How is lean a strategy?
Michael Ballé
Author, 5 times winner Shingo Prize Award, Editorial Board Member of Planet-Lean, co-founder Lean Sensei Partners, Co-Founder Institut Lean France
Lean is a full business strategy. But first, a disclaimer: to explain how lean is a specific business strategy, I need to get into a debate about strategy and I want to make perfectly clear I don’t believe military thinking applies to business. Still, the military have been thinking about strategy more than most, so we can listen to what they have to say – understanding doesn’t mean agreeing.
There is an age-old debate in military strategic thinking about two approaches to strategy.
One is the planning-and-execution approach. We consider we have the information we need to make elaborate plans and then we invest in tightly controlled processes to make sure these plans are executed to the letter. The secret to succeeding with this type of strategy is having 1/ a visionary leader who gets it right in defining goals and plans and 2/ disciplined troops who follow orders impersonally and to the letter without room for personal interpretation. This is what most mainstream business people think of when they think “strategy.”
The second one is the command intent and initiative approach. We consider that plans are necessary and well and good, but no one knows for sure what really happens on the ground and success lies in having a cadre of officers who deeply understand 1/ what the game is, 2/ how it is played and 3/ can interpret orders and instructions according to what they see in the field and can lead people under their command to follow their initiatives.
This is not a new debate. Military thinkers were discussing the pros and cons of both approaches throughout the nineteenth century in the wake of Napoleon’s victories and, thankfully, final defeat. The plan-and-execute approach is quite easy to understand because, since it was spelled out by Max Weber, one of the most brilliant sociologists of all time, it has become the basis for all our organizations: hierarchies, rules, functional chain-of-command, standardized processes and control mechanisms to make sure the orders are well relayed and applied.
The command intent and initiative approach is less known. It was born out of the acknowledgement that, in real life, first you never know exactly what is going on, second people have all different opinions about both what is going on and what they should do about it and thirdly, in context some simple things become incredibly difficult (such as, say, driving when it starts snowing) and some complex things can suddenly get done easily if you get lucky.
As a result, a winning strategy is one that 1/ clarifies the intent, 2/ gives a clear way to understand this intent in the confusion of the field and the fog of war, and 3/ practices certain key moves that will be essential in any contact with the enemy. For instance, in XIXth century terms, with no fast communication, winning a battle is essentially about 1/ overwhelming force, so 2/ you teach officers to move towards the sound of cannons and 3/ you train troops to move fast and reload guns quickly.
It doesn’t mean there is no planning or plans – it means that plans and orders are legitimately interpreted by officers in the field without fear of being reprimanded for it, and that the obsession is with constant training at key skills and search for improvement (Wellington, for instance, was obsessed with the weight of the packs soldiers carried related to the distance they could march, and with inventing more accurate guns that could be reloaded faster.)
Present time illustrations of the command intent and initiative approach to strategy can be found in David Marquet’s fantastic book about his experience as a submarine captain (Turn The Ship Around) and in General McChrystal’s memoir about his experience with insurgency in the middle east, Team of Teams. Both hands-on senior commanders realized that the traditional chain-of-command, even with the latest technological gadgets could never be fast enough to respond to the speed and messiness of modern, digital battlefields. You need officers who know what they’re doing, take initiative and trust each other beyond functional barriers.
In business, the common sense interpretation of strategy has long been that of Goals-Plan-Execute-Control. In a seminal article, Crafting Strategy, Henry Mintzberg showed as far back as 1988 the absurdity of making five years plans when no one could predict what would happen next month, and argued for a “crafting” of strategy by looking at strategy as an inductive, emergent process, whereas planning distorts reality with wishful thinking and political games. But although since the 1990s, classical strategy has fallen into disrepute because of all its visible failures, the common sense approach has remained that strategies fail because leaders make the wrong strategic calculation, not because there is something deeply wrong with our understanding of strategy in the first place.
Lean is fully a command intent and initiative strategy. Toyota pioneered all the essential parts and, evidently, has massively benefited from it. We can see:
1. Strategic intent: in lean, the game is defined “one time customer, lifelong customer” – in order to never lose a customer you have to be very serious in solving all of their problems (a strategic intent that has since been adopted spectacularly by Jeff Bezos at Amazon), in Toyota’s case, mobility problems, and expanding your range of products of services to still cater to your customers as their own needs change or diversify.
2. Command intent: improve quality, reduce lead-time. As with “go towards the sound of guns firing,” the simple instruction to improve quality and reduce lead-time can help you orient in any situation. There is no business context in which you can’t get started by solving customer complaints and reducing lead-time from order to making the product or delivering the service.
3. Autonomous problem solving: lean has a unique set of techniques to visualize processes and abnormalities, so that everyone everywhere all the time can take responsibility for concrete problems and learn to solve them, not so much to solve every possible problem that can occur – but to develop every employees’ ability in solving problems autonomously.
4. Continuous improvement leading to innovation: this problem solving capability is then harnessed to continuously improve processes through kaizen, and to look for opportunities for breakthrough innovation from the kaizen ideas flowing from the shop floor (as well as using kaizen to familiarize yourself with new technologies).
This is a full business strategy which leads you to explore and face your challenges in a fast changing uncertain environment, to train every person to take initiative and respond more flexibly and smartly to day-to-day problem and to transform your chain-of-command into a chain-of-help to sustain engagement and involvement through teamwork and respect, in order to harness the talents and passion of everyone looking for a better way.
Mental models are terribly sticky – in science, it is said that science only progresses one funeral at a time – and changing one’s mind is never easy. Not surprisingly, many people have chosen to interpret lean in the traditional goals-plans-execution way, as a tool box that helps to execute without even more standards (misinterpreting what “standards” mean in lean) more detailed execution and more controlling management.
To see lean for what the people who have succeeded at lean claim it to be – a full business strategy – one must first question one’s understanding of “strategy” itself.
In a VUCA world, clearly the command intent and initiative approach to strategy is more effective, and this is not a new idea – it has been part of the debate since strategy first started being studied. Yet, this more organic approach to strategy flies in the face of how our organizations are built, with their functional silos, separation between experts and people doing the work, and rigid command and reporting systems, where following processes is more important than responding to customers’ requests.
By highlighting the strategic aspect of lean, the opportunity is not just to succeed with lean, but also to open minds to a completely different approach to an uncertain world, based on learning to recognize challenges, to study one’s own reactions and constantly seek a better way to respond and progress. Lean, see as a full business strategy teaches us to think differently about strategy itself.
To find out more about lean as a full business strategy, and the experience of the CEOs who see it as such The Lean Strategy
VP/Practice Director-Business/Technology/TLS Transformation Consulting at ACOREII: A Consortium Of Reengineering Experts
6 年Hi All, Let me begin by stating that it appears the structure and nature of this blog dialogue is very much on par with the structure and nature of the book in question. Both are extremely obfuscated in their representation of facts/details/arguments. And by use of the adjective “obfuscated” (i.e., 1/ to render obscure, unclear, unintelligible, 2/ to bewilder), I’m alluding to the fact that – as happens to be the case with the book – no one has taken the time to establish a meaningful CONTEXT for arguing (either for or against) the claim being made about Lean as a strategy. Instead, it appears that everyone is simply supposed to know/understand what the word “strategy” means and how it applies to any and all business operations. The article’s references to two opposing camps of military thinking is concerned does little to convey the role that strategic planning either needs to or is intended to play in the business arena. When it comes to the role of strategy and the process of strategic planning in today’s business arena two much more appropriate reference points could have been established by citing the works of Michael Porter and Arie de Gues. Both provide well-established and easily understandable mental models/frameworks against which strong comparisons can be made to Toyota’s modus operandi as manifest in the combination of its TPS and Toyota Way. Instead of taking this sort of a well-structured logical approach, there was what comes across as a purely ad hoc attempt at creating some supposedly special connection between strategy, Lean thinking, and relatively recently documented transformations in the traditional military’s command and control modes of operation (i.e., one US Navy related and one US Special Ops related). More specifically, there’s absolutely no evidence of any meaningful attempt to explain how Marquet’s LEADER-LEADER modus operandi came into existence, what its impact was on the performance of the USS Sante Fe and its crew and why it is of any significance; particularly when it comes to the role that the LEADER-LEADER modus operandi can and does play in facilitating/enabling/promoting TRUE LEAN THINKING AND BEHAVING. So, too with Fussell’s description of how McChrystal’s staff leveraged a global Operations and Information (O&I) Forum to coordinate diverse resources – in near real-time – against enemy forces in a dynamic battlefield environment. Why is this of any relevance in the context of strategy, strategic planning and Lean Thinking, (and how so) are questions that deserve some serious contemplation. Why might this be the case? Well, it’s because without any clear context that is capable of making the needed linkages then both this article and the content of the book it points toward come across – from my POV – as suffering from what I like to refer to as the Ragu Spaghetti Saude Syndrome… meaning “IT’S IN THERE!” Instead of making clear, concise, and compelling linkages between the roles that strategy, strategic planning, strategy execution, lean thinking, and operational excellence happen to play in influencing/determining an organization’s near and longer-term competitive viability, the preferred approach seems more akin to layering more and more lipstick on the same-ol, same-ol, FAKE LEAN [HOG] way of thinking and behaving; and doing so by: 1/ promoting the use of lean methods/tools/techniques as something that should go first on the list of strategy-related priorities, 2/ emphasizing the need to – first and foremost – take action on a localized basis before being able to recognize/grasp the bigger [strategic] picture, 3/ introducing a replacement framework for the PDC/SA learning cycle (i.e., the 4F phases), and 4/ repeatedly going over the same lean-based concepts/principles/practices umpteen different times in umpteen different ways. The end result in approaching the claim being made is that it comes across as encompassing everything that has been popularized about lean thinking, lean methods/tools/techniques, problem-solving, learning, strategy, and leadership. Interestingly, with all that’s being addressed, any connection it all might have to the roles of strategy and strategic planning tends to get lost in the fray. One telling example of what I’m referring to can be found somewhat early on in the book (i.e., pages 73-6) where the Toyota Production System (TPS) is referred to in the following myriad of ways: 1. Thinking People System 2. system of a few powerful frames 3. a vast mental scaffolding structure to teach people to think differently 4. a learning method… not an organizational blueprint 5. a superior industrial system with greater discipline of safety and with greater attention to quality 6. a training system to engage workers in detailed problem-solving to deepen their understanding of quality for customers and involve them in kaizen with the team mates. YES… IT’S IN THERE… IT’S RAGU! UNFORTUNATELY, what’s glaringly evident - by virtue of its nearly complete absence - is any reference to TPS from a SYSTEMS THINKING (or better yet, D.S.R.P. THINKING) perspective; and where the notion/concept/practice of LEAN THINKING [AND BEHAVING] actually fit within that overarching perspective... and why that happens to be the case.
Cyber Security Analyst, Engineer, Evangelist and Leader | temporarily former CISSP | C|EH | ITIL | GIAC | (fm) CRISC, CCENT
6 年Hi Michael and thank you for this article. I would add one other factor here which is not really part of "lean". It is "belief". I was giving input into a major project. While I understood the goals, I had no idea of the parts to reach those goals. I still said here is the goal. I asked those thinking about it to take what some would consider a backward perspective. It was to work from the assumption that we can reach the goal and then work back to prove that assumption. It put the burden of proof on the "can't" side. So in essence, "we can reach this goal now we need proof if we can't." The goal was to cut down the lead time of a process at Boeing. I watched as people gave input that started to say we can cut this time or that time. So it made the impossible look possible. I am not certain the outcome but from what I saw the reactions cut the lead time down by one year. At least those who knew and made one of the proposals said it would cut it down by one year.
Studies and observations of current national and international affairs.
6 年In the beginning, Toyota's strategy was survival. Of course company leaders realized that to survive they had to sell more cars and make money from selling more cars. (In strategic planning vernacular we would express these two goals as - Volume Growth and Economic Profit.) Deming came along and preached to the Japanese (Toyota) the importance of quality. That quality would drive Volume Growth and Economic Profitability. So, Quality became a "Critical Success Factor" that supported both strategic goals - Volume Growth and Economic Profitability. Further, Deming stressed to the Japanese the need to control 'Variation' because 'Variation' affected quality. Which, in turn, affected - Volume Growth and Economic Profitability. To control 'Variation' Deming, Juran, and other American consultants taught the Japanese the techniques that companies such as - Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed, Consolidated, Ford, GM, Kaiser, and others used to boost 'Volume' and control 'Variation' during WWII armaments production. The Japanese adopted these techniques and they evolved into Lean. So, I said all of that to say this... Lean is not a strategy. It is a "Critical Success Factor" that works alongside the 'Critical Success Factor' Quality to support the strategic goals of Volume Growth and Economic Profitability.
Continuous Improvement professional. Expertise in Supply Chain, Finance and Administration for increased customer value, employee engagement, operations excellence and financial performance.
6 年Lean is not a strategy, it is the means (the tactics) by which the strategy, more usually some aspect of strategy, is achieved.
Fellow @ Lean Global Network | Research Manager Productivity and Value Chains | Making great products means developing great people
6 年Thank you for this thought provoking post and also for the very interesting and enlightening discussion that has followed it. In the book you have created a understandable jig, or scaffold, (from 4d to 4f) that will make it easier for people to see the shift in mentale model that is needed to view lean as a strategy.