Its Stuart here from People Centred Excellence,
On a recent Lean Academy I was delivering, delegates had been reading the excellent Learning to lead at Toyota, a Harvard Business Review article from 2004, written by Steven J Spear.
A Leader in the Finance team then went on to ask this fantastic question; ‘So isn’t Toyota’s scientific method just PDCA ? she asked.
Now, rather than just say ‘Yes it is’ or ‘No, its different’, I wanted to give a much more reasoned response, so I took away the task of finding out for myself and sharing my research with her.
This is a short summary of what I discovered.
Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) and Toyota’s problem-solving method, often associated with the Toyota Production System (TPS), share similarities but also have distinct characteristics. Both approaches share a commitment to systematic inquiry, empirical evidence, and continuous learning and improvement.
I’ll endeavour to explain.
The origins of both PDCA and the Scientific Method I believe, are as follows, The PDCA cycle was popularised by quality management experts, such as W. Edwards Deming, and has been widely adopted in quality management and continuous improvement practice since the1950’s. Toyota’s Scientific Method is rooted in the practices and philosophy of the Toyota Production System (TPS), developed by Toyota and the teachings of Toyoda, Ohno, Shingo and others.
While PDCA is not identical to the scientific method, it shares several similarities and is often considered a practical application of scientific thinking in business and manufacturing contexts.
Here’s how I believe PDCA relates to the Scientific Method:
PDCA
Plan (or Problem Identification):
In PDCA, the “Plan” phase involves identifying the problem or opportunity for improvement, setting objectives, and developing a plan to address the issue.
This phase is comparable to the initial steps of the scientific method, where observation and problem identification occur.
Do (or Hypothesis Testing):
In the “Do” phase, the plan developed in the previous step is implemented. This involves executing the planned changes on a small scale or conducting experiments to test potential solutions.
This phase corresponds to the experimentation stage of the scientific method, where hypotheses are tested through controlled experiments or observations.
Check (or Data Collection and Analysis):
The “Check” phase involves collecting data and analysing results to evaluate the effectiveness of the changes implemented during the “Do” phase.
This phase mirrors the data collection and analysis steps of the scientific method, where empirical evidence is gathered and examined to assess the validity of hypotheses.
Act (or Conclusion and Implementation):
In the “Act” phase, based on the results of the data analysis, conclusions are drawn, and appropriate actions are taken. This may involve refining the initial plan, scaling up successful changes, or implementing further improvements.
This phase shares similarities with the conclusion and decision-making steps of the scientific method, where findings are interpreted, and implications are drawn for future action.
Toyota’s Scientific Method
Identify Problems: TPS places a strong emphasis on identifying problems at the source. The practice of Genchi Gembutsu or Go-Look-See being the key.
This aligns with the initial step of observation in the scientific method, where phenomena are noticed and identified.
Root Cause Analysis:
Once a problem is identified, Toyota employs root cause analysis techniques, such as the “5 Whys” method, to determine the underlying reasons for the issue. This parallels the process of hypothesis formulation in the scientific method, where potential explanations are proposed
Experimentation:
Toyota encourages experimentation to find solutions to problems. This involves testing hypotheses and potential solutions in a controlled manner, similar to the experimentation phase in the scientific method.
Standardisation:
Once effective solutions are identified through experimentation, Toyota emphasises the importance of standardising processes to ensure consistency and reliability. This corresponds to the idea of reproducibility and consistency of results in the scientific method
Continuous Improvement:
Toyota’s problem-solving approach is iterative, with a continuous cycle of identifying problems, experimenting with solutions, and standardising successful practices. This mirrors the iterative nature of scientific inquiry, where new knowledge leads to further experimentation and refinement of understanding.
Respect for People:
Central to Toyota’s problem-solving approach is a respect for people. Recognising the importance of engaging and empowering employees in the problem-solving process. This aligns with the collaborative and inclusive nature of scientific inquiry.
So in summary, here’s my thoughts.
While PDCA and the scientific method are not identical, although there will be those that would argue they are one and the same, they both emphasise a systematic approach to problem-solving, experimentation, continuous learning, and improvement.
PDCA provides a structured framework for applying scientific thinking to problems in all business settings, helping organisations achieve better results through evidence-based decision-making and iterative improvement. Toyota’s scientific method is a developed way of thinking as opposed to a specific ‘tool’, which places emphasis on the importance of iterative learning, experimentation, and continuous improvement to drive innovation and improvement in its processes.
If you want to know more about how People Centred Excellence can help your business improve its Problem Solving Capabilities, using either of the methods discussed here, please get in touch with us at www.peoplecenteredexcellence.co.uk
