Toyota Production System (TPS) is Toyota’s internal management philosophy which they have been developing over nearly a century. In the Western world, TPS now a well-known concept and a role model for operational excellence for companies and organizations in both manufacturing and service industries. In Japan, however, TPS is an even more well-established concept. The development has gone so far that almost every bookstore sells books like “TPS for dummies” and audio books like “Learn to speak TPS in English”

The basic ideas of TPS was developed in the textile industry
The development of TPS was initiated by the entrepreneur, Sakichi Toyoda, who invented an automated loom in 1918. His loom came to revolutionize the textile industry. It was unique because it had a funtion that automatically stopped the production line whenever a thread broke. This automatic stop function made it possible to instantly identify, analyze and eliminate problems when ever they occurred. The concept was later named Jidoka, which means “automation with human touch“. The machines became “intelligent” because they could identify problems themsleves. Jidoka became the nucleus of Sakichis philosophy and later one of the two pillars of TPS (along with Just-in-time).

The development continued within the motor vehicle industry
Sakichis son, Kiichiro Toyota, established in 1937 Toyota Motor Corporation with a business idea of producing cars for the local market in Japan. Kiichiro based his management thinking on his father’s philosophy from the textile industry. Metaphorically he saw “threads” through the factory, which made him focus on the production flow; from order to delivery. He developed Just-in-time, which along with Jidoka, became the second of the main pillars of TPS. The intention of Just-in-time was to create a smooth production flow by removing all unnecessary inventories. The factory should only produce what the customer wanted. Each product would “flow” through production. Kiichiro also adapted Jidoka to the vehicle production by setting up ”stop cords” in the ceiling by the production line. By pulling the cord, any worker could instantly stop the production if a problem occurred. Problems were something positive and should always and immediately be brought up to the surface.

Ohno defines the Toyota Production System

Taiichi Ohno began his career with Toyota in 1932. He is often referred to as the father of TPS. Through common sense and brutal devotion to the company, he continuously developed the production philosophy of Toyota for nearly 60 years. Along with Eiji Toyota, Kiichiro’s cousin, Ohno eventually named the philosophy Toyota Production System. They integrated the thoughts of Sakichi and Kiichiro, but were also inspired from from other car manufacturers such as Ford and GM. The philosophical foundation of TPS was Just-in-time and Jidoka, but the conceptual package also included various methods such as standardization, 5S, 5 Why, elimination of waste , visual management, continuous improvement, etc. In 1978 Ohno published the book “Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production“, where presented his thoughts about flow:

“All we are doing is looking at the time lime; from the moment the customer gives use an order to the point when we collect the cash. And we are reducing that time line by removing the non-value-added-wastes.”

Ohno’s book is still one of the most read books within Toyota Motor Corporation and is often referred to as their own ”bible”.

The original “thread thought” is still valid
Almost hundred years later the thoughts of the Toyoda family are still valid. For instance, if I have a need, I can easily think about what I have to do in order to fulfil that need. Metaphorically speaking, I can picture a ”thread” from my current state (need is not fulfilled) to my desired future state (need is fulfilled). What would be the shortest way for the thread?  What do I have to do in order fulfil my need?

I can also think about what potential problems that could ”break the thread”. What obstacles could harm the thread? Furthermore, if the “thread is broken” (I do not follow my plan) who, what and how would “my factory” be stopped? How can I secure that I always and instantly identify, analyse and eliminate problems that are hindering me to reach my goal?

I think the original thoughts of TPS are still very valid.

Today a 23min podcast interview regarding ”LeanOnMyself: Applying Lean Techniques for Personal Productivity” was launched on the Process Excellence Network (PEX) in UK.  PEX has over 42,000 registered members on their website and receives over 10,000 unique visits a week.  Their audience is composed largely of Lean, Six Sigma and operational excellence practitioners (predominantly in Europe and North America, with a large following in India as well). Through their events and online portal they work with companies across many industries, e.g. Volvo, American Express, HSBC, Nokia-Siemens, BMW, Best Buy, to name a few.

The podcast will be distributed both on the PEX website and through iTunes.

Listen to the podcast here!

From the PEX website:

Lean, which started out life in automobile manufacturing, has been popping up just about everywhere in the last few years such at banks, in government offices and healthcare organizations, among many others. But what about using Lean principles in daily life to become personally more productive? That’s the concept behind an initiative being run by researcher Niklas Modig at the Stockholm School of Economics in Sweden called LeanOnMyself.

In this Process Perspectives interview, Niklas Modig is joined by two of his students – Rasmus Fahlander and Karolina Heden Lind – and Anders Lundin, assistant coach of the Swedish women’s national handball team, to explain what’s behind the initiative. In this interview, hear how Lean can help with personal productivity, and how it can even help in non-traditional areas like athletic performance as Assistant Coach Anders Lundin explains how Lean culture helped the Swedish women’s handball team move from low down in the rankings to nearly number one in Europe.

Within manufacturing it is natural to separate product & process development from production. Even if many successful manufacturing companies – Zara for instance – integrate these functions into “one system” they are by nature separate functions. It is impossible to produce a product before a production process is developed, and it is impossible to develop a process, before the actual product is developed.  We have to know the “what” before we can know the “how”, and we have to know the “how” before we can “do the what”.

When it comes to “service production”, the setting is different. When I am researching, for instance, I often “start the production” without considering what to produce. I often schedule research time between 08.00-10.00, but I am very seldom more specific than that. I start researching at 08.00 and it really “feels” like I am researching since I am actually conducting research related tasks. Still, I don’t produce much concrete value. Why? The tasks that I do are not part of a well-defined process since I really don’t know what the process should produce. I just research and if I am lucky I deliver some kind of value. I can be extremely inefficient.

This is a general problem for me and I believe that many people can recognize the pattern. We “start the production” before we have a clear picture of why and what we are going to do:

• I go shopping when I have nothing to eat…
• I pay my bills when I have to…
• I clean the toilet when I am having guests…
• I hang out with my parents when I meet them…
• I do the laundry when I have nothing to wear…

Urgent needs trigger urgent action!

Throughout the LeanOnMyself project, however, I have realized that the root of this problem is the absence of routines for “product development” and “process development”. I very seldom schedule formal time to follow the underlying sequence:

1. Identify the underlying need that I want to fulfill – “why” should I conduct this activity.
2. Define the intention of the activity, i.e. “what” do I want to accomplish (that will fulfill the need).
3. Define how I want to realize the intention, i.e. what flow of tasks (type, sequence and duration) do I have to do.
4. Execute the tasks (3) with continuous focus on the intention (2) and underlying need (1).

The LeanOnMyself concept is covering many different “value adding areas”; private areas, personal areas and professional areas (See concept for further description!). Take “You time”, for instance, which is the time we spend with family and friends. Take for instance, time with my father:

1. Why should I spend time together with my father? What is my need? What is his need?
2. What do we want to accomplish when we spend time with each other? What is the intention with our relationship? Some day in the future we wont be able to see each other anymore, what kind of memories do we want to remember?
3. How can we realize these intentions? When shall I see my father? How often? How shall be with each other?
4. Spend time with my father and always try to have continuous focus on the intention (2) and underlying need (1). We shall do what we want so we can “produce” value-adding time together and fulfill the needs of a father and a son.

I think all areas within our lives are worth addressing like this… why do we actually do things?

Applying lean on myself

There are two reasons why this concept is named LeanOnMyself . The first reason is very straightforward; it is a concept packaging knowledge and experience regarding how lean can be applied on your personal life. The term “lean” in this context comes from the original definition of lean production, which was coined in 1988 by John Krafcik in an article “Triumph of the Lean Production System” published in the Sloan Management Review. Krafcik used the term lean metaphorically (synonym to thin, slim, trim, etc) in order to contrast two types of production system towards each other; the robust vs. the lean. Ford had a robust production system with advanced machines and high levels of inventory where the intention was to maximize capacity utilization. In contrast, Toyota had a lean production system with simple machines and low level of inventory where the intention was to maximize process flow. I however think the “lean” term can be a little bit misleading – especially when applying lean in a service context – since the philosophy is not about being “lean” (thin, slim). It is about continuously keeping focus on what resources and activities that are needed in order effectively and efficiently to fulfil the need of the customer (process flow).

In conclusion, LeanOnMyself is about applying lean on myself, which means to continuously keep focus on what resources and activities that are needed in order effectively and efficiently to fulfil your personal needs.

Leaning on myself

The second reason why the concept is called LeanOnMyself is more philosophical and it represents the intention of the whole concept; to lean on yourself. To clarify, the concept is NOT about “lean on me” which would indicate that someone is leaning on you. It is neither about “lean on you”, which would indicate that you could lean on somebody else. LeanOnMyself is about leaning on yourself. To build and develop your inner strength. To continuously develop your  consciousness, awareness, confidence, competence, capability, etc. regarding how to manage your own life.  It is about always learning about your own needs and developing your inherent resources in order to fulfill that certain need.

In conclusion, LeanOnMyself is about leaning on youself, which means to develop personal resources that always deliver value to yourself.

When reviewing the articles from the second week I recognised a logical flow in how I want to present the reviews. I divided the articles into three different sections.

2 articles regarding proactivity and continuous evaluation

Philip’s second article highlights the importance of being proactive, i.e. to set clear goals and exact schedules “before” one starts working. He argues that the extra time spent on planning is earned back tenfold due to the time saved by never having to question what to do next. I think this is one of the very basic conclusions of highly efficient individuals. Still, the importance of proactivity cannot be overstated. In his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” Steven Covey even dedicates the first of his seven habits to proactivity. The general conclusion is that proactive behaviour is more efficient than reactive behaviour.

Johanna’s second article recognizes that the daily planning and evaluation routine has made her more conscious regarding her own behaviour. She stresses that she has recognized an unexpected pattern that she was unaware of before – a difficulty to be on time to activities, such as lectures, meetings and work. She concludes that being on time is a central part of how efficient work can be. I think this is an excellent example of a learning process. When we start evaluating our performance on daily basis, we start to identify deviations, i.e. unexpected and unpredictable behaviours. When similar deviations occur repeatedly, we are able to identify patterns. The awareness of patterns increases our ability to instantly handle and/or eliminate a deviation “as it occurs”. In conclusion, continuous evaluation triggers awareness, which in turn triggers learning and improvement.

3 articles about how to set goals

Lina’s second article is the first of three articles that discusses how one should set goals. She underscores that it is important to set “the right” goals. She recognizes that she tend to set too high goals, which in turn only puts her into a negative and stressful state. Lina consequently argues that planning and scheduling are great tools as long as one is “on the road”. Otherwise it will only create a sense of unease until one is back on track. I think Lina highlights an important aspect of personal productivity. The source of personal productivity is not “knowledge” – knowing what to do – it is a “capability” that we develop over time through trial and error. In conclusion, the ability to set motivating (and not demotivating) goals is a skill that one has to develop.

Amanda’s second article also covers the ability to set goals and argues that it is important to set concrete and specific goals in order to be efficient. She claims that general goals do not put her into a productive state; it is too abstract and does not trigger her into action. The more concrete the goal is the easier it is to “start” being productive. This is also an example indicating that personal productivity is a capability that we have to develop. Lina argues that it is crucial to set the “right level” of a goal, while Amanda argues that a goal also has to be “concrete” in order to trigger an efficient behaviour.

Rasmus’ second article also covers goal setting but from a slightly different angel than Lina and Amanda. He argues that one characteristic of a highly efficient individual is to know exactly what one wants. He claims that if one really wants to achieve something, and recognizes that particular desire, very few things will hinder that desire to come true. Rasmus concludes that it is “in” our own desire, and “in” our own will, we gain our drive and energy to perform. I like this article because he highlights a phenomenon that is extremely straightforward – do what you want – but still so difficult to follow. If we believe something is fun, we are 100% engaged and can just “play the guitar”. Nothing can stop us. But if we believe something is boring, we are disengaged and don’t even “lift the guitar”. We start to procrastinate. Furthermore, if we push this conclusion one step further, it would be interesting to investigate “how” to transform a boring task into a fun task!?

4 articles about how to be productive within specific activities

Kristoffer’s second article points out that is important to be focused when conducting one activity, i.e. one should not mix one activity frame with another frame. More specifically, he argues that “work is work” and “free time is free time” and he concludes that mixing these two different frames is not productive in the long run. This is a phenomenon that I call “frame competence”, which includes our ability to identify, plan and execute a particular activity. For instance:

a)    I identify a need that I have to read an article within my research work

b)    I subsequently plan the activity, i.e. when to read the article

c)    I finally execute the activity, i.e. I read the activity.

If I follow this sequence – identify, plan and execute the activity – I would consequently be “frame competent” since I do what I ought to be doing; I follow my plan. Kristoffer consequently highlights one (out of many) thing that hinders us from being frame competent. When executing an activity, we tend to “mix” activity frames, which in turn decreases our ability to fulfil the original need that triggered us to plan the activity in the first place. In conclusion, when executing activities, keep the “right” frame in order to be efficient. Relax when you should relax. Work when you should work.

Theo’s second article discusses self-induced inefficiency, i.e. how our own mind can hinder us to be efficient if we have a lot, or something particular, to think about. He concludes that it is better to finish one task before continuing with another since it allows him to keep focus. I think Theo’s point highlights that an “inventory” of unfinished tasks is not only inefficient since the tasks are not completed. It is also inefficient since the “inventory” affect out mental state, which in turn puts us in an unproductive state. The higher amount of uncompleted tasks we have, the more difficult it will be to keep focus since our mind in fact has difficulties to “let go”.

Karro’s second article is highlighting several different issues. One of the issues is regarding the relationship between her mental state and her eating patterns. She concludes that it is important for her to eat on continuous basis in order to “be able” to keep a productive state. She argues that if she doesn’t eat properly she easily loose her state. I think this – our diet – is one of the aspects that differs LeanOnMyself from other personal efficiency oriented concepts. Our diet, sleep, workout and health are areas that, according to me, often have been neglected. According to my experience it is central to integrate these areas of “work-life balance” with “efficiency”. Our diet, sleep, workout and health are all our basic needs, but still difficult to master. To have continuous attention to, and work with, these areas are crucial to be able to sustain long-term productivity.

Malcolm’s second article underscores the magnitude of flexibility when working with strict schedules. He argues that just strictly following a schedule is not productive. If the conditions, by some reason, have changed, it is important to reschedule and take the new conditions into account. I think this conclusion is important to acknowledge in contrast to the conclusion that “proactivity increases efficiency”. When we are proactive, we set goals and we plan activities to achieve the goals. Put differently, the planning serves as a working hypothesis about “how” to be efficient, which in turn triggers action. If the conditions that founded the hypothesis have changed, however, it is important to be actionable enough to recognize this change of condition and modify the hypothesis about how to be efficient, i.e. reschedule.