The Patois: 8-Step Problem-Solving
Patois is the special language or communication that’s common to a particular group.
Having no problems is the biggest problem of all. 1
By asking why five times and answering it each time, we can get to the real root cause of the problem, which is often hidden behind more obvious symptoms …. To tell the truth, the Toyota Production System has been built on the practice and evolution of this scientific approach. 2
The patois is the dialect of the common people of a region, differing in various respects from the standard language of the rest of the country. The language of the Toyota Template differs from the language spoken by today’s typical “lean” initiatives. This patois is a defining characteristic.
After an introduction to the mindset of the culture, the logical next item is learning to speak the language. This language is critical to a lean culture. The language of the Toyota Template is 8-Step problem-solving. At Toyota, this is expressed using the A3. Problems are addressed in this language, whether a formal A3 is done or not. What this means is that the thinking pattern of the 8-Step process is followed for all problems. Over time at Toyota, I learned to view problems in this way, because this is how problems are communicated. When a problem arose, this sequence automatically came to mind. What is the problem? What is the current condition? What’s the goal? Root cause? Countermeasures? How to implement? Follow-up?
Communication among the various departments and groups used this language as well. This is a very important point, because it standardized and required everyone, at every level, to look at problems through the same lens. It greatly reduced opinions. This thinking sequence became our language. This is critical to the success of a lean company in the long term, because you’re developing a problem-solving culture. I cannot stress this point enough.
As I said, Toyota’s 8-Step problem-solving method is the “language of the Toyota Template.” This ability to solve problems is what differentiates Toyota from everyone else. In my experience, this is a key missing ingredient in many lean efforts today. As Ohno said, the Toyota Production System (TPS) was built on this scientific approach. So, why is it uncommon in lean implementations? I don’t have an answer, but I’ve often wondered why there’s little focus on teaching people how to solve problems. Maybe problem-solving is not practiced because of the emphasis on tools. Solutions to problems seem to be some tool. This illustrates one of the pitfalls in problem-solving. Jumping to a countermeasure without doing the analysis is easy to do, especially when very familiar with the process. However, when the process is followed, there’s usually much that’s not known about the problem. What I’ve realized is that when real problem-solving is practiced, the best countermeasures will be found and implemented. As critical as this language is to Toyota, it’s very disappointing to see it rarely used. It’s important to be reminded that Ohno said that TPS is built on the practice and evolution of this scientific approach. 3 3 Let that sink in. The TPS is built on this scientific approach to problem-solving.
During my initial training at the Tsutsumi plant in Toyota City, the question was raised regularly by my trainer, “Do you have an idea to do this better?” This plant had been open since 1964. What could a young man who’d never seen the inside of an automobile plant possibly offer that would be an improvement? The constant emphasis on what I thought required me to give it a try. As a young American, I was thinking a profound, meaningful change, though I had no idea what that might be. My trainer steered me into the weeds. He wanted me to think about small improvements. So, when I came up with a few ideas, my trainer made a much bigger deal of my small contributions than I felt they deserved. He was encouraging.
My training was as a Team Leader in the Body Weld conveyance group. Our group was responsible for delivering 100% of the parts to the line that were used to build the Camry and handling all kanbans that pertained to these deliveries. Most of my training in Japan centered around two processes. The first was delivering boxed parts from outside vendors to the production lines on a timed route. I was put on a tow motor and led by my trainer on his bike to a covered area just outside the Body Weld Dept. Here, trucks came in from suppliers with boxes stacked neatly on wooden pallets. A team member unloaded these stacks with a forklift directly onto the dollies. I’d hitch up to a string of dollies and proceed through the area, delivering parts to the line. When finished, I’d pull my dollies back to the covered area and hitch up to a new set of loaded dollies. After running the route a few times, it dawned on me that the boxes were loaded on the pallets from the outside supplier in the delivery order of the route. This was my first impression of “what was needed, when it was needed, in the amount needed.” The Body Weld supplier, an outside vendor, had loaded the boxes in the precise sequence that the route ran through the plant. Interesting concept.
The second process I learned during my training was to ride a bicycle on a timed route to pick up kanban cards from drop boxes at the processes. I had a basket on my bike that I used to store my take as I meandered through the plant. When I was finished, there were prescribed places to deliver the kanbans. The first helpful thing I noticed was that all the kanban boxes were painted red. This “visual” made the route running easier, because the red color was easy to see. Also, they were mostly located in the same location on the flow racks. This narrowed my sight and made the job more efficient. Visual controls … another interesting concept.
While repeating these tasks daily, I finally came up with a few ideas. My first suggestion was to turn the location signage at each flow rack perpendicular to the production lines instead of parallel. As I drove my routes, the locations were difficult to see, because they weren’t facing me. Turning them perpendicular made the locations easy to see. My second suggestion required a little more thought.
Part of the protective equipment required in the Body Shop was to wear Kevlar gloves with cotton gloves over them. Grasping became a little more difficult, especially the kanban cards. When the cards were laid flat in the small red boxes, they were a little difficult to grasp and pick up. I suggested placing a short length of small rubber hose in each box to prop up the kanbans and prevent them from lying flat in the boxes. For me, this made them easier to pick up. My trainer quickly had both suggestions implemented.
Something else that I became aware of after the fact was that I was going to be paid for my little suggestions. My trainer showed me how to fill out the suggestion form. I still have the original form I completed for the hose idea, complete with a drawing by my trainer. For this input, I was paid 500 yen! (About $4 in 1988. To give some perspective, my starting wage was a little over $10/h.) Not only did Toyota want to know what my ideas might be, but they were going to pay me extra for them too!
Figure 8.1 shows the original suggestion form for my rubber hose idea from my Japan training at the Tsutsumi plant. 4
FIGURE 8.1
Original suggestion for Hose Kaizen from training at the Tsutsumi plant (March, 1988).
One afternoon, near the end of my training time at the Tsutsumi plant, I was met at the conclusion of the boxed parts route by a person I’d not met or even seen previously. He had on a dark suit, a white shirt, and a tie. He bowed and introduced himself, and I did likewise. His translator said he wanted to know about my improvement ideas. After I explained what I’d suggested, he thanked me, bowed again, and was on his way. I don’t recall his name or his role, but I can tell you he was the only person I’d seen in the Body Shop wearing a suit and tie! My thought was that it was an interesting meeting, but I hadn’t yet put it together.
Less than a year after my Japan training, I was promoted to Group Leader. I was to lead the second shift conveyance group, which was launching in April, 1989. Sometime after I went to second shift, I was requested to take a course at the Training Center called “Kaizen Train-the-Trainer.” This course taught me how to lead a kaizen using the Toyota problem-solving process. After completing the course requirements, I was quickly leading week-long kaizens with other group leaders. Honestly, I didn’t know much more than my cohorts. But I found it interesting and fun.
What I didn’t realize at the time was that I’d been given the language of the Toyota culture … 8-Step problem-solving using the A3. (It was called 7-step at this time.) This problem-solving method changed my world view. I began to see every problem in this way, as did everyone else! I began to describe problems with facts and personal observation. I learned how to investigate potential causes. When I left notes for the other shift (we playfully referred to the other shift as the “other we’s”), I left them in this format. I even applied this thinking in my personal life.
Moving from a condo into a house with a large yard required me to mow every week in the summer. During one of my mowings, I ran out of gas. I went to get my gas can to fill up my tank and discovered it was empty too. I had to get in my car and make a trip to the station to fill my gas can. As I was mowing later, I thought about having to stop in the middle and making a trip to the gas station. It had prolonged my mowing time (I over-cycled!). So, I came up with a countermeasure. I bought a second gas can. When I emptied the first can, it was my signal to get more gas. The second can allowed me to continue mowing without making an immediate trip to the station. This additional work-in-process unit of gas allowed me to get gas at my convenience. This eliminated my problem. Later, when I purchased a gas-powered weed eater, I bought one that used the same gas/oil mixture as my mower so that I didn’t need two types of fuel. These are simple examples of how this thinking affected my world view. Let’s briefly go over the 8-Step problem-solving using the A3.
The theme, or title, goes at the top left of the A3. This is what you’re talking about. For example, on-time-delivery (OTD) in shipping. This is easy and should take no time.
The first step in the problem-solving process is to develop a good problem statement. The problem statement defines the scope. It narrows the focus so that it’s clear what is being addressed. Arriving at a concise problem statement employs current observations and facts.
A problem is one of the following:
1.Deviation from the standard. For example, if our standard is 80% OTD, but we don’t achieve it, then we have a problem.
2.The standard is met, but a higher standard is now required/desired. In this case, we consistently achieve 80% OTD, but we want/need to reach a higher goal, say 90%.
3.Performance to a standard is not consistently achieved. Here, we sometimes get our 80%, but many times we don’t.
4.No standard exists.
Here’s an easy way to make a good problem statement. Form the problem statement from the answers to the following questions:
• Who does it affect? Customers
• What does it affect? Revenue
• How much is the effect? Average OTD is 61% over the last 3 months
• Where is it a problem? Shipping
• When is it a problem? Daily
Write these questions down and answer each one. Make a concise statement from the answers. For example, “Daily OTD at shipping has averaged 61% over the last 3 months, negatively affecting customers and revenue.” Again, it’s critical to arrive at a good problem statement that answers these questions, because it focuses the problem-solving efforts.
The second step in the process is to paint a true picture of the current condition. This involves a heavy dose of observation, beginning at the workplace, in relation to your problem statement. Avoid preconceived notions or countermeasures during the investigation. This is sometimes difficult, especially if very familiar with the process. However, preconceived notions about countermeasures will torpedo the problem-solving efforts.
Many times, we think we know what’s going on, or what should be happening, but it’s not the reality at the worksite. You must get all the relevant facts. Talk to the folks doing the work. Watch what they do. This should prompt a lot of “why” questions. Go upstream to see how the product or information is processed and handed off. Take lots of notes, even if unsure of the relevance of the information. There is plenty to understand about the process that is not easily seen through casual observation.
In my view, the number one reason for the failure of a kaizen is the lack of a deep understanding of the current condition. If we don’t have a firm grasp of what’s really happening, we can be led to implement countermeasures that do not address the problem. Improvement can be made anywhere efforts are focused to truly understand the current condition. This is critically important in problem-solving.
The third step in the problem-solving process is to formulate a S.M.A.R.T. goal statement. Many know the acronym, but for those who are unfamiliar, I’ll briefly explain.
S = The goal should be Specific.
M = It should be Measurable.
A = It should be Achievable.
R = It should be Realistic.
T = It should be Time-Targeted.
An easy way I’ve found to make a goal statement is to think this way: Do what, to what, by when.
For example, increase OTD to 80% by 12/6. We then need to step back and determine whether the goal meets the criteria. Is it specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-targeted? One word of caution here. Sometimes the goal is achievable but not realistic. For example, if the goal can be achieved but requires excessive expense, excessive time, or unavailable resources, then it may not be realistic.
After developing a concise, focused problem statement, an accurate and full understanding of the current condition, and a S.M.A.R.T. goal, we next tackle the root cause. Many times, there are several factors in the cause. In other words, many times, there is no one root cause. This is more typical with larger problems, such as our OTD example. This problem could be related to several different factors, such as disorganization at shipping, staffing, lack of heijunka and pull upstream causing timing issues, quality issues, and so on. So, sometimes, instead of going through the 5-Why exercise, the root cause is “several contributing factors,” because it’s true.
However, with problems where there appears to be one root cause, the 5-Why exercise is important. This is often applicable with quality problems. It can also be a hard and frustrating thing to do. Even Ohno said, “it is difficult to do even though it sounds easy.”4
After completing the 5-Why exercise, don’t forget to confirm you have the actual root cause. This is done using the “therefore test.” Begin by repeating the last answer, followed by “therefore,” then the next answer going backward. If it makes sense using the “therefore test,” then you’ve got a well-reasoned root cause. This check will highlight flaws in the reasoning (Figure 8.2).6
FIGURE 8.2
Example of 5-Why using the “therefore test” to check validity.
At this point, we know the current condition and the goal, so the question is what, specifically, should be done to move us from where we are now to where we want to be. In other words, what needs to be done to get to the goal? The next step is to brainstorm countermeasures that address each contributing factor (or the root cause). This is easier and more obvious if a good job has been done on the current condition and the cause analysis. Some of the proposed countermeasures should be tested if possible and if it makes sense. By implementing countermeasures that apply to corresponding problems from the current condition, improvements are made more rapidly. As Ohno said, “For every problem, we must have a specific countermeasure.” 5 5
After determining the countermeasures, copy them into the implementation plan. The implementation plan assigns order, responsibility, and timing to each countermeasure. After putting them into the plan, we must determine the order of implementation. Sometimes, we may want to try one countermeasure and leave everything else “as is” for a control. Other times, we want to implement several of the countermeasures. In this case, we should consider the order of events, because sometimes the order matters. Responsibility belongs to everyone ultimately, but assigning responsibility and a completion date ensures that someone specific is leading each activity, there are expectations, and the plan is visual for everyone.
A caution on implementation. Every effort should be made to mitigate any negative effect of the countermeasure implementation on production. To do this, we must anticipate what could possibly go wrong. Ask some “what if” questions. And if the countermeasures have a negative effect on production, we must anticipate how to unwind what’s been done to restore the original condition. Don’t be afraid to try out the countermeasures, but anticipate what failure might look like, and be ready to react.
After the countermeasures are implemented, we measure the results. This is called the follow-up. The follow-up should be a restatement of the goal statement. Was the goal achieved by the assigned date? If our goal was to increase OTD to 80% by a certain date (from 61%) but we only get to 73%, have we failed? Absolutely not! We’ve increased significantly (almost 20%). However, we’re not yet where we want to be (80%). Now what?
Problem-solving is an iterative process. Start over with the problem-solving from the new current condition. Undoubtedly, some things have changed. The new current condition is not the same as the original condition. Because the current condition has changed, we must observe again and determine what the new current condition looks like now. It’s quite possible that we see other issues that were not visible before. What do the operators have to say now? It could be that we’ve exposed the real cause. Maybe this time we zero in on the specific root cause? For example, it could be that the lack of pulling orders and heijunka are the big issues now. Lots of products are being made, but the timing is off. We may realize that production isn’t “synced up,” as Ohno said.
As changes are made, they must be standardized. This will help you hold on to the gains that have been made. Of course, this is done through standard work. Additionally, after making changes in the process, training may be involved.
The Toyota 8-Step problem-solving method has been used successfully for decades at Toyota. It’s an iterative, logical, rational process to solve problems in all aspects of a business. The Toyota 8-Step problem-solving method is the “language of the Toyota Template.” This is an indispensable condition for a lean culture. Let me give one more example that really illustrated to me, personally, the importance of the emphasis on problem-solving and the major influence on the culture.
At Toyota, we had a suggestion system. Team members and team leaders were encouraged to make suggestions to improve their processes by completing a one-page form, which mirrored 8-Step problem-solving. It was voluntary, but many people participated because of the reward. Toyota paid for these suggestions. The minimum pay-out for a simple suggestion was $10. If the idea had any effect on safety, it was worth $3 more. Many suggestions paid $13. And this was paid for each suggestion.
For example, if someone had the idea to paint a stop sign on the floor at an intersection, then they were paid $13 after implementation. But if they implemented the same idea at 10 intersections, then the pay-out was $130! Additionally, the team member was paid for their time to implement their idea. Sometimes, this meant working overtime. This was a very nice incentive for team members to become involved in problem-solving and continuous improvement activities.
To me, it seemed like the company was just giving money away. Virtually any suggestions, especially obvious and easy ones, were encouraged. I had a conveyance group at the time, and some of my members carried small pads of paper with them and made notes on anything they saw that could be improved. Because they traveled all over the Body Weld department, they saw many areas. As a result, some members would sit in the break room at lunch and write out suggestions on the form and submit them to me. Many times, I was flooded with suggestion forms to check on for approval. Sometimes, I felt guilty about approving suggestions, because it seemed too easy.
But I was wrong. Even though sometimes an idea was implemented in several places, and it seemed so easy, I missed the genius behind the process. By making the process lenient, at least in the first few years, the momentum that was created was incredible. Many team members got involved, even folks who might not normally have been interested. While Toyota later tightened up the criteria (later, one idea that was implemented in multiple locations was paid one time), the fire had been fueled.
Many, many team members had been involved. They’d experienced the willingness of Toyota to listen to their ideas and allow, even encourage and expect, them to improve their process. In my experience, team members were more than willing to make suggestions for improvement, because they understood that Toyota was serious about kaizen and valued their input. After all, the team members are the experts on their respective processes. They see things during their work that aren’t apparent to the leader. These problems would never be addressed if they weren’t encouraged and expected to speak up.
Another aspect of problem-solving in TPS is the Quality Circle (QC). QCs were formed, voluntarily, in many groups. The QC leader was required to take a class to understand how to lead and facilitate the QC. Their report-out tool was the A3. I had several in my groups over the years. As the Group Leader, I was the QC advisor. My role was to assist from the outside: provide general guidance, give them time to meet or work on their problem, and assist with any barriers or resources needed.
During the time that I had the conveyance group, one of my Team Leaders started a QC to address a safety issue related to parts that were shipped over from Japan. At the time, we received “modules” from Japan. These were large boxes of parts, approximately 4′ × 8′, that contained 12–16 part #s in each module with 40 of each part. The module was loaded onto a dolly that was pulled by a tugger on a route. The parts were unloaded at stops along the route, 40 at a time. The QC decided to address a safety issue with the way the parts were placed in the modules, affecting everyone in the group.
They repacked each module and ran them in the new way. There were suggestions and buy-in from both shifts. In doing this, they realized that when they repacked them, they’d created more room in the modules. This led them to increase several module quantities to 45 of each part. When this was done, they realized something else. There would be tremendous savings in shipping costs, because Japan was shipping more parts in each module. The savings came to about $1.2 million per year. They did a great job! The teamwork was excellent, and implementation costs were very low. They basically just changed the way the modules were packed using the same resources. The interesting point here is that what started as an effort to make the delivery of modules safer not only achieved that goal but also resulted in large savings.
Concerning problem-solving, a strong indicator to determine whether a company is serious about a lean culture is how they view and handle problems. Are they highlighted as opportunities for improvement, or are they hidden?
The Patois: The language of the Toyota Template is 8-Step problem-solving.
Culture: A common language is a defining characteristic of a culture. Consistent, repetitive use of the language created the problem-solving culture. Employee participation is an integral component in problem-solving. Focus is on the problem, not the person. Speaking the same language is very important in any culture. The patois is one of the most critical contributors to a lean culture.
1. Ohno, Taiichi. 2006. Toyota-Global.com. Released March, www.toyota-global.com/company/toyota_traditions/quality/mar_apr_2006.html.
2. Ohno, Taiichi. 1988. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, p. 17. New York, NY: Productivity Press.
3. Ohno, Taiichi. 1988. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, p. 17. New York, NY: Productivity Press.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., p. 114.