Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Lean failure at Toyota

Expand Messages
  • geoffrey_slinker
    I read the links of all the commentators up to this time. It would be interesting to know more about Toyota s handling of what I term the blame game . My
    Message 1 of 29 , Jan 29, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I read the links of all the commentators up to this time.

      It would be interesting to know more about Toyota's handling of what I term the "blame game".

      My experiences show that the blame game's rules are typically set at high levels and that it "rolls down hill".

      Also, I feel people often apply their blame game rules on external situations, as in this case many are curious to the cause of the failure at Toyota.

      As a side note, I was a die hard GM fan for years and in my opinion they continually produced sub-par vehicles and I just kept buying them, so if I am a typical stupid consumer then brand loyalty will be in Toyota's favor. Those that are loyal to another brand will seize the opportunity and shout, "See, I told you Toyota isn't any better than BRAND X".

      As for Toyota stopping all the lines and at the same time continues to pay their employees, to do nothing, seems a good thing to me. But I also recognize that the ability to do this good is only available to those with financial means to do so. Imagine if this were a new auto manufacturer and this problem hit. This new company wouldn't have the cash reserves to stop the lines and continue to spend.

      Sometimes it is easy to hate a large corporation that takes profits to itself instead of dispersing all of the profits amongst the employees. It is times like these that cause one to pause and think. Toyota couldn't continue to pay unless it had a savings. Toyota couldn't have a savings unless it took profits that could have been used elsewhere like increased employee salaries.

      I think the failure is an accelerator pedal in conjunction with a floor mat. I say we take the pedal and the floor mat out back and shoot them.

      Geoff
    • Charlie Poole
      I heard it reported on NPR. The company (IIRC) was in Indiana with a factory in Canada. So I think the origin of the problem is well known. Charlie
      Message 2 of 29 , Jan 29, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I heard it reported on NPR. The company (IIRC) was in Indiana
        with a factory in Canada. So I think the origin of the problem
        is well known.

        Charlie

        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        > geoffrey_slinker
        > Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 6:38 AM
        > To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [XP] Lean failure at Toyota
        >
        > On article said that Ford used the same pedal in ~1600
        > vehicles produced for China, so I think they know who makes it.
        >
        > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
        > <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hello, Mayank. On Thursday, January 28, 2010, at 5:19:09 PM, you
        > > wrote:
        > >
        > > > They know which part is
        > > > faulty, and who is the supplier.
        > >
        > > What have you seen that says this? I've missed that.
        > >
        > > Ron Jeffries
        > > www.XProgramming.com
        > > www.xprogramming.com/blog
        > > I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way. -- Jessica Rabbit
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
        >
        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        > extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
        >
        > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.comYahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Bill Caputo
        On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Charlie Poole ... I heard something similar on Nightly Business Report last night - they named the supplier (don t remember
        Message 3 of 29 , Jan 29, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Charlie Poole
          <cpoole@...> wrote:
          > I heard it reported on NPR. The company (IIRC) was in Indiana
          > with a factory in Canada. So I think the origin of the problem
          > is well known.

          I heard something similar on Nightly Business Report last night - they
          named the supplier (don't remember who) and had a statement from them,
          that they felt the design problem was Toyota's - but they are working
          with them for a solution. My overall impression was that the
          manufacturer was saving face and used the wrong the materials, while
          Toyota's was lax in reviewing supplier process. Overall, it seemed
          that they were well past identifying the problem, and well into fixing
          it.

          Bill
        • Tim Ottinger
          It might be called a failure in the face of lean, or a failure despite lean. Someone wrote an annoying article a while back in which they complained because XP
          Message 4 of 29 , Jan 31, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            It might be called a failure in the face of lean, or a failure despite lean.

            Someone wrote an annoying article a while back in which they complained because
            XP didn't prevent them from doing one stupid thing or another, XP is
            a failure. I thought it moronic. My razor doesn't keep me from shaving one
            eyebrow off, my car doesn't prevent me from cutting other drivers off, and
            my grocery store doesn't keep me from letting food spoil when I get it home.

            I only read a little on the toyota thing, enough to read that it was (at
            one time) attributed to a supplier with a poor product, in some way that
            the product was not rejected.

            Was the problem that they didn't have sufficient waste and rework? If that
            were so, then it would have been a lean failure.

            Tim Ottinger
            http://agileinaflash.blogspot.com/
            http://agileotter.blogspot.com/
          • Jeff Morgan
            I think what Toyota did here is not a lean failure at all. If fact I think it is exactly in line with what I would say are best practices of lean teams. They
            Message 5 of 29 , Jan 31, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              I think what Toyota did here is not a lean failure at all. If fact I think
              it is exactly
              in line with what I would say are best practices of lean teams. They
              discovered
              there was a quality issue and they immediately stopped the line to address
              it
              as quickly as possible. Once it is addressed they will start the line
              again.

              -Cheezy

              On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Michael KENNY <kenny@...> wrote:

              >
              >
              > Reported
              > e.g.
              >
              > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575028733766904348.html?mod=WSJ_Heard_LeadStory
              > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8484498.stm
              >
              > Michael
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • John Roth
              ... The failure here is that the problem of unwanted and unstoppable acceleration incidents has been going on for years, and, up until recently, they ve been
              Message 6 of 29 , Jan 31, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Jeff Morgan wrote:
                > I think what Toyota did here is not a lean failure at all. If fact I think
                > it is exactly
                > in line with what I would say are best practices of lean teams. They
                > discovered
                > there was a quality issue and they immediately stopped the line to address
                > it
                > as quickly as possible. Once it is addressed they will start the line
                > again.
                >
                > -Cheezy
                >
                The failure here is that the problem of
                unwanted and unstoppable acceleration
                incidents has been going on for years,
                and, up until recently, they've been
                stonewalling it. "It's the floor mats."
                Well, there were lots of documented instances
                where the vehicle didn't --have-- floor mats -
                the owner had taken them out.

                "Stop the line" should have been done years
                ago, but even when they finally got their feet held
                to the fire, they kept cranking out cars with a
                known (but undiagnosed) defect until they found
                the defect. --THEN-- they stopped the line.

                In this case, I'd have to say that the rot
                starts, and stops, at the top.

                John Roth
              • Steven Gordon
                ... None of us are in a position to say whether or not they really should have discovered the problem sooner, thereby stopping the line and addressing the
                Message 7 of 29 , Jan 31, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Jeff Morgan <kuzman@...> wrote:
                  > I think what Toyota did here is not a lean failure at all.  If fact I think
                  > it is exactly
                  > in line with what I would say are best practices of lean teams.  They
                  > discovered
                  > there was a quality issue and they immediately stopped the line to address
                  > it
                  > as quickly as possible.  Once it is addressed they will start the line
                  > again.

                  None of us are in a position to say whether or not they really should
                  have discovered the problem sooner, thereby stopping the line and
                  addressing the problem before the company lost so many millions as a
                  result. There might not be enough feedback on the quality of
                  supplier-built parts. (Does XP explicitly address discovering defects
                  in components we use in building our software?)

                  None of us are in a position to say whether the problem was indeed
                  discovered earlier and somebody grossly misunderestimated the severity
                  of the risk and decided not to stop the line. This scenario would
                  seem a likely one IF this was an American automobile company, given
                  their history of risk management (documented cases of knowingly
                  allowing defects on to the market because paying off lawsuits with
                  confidentiality clauses would be less expensive than fixing the
                  defect) and the current financial pressures. This scenario seems to
                  be inconsistent with Toyota's track record.

                  Even if either of these did occur, would they be a failure of lean or
                  failure to follow lean?

                  SteveG

                  >
                  > -Cheezy
                  >
                  > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Michael KENNY <kenny@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Reported
                  >> e.g.
                  >>
                  >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575028733766904348.html?mod=WSJ_Heard_LeadStory
                  >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8484498.stm
                  >>
                  >> Michael
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming@...
                  >
                  > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
                  >
                  > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.comYahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Curtis Cooley
                  From a pure rhetorical and logical view, all this incident proves is that if the premise that Toyota followed lean and the TPS is true, that lean and or TPS
                  Message 8 of 29 , Jan 31, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    From a pure rhetorical and logical view, all this incident 'proves' is that
                    if the premise that Toyota followed lean and the TPS is true, that lean and
                    or TPS will not prevent all defects from getting to the customer. It is
                    simply a counter example to anyone claiming it can.

                    I think the pro and con lean pundits know this, and as usual fail to follow
                    the logical outcome but instead make grand all sweeping statements that the
                    premise does not prove.

                    I'm not an expert on fallacies, but I'm sure a rhetoric professor could use
                    the press surrounding this incident and the comments from the lean
                    proponents and detractors as an exercise in rooting them out.

                    For example, non sequitur:

                    Toyota is a lean manufacturer
                    Toyota allowed a defective part to reach the customer
                    Lean doesn't work

                    --
                    Curtis Cooley
                    curtis.cooley@...
                    home:http://curtiscooley.com
                    blog:http://ponderingobjectorienteddesign.blogspot.com
                    ===============
                    Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you
                    must be without one, be without the strategy.
                    -- H. Norman Schwarzkopf


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Cory Foy
                    Hi Jeff, ... I agree. It s a PR failure. The frustration from customers isn t that the faulty part came out. Or that Toyota didn t know what it was. It was
                    Message 9 of 29 , Jan 31, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Jeff,

                      Jeff Morgan wrote:
                      > I think what Toyota did here is not a lean failure at all.

                      I agree. It's a PR failure.

                      The frustration from customers isn't that the faulty part came out. Or
                      that Toyota didn't know what it was. It was that Toyota acted
                      differently and seemed to withhold information and not be open and
                      honest about what was going on.

                      To the general consumer, stopping the line is meaningless when you can't
                      put your kids in your car because you are afraid it won't stop.
                      Especially when you've just paid $30 or $40k for said car. And
                      double-especially when the dealer can't give you any timeline as to what
                      they can do, what they are doing, or what will be done.

                      I'd wager that had Toyota came out and said, "We've had reports of a
                      problem. We are doing step a and b and halting sales until we figure
                      this out. For people who have an affected vehicle, we sincerely
                      apologize and promise to not only make it right, but make sure it
                      doesn't happy again", and then went on to meet that obligation and
                      perhaps a small gift on top of it - free oil changes, or whatever, that
                      people would have been a whole lot less upset.

                      We own Toyota vehicles, and what hurt me wasn't the part. It was their
                      response. And that's a failure we can all learn from.

                      --
                      Cory Foy
                      http://www.coryfoy.com
                      http://twitter.com/cory_foy
                    • Michael KENNY
                      ... or Toyota is/was successful Toyota has a Lean production system Lean equals success Michael
                      Message 10 of 29 , Feb 1, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:58:31 -0800, you wrote:

                        >I'm not an expert on fallacies, but I'm sure a rhetoric professor could use
                        >the press surrounding this incident and the comments from the lean
                        >proponents and detractors as an exercise in rooting them out.

                        >For example, non sequitur:
                        >
                        >Toyota is a lean manufacturer
                        >Toyota allowed a defective part to reach the customer
                        >Lean doesn't work
                        or
                        Toyota is/was successful
                        Toyota has a Lean production system
                        Lean equals success

                        Michael
                      • Michael KENNY
                        The reactions here sofar find no fault with Lean; either Toyota forgot about Lean, or the whole incident and especially its handling is an example of Lean.
                        Message 11 of 29 , Feb 1, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The reactions here sofar find no fault with Lean; either Toyota forgot
                          about Lean, or the whole incident and especially its handling is an
                          example of Lean.

                          When agile projects fail, you often hear it wasn't really agile, or
                          not agile enough.

                          Is there a blindspot here, are agile and Lean always beyond doubt?

                          What evidence would there need to be for a team to say Lean or agile
                          doesn't work for us?

                          Michael
                        • Tim Ottinger
                          I think the problem is that success is rare, mysterious (having no reliable recipe), and probably multicausal. Failure is not the result of wrongdoing
                          Message 12 of 29 , Feb 1, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I think the problem is that success is rare, mysterious (having no reliable recipe), and probably multicausal. Failure is not the result of wrongdoing necessarily, but is the natural state. Most businesses fail, most fail before becoming well-known, and many fail after being fabulously successful. We forget that failure is the default, and success is the outlier that needs explaining. Indeed, all our work in any field of endeavor is not really competing against others so much as competing against the default.

                            As such, it is hard to consider any process to be necessarily "the" cause for any success or any failure. Waterfall has well-known failure modes due to increasing cost of change v. increasing irrelevance of requirements & design. Agile combats that.American-style manufacturing and pre-lean Asian style manufacturing has known failure modes that are addressed by Lean. So when we use XP and/or Lean methods, we should fail differently. Nonetheless, failure unrelentingly stalks us all.

                            That we have as many successes as we have is astounding, but cannot be necessarily attributed merely to lean or agile methods, nor merely to leadership, nor merely to craftsmanship.

                            Tim Ottinger
                            http://agileinaflash.blogspot.com/
                            http://agileotter.blogspot.com/
                          • Victor
                            ... I would say this is not a good question. Perfection does not exist and absolutes are not conducive to good results. A better question might be: Is there
                            Message 13 of 29 , Feb 1, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > What evidence would there need to be for a team to say Lean or agile
                              > doesn't work for us?

                              I would say this is not a good question. Perfection does not exist and
                              absolutes are not conducive to good results.

                              A better question might be: Is there a better methodology?

                              Victor

                              ===========================

                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Michael KENNY" <kenny@...>
                              To: <extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 8:42 AM
                              Subject: Re: [XP] Lean failure at Toyota


                              > The reactions here sofar find no fault with Lean; either Toyota forgot
                              > about Lean, or the whole incident and especially its handling is an
                              > example of Lean.
                              >
                              > When agile projects fail, you often hear it wasn't really agile, or
                              > not agile enough.
                              >
                              > Is there a blindspot here, are agile and Lean always beyond doubt?
                              >
                              > What evidence would there need to be for a team to say Lean or agile
                              > doesn't work for us?
                              >
                              > Michael
                              >
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------
                              >
                              > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
                              >
                              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                              > extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
                              >
                              > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.comYahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • Ron Jeffries
                              Hello, Victor. On Monday, February 1, 2010, at 9:08:31 AM, you ... When you say better methodology , what do you mean? For that matter, when you say better
                              Message 14 of 29 , Feb 1, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hello, Victor. On Monday, February 1, 2010, at 9:08:31 AM, you
                                wrote:

                                > A better question might be: Is there a better methodology?

                                When you say "better methodology", what do you mean?

                                For that matter, when you say "better question", what do you mean?

                                Ron Jeffries
                                www.XProgramming.com
                                www.xprogramming.com/blog
                                Sorry about your cow ... I didn't know she was sacred.
                              • Tim Ottinger
                                ... Sure. If it had a failure mode that agile methods should prevent, then it probably wasn t agile enough. If it was in a way that an agile method does not
                                Message 15 of 29 , Feb 1, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > When agile projects fail, you often hear it wasn't really agile, or
                                  > not agile enough.

                                  Sure. If it had a failure mode that agile methods should prevent,
                                  then it probably wasn't agile enough. If it was in a way that an
                                  agile method does not address then it isn't a failure of Agile,
                                  but from some other cause.

                                  >
                                  > Is there a blindspot here, are agile and Lean always beyond doubt?

                                  There is always room for something better, if we can find something
                                  better. Before agile, we all tried different ways, and changed when
                                  agile methods came along. Expect the same for whatever is next, but
                                  not when people resurrect the old waterfall ways as an "improvement"
                                  over agile, because we've been there.

                                  > What evidence would there need to be for a team to say Lean or agile
                                  > doesn't work for us?

                                  That they cannot implement agile in their context after giving it a
                                  fair shot and using competent coaches. If you can't implement it,
                                  it doesn't work for you.

                                  Otherwise, we need to find failure modes that consistently arise
                                  because of the use of agile methods. Are certain failures in
                                  certain contexts agile-caused? We don't know that they are. So far,
                                  we see those that are not agile-prevented -- and failure is multi-
                                  causal.
                                • Bill Caputo
                                  ... What evidence would say they do? IMO, its the wrong question. The issue for those of us who think a lot about software process and how to be successful at
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Feb 1, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Michael KENNY <kenny@...> wrote:
                                    > What evidence would there need to be for a team to say Lean or agile
                                    > doesn't work for us?

                                    What evidence would say they do? IMO, its the wrong question. The
                                    issue for those of us who think a lot about software process and how
                                    to be successful at delivering software, and so forth is more
                                    fundamental. Tim's got the right idea: Success is rare. More
                                    specifically, success is a number between 0 and 100 and for most
                                    endeavors just being slightly above the norm will result in huge
                                    gains.

                                    Kent's been blogging a good bit about poker and how its shaping his
                                    thinking. I've been playing poker very actively this past year as
                                    well, and one thing its taught me is that binary notions of win/lose,
                                    pass/fail, success/fail are fine in chess, math and other precise
                                    activities (like coding) where complete information is possible (in a
                                    narrow context) but most activities live in contexts that require a
                                    probabilistic definition of success and so a strategy that increases
                                    one's chances to a positive expectation is successful, improvement is
                                    looking for ways to improve a point or two and no strategy will get
                                    you to 100% or even close, the vast majority won't get to 50%.

                                    We keep making the mistake that a methodology (a practice, a value, a
                                    language, a book, a tool, etc) is going to provide, or be the basis
                                    for, or an element of a formula that makes success a certainty, and so
                                    when we see a failure it must be because the item in question was
                                    misused or abandoned. Lean isn't a formula for success any more than
                                    Agile was; both might help improve EV by some number of points (at
                                    best) assuming the other factors in a given context don't dwarf their
                                    effects (something not at all clear IMHO).

                                    As to the fallacy? Its in the assumption that one can be doing
                                    lean/agile/tdd perfectly and not still fail. Code and mechanical
                                    engineering might be closer to Math and Physics, but software delivery
                                    (and manufacturing cars) are more like Biology or Economics.

                                    Best,
                                    Bill
                                  • Ron Jeffries
                                    Hello, Bill. On Monday, February 1, 2010, at 9:29:10 AM, you ... Yes. Perfection is not given to us. We cannot do anything complex perfectly (nor, probably,
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Feb 1, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hello, Bill. On Monday, February 1, 2010, at 9:29:10 AM, you
                                      wrote:

                                      > As to the fallacy? Its in the assumption that one can be doing
                                      > lean/agile/tdd perfectly and not still fail. Code and mechanical
                                      > engineering might be closer to Math and Physics, but software delivery
                                      > (and manufacturing cars) are more like Biology or Economics.

                                      Yes. Perfection is not given to us. We cannot do anything complex
                                      perfectly (nor, probably, even anything simple). If we did by chance
                                      do it perfectly, we could still fail, because the process itself
                                      will always be imperfect.

                                      Ron Jeffries
                                      www.XProgramming.com
                                      www.xprogramming.com/blog
                                      I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide whether it's true for you.
                                    • Steven Gordon
                                      On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Bill Caputo ... This rings very true. Rate of success is not the right measure; rate of return is. For example, if we could
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Feb 1, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Bill Caputo
                                        <list-subscriber@...> wrote:
                                        > [....]
                                        >
                                        > Lean isn't a formula for success any more than
                                        > Agile was; both might help improve EV by some number of points (at
                                        > best) assuming the other factors in a given context don't dwarf their
                                        > effects (something not at all clear IMHO).

                                        This rings very true. Rate of success is not the right measure; rate
                                        of return is.

                                        For example, if we could trade failing 20% more often with having our
                                        failures cost 50% less and our successes return us 50% more value, we
                                        should take that exchange. It is harder to manage and requires more
                                        touchy go/no-go decisions, but we can expect our portfolio of projects
                                        to become much more profitable over time.

                                        Poker is a game of imperfect information, but it is finite, so we can
                                        calculate percentages a priori. Unfortunately, business is too
                                        dynamic to even do that. At best, we can analyse past situations and
                                        infer how different strategies would have performed. Even then, we
                                        can only guess at how different strategies would have affected reality
                                        (what we put on the market and when we put it on the market changes
                                        the market).

                                        SteveG

                                        >
                                        > Bill
                                      • Ron Jeffries
                                        Hello, Steven. On Monday, February 1, 2010, at 10:09:50 AM, you ... Yes. Often, our post-hoc analyses of what we should have done assume that everything
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Feb 1, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hello, Steven. On Monday, February 1, 2010, at 10:09:50 AM, you
                                          wrote:

                                          > Poker is a game of imperfect information, but it is finite, so we can
                                          > calculate percentages a priori. Unfortunately, business is too
                                          > dynamic to even do that. At best, we can analyse past situations and
                                          > infer how different strategies would have performed. Even then, we
                                          > can only guess at how different strategies would have affected reality
                                          > (what we put on the market and when we put it on the market changes
                                          > the market).

                                          Yes. Often, our post-hoc analyses of "what we should have done"
                                          assume that everything would have stayed fixed except for correcting
                                          the "Big Mistake", and we then assume that we can predict the
                                          consequences of that change.

                                          Every time-travel story in Science Fiction reminds us that even tiny
                                          changes have massive and unpredictable results. Butterfly effect.

                                          Ron Jeffries
                                          www.XProgramming.com
                                          www.xprogramming.com/blog
                                          We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
                                          -- Albert Einstein
                                        • Ilja Preuß
                                          And even if the process was perfect, and we could follow it perfectly, we still would fail. Because no process could possibly predict in advance whether a
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Feb 1, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            And even if the process was perfect, and we could follow it perfectly,
                                            we still would fail. Because no process could possibly predict in
                                            advance whether a project even has the chance of being successful. In
                                            that case, the process shouldn't be assessed by whether you fail, but
                                            by how you fail.

                                            Cheers, Ilja

                                            2010/2/1 Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>:
                                            > Hello, Bill.  On Monday, February 1, 2010, at 9:29:10 AM, you
                                            > wrote:
                                            >
                                            >> As to the fallacy? Its in the assumption that one can be doing
                                            >> lean/agile/tdd perfectly and not still fail. Code and mechanical
                                            >> engineering might be closer to Math and Physics, but software delivery
                                            >> (and manufacturing cars) are more like Biology or Economics.
                                            >
                                            > Yes. Perfection is not given to us. We cannot do anything complex
                                            > perfectly (nor, probably, even anything simple). If we did by chance
                                            > do it perfectly, we could still fail, because the process itself
                                            > will always be imperfect.
                                            >
                                            > Ron Jeffries
                                            > www.XProgramming.com
                                            > www.xprogramming.com/blog
                                            > I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide whether it's true for you.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ------------------------------------
                                            >
                                            > To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming@...
                                            >
                                            > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
                                            >
                                            > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.comYahoo! Groups Links
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                          • Jay Conne
                                            Ron as usual gets to the heart of the matter. For that matter, when you say better question , what do you mean? My deep interest is in epistemology at a
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Feb 2, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Ron as usual gets to the heart of the matter.
                                              "For that matter, when you say "better question", what do you mean?"

                                              My deep interest is in epistemology at a practical level.
                                              From that follows attention to what I mean by all the terms I use in
                                              a serious conversation.

                                              If Lean and Agile are umbrella terms for ways if thinking that also
                                              include some recommended practices...
                                              Then, if the way of thinking is essentially about not kidding one's
                                              self about the facts of the matter...
                                              And that includes honesty about what we know and don't know about the topic...
                                              And knowing refers to 'out there' as well as 'in here' (our knowledge)...
                                              Isn't it simply that a failure like Toyota's handling of the
                                              accelerator problem id a failure of application?

                                              In a subsequent post, Ron writes: "Yes. Perfection is not given to us. ..."
                                              I see a red flag whenever I see or hear the words 'perfect' or 'perfection'.
                                              What's the problem? It's the omniscience fallacy.
                                              The very term 'omniscience' used in the general sense (AKA the
                                              philosophical sense)
                                              is a contradiction in terms. By getting people to buy into a
                                              contradiction in terms as
                                              substantiative, people get manipulated - the contexts identification
                                              is left to the reader :-).
                                              (If interested I can go into to detail on this - just ask yourself...
                                              if you asked someone how tall there are and they answered 'all tall'
                                              - what would that mean?)

                                              So I see no failure of Lean nor any possibility of perfection in this
                                              whole context.
                                              The failure is specific failure to attend to principles and practices
                                              that are well known.
                                              Time to inspect and adapt.
                                              The good news for Toyota is that they know the principles,
                                              so they can correct more quickly than those who have yet to learn
                                              those principles.

                                              Jay Conne
                                              www.jconne.com


                                              =============================================
                                              Jay Conne Consulting -- Demystification of Technology
                                              Agile Project Management Leadership
                                              Lean/Agile Coach, Trainer & ScrumMaster-Practicing
                                              617-776-0339 http://www.jconne.com/
                                              M: 617-470-5038 Jay@...
                                              =============================================

                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.