1. What did you do well in applying specific theories, concepts and tools that aided you in this discussion?
I believe the most significant aspect highlighted through application of theories, concepts and tools in the discussion is in corroborating the Toyota production system (TPS) as an integrated socio-technical system. It is imperative to point out that the discussion emphasizes on the managerial aspect of TPS rather than its innovative side. Even innovation in this context is biased towards management rather than technical or technological. I think what the theories and concepts shed light on, though some factions may not agree, is the redundant nature of TPS. For companies that seek to realize progress in the short-term, TPS may not be the best option as a strategy. This argument is informed by my observation that there was a consensus in the discussion about organizational culture being a unique competitive advantage that is built over a long time. For instance, James (20:44), posited that TPS is difficult to implement and sustain in a fast-paced environment or product segment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Those in the health sector, such as Muhammad and Jamie, concur as they observed that application of certain concepts and tools borrowed from TPS in the health sector have yielded positive, though unsustainable outcomes. For instance, Culig, Kunkle, Frndak et al (2011) posited that use of a model of operational excellence improved daily processes of care because it represents a highly formatted problem solving processes through use of carefully planned teamwork. The findings of the study support the adoption and implementation of different models and tools that operate on the principles of TPS.
The socio-technical aspect of TPS is highlighted in the discussion on the basis of its transferability. Companies have attempted to replicate Toyota’s TPS in vain. From the discussion, I could see that the failure is informed by Toyota’s organizational culture where customers are prioritized, then retailer, and lastly the manufacturer. Nevertheless, employees form a critical cog of the system, almost enjoying autonomy in implementation of their innovations and ideas. The culture is instilled in employees from the onset through an open door communication policy, which fosters experimentation. In my opinion, companies that have unsuccessfully implemented TPS, the most effective and influential system in the automobile industry worldwide, failed to recognize the importance of the human factor to the system.
A number of studies have explored the benefits manufacturing firms obtain from implementation of the system, and human factors predominate in most of these studies. According to Yang and Yang (2013) and Yang, Yeh, and Yang (2012), adopters of TPS tend to emphasize on the technical aspect of the system while neglecting the human factor while implementing the system. This is corroborated in the discussion by observations that some managers seek to advance status quo by offering resistance to change because they fear giving employees power. On this evidence, I argue that the use of theories, concepts, and tools can be employed to comparatively examine application of TPS by Toyota and other companies.
2. What did you understand poorly? Why? Would theory have helped you here? Why or why not? In my understanding, no company underestimates the role of human resources in advancing its organizational objectives, and neglect of the human factors during implementation of TPS (Yang & Yang, 2013; Yang, Yeh, & Yang, 2012) may be limited to a few case studies. However, it is difficult to understand why TPS proves to be a challenge for adopters despite understanding of principles on which the system operates. I have to confess to swim in the same boat with those posing the question, “If Toyota has been so widely studied, why have so few companies have been able to match its success?” Takeuchi (2008) posited that “decoding Toyota DNA does not mean that you can replicate it.” From the discussion, it is evident that adopters of TPS implement specific selected models from the system; and modification of the models is a common phenomenon. I am not conversant with any company that has fully implemented TPS step by step and failed, but similar approaches have been criticized for their unsuitability to different external cultures.
However, theory presented in different literature may provide insights as to why failure in implementing adopted TPS is a common occurrence. According to Takeuchi (2008), the phenomenon can be explained through contradictions that drive Toyota’s success. In my opinion, this argument is plausible. The discussion revealed that Toyota’s humility allows it to venture where others may not dare. David observed that “Toyota success is also found on the lack of fear from missing a lofty goal.” A similar observation is posited by Takeuchi, Osono, and Shimizu (n.d) who observed that Toyota is unfathomable as it does not bear the tale tell signs of a successful company. For instance, Toyota’s TPS placed little emphasis on financial turnover and a similar approach can be observed in its trend to pay the least dividends among competitors of similar stature, in fact much lower than other companies below it in terms of revenue. Such contradictions in Toyota’s operations can be understood through examination of theoretical basis, especially the principles laid down by its founders that emphasize on performance rather than profitability. Toyota willingly takes risks with human and technical aspects of its system, a process that other companies procrastinate to invest resources into.
3. Based on your learning, what will you do differently on identifying the strategic issue for Toyota compared to the one you come up with before coming to the class? The important issue raised by participants in the discussion is whether TPS is able to withstand the fast-paced market demands of the future. Rather than focusing on how Toyota’s system has been successful, it is imperative to project it into the future. An example is offered of Nokia which almost risked becoming obsolete because of neglecting evolution in demands of the market by sticking to what was popular at the time. In my opinion, it is critical to examine the prospects of Toyota facing a similar predicament. William (21:07) summarizes the scenario by observing that “A key factor that will really test how Toyota will function in the future is how they address the growing market for low-cost competitors.”
The concerns are not about the efficiency or effectiveness of TPS, but whether such efficiency and effectiveness will resonate with the new generation of employees and consumers (millennials). The situation is complicated by the flattening of the world, which according to Freidman (2007) is an outcome of ten major forces and three convergences that have collaborated to create a level playing field where small and large firms compete on a global scale as long as they streamline their strategies in respect to market demands and trends. Toyota is likely to face increased competition in the future as competitors’ lean manufacturing bear benefits resulting to low cost products. How the company will respond to maintain its strategic position if such concerns come to pass remains speculative.
4. What specific solutions would you suggest to Toyota given the strategic issue?
At the moment, it is evident that TPS is the gold standard of lean manufacturing. However, the system is founded the principles drawn from the Japanese culture, which may not resonate well with the west. The group-think ideology advanced by TPS may be an outcome of the communist culture of the east in comparison to individualist of the west. While TPS has been a success over time, its role in the new globalized and flattened world may be uncertain. Toyota must reevaluate its organizational culture and streamline it to match the shifts in the industry. Globalization has ushered in an era of cross-cultural projects and Toyota may risk being perceived as stagnant in its managerial strategies though the technical aspect of its TPS where innovation is encouraged through open door communication policy and experimentation remains attractive. According to Spear and Bowen (1999), what really happens inside Toyota remains a mystery, my concerns raised herein may not be necessary after all as the company may be well strategically placed to counter any eventualities that may present challenges to its TPS.
References
Culig, M. H., Kunkle, R. F., Frndak, D. C., Grunden, N., Maher, T. D., & Magovern, G. J. (2011). Improving patient care in cardiac surgery using Toyota production system based methodology. The Annals of thoracic surgery , 91 (2), 394-399.
Friedman, L. T. (2007). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty first century. New York: Picador/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Spear, S., & Bowen, H. K. (1999). Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system. Harvard business review , 77 , 96-108.
Takeuchi, H. (2008). The contradictions that drive Toyota’s success. Strategic Direction , 25 (1).
Takeuchi, H., Osono, E., & Shimizu, N. (n.d). The contradictions that drive Toyota’s success. Harvard Business Review.
Yang, C. C., & Yang, K. J. (2013). An integrated model of the Toyota production system with total quality management and people factors. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries , 23 (5), 450-461.
Yang, C. C., Yeh, T. M., & Yang, K. J. (2012). The implementation of technical practices and human factors of the Toyota production system in different industries. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries , 22 (6), 541-555.
