Comments on: Toyota Practical Problem Solving (PPS)—Countermeasures and Implement

By: Christoph Roser

Christoph Roser — Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:07:21 +0000

Hello MWMcLean, just grabbed my copy of the Toyota Way, and indeed on pg 256 are quite similar. Differences are that at Toyota 1) they clearly define a prioritized target, 2) root cause analysis is not only 5 why (which i find suitable mostly for smaller problems) and 3) at the end Toyota shares the ideas with other plants/locations. Either works. Not sure where the difference comes from, maybe Toyota evolved the method since 2004 (when the book was printed) to 2023 (when I got the info directly from Toyota).

Making a sequence with all “C” words (concern, containment…) is interesting, but for me more confusing than the “normal” text. Thanks for sharing!

By: MWMcLean

MWMcLean — Tue, 19 Dec 2023 19:05:38 +0000

Best re-read “The Toyota Way” pp254 and 255 before p256 and also ISO 9001:2015 Clause 10 “Improvement” and 10.1 “NOTE” on for examples of Improvement and where is fits / is the step as in the Toyoya PPS:
“Clarify the Problem
Break Down the Problem
Set a Target
Root-Cause Analysis”

This is true in Toyota as stated above but they use and many others now: use:

“Concern” (The ‘problem’ with supporting evidence and statistical / graphical analysis to clearly define such “Pareto / Juran” being the most common in Toyota – “The Toyota Way” p255)
“Containment” (to protect the customer and other stakeholders impacted by the Problem / Concern)
“Causes (Dr Ishikawa’s 2 types of Basic Causes Analysis for Event Problems and more useful in production, his Type 3 “Process Classification” C&E Diagram – Ishikawa NEVER called his Type A and B Cause Analysis Diagrams the common term of “Fishbone Diagrams”. See his “Guide to QC” ~ 1962 and “Introduction to QC” 1989 books); THEN,
“Containment”
Finally “Corrective Action” (See ISO 9000:2015 “Action” on page 45.)

Of course all such problems and causes should have been identified in the PFMEA and as The Toyota Way Book says on p255 “comparing actual situation to the standard”. Otherewise there is no problem without a Standard.

By: Christoph Roser

Christoph Roser — Tue, 19 Dec 2023 19:01:13 +0000

Hi Steve, PDCA is sometimes defined slightly different, but the source of the above is straight from Toyota. But I have also seen the root cause analysis as part of the “do” section.

As for the 12 steps from NMUK (Nissan Motor UK), my source is from the UK, but from Toyota (TMUK, Deeside), and they teach an 8 step process (1 Clarify the problem; 2 Breakdown the problem; 3 Set a target; 4 Analyse the root cause; 5 Develop countermeasures; 6 See countermeasures through; 7 Monitor the process and results; 8 Standardise successful processes; ) For this post series I found it better to merge step 5 and 6, and hence here you find only 7 steps. The 12 steps seem to be very similar, but a bit finer graded (1. Select theme ; 2. Give reasons ; 3. Set targets ; 4. Plan activity ; 5. Gather data ; 6. Analyse data ; 7. Consider solutions ; 8. Plan trials ; 9. Conduct trials ; 10. Standardise changes ; 11. Review the process ; 12. Further improvement;) Either works. Thanks for the input 🙂

By: Steve Milner

Steve Milner — Tue, 19 Dec 2023 18:50:13 +0000

Interesting! Frankly, I’m out of all this now having retired a few years ago, but what is meant under the PDCA headings seems to vary a lot. Briefly:
P – involved defining the problem and installing temporary c’measures and mapping out the game plan with 5Ws+1H.
D – was gathering & analysing data; considering possible cms and planning trials.
C – was trials & checking
A – was installing new standard, maiuntenbance procedures and process review.
A 12-step PDCA was developed at NMUK as the ‘process’ for kaizen teams, and a similar problem solving process adopted. Further afield, Ford used an 8D process, and there were others. All worked if applied as intended, but understanding and application varied, and if permanent countermeasures were not forthcoming it was usually the process rather than the practitioners that was blamed.
I would say that the number of steps is significant – too few and they become too general and open to (mis)interpretation; too many and people want to take short cuts.

By: Christoph Roser

Christoph Roser — Tue, 19 Dec 2023 16:47:49 +0000

Hello Mario, I think this is a question of wording. At Toyota, improvement almost always starts with a problem to be resolved. This could be for example a defect (clearly a problem), or merely to improve cost (a wider definition of a problem). Generally, for Toyota, a problem is any situation that is not how it should be. The difference to ISO9000 seems to be only wording (although I am neither familiar with nor a fan of ISO 9000)

By: Mário

Mário — Tue, 19 Dec 2023 13:00:39 +0000

Christoph thank you again for one more “very rich” article. I’m not sure if what I’ll said is really correct or not since I didn’t find a definition in the “Lexical Lean” book about the word “Countermeasure”. In my understanding the meaning of “countermeasure” is some action to improve the current status, not exactly “solving” the problem to assure it’ll no more happen again, as the definition for “corrective action” in the ISO9000 standard. In this way the mindset is the continuous improvement, always pursuing the perfection, doing the PDCA runs very quickly and all the time. Is my understanding correct?