WWTD? Think!


I heard an interesting quote a while back (and I can't remember the source!). The speaker said something to the effect of:

“The more we try to copy Toyota, the less Toyota-like we are becoming.”

In my Lean career, I've heard so many stories of companies copying Toyota or doing something because they read it in a book. A friend recently told me the story of a company that implemented U-shaped assembly lines, “because that's Lean.” When pressed for more of an explanation, he couldn't get one.

My friend (who is very experienced with Lean from other companies) then explained to them how a U-shaped cell is particularly handy when a single operator is running multiple machines… but this company had stationary assembly employees (that weren't balanced anywhere near Takt time).

That shape and layout might also be a benefit for a single supervisor to help a team that's located inside the U, for improved communication, but this company's supervisors were in meetings and their office most of the time. So what was the benefit? Why spend the money re-configuring the line?

When you copy, you're more likely to miss the mark than you are if you actually think through situations yourself. That's why Toyota execs like calling TPS the “Thinking Production System.” There's no substitute for thinking, learning from experience, and PDCA… but too many companies want quick answers and copied solutions.

I always challenge my Lean client teams with a few ideas. First, quit asking “What does Lean say we should do about….?” Lean doesn't say anything. Lean is a set of concepts and principles that we have to think through. I've often said, “A U-shaped layout is the best thing, unless it is not.” You have to think about it and consider different alternatives. What Would Toyota Do? Think!

Another thing I challenge them with is always being able to explain “why” we are doing something. “What problem are we solving?” should be the focus, not “What Lean tool are we implementing?”

There are no easy answers, just thinking, and Plan-Do-Check-Act. I guess that's one reason why I never get bored with this stuff.

Subscribe via RSS | Lean Blog Main Page | Podcast | Twitter @MarkGraban

Please check out my main blog page at www.leanblog.org

The RSS feed content you are reading is copyrighted by the author, Mark Graban.

, , , on the author's copyright.

What do you think? Please scroll down (or click) to post a comment. Or please share the post with your thoughts on LinkedIn – and follow me or connect with me there.

Did you like this post? Make sure you don't miss a post or podcast — Subscribe to get notified about posts via email daily or weekly.

Check out my latest book, The Mistakes That Make Us: Cultivating a Culture of Learning and Innovation:

Get New Posts Sent To You

Select list(s):
Previous articleLowest "Respect for People" Score Ever?
Next articleKaizen and Theory of Constraints
Mark Graban
Mark Graban is an internationally-recognized consultant, author, and professional speaker, and podcaster with experience in healthcare, manufacturing, and startups. Mark's new book is The Mistakes That Make Us: Cultivating a Culture of Learning and Innovation. He is also the author of Measures of Success: React Less, Lead Better, Improve More, the Shingo Award-winning books Lean Hospitals and Healthcare Kaizen, and the anthology Practicing Lean. Mark is also a Senior Advisor to the technology company KaiNexus.


  1. Gen George Marshall: “No one every won a battle by frantically trying to remember what someone once did in some vaguely similar situation.”

    (approximate quote0

  2. I would think you would want your kaizen teams to create “U” shaped cells for several reasons when starting off with a fresh location. First, it helps drive consistency of which everyone in the cell can help reduce the variation. Second, it increases communication. Third, it consumes less floor space. Fourth, it just plain looks different which gets people thinking differently, and out of the normal production box. Once a company gets to a point in their TPS life, then they could consider doing something different in order to continue to drive results.

  3. I agree with Mark. Quality of thinking is paramount.

    You need to make your thinking explicit in order to challenge the consistency: Logical consistency of arguments and consistency between thinking and observations.

    The point about making your thinking explicit is very central. If your thinking is not explicit it cannot be challenged and you cannot learn. It is essentially the same as saying that you need to know the “Why”.

    You must realize that your thinking is the first steps in the “supply chain”. You don’t just want end of line quality inspection (the action did not produce the desired result). You need to build indicators into your experiments (all changes!) that will give you a hint about the root cause (what premises in my argumentation does not seem to hold?).

    5S your thinking!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.