Quality implied in the so-called “House of Lean” image, most obviously in the Jidoka “pillar”. But you’re raising a valid point. Too often Lean implementations underemphasize Jidoka & Quality, and overemphasize the other pillar (JIT).

It’s understandable on some level – JIT seems “cooler” and promises quick payback in finished goods and WIP reduction. But the house, and our improvement activities, become imbalanced. We learn, eventually, that without Jidoka & Quality, you can’t provide the “right part at the right time in the right quantity”.

So what’s the countermeasure? In my view, we need to respect the house metaphor — build a solid foundation of standards and stability (in the Four M’s). Then begin to build the walls (JIT and Jidoka) concurrently.

Recognize that Jidoka and Quality are likely an even bigger challenge that JIT, not least because root causes inevitably lead straight upstream to our product and machine design process.

Here’s a final thought. Jidoka and Quality are even more important in our business processes: marketing, design, engineering, planning & scheduling, and so on.

If you “ship junk” in the factory — everybody can see it. “Hey, look at that big pile of junk!”

But if you ship junk in, say scheduling, very few people can see it. A good drawing/schedule/forecast/test-lab-report looks the same as a bad one.

First thing discussed at morning production meetings, weekly status reviews, mid-year and year-end reviews.

Significant safety incidents including near misses were investigated within 48 hours. Report outs, or “Safety Auctions”, were lead lineside, usually by the group leader and responsible manager. These investigations went far deeper than in any other company I know, with the possible exception of Dupont.

In new model launches, safety and ergonomics, were, again, the first order of business. Once I asked a senior Toyota executive why safety was so important.

He responded, “To buid a good car, the Four M’s [manpower, machines, methods, materials] must be good. Most important is the team member. If you don’t take care of them, you cannot build a good car.”

Simple, I know, but a simplicity born of years of experience.

Has Toyota’s culture shifted so dramatically in the past decade, as to lose sight of safety? I doubt it, and for what it’s worth, expect Toyota to regain its footing not just in safety, but across the board.

Where this gets diluted is that so many companies try it out by dabbling. They don’t set targets, at least not high level ones, because they don’t engage continuous improvement as *the* way they are going to hit those targets.

What follows is that the lean activity happens in the background, while the “traditional” management-by-objectives happens in a separate, parallel universe.

In short, the answer to your question is “Yes, but only if it is done right.”

I found managers who are notably polite are manipulative. People who work for them learn a little while they learn more about survival according to the company’s political values. I know of a manager who kept saying to his sub-ordinate you’re doing a “great” job while in fact these people were under performer and never trusted on important assignment.

Managers who are over polite are normally strive to be politically correct. They consider talented or independent people as source of risk rather than opportunity.

The success of lean from my view is bound by the integrity of leadership in removing blocks in the way of the flow of work. These blocks are there because of bureaucracy and political reasons.

Respect of people is at the heart of Toyota Product Development System. People who feel appreciation and respect are competent and therefore they are secure. They are ready to adapt daily to what to be done to overcome issues and improve performance. They trust their leadership and therefore they know that their good intent actions are acknowledged. They know they might make mistakes and their leadership can understand and even help and counsel.

I worked in process improvement project. In order to meet the TAKT time we had to improve the hand-off between two departments. It was impossible because of many political reasons. Getting the heads of the two departments to sit together to arrive at a half-way was my biggest challenge. What was required is to send mail to the other department so that waiting could be avoided. The employee felt why should he do that, it’s not in his performance measures and may not count at all for his evaluation.