The Evolution of ‘Lean Production’: Reflecting on 25 Years Since the Term Was Coined

By
Mark Graban
-
941
16

TL;DR: This post revisits the origins of lean production through John Krafcik's 1988 article, reflecting on how lean manufacturing began as an integrated management system rooted in culture, leadership, and respect for people–and why those foundations still matter more than tools today.

Triumph of the lean production system image

Where the Term “Lean Production” Came From

Executive takeaway: Lean began as a leadership and culture system–not a toolkit–and organizations that miss that distinction repeat the same mistakes 25 years later.

People often ask me where the term “Lean” comes from. It's not an acronym, so it shouldn't be spelled “LEAN” (but it often is). Lean is not a synonym for “lacking or deficient” in resources, as some dictionaries will tell you or as it gets used in news headlines about “surviving the lean economy.”

The 1988 Article That Coined “Lean Production”

The term “lean production” arguably was first used in an MIT Sloan Management Review article by John Krafcik that was published 25 years ago this fall (Fall 1988), titled “Triumph of the Lean Production System” (free pdf via LEI).

In the 1980s, Krafcik worked with Jim Womack in MIT's International Motor Vehicle Program. Since then, his career has spanned senior leadership roles including CEO of Hyundai North America, TrueCar, and most recently Waymo.

I'm told by LEI that Womack and Krafcik are writing an article, with their reflections, that will be published soon at lean.org. For now, you get my humble thoughts as somebody who read it 15 years ago… and again just recently.

Page 1 of triumph of the lean production system

Rediscovering the Original Article

The article was assigned as reading when I was a student at MIT in 1998, but I hadn't returned to it until recently. Click the image at left to read the first page.

The article is now available from the Lean Enterprise Institute (free PDF).

Why does this article still matter? Not because it coined a term, but because it described Lean as a management system rather than a collection of techniques. Krafcik focused on leadership behavior, decision-making, and culture–arguments that remain just as relevant today as organizations struggle with superficial or tool-centric implementations of Lean.

Lean vs. Buffered Production Systems

Krafcik wrote about the origin of the term “lean” in contrast to what might be called the traditional approach – a “buffered” production system.

When I started my career at a GM engine plant in 1995, the plant certainly followed the “buffered” approach. The plant's management philosophy attempted to keep, for example, the engine block machining line running at all costs by storing large (and virtually unlimited) buffers of parts in many locations.

If one machine were down, they would run all of the other machines, building a “buffer” of parts that would be used later. These “buffers” often contained defective parts, which caused problems down the line. It was a never-ending game of production whack-a-mole, constantly offloading and loading buffered parts to and from the line. Ironically, our highly buffered line had exactly one half the productivity of our benchmark Toyota plant. Krafick said this strategy was “a safe bet for a steady, if unexceptional return.”

Krafcik went on to describe a “lean” plant, which had inventory levels that were “kept at an absolute minimum” so that quality problems and downtime occurrences could be “quickly detected and solved.” He said this strategy presented higher risks but had greater potential gains. Many of the “risks,” such as downtime or poor quality, could be “neutralized given an experienced, well-trained workforce, responsive suppliers, and good product designs.”

Today's lean thinkers would recognize the roles of methods like mistake-proofing and Total Productive Maintenance, as well as more collaborative relationships among factories, suppliers, and manufacturing and product development.

In an endnote, Krafcik cites earlier work that used the terms “robust” and “fragile” instead of “buffered” and “lean.” For all of the handwringing that takes place about the negative connotations of the word “lean,” we can count our blessings that the term “fragile” wasn't used. There would be no “Fragile Enterprise Institute,” I'm sure. No bestselling book called The Fragile Startup, either.

Lean as a Coherent, Integrated Management Policy

Some people criticize the “early days” of the Lean movement as focusing too much on tools or for not fully understanding the implications of Toyota's management system. I think people who review this article (or even re-read The Machine That Changed The World) would appreciate how much attention Krafcik paid to Toyota's “production management policies,” as he called them. He didn't write about tools like 5S, kanban systems, or heijunka boxes. He wrote primarily about management, leadership, and culture.

Krafcik's article builds on two years he spent working as an engineer at NUMMI, the GM-Toyota joint venture plant that started operations in 1984. Krafcik experienced the noticeably different management environment of NUMMI, much as I did in 1996 when the GM plant that employed me brought in a new plant manager who was transformed by his experience as an early NUMMI employee.

What were some of these philosophies and management practices? They included:

1) Lean is respect for humanity and continuous improvement

In a Lean environment, Krafcik “Management did not think of workers as replaceable cogs in a great production machine… and gave them the responsibility to continuously improve… Scientific management techniques were not thrown away; they were just performed by different, more appropriate employees” who had a “true grass-roots involved with all aspects of the operation.”

2) Lean is an integrated management and operational system

Krafcik explains, “This system encourages the full development and integration of all existing technology, policies, and human resources in a way that traditional… policies seem to miss.”

3) Lean is about culture change

Krafcik explains how one automotive company that made great improvements on both quality and cost “implemented more and more lean production management policies in its plants, in effect incrementally altering its own corporate culture to better fit the lean model.”

Lean Management Was (and Still Is) the Best Predictor of Success

Krafcik described a “management index” that predicted a plant's productivity far better than its level of automation or national location. The four components of the index that predicted success were:

  1. Levels of teamwork throughout the plant
  2. “Visual control,” as “a proxy for worker span of control” (a Lean plant has more cross-training than a traditional plan)
  3. Unscheduled absentee-ism rates, “an indicator of worker participation and management's expectations”
  4. The amount of space dedicated to repairs, illustrating management's expectations about quality being built in (traditional plants planning and expecting to do a large number of repairs as part of normal daily operations).

Krafcik seemed optimistic that the “lean production management policies” could be adopted in the U.S., as “perhaps the most important competitive weapon in the U.S. industry's arsenal [is] the ability to accept and digest new ideas rapidly,” whereas “Most European plants are saddled with… the not-invented-here syndrome.” Some say healthcare is saddled with that very problem today.

Looking back, what's striking is how closely Krafcik's observations align with what we now describe as psychological safety, systems thinking, and respect for people. Lean was never meant to be fragile or punishing. It was designed to surface problems, develop people, and improve performance through learning. When organizations struggle with Lean today, the issue is rarely that the ideas are outdated–it's that the original intent has been forgotten.

What Has (and Hasn't) Changed 25 Years Later

25 years later, what is your assessment? Has “lean production” triumphed in the auto industry? At the plant level, I would say yes, this seems clear, as GM, Ford, and Chrysler have made great strides in changing their factories' cultures. But what about other manufacturing industries or, more importantly, healthcare?

Why This Still Matters for Lean Leaders Today

I hope you'll check out the article. I think it's really important for the Lean community to understand the roots of the concepts and principles, not just the word “Lean.” As much as people are discovering the importance of culture and management systems, not just tools, the wisdom of a truly Lean approach has always been out there in articles like Krafcik's.

Please scroll down (or click) to post a comment. Connect with me on LinkedIn.
If you’re working to build a culture where people feel safe to speak up, solve problems, and improve every day, I’d be glad to help. Let’s talk about how to strengthen Psychological Safety and Continuous Improvement in your organization.

Get New Posts Sent To You

Select list(s):
Previous articleEiji Toyoda, Credited with Developing TPS and Expanding Toyota into North America, Passes Away at 100
Next articleGuest Post: How Standardized Does a Kaizen Process Need to Be?
Mark Graban
Mark Graban
https://www.markgraban.com
Mark Graban is an internationally-recognized consultant, author, and professional speaker, and podcaster with experience in healthcare, manufacturing, and startups. Mark's latest book is The Mistakes That Make Us: Cultivating a Culture of Learning and Innovation, a recipient of the Shingo Publication Award. He is also the author of Measures of Success: React Less, Lead Better, Improve More, Lean Hospitals and Healthcare Kaizen, and the anthology Practicing Lean, previous Shingo recipients. Mark is also a Senior Advisor to the technology company KaiNexus.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

16 COMMENTS

  14. Mark, thanks much for posting. John Krafcik’s observations remain very relevant. The ongoing challenges that I encounter in work with clients are these: 1) leadership focusing on results rather than the work processes that drive results; 2) a lack of respect for the knowledge, creativity, and intelligence of line workers. The most important teaching of Lean is the absolute importance of a leadership team going to the line and interacting with line workers in ways that demonstrate their clear understanding that line workers, the employees who make the product or deliver the service, are the organization’s most important employees and that they are greatly respected.

Comments are closed.