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

Re: [XP] Lean failure at Toyota

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.