Over the past few weeks we’ve taken Jim Womack to task for not being blunt enough with the situation in Detroit. This is because we have tremendous respect for him, and recognize that he is one of the few people in the lean community with the stature required to get the ear of top business and government officials. We want him to step up and be our leader, and forcefully confront the real issues.
Today he has an article at the top of the opinion section in the Wall Street Journal titled "Why Toyota Won." Like the title, the article is fairly blunt and direct, and begins by thrashing MoTown’s thinking that "the secret must be a killer model to replace the big pickups and SUVs that floated the American firms for 15 years." As he puts it, "it’s not a new car model that’s needed. It’s a new business model… called lean enterprise." He goes on to describe five "fatal weaknesses" with GM and Ford:
- GM and Ford can’t design vehicles that Americans want to pay for. Womack goes into some detail on differences in engineering responsibility and philosophy that helps Toyota get a winning concept to the customer very quickly at low cost.
- GM and Ford are clueless (his words) as to how to work with their suppliers. Again contrasting MoTown with Toyota, he talks about how Toyota works with its suppliers to take out waste and put in quality while U.S. automakers try to crush the bones of their suppliers.
- GM and Ford have miasmic (his word, but I had to check the dictionary!) management cultures. Womack describes the value of the Toyota culture which creates great team players, while Ford and GM "turn competent people into Dilberts".
- GM and Ford cling to their wide range of brands. Toyota has three, BMW has two, but GM has seven and Ford has eight. And they still talk about "brand revitalization" as part of their turnaround strategy.
- GM and Ford still treat customers as strangers engaged in one-time transactions. Womack calls "customer touch" the "final weapon in the Toyota arsenal", which drives a far larger number of repeat customers.
He concludes the article by specifically not spending time on the usual excuses of pension obligations, cranky unions, and "creaky" factories… he calls that situation a basic failure of management. His last couple lines are worth repeating directly:
"There is no mystery about the lean business model. All of the elements are operating in this country every day at Toyota and at many other American companies in a range of industries. What is mysterious is why GM and Ford can’t embrace it. And what is dismaying is how many of their employees are likely to suffer if they don’t."
Mysterious indeed. That is the fundamental failure of GM and Ford management. And it’s good to finally see someone at least partially recognize the human cost of this failure. I’m sure he does not give enough specifics to satisfy my co-blogger Bill, and I would tend to agree, but it was a breath of fresh air to read this article… and realize that a million other business leaders are also reading it. I have very little confidence that it will change things in Detroit, but I hope that some others will sit up and take notice. Perhaps they’ll realize that this thing called lean could help save their own companies, and looking inward to reduce waste provides for far more opportunity than chasing lower labor costs to Mexico, then China, then Malaysia, then…
Thanks for stepping up, Jim. Now tell them exactly what needs to be done. Not that they’ll listen… but a lot of us will.
Joshua Newman says
I’ll listen! I am listening. You guys are turning me into a zealot with this evil, brainwashing method of yours, this… this… logic. But how do I make senior management listen? The two guys between me and senior management are onboard, but are swamped with keeping the place up and running. How do politely go around them and infiltrate the decision making processes of the VPs who call the shots and force my managers to spread the overhead costs on the individual items we make. The only thing holding me back from walking up to the VPs, or hell, the owner/CEO and telling them what’s on my mind is the question of effectiveness. If anyone has any thoughts on the matter, please, let me know.
Jon Miller says
Kevin & Bill:
Serious kudos are in order! You made Dr. Womack reposition himself through your posts. It’s a start. Keep up the fight!
Jon
Preston Sumner says
Joshua, “Those who are willing to give up freedom to obtain security will end up with neither.” I’m not sure who said this, maybe Jefferson. It’s the issue this government faces today. It’s the issue all bureaucracies create. Give up your individual (views, values, goals, personality, etc) for “groupthink” and we will take care of you. This results in Enrons when the leaders are corrupt and GM and Fords when the leaders are blind, incompetent or whatever. It’s tough to be in your position. I don’t know what you have at stake. If the risk of going to the owner/CEO seems too great, ask yourself what you are really risking. Anything you expect from them in terms of security, salary, opportunity will eventually evaporate anyway if they don’t get it.
Good luck.
Wesley Bushby says
Bare me out here. Communication is the most sought after tool. Quality is at the source. Profit is made or lost at the shop floor. And heavy top management adds to overhead monetary loss.
Unfortunately the old model, the old regime, is strong contending that decisions need to be made at the top. They don’t communicate the needs to those who add value, nor train or empower let alone expect those adding value to see and make the necessary changes to eliminate waste and improve quality. The big three have thought management as the machine that drives profits, as apposed to listening to those underneath that can become the stakeholders, if you train and let them.
To be truly lean, or to follow TPS, you need to turn communication upside down. The old way of communication from the top down is wrong if you intend to stay in business. Management needs to set policy, agree on measurements, and fully support those who need to be the ones to create change, employ innovation, eliminate waste, improve quality, and who need to be authorized to pull the andon chord when situations do not fit policy. And this is the important part: Authorize to effect immediate changes to stop waste. Of course by supporting, management also needs to lead by example and become involved on the shop floor too.
Perhaps if someone would pull the andon chord on management we would get their attention! However, most of us, even me in parts of my personal life, prefer to fall back on what we know and where we are comfortable. We need to create positive tension, acknowledging the gap of what it is and what it should be, and expect those who add value to monitor waste to become accountable for results.
But that is the problem. It is easy to set policy. It is very difficult to create cultural and personal change needed because of our comfort zones. Sort of no pain no gain. It is really difficult to give up the feel of position, management power, to someone you don’t know. There is a great lack of trust hesitating management to give authority to those adding value and who need to be the ones authorized to eliminate waste.
Educate, coming to grips with reality as to what is and what should be, and continually improving and empowering needs to be set as policy in order to move profitably forward.