whether the equipment was robotic or not, Tesla made the cardinal sin to install the equipment in a way that it couldn't be maintained in place. They either had to remove it or other equipment to maintain it.

The hubris of reducing/eliminating the maintenance space to pack more equipment in a small space was the downfall of Tesla. Given appropriate space, there is a good chance that Tesla Motors would have solved their problems long ago.

 

Reply »

Marty Anderson July 27, 2018
2 People AGREE with this comment

I have been Gemba walking the much larger Tesla ecosystem for thousands of miles. Traveling from lithium mines in Chile to wind farms, solar arrays, charging stations, scrap yards, dealers.

Lean has a broad strategic dimension as well as the within-factory magic.

In order to create a large "pull" system, an organization must stimulate broad social and commercial "pull" throughout all nodes of the ecosystem.

The Tesla factory is a complete disaster.

But more importantly for it to scale, there are more than 30 strategic "ecosystem nodes" that must make major changes for the Tesla form of electric vehicles to be "pulled" into the nodes, as opposed to being "pushed" out.

For example, there is no effective way to scrap/recyle the complex chunk of potential e-waste that is the Tesla battery.  

The company has near zero service and repair, no used car business, no stable financing, no used parts business.  These will require capital investments that make the factory look simple.

Tesla's envisioned scale disturbs water systems in both mining and "clean" solar scale. (See also e-waste in solar at scale.)

Its software, and electronic components have never stabilized, and in fact Tesla has probably never produced more than 1000 cars that are the same - there is that much complexity in its code and firmware.

It is still a very expensive infant, and is basically the opposite of the Toyota way at most points in the life cycle.

See:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/babson/2018/01/27/tesla-cars-are-great-their-ecosystem-strategy-not-so-much/#1b88c8ba129e ;

Marty

Reply »

Dieter Lange July 29, 2018
1 Person AGREES with this reply

Elon Musk has certainly changed the world's position on fossile fuel cars for ever. Whilst many would have loved him to fail, electric cars have become a reality because of him.

I consider him in the same league as Steve Jobs and look forward to his success in rewriting the 'rules' we believe the world should abide by. Kaikaku in our way of thinking may be required.      

Reply »

Marty Anderson August 06, 2018
1 Person AGREES with this reply

Dieter,

History and data show that Tesla has done little in the way of shifting things to electric vehicles.

The EV was introduced more than 140 years ago, and has been pushed by almost every company and government on Earth

It has always failed to scale because the infrastructure required to support EV's is too expensive, erratic, and resource consumptive

Tesla has sold fewer than 400,000 vehicles in total, which is a tiny fraction of the soon-to-be 2 BILLION motor vehicles on Earth.

On the other hand, Toyota alone has sold more than 10,000,000 hybrids, AT A PROFIT, and has built an entire service/repair business that handles batteries, boards, used parts/vehicles, scap, waste recycling

Tesla has none of this

Clearly the best way to scale up EV's is to sell them with both a battery and a "heat engine' that can run on almost any liquid or gas fuel.

The largest deployment of electric vehicles in the world is the massive fleet of industrial, bike, and cart EV's in China.

It is the first instance of a successful scaled charging infrastructure in human history - and that has nothing to do with the massive rolling e-waste of a Tesla car

Given that solar and wind have massive looming challenges in their life cycles -  $trillion of investment, and huge challenges in waste and recycling - 

- the Toyota hybrid path is clearly the best way to achieve sucha massive social change.

Tesla is not even off the starting line yet

Reply »

The Escalator of Issues
The Remarkable Chief Engineer
What Do Managers Do?
Standard Work Roundup
"Too Busy to Walk the Gemba"
And Now For Something Completely...Lean