Better Thinking Faster: A conversation about solving problems just in time 

Time is relative, especially when it comes to lean problem solving. The LEI trio of Josh Howell, Mark Reich, and Art Smalley explored how the speed of quality problem solving really depends on the level of the organization in which the problem exists and the types of problems and thinking patterns in place at that level. In this first podcast of two, they examine what “better” and “faster” means in the lean world and how that manifests itself. 

There’s often a debate among management circles calling for fast problem solving and change vs. slow, deliberate decision-making. Art, Toyota veteran and author of Four Types of Problems, says, “We’re all trying to think better and think faster, respective to our level and the speed that governs it. But it’s overly simplistic to just say ‘think slow.’ You want to, all things equal, arrive at a better end result faster. In reality there are different types of problems, different patterns of thinking, and different mental gears that can be used.”  

Art discussed different types of problems and the different styles of work used in Toyota to address them. As outlined in his book, they are: 

• Type 1 troubleshooting problem, such as responding to the andon signal at a frontline workstation with a 45-second cycle time, needs to be solved safely and quickly, which will often occur countless times each day because these problems involve a known problem and known solution.  

• Type 2 problems are harder to solve and have unknown root causes and solutions, which require a more analytical mode of thinking.  

• Type 3 problems are actually continuous improvement efforts that seek to establish a new, better target condition. 

• Type 4 problems represent truly innovative new solutions (think hybrid powertrain technologies) that often require years of trial and error.  

The problem-solving work moves from convergent thinking, known standards, and highly skilled execution at the frontline to middle management using the eight steps of Toyota Business Practice that can take days or weeks, to innovation, which is slower, more deliberate, divergent, and exploratory.  

Josh looks back to his time at Starbucks and the problem-solving spectrum, contrasting the challenge of trying to transform a company of some 350,000 employees (“That’s going to take some time, and certainly the executives don’t want it to take too much time. It can’t take forever.”) compared to experiencing problems in a store during peak service time when there’s a new customer every 30 seconds. “The way that we were taught from our TPS and lean teachers to improve that situation, improve our performance for the customers, was to really dig into the details of what happens inside those 30 seconds.” 

Speed is only one facet of lean problem solving. Remember, the Toyota slogan is “Better Thinking, Better Products,” and so quality has to be part of problem-solving work.  

Mark (LEI Chief Engineer Strategy, author of Managing on Purpose, and also a Toyota veteran) says the quality of problem solving requires developing the capabilities of those doing the problem solving as well as the patience to take sufficient time to examine problems and come to better solutions: “We want to build the capability in the organization for leaders, for people, not just leaders, but for people at every level, to be able to produce good quality work. What’s unique about Toyota is that’s true in any function. We want good quality accounting work. We want good quality planning work. We want good quality work, of course, at where the products made and developed. And I think that does take time to build that capability to produce good quality, whatever function you’re talking about.” 

The trio also discuss the: 

• Cyclical nature of processes in which problems occur, be that a seconds-long cycle on the line, an annual cycle for formulating corporate strategy, or a decades-long span for replenishing capital equipment. At all levels, the process repeats but the problems will vary, such as market changes impacting the strategy development cycle one year to the next. 

• Use of process cycles as learning: From frontline to the executive suite, it’s not just about fixing the current problem and getting back to work, but taking the time and data to come up with better solutions and standards for future work. “There’s so much here to look closely at, to analyze, to scrutinize,” says Josh. “There’s so many details that we can question, and inside all of those details are potential solutions, potential improvements, kaizen points that we can make things better.” 

• Need to involve as many people as possible in addressing problems — the work of problem detection, notification, response, and solving. Considering the number of problems that exist throughout a company and at all levels and functions, it would be impossible to meet the problem-solving demand if only top executives, management, and engineers were doing the problem solving. 

• Toyota Production System was designed not as a system to produce things perfectly but as a framework knowing that things will not go perfectly, that there will be problems. “Build in a system that accepts and recognizes there’s going to be mistakes, therefore have a system that catches and flags those, and have layers of ability stacked behind that to deal with it,” says Art. 

• Different levels within the organization need to focus on the problem solving commensurate to their level. Josh recalls how a Starbucks executive came to a store that had transformed significantly using standardized work and structured problem solving. This leader, however, was obsessed over a low-priority Type 1 problem he noticed that eventually would be handled by the frontline team instead of giving his attention to building the store team’s overall capability to identify and handle more problems on their own.  

• The problem-solving approach of Fujio Cho, President of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky and then Toyota Motor Corp., and other Toyota executives: Art recalls a time when Cho refused to follow along on a plant tour and instead went off on his own and found a significant oil leak at a machine. Cho then immediately engaged the team in problem solving, asking questions about how it occurs and how leaders find such problems, and discussed a process to signal such abnormal and potentially dangerous conditions. He knew the plant tour was set up to be perfect, and he was looking for the right teaching moment, not to scold people, but to build the education into an actual problem rather than view a rehearsed problem on a flip chart. 

Look for the second part of the better-thinking-faster conversation to appear on July 28 via LEI’s The Management Brief newsletter, subscribe here.