{"id":11963,"date":"2022-03-18T05:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-03-18T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lei.flywheelsites.com\/the-lean-post\/articles\/the-toyota-way-and-toyota-kata-how-do-they-fit\/"},"modified":"2023-10-24T15:01:04","modified_gmt":"2023-10-24T19:01:04","slug":"the-toyota-way-and-toyota-kata-how-do-they-fit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lean.org\/the-lean-post\/articles\/the-toyota-way-and-toyota-kata-how-do-they-fit\/","title":{"rendered":"How the Toyota Way and Toyota Kata Fit Together"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Recently, I’ve noticed some confusion about the relationship between the Toyota Way and Toyota Kata. So, with the publication of the second edition of my book,\u00a0The Toyota Way<\/em>, I want to clarify the differences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Toyota Way and Toyota Kata are management concepts described in well-known books that reveal the thinking and practices underlying the company’s success. The Toyota Way<\/em> summarizes the management system Toyota has evolved over the last century as a set of fourteen principles. Toyota Kata<\/em> describes the practice routines Mike Rother developed to aid people in getting started developing the habit of scientific thinking he saw as central to Toyota’s success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The term “scientific thinking” can be confusing and might spark the picture of a lone scientist sitting in the lab conducting some fundamental research and developing abstract models. However, in lean management and problem-solving, scientific thinking refers to the mindset and practices that enable people to achieve challenging goals. In teaching and coaching scientific thinking, lean practitioners, then, are trying to develop people’s “practical scientific thinking” skills, which will help enhance their problem-solving capabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These were written about in different books and are often practiced as though they are different schools of thought or approaches to lean transformation. So the question is: Are these two systems compatible, or do we have to choose to believe in one or the other? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have had an insider seat to both since I have been studying Toyota for about 40 years, and Mike was my graduate student at the University of Michigan and lives close by. So we regularly have long discussions about these topics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My overall conclusion is that while I was deriving general management principles from my learning about Toyota, Mike was delving into a practical approach to one of the core aspects \u2014 problem-solving through scientific thinking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mike’s model of scientific thinking \u2014 the Improvement Kata Pattern \u2014 was derived from watching some of the best Toyota Production System (TPS) masters in Toyota at work. He then went beyond the conceptual model to help others learn how to do this themselves through an age-old approach to mastering complex skills \u2014 deliberate practice with a coach!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Integrating The Toyota Way and Toyota Kata<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Based on my long discussions with Mike and some soul-searching myself as to where this all fits together, I changed the foundational 4P model of The Toyota Way to place scientific thinking in the center (see illustration below<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"\/<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the first edition published in 2004, I had represented the model as a pyramid, placing philosophy as the foundation and problem-solving at the pinnacle. At that time, it had seemed that scientific thinking should be a part of problem-solving. However, after thinking more about it, I made two significant changes to the model for the 2020 second edition:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. I changed the model to a set of interconnected puzzle pieces to show that all the components are interrelated \u2014 a system.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. I put scientific thinking at the system’s center after concluding that all the principles are more effective with a scientific approach. For example, though the process<\/a> principles seem to lead to a straightforward implementation of tools, like a work cell<\/a>, they don’t. Instead, with a scientific approach, you start with a vision or objective, such as achieving one-piece flow<\/a> of value<\/a> to customers. You then experiment with ways to work toward this vision, continually learning and refining your process.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Seeing Scientific Thinking in the TPS<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    While “scientific thinking” may seem new and perhaps theoretical, it is consistent with Toyota’s teachings, going back to the first TPS manual by Taiichi Ohno: “On the shop floor, it is important to start with the actual phenomenon and search for the root cause in order to solve the problem. In other words, we must emphasize getting the facts.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    One of Ohno’s students, Hajime Ohba, later explained in a public presentation: “TPS is built on the scientific way of thinking \u2026 How do I respond to this problem? Not a toolbox. [You have to be] willing to start small, learn through trial and error.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In his excellent 2004 Harvard Business Review <\/em>article on “Learning to Lead at Toyota<\/a>,” Steven Spear discusses the rigor with which Toyota trains all its managers to be scientific thinkers: “Trainees watch employees work and machines operate, looking for visible problems\u2026 Learners articulate their hypotheses about changes’ potential impact, then use experiments to test their hypotheses. They explain gaps between predicted and actual results\u2026 Supervisors act as coaches, not problem solvers. They teach trainees to observe and experiment.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Compare this with Rother\u2019s description of the basics of practical scientific thinking for the rest of us who are not PhD scientists:<\/p>\n\n\n\n