Bridging Western management theories

and Japanese management practices:

case of the Toyota Way model
Low Sui Pheng and Gao Shang

Low Sui Pheng is a 1. Introduction

Professor and Gao Shang is
a Research Scholar, both at Much has been written about the Toyota Production System (TPS; Ohno, 1988; Monden,
the Department of Building 1998) and its superiority over the mass production system (Womack et al., 1990). The
School of Design and discussion on the practical basis for the success of TPS can be seen from a sizable literature
Environment, National on lean tools. Because of this practical feature of the TPS that can be applied readily as well
University of Singapore, as the promise of competitive success that appeals to practitioners, Toyota have had drawn
Singapore. remarkable attention from and have served as a vast testing ground for operation
management (OM) research (Taylor and Taylor, 2008) for a long time. However, in
comparison with mass production – a precursor to lean production – that was closely
associated with scientific management and the human relations school over the years, the
theory underpinning lean production however lacks attention. Moreover, the birth of
the Toyota Way model (Liker, 2004), comprising the 14 management principles, arguably the
most holistic model depicting the TPS, serves as a holistic management approach to explain
how the Toyota model of success can be applied in any organization. Presently, when the
enthusiasm for implementing the Toyota Way to various industries is at an all-time high,
further steps to investigate what is the theoretical foundation of the Toyota Way model are
warranted. This case paper sets out to examine if there is a management theory that is in
agreement with the Toyota Way model?

2. From the TPS to the Toyota Way

Toyota is worthy of in-depth study because the company is extremely good at manufacturing.
In 2005, Toyota became the world’s leading auto manufacturer with approximately 15 percent
of the global market share (Morgan and Liker, 2006) and surpassed General Motors (GM) to
be the world’s largest automobile maker in 2008. Objective data, including that provided by
J.D. Powers and Associates[1] as well as Wyman’s (2008) report shows that Toyota led its
competitors in terms of quality, productivity and profitability. It is worth noting that it is
profitability that keeps the business growing. It is on this ground that Toyota, among other
Japanese automobile manufacturers, is leading the global automobile industry. In contrast,
Ford, GM and Chrysler lost US$1,467, US$729 and US$412, respectively, in terms of
per-vehicle profit in the North American vehicle market in 2007 (Wyman, 2008). What makes
Toyota so attractive to so many audiences is its production system, commonly known as the
TPS. There are two outer pillars of the TPS just-in-time (JIT) and Jidoka[2]. JIT manufacturing
Disclaimer. This case is written
solely for educational purposes prescribes the required units needed to produce the required quantities at the required time,
and is not intended to represent wasting neither raw material nor time. Trying to achieve the JIT system led Ohno (1988) and
successful or unsuccessful
managerial decision making. others within Toyota to develop TPS tools such as takt[3] time, continuous flow, pull system,
The author/s may have quick changeover and integrated logistics (Figure 1). Jidoka (also called autonomation)
disguised names; financial and
other recognizable information
means that, in Toyota, machines are equipped with various devices that can detect the
to protect confidentiality. defects and be automatically halted. This offers an opportunity to surface the problems in the

DOI 10.1108/20450621111127395 VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011, pp. 1-20, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2045-0621 j EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES j PAGE 1
 Figure 1 ‘‘4P’’ model of the Toyota Way

u
• Continual organizational learning through Kaizen

uts
en b
Problem • Make decisions slowly by consensus, thoroughly

ig
considering all options, implement rapidly (Nemawashi)

n ch
solving
• Go see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation

Ge
(Continuous
improvement (Genchi Genbutsu)
and learning) • Respect, challenge and help your suppliers

rk
Toyota’s • Respect, develop and chanllenge your people and teams

wo
People and partners

m
terms • Grow leaders who live the philosophy

tea
(Respect challenge

ct+
• Use only reliable, thoroughly tested technology

n
and grow them)

ize
sp e
• Use visual control so no problems are hidden

Ka
Re
• Standardize tasks for continuous improvement
Process • Stop when there is a quality problem (Jidoka)
(Eliminate waste) • Level out the workload (Heijunka)
• Use pull systems to avoid overproduction
• Create process "flow" to surface problems
e
en g

Philosophy • Base management decisions on a long-term

all

(Long-term thinking) philosophy, even at the expense of short-

Ch

term financial goals

Source: Liker (2004)

first place that can be resolved immediately. Moreover, there are various foundational
elements, which include the need for leveled, stable, standardized and visualized processes.
These lean tools as well as quality improvement methods contribute to Toyota’s operational
excellence (Liker, 2004, p. 6). However, gaining a true understanding of the Toyota’s
philosophy requires going beyond TPS and to learn to understand the Toyota Way (Liker,
2004). Based on ‘‘the Toyota Way 2001[4]’’, which comprises of five key elements –
‘‘teamwork’’, ‘‘respect’’, kaizen, ‘‘challenge’’, and genchi genbutsu, Liker (2004) correlated
these five high-level principles with his Toyota Way model (Figure 1) in a pyramidal structure,
which comprises a synopsis of the 14 principles to outline the Toyota Way principles. The
principles are grouped in four broad categories and each category contains relevant
sub-principles.

2.1 Philosophy
Toyota’s first (of 14) foundational management principle is ‘‘bases its decisions on a
long-term philosophy, even at the expense of short-term financial targets’’ (Liker, 2004,
p. 71). The first principle does not define hard action items but focuses on a number of
guiding principles that Toyota firmly believed in. It includes four sub-principles:
1. sense of purpose;
2. long-term perspective;
3. self-reliance and responsibility; and
4. customer focus.
These sub-principles have a very strong influence on the overall philosophy of the
organization and permeate down to influence other principles and tools in other layers of the
Toyota Way model.

2.2. Process
Principles 2-8 of the Toyota Way model are part of the second broad category of ‘‘process’’
(Figure 1), which involve a number of TPS tools for eliminating the waste within the Toyota
production shop floor to achieve a stable production flow (Liker, 2004; Moore, 2007, p. 143;
Liker and Meier, 2006, p. 34). These tools and processes, including one-piece flow, kanban,
pull system, heijunka, andon, visual management among others, are very important and
practical, which were elaborated in detail in Liker and Meier’s (2006) book – The Toyota Way

j j
PAGE 2 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011
Field Book. Arguably, they are the most ‘‘tactical’’ or ‘‘operational’’ aspects of the Toyota Way
to drive out wastes, improve quality and level up the overall performance of Toyota.
Nevertheless, as Liker (2008, p. 87) highlighted, these tools can be far more effectively
implemented when they are supported by a company-wide, long-term management
philosophy (Principle 1). Unfortunately, ‘‘lean’’ has come to mean cost reduction programme
for most of the so-called lean practitioners. Hence, they are still in the stage of putting too
much focus on waste elimination using lean tools but failed to appreciate other equally
important factors that made the TPS or lean works well (Liker, 2004).

2.3. People/partner
This layer of the Toyota Way places respect on people and partners, while challenging and
growing them. The basic tenet of the Toyota Way is that people are the most important assets
in Toyota because they make automobiles (Convis, 2001; Liker, 2004); very few companies
actually behave in a similar way that supports this basic tenet. To carefully examine the
‘‘people/partner’’ layer of the Toyota Way model, three key words within the bracket namely
‘‘respect’’, ‘‘challenge’’, and ‘‘grow them’’ (Figure 1) serve as the guidelines indicating how
Toyota selects, develops, and motivates people to become committed to the goal of building
high-quality products in Toyota. These principles are also in line with core principles from
‘‘the Toyota Way 2001’’.

2.4. Problem solving

The last hierarchy of the pyramid in the Toyota Way model is the problem solving philosophy
using various improvement tools such as genchi genbutsu and kaizen to achieve continuous
improvement. The problem solving mindset supported what have been discussed in the
‘‘process’’ category of the Toyota Way. According to Liker (2004), the problem-solving
methodology is a skill that runs deep and strong at all levels of the organization within Toyota
and across all functions, from manufacturing to purchasing to sales and to the rest of Toyota.
A detailed examination of Toyota Way Principles 12 and 13 led to a few steps summarizing
how the Toyota people solve problems (Liker, 2004, p. 239):
1. Finding out what is really going on, including genchi genbutsu.
2. Understanding underlying causes that explain surface appearance – asking ‘‘why’’ five
times.
3. Broadly considering alternative solutions and developing a detailed rationale for the
preferred solution.
4. Building consensus within the team, including Toyota employees and outside partners.
5. Using efficient communication vehicles to do the above 1-4, preferably on one side of one
sheet of paper.
Moreover, this problem solving methodology also requires a high level of continuous
improvement (Principle 14) which resulted in thousands of little lessons learned. This layer also
embodies the learning cycle of Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) that is used at all levels of Toyota
from project, to the group, to the company, and ultimately across the company (Liker, 2004).
Toyota’s recall troubles in 2010. It would be very dangerous, even for Toyota, to conduct
business that contradicts with the Toyota Way. Since the beginning of 2010, Toyota was
experiencing a serious ‘‘trust crisis’’ in terms of a string of safety problems that happened in
the USA. After Toyota recalled of more than eight million cars and trucks, people have
wondered whether the Jidoka concept is falling apart. Spear (2010) attributed that the rush
to catch up with Ford and GM, coupled with a boom in demand, led Toyota’s leaders to put
sales growth above quality. This meant that new products had to be introduced more quickly,
new plants had to be opened more rapidly, and supply networks had to be expanded more
aggressively. Although this placed pressure on Toyota and its suppliers, this shift also made
it harder for Toyota to control quality. Leggett (2010) concluded that Toyota’s Jidoka concept
must have missed something while Toyota thought it had found the root causes to the
concerns identified years before the recall incident. However, it might not have completed

j j
VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES PAGE 3
 a proper failure mode and effects analysis. Hence, the recall incident requires Toyota to
return to the basics of the TPS. For example, Mr Akio Toyoda, the current president of Toyota,
announced that a new Global Quality Task Force would be established and led by him to
spearhead quality-improvement activities. In the Toyota Way, leadership means direct daily
involvement in an effort that digs deeply to underlying root causes and takes action to solve
problems. Such problems are not laid to rest until the improvements are actually made and
sustained. Nevertheless, the good thing that this recall incident bought about is that it
affirmed to Toyota that without constantly bearing in mind the long-term philosophy (Toyota
Way Principle 1) over short-term financial goals, as well as to be organizationally
responsible, it would only get itself mired in troubles.
Summary. This section provides an overview of the Toyota Way principles and highlights that
the Toyota Way actually supersedes TPS and is, in fact, quite different in its emphasis (Liker
and Hoseus, 2008, p. 13). In TPS, the core pillars are JIT and Jidoka (autonomation) – both
are technical concepts. Most lean applications implemented outside of Toyota only used the
lean toolbox to take waste out of the process without embracing the ‘‘respect for people’’
principles. These are unlikely to gain more than limited and temporary results. In this regard,
the Toyota Way model additionally focused on people and their way of solving problems,
their continuous improvement and respect for others. Liker (2004) put the ‘‘process’’ part
containing principles of JIT and lean toolbox in the middle of the Toyota Way model, one layer
down as a sub-methodology supporting ‘‘people’’ in creating more value to the final
products. This changing focus of the Toyota Way suggests a similar evolution process that is
in line with what Western management thoughts had evolved. The following section will
review the Western management thoughts and Japanese management practices and argue
that the Toyota Way model shares some common grounds with the two domains.

3. A brief history of Western management thoughts

It is interesting to note that in the past 100 years, production has been one of the critical
laboratories where management theory was developed (Santos et al., 2002). The evolution
of management thoughts had a direct influence on the way how production system was
designed. Mullins (2007) summarized four main approaches with different focus to
understand the main trends in the development of organizational behavior and management
theory. The earliest emphasizing production efficiency (classical approach), the second
emphasizing human behavior, the third emphasizing organizations as systems and the
fourth emphasizing a range of situational variables that determine the success of the
organization (Figure 2). The next section, Figure 2, will review these mainstream
management approaches in the domain of production management.

3.1. Classical approach

Scientific management. Abramowitz (1967) commented that Taylor (1911) and Gilbreth
(1911), among others, offered great contributions to the scientific management movement
and pioneered the evolving methods. Taylor’s (1991) system of scientific management had
an enormous impact on the manufacturing industry a century ago. Under the influence of

Figure 2 Main approaches to organization, structure and management

Classical approach Human relations Systems approach

Contingency
- Scientific management - Hawthorne studies - Open system approach
- Bureaucracy - Neo-human relations - Socio-technical system

Emphasizing an Emphasizing a
Emphasizing Emphasizing human
organization as a range of situational
production efficiency behavior
system variables

Source: Mullins (2007, p. 41)

j j
PAGE 4 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011
Taylor (1911) and his disciples, the American manufacturing industry became the global
industry powerhouse at that time (Hayes and Pisano, 1994) by adapting the principles of
scientific management to build quality and productivity into the manufacturing process
(Drucker, 1990). Scientific management consists of four basic principles (Taylor, 1911):
1. The application of scientific approach using systematized experiments to solve
production and management problems.
2. The scientific selection of the workers. Taylor (1911) advocated in favor of a differential
piece-rate system to determine wage and incentives for workers.
3. The scientific education and training of workmen. Taylor (1911) conducted experiments to
determine the amount of daily work a ‘‘first class man’’ could do.
4. Cooperate with the workers in the productive process so as to ensure that all of the work is
done in accordance with the scientific management principles.
Time study, among all the principles, used by Taylor to discover ‘‘what was possible’’ in
improving job performance, became the foundation of Taylor’s work. As Wren and Bedeian
(2009, p. 126) outlined, Taylor’s time study had two phases: analysis and synthesis. In the
analysis phase, each job was broken into its elementary movements. With a stopwatch,
weight scale and tape, Taylor literally measured the distances that workers and materials
covered. Non-essential movements were discarded and the remainder carefully examined
to determine the quickest and least wasteful means of performing a job. In the synthesis
stage, the elementary movements were combined in the correct sequence to determine the
time and the exact method for performing a job. This phase also led to improvements in
tools, machines, materials, methods and the ultimate standardization of all elements
surrounding and accompanying a job.
Another important pioneer of the scientific management movement was Frank Bunker
Gilbreth, whose early work focused on motion study which aimed to eliminate those
variables that affect motion, develop, standardize and determine the best practice. In doing
so, he paved the way for modern work simplification by cataloguing 17 different hand
motions, such as simplification by cataloguing develop, standardize and deter’s endeavors
on the quality of the operative, Gilbreth offered the view that each worker can be trained in
the correct way to sustain those best practices. He sought to improve operator’s
performance through reducing unnecessary motions (e.g. unnecessary motions can be
eliminated through better design of the workplace) and limiting fatigue by placing far greater
emphasis on the total working environment (Shelderake, 1996). The motion study had
generated a great influence on the later concepts such as waste elimination (Ohno, 1988),
which became the cornerstone of the TPS.
Bureaucracy. A form of structure to be found in many large organizations is bureaucracy
(Mullins, 2007). Max Weber, the father of bureaucratic management, showed particular
concerns for what he called ‘‘bureaucratic structure’’. Essentially, Weber identified a few
main features of his ‘‘ideal’’ bureaucracy (Wren and Bedeian, 2009, pp. 231-2):
B people should specialize, thus efficiency will increase;
B there should be a clear chain of command from the highest to the lowest level of an
organization;
B employee should be selected on the basis of scientific performance appraisals and tests;
B managers should specialize in management; and
B there should be formal rules and procedures to follow at all organizational levels.
However, in today’s business environment, bureaucracy can easily be associated with red
tape, inefficiency and rigidity (Mullins, 2007, p. 48).
Lessons from the classical approach. Taylor’s method became the standard method for
managerial work with its emphasis on promoting production efficiency and waste elimination
(Kreitner, 2007, p. 40) and the foundation of industrial engineering (Flynn, 1998, p. 23).

j j
VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES PAGE 5
 Nevertheless, much of the criticisms being directed towards scientific management was
concerned that this management approach and techniques have dehumanized people by
making them act like machines (Kreitner, 2007, p. 40). In the 1920s, these aspects were
given more attention, which eventually led to the human relations movement.

3.2. Human relations approach

The human relations school of management believed that firms organizing their production
systems by the rigorous application of Taylor’s methods could not sustain their competitive
advantages. Rather, this school grew out of a series of studies in the late 1920s and early
1930s (Hawthorne experiments in particular) which pointed to the importance of human
factors at work, and the latter focused on personal adjustment of the individual within the
work organization (Wren and Bedeian, 2009).
Hawthorne studies. The famous Hawthorne studies formed the basis of the human relations
school, was conducted to investigate how characteristics of the work setting (specifically the
level of lighting or illumination) affected worker fatigue and performance. During the
experiment, it was surprisingly found that people were strongly affected not only by physical
conditions, but also by mental factors. The so-called ‘‘Hawthorne effect’’ seemed to suggest
that workers’ attitudes towards their managers affect the level of workers’ performance
(Wren and Bedeian, 2009). This experiment was also concerned with the importance of
social and psychological factors in the work environment and gave impetus to the work on
ideas such as work groups and leadership, communication, output restrictions, motivations
and job design (Mullins, 2007, p. 53).
The influence of psychology: neo-human relations. The movement of ‘‘neo-human relations’’
has addressed concerns in the work in terms of:
B employee motivation;
B benefits of division of labor; and
B employee commitment to organizational goals through employee participation in decision
making (Wren and Bedeian, 2009, p. 339).
Table I briefly summarizes the works of a group of notable writers such as Maslow (1954),
Herzberg (1959), McGregor (1960), among others, who attempted to understand the forces
which motivated people at work and the way in which individual adjustment, group relations
and leadership styles impacted on worker motivation (Mullins, 2007).
Lessons from the human relations approach. The human relations approach, compared with
the managerial-oriented classical approach, strove for a better understanding of people’s
psychological and social needs at work as well as improving the process of management

Table I A summary of a few notable works in the Neo-human relations

Prevalent theories in neo-human relations Concepts

Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs Satisfy lower level needs and move employee up
the hierarchy toward self-actualization
Herzberg’s (1959) motivation-hygiene theory Remove ‘‘dis-satisfiers’’ (hygiene factors) and
design work to create positive satisfiers
(motivators)
McGregor’s (1960) theory X and theory Y Theory X assumes that employees are inherently
lazy, indifferent and uninterested in excelling on
the job. Theory Y assumes that employees are
self-motivated, willing to work hard and rewarded
by challenging work
Skinner’s (1948) behavior modification Reinforce behavior on the spot when the
behavior naturally occurs
Locke’s (1968) goal-setting theory Set specific measurable, achievable challenging
goals and measure progress

j j
PAGE 6 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011
(Mullins, 2007, p. 53). Moreover, this management approach proved that people are the key
to productivity while technology, work rules and standards do not necessarily guarantee
good job performance (Mullins, 2007; Kreitner, 2007, p. 44). In contrast, success depends
on motivated and skilled individuals who are committed to organizational objectives.

3.3. Systems approach

The system approach, which emerged in the 1950s, attempted to reconcile these two earlier
approaches by addressing the interrelationships of structure and behavior and the range of
variables within the organization (Mullins, 2007, p. 55). Lugwig Von Bertalanffy – founder of
this school – perceived that an organization is seen as a combination of interdependent
parts or subsystems which collectively make up the whole (Mullins, 2007). The value of
system theory to the study of organizations is its ability to simplify complex situations by
considering its subcomponents (subsystems) as well as with the relationship and
interdependencies between these subsystems (Mullins, 2007).
The socio-technical system. The socio-technical approach to management began with
investigating the low morale and psychosomatic disorder problems in the British coal
industry (Mumford, 1994). Researchers from this school recognized that the new technical
system had created an inferior and damaging form of social organization, which motivated
them to reformulate the work design by optimizing its social and technical system (Mumford,
1994). Briefly, the ‘‘social’’ system is viewed as anything having to do with the selection,
development and characteristics of an organization’s people and the culture that emerges
through the interaction of those people. It also includes the work structure that relates people
to the technology and to each other (Mullins, 2007). The ‘‘technical’’ system consists of the
machines and methods of operations used to transform raw materials into products or
service (Cummings, 1978). The term ‘‘system’’ implies multiple interdependent parts that
interact to create a complex whole, thus it is difficult to fully understand a system by simply
looking at its individual parts. Recognition of the socio-technical approach is of particular
important today because people must be considered as at least an equal priority along with
investments in technology (Mullins, 2007, p. 56). This approach has been accepted by Paez
et al. (2004) to establish an integrated framework of lean production because the
researchers have identified that the root elements of the system were based on human and
technological aspects.

3.4. Contingency approach

Another approach to organizational design was suggested by a number of researchers,
notably Lawrence and Lorsch (1967). The contingency approach can be seen as an
extension of the system approach. It goes a stage further in relating the environment and
other variables, to specific structures of organization (Mullins, 2007, p. 603). According to
Wren and Bedeian (2009), it has been theorized that the more successful organizations are
those that adjusted to their relevant environment. Hence, the contingency approach is seen
as an effort to determine through research which managerial practices and techniques are
appropriate in specific situations (Kreitner, 2007, p. 49).

4. Japanese management practices

Toyota, viewed as one of the birthplaces where Japanese production management (JPM)
originated, is undoubtedly influenced by the Japanese management philosophy. A review of
some basic practices of Japanese management can provide a better understanding of the
relationship between the Japanese management practices and the Toyota Way model.
Keys et al. (1994) offered a comprehensive framework depicting Japanese management
practices through:
B external forces (culture, industrial organization and government structures);
B general management practices (organizational structure, long-term planning horizon and
consensus decision making and implicit control);

j j
VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES PAGE 7
 B manufacturing system (JIT manufacturing, total quality control (TQC), quality control
circles (QCCs) and continuous improvement); and
B human resource management (lifetime employment and generalist career paths,
seniority-based evaluation, promotion and compensation systems and company unions).
In a similar vein, Holt (1999) pointed out that there are two directions of the Japanese
management philosophy that emerged to contribute to the management theory and practice
around the world. The first direction is concerned with the relationship between people and
the other is focused on production efficiency (Holt, 1999). Following the hierarchical
structure of the 4P framework of the Toyota Way, four aspects of the Japanese management
practices in the areas of ‘‘philosophy’’, ‘‘production management’’, ‘‘people-centered
management’’ and ‘‘problem solving’’ are outlined as follows:
1. Japanese long-term philosophy. Drucker (1971) highlighted that the real reason for
Japanese superiority sprang from their focus on long-term objectives. Long-term
philosophy is embodied in most Japanese organizations through various activities such
as life-time employment, stakeholders’ de-emphasis on annual/quarterly profits,
long-term relationship with their suppliers, etc. (Drucker, 1971; Kono, 1982). Long-term
thinking does not mean the short run objectives would be ignored. Instead, Japanese
companies clearly stated both long- and short-range goals (Kono, 1982), which were
easier for employees to understand companies’ direction.
2. JPM. Toyota has made an enduring mark on JPM (Haak, 2006; Schonberger, 2007). It
comprised total quality management, JIT and an array of other practices such as total
productive maintenance, visual management and re-engineering. These well-known
practices were innovative approaches to avoid high levels of labor costs and costly
investments in large-scale manufacturing systems (Cusumano, 1988; Ohno, 1988).
These forms the core elements of JPM which have become a dominant influence in the
field of production/OM in the early 1980s (Schonberger, 2007) and still are the
contemporary trends in production management (Santos et al., 2002).
3. Japanese people-centered management. Lifetime employment, slow evaluation and
promotion, continuous training and multi-skilling have been considered as fundamental
distinctive features of Japanese people-centered management that frequently appeared
in the literature (Hasegawa, 1986; Kono and Clegg, 2001; Ouchi, 1981). These underlying
principles are closely related. For example, from the corporate viewpoint, lifetime
employment provides a rationale for the training of employees (Hasegawa, 1986).
Moreover, lifetime employment involves promotion, in which managerial staff and
company executives are promoted from within the company, not hired from the outside
(Hasegawa, 1986). In addition, as noted by Kono and Clegg (2001), there are various
ways in which employees acquire specific knowledge and develop the desired attitudes
by off-the-job training, training in decision making, learning from subordinates,
self-training, training through job rotation, learning from failure and learning through
thinking.
4. Japanese way of problem solving. The Japanese way of problem solving is conducted
under a kaizen mindset which requires the use of various problem-solving tools (Imai,
1986). There is no doubt that most of the quality techniques and management principles
were transferred from the USA through the lectures given by Deming and Juran (Imai,
1986; Lillrank, 1995). However, the organizational vehicle for implementing the principles
and applying the tools was home grown in Japan. Terms such as QC, statistical QC,
QCCs and TQC often appeared in connection with kaizen (Imai, 1986, p. 9). There are
nine steps comprising the ‘‘QC’’ story (Ishikawa, 1985) when people were engaging in the
task of solving problems. These solutions to problems are subject to the group
decision-making process and are then forwarded as official recommendations to higher
management. This approach is known as bottom up decision making (Hasegawa, 1986;
Keys and Miller, 1984; Ouchi, 1981) and consensus (Hasegawa, 1986; Keys and Miller,
1984). These features were often labeled as Theory Z (Ouchi, 1981) in some versions
when discussing the Japanese management practices.

j j
PAGE 8 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011
5. Linking the Western management thoughts and Japanese management
practices to the Toyota Way model
The literature reviewed has first of all shown the evolution of management theory from
different schools of management thoughts which mirrored the changes in the surrounding
economic and social environment. It also shed light on the Japanese management practices
following a similar pattern that parallels the Toyota Way model. Liker and Hoseus (2008,
p. 24) outlined that the Toyota Way is more a reflection of Eastern culture than Western
culture. The point here is that there is certainly some evidence that the Toyota Way on the one
hand has absorbed the Japanese management practices as well as being influenced by the
Japanese culture. On the other hand, the creation of the Toyota Way depended on many
contributing factors that were not unique to Japan’s culture. The discussion on Western
management thoughts suggests that there are certain relationships between the Toyota Way
model – its two middle layers in particular – and Western management thoughts.

With inspirations from the USA, Toyota had indeed committed a lot of its true innovations in the
production system that proved to be very successful. For this reason, Toyota was credited with
the distinction of being the birthplace of lean production and manufacturing techniques. In the
beginning, industry practitioners observed Toyota plants and saw many tools and methods
being practiced by Toyota that were very different from what they practiced. Believing this was
the source of Toyota’s competitive edge, many companies set out to emulate Toyota. The 2010
Compensation Data Manufacturing survey results found that 69.7 percent of manufacturing
companies utilized Lean production (Compdata Surveys, 2010). Other followers included
New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. (NUMMI), a Toyota and GM joint venture, Korean
automakers (Lee and Jo, 2007), Chinese manufacturing plants (Taj, 2007), among others who
attempted to adopt TPS to enhance their operational efficiencies and business
competitiveness. In addition, its implementation beyond the manufacturing firms has also
been reported in the literature, such as in the health care system (Collins and Muthusamy,
2007) and the construction industry (Koskela, 1992; Ballard, 2000). Overall, within each of the
four layers of the Toyota Way model, this study will consider possible linkages to Western
management thoughts and/or Japanese management practices that were adopted by and
had impacted on the Toyota Way model. A conceptual model explaining these relationships is
shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 A conceptual model of the Toyota Way model and its linkages with Western
management thoughts and Japanese management practices

The Toyota Way model

(Liker, 2004)
Western management Japanese management
thoughts practices

Classical approach Japanese way of problem solving

- Scientific management - Consensual decision making
- Bureaucracy Problem - Total quality control (TQC)
solving - Kaizen

Human relations
- Hawthorne studies Japanese people-centered management
- Neo-human relations - Lifetime employment
People and Partners
- Slow evaluation and promotion
- Continuous training
Systems approach
- Open system
- Socio-technical system Japanese production management
Process (JPM)
Contingency
approach
Japanese Long-term Philosophy and
Philosophy Toyota’s own characteristics

j
VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES PAGE 9 j
 5.1. Philosophy: Japanese long-term philosophy
Toyota is a unique blend of Japanese culture, encompassing the special conditions of the
Aichi prefecture where Toyota was founded, the influence of the Toyota family and the
influential leaders in Toyota’s history (Liker and Hoseus, 2008, p. 25). Table II shows that
the Japanese management philosophy shares a common ground with the foundation of the
Toyota Way (Principle 1) in the area of:
B sense of purpose;
B long-term perspective;
B self-reliance and responsibility; and
B customer focus.

5.2. Process: classical approach and JPM

There are seven principles in the Toyota Way that belong to the second broad category – the
right process will produce the right results (Figure 1). These principles in this category were
most of the TPS tools for improving manufacturing processes (Liker, 2004). A close
examination unveils that these technical components of the Toyota Way was however an
evolutionary output with some of its roots clearly traceable back to its counterparts in the
USA and the prevalent scientific management theory at that time. On the other hand, TPS
also embraced a group of innovative manufacturing techniques with the same objective to
eliminate waste and inconsistencies from the workplace. These lean tools were originally
expressed in their Japanese terms (Jidoka, kanban, poka-yoka[5], etc.). These observations
postulate a picture that this layer of the Toyota Way model has certain connections with both
Western and Japanese practices. To further articulate how the classical approach of
management theory and JPM fit together in this layer of the Toyota Way model, a group of
selected principles of ‘‘process’’ category in Table III suggests that they are in fact in
agreement with the classical approach of management theory.
Waste elimination. Scientific management promotes production efficiency. This had been
reflected in Henry Ford’s mass production, which achieved unprecedented profitability by
eliminating waste such as subsequent machining minimization, process simplification,
shorten unnecessary transportation, recycling, etc. that most people would have overlooked
(Levinson, 2002). It is interesting to note that some forms of waste in Henry’s eyes were much
alike the muda (waste in Japanese) identified by Ohno (1988) namely overproduction,

Table II Linking the ‘‘philosophy’’ layer of the Toyota Way with Japanese management
philosophy
Principle one of the Toyota Way Japanese management philosophy

(1) Sense of purpose This sub-principle appears to come from the founder of Toyota,
Sakichi Toyoda, who believed in contributing to the group and
society (Liker and Hoseus, 2008, p. 25)
(2) Long-term perspective All three fundamental properties of the Japanese organization
(Ouchi, 1981), namely lifetime employment, approaches to
evaluation and promotion and non-specialized career paths that
bear a common feature which is ‘‘long-term orientation’’
(3) Self-reliance and This is one of the core values of Toyota and they started out in the
responsibility farming community of the Aichi prefecture far from the big city
(4) Customer focus The Japanese (Toyota people) broadened the definition of
‘‘customer’’ to include both internal and external customers
For external customer, Toyota always starts by asking what the
customer would like
For the internal customer, each person in a production line or
business process was to be treated as a ‘‘customer’’ and to be
supplied with exactly what was needed, at the exact time needed
(Liker, 2004)

j j
PAGE 10 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011
Table III Linking the ‘‘process’’ layer of the Toyota Way with the classical approach of management theory
Classical approach of management theory
S/no The ‘‘process’’ layer of Toyota Way (Liker, 2004) (‘‘scientific management’’ and ‘‘bureaucracy’’)

Ultimate goals Waste elimination Time and motion study (Taylor, 1911; Gilbreth,
1911)
P2 Creating continuous process flow to bring Learning from Ford – borrowing its flow concept
problems to the surface and conveyer system (Fujimoto, 1999; Ohno,
1988)
P6 Standardized tasks and processes are the Originated from the time and motion study within
foundation for continuous improvement and the scientific management approach
employee empowerment Enabling bureaucracy

waiting, unnecessary transportation, over-processing, inventory, unnecessary movement

and defects. To achieve the same objective, eliminating as much waste as possible naturally
became the heart of the TPS (Liker, 2004). Technically, the application of Toyota’s waste
reduction principle has some commonalities with Gilbreth’s motion study which aimed to
eliminate redundant motions and to determine the best practice. According to Towill (2010),
Shigeo Shingo who was credited with much of the detailed design work of TPS, performed
over 6,000 motion study experiments when planning for the optimization of particular
operations in Toyota.
Creating continuous process flow. The assembly line was developed by the Ford Motor
Company, where large batch of Ford cars were built around the concept. Womack et al.
(1990) attributed that the gradual realization of the interchangeable parts and the simple
methods used to attach each part were the manufacturing innovations that made the
assembly line possible. Like Ford’s mass production, the TPS had not really changed the
Fordist system as it has kept the line as the guiding principle underlying the organization of
work (Muffatto, 1999; Ohno, 1988). However, what distinguishes TPS from mass production
is its pull system which resulted in less inventory.
Time-and-motion regained: standardization. Standardization is one of the principles that can
be viewed as an important legacy from the scientific management theory to the Toyota Way.
In the traditional manufacturing mode, based on time and motion studies, standards
represent ‘‘one best way’’ of scientific principles of work. Research conducted at the joint
venture between Toyota and GM at the NUMMI, where the TPS was deployed, revealed that
Taylorist time-and-motion discipline and formal bureaucratic structures were still essential
for efficiency and quality in routine operations (Adler, 1993). What differentiated Toyota’s
practice on standardization was that, in NUMMI, team members themselves held the
stopwatch to time one another, looking for the safest and most efficient way to conduct each
task at a sustainable pace. This has become a day-to-day assignment for all workers – a
standard, in the world of lean production, is never perfect or finished.
Enabling bureaucracy. Taylorism created very rigid bureaucracies in which workers were to
blindly and simply follow the standardized procedure; whist managers play the role of doing
the thinking. NUMMI had all the characteristics of bureaucracy but also had many
characteristics such as extensive employee involvement, a lot of communication, high
morale and a strong customer focus, which were associated with flexible organizations;
Liker, 2004). Liker (2004) adopted Adler’s (1999) study on Toyota’s organizational practice
and summarized how the coercive bureaucracy uses standards to control people, catch
them breaking the rules and punish them to get them back in line. By contrast, enabling
bureaucracy system is designed and improved upon with the participation of the workforce,
where standards help people control their own work.
Japanese production management. The remaining principles from the ‘‘process’’ category
were viewed as Toyota’s innovations in production management, which are linked to JPM as
illustrated in Table IV. All these principles work together to eliminate the non-value adding
activities within the whole manufacturing process and business.

j j
VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES PAGE 11
Table IV Linking the ‘‘process’’ layer of the Toyota Way with JPM
S/no The ‘‘process’’ layer of Toyota Way (Liker, 2004) JPM (Toyota’s innovation)

P3 Pull system to avoid overproduction Kanban (pull system) is an innovation to avoid

overproduction based on the American
supermarket inventory system
P4 Level out the workload (heijunka) Toyota’s innovation which contradicts the
traditional mass (push) production in the USA
P5 Build a culture of stopping to fix problems, to get Greatly influenced by Edward Deming and
quality right the first time (Jidoka) Joseph Juran’s lectures given to the Japanese on
QC. The Toyota Way is to build in quality through
Jidoka
P7 Visual control helps to reveal the hidden Toyota’s innovation to highlight the variations
problems through visual tools
P8 Only reliable, thoroughly tested technology can Not applicable here. It is more applicable when
be used that serve the people and process discussing P8 under the socio-technical system

5.3. People: human relations approach and Japanese people-centered management

As discussed earlier, the human relations approach to management focused on trying to
understand the factors that affect human behavior at work. Through job design,
management style and other organizational factors, higher-order needs of employees can
be satisfied (Miller, 2008). The principles of the human relations approach to management
are certainly intuitively appealing to Toyota.
Sugimori et al. (1977, p. 554), in the first published English version of the TPS, equally
elaborated on the other major theme of the paper related to the role and treatment of the
workers. This later became one of the two pillars of the TPS (Ohno, 1988; Liker, 2004) –
‘‘respect for people’’. According to Monden (1998, p. 366), investments have been made by
Toyota (Japanese manufacturers) in the following three major areas to promote respect for
humanity and improve working environment since the 1990s:
1. Installing machines that are compatible with workers.
2. Improving the working conditions surrounding workers. This includes eliminating
dangerous, noisy, dirty, hot or smelly conditions.
3. Avoiding work strain imposed on workers.
Apart from these investments spent to improve the external working environment, Toyota
also worked on some internal issues such as developing the capable leaders and
employees, promoting teamwork and providing tremendous training opportunities as well as
working closely with their partners. All of these parallel the central theme of the human
relations approach and its later neo-human relations movement. Both laid significant
emphasis on people and acknowledged that people were the key to productivity and
technology success. Unlike most managers who only installed lean tools such as kaizen,
5-S, etc. Toyota managers put in extra efforts, as noted by Bodek (2008), to motivate and
inspire people. Moreover, Liker (2004, pp. 194-8) linked the five most prominent motivation
theories to the Toyota’s approach of developing people and teams, and commented that
each was used to great effect in Toyota (Table V).
Furthermore, a number of distinctive features of Japanese people-centered management
include lifetime employment, slow evaluation and promotion, continuous training and
multi-skilling that can also be linked to this layer:
B Lifetime employment. Toyota’s internal manual – human resource management guiding
model – cited in Liker and Hoseus (2008, p. 345) stated that: ‘‘through precise allocation,
optimized fixed headcount and a lean and efficient workforce, we ensure the ability to
adapt flexibly to fluctuations in production and secure stable employment’’. This flexible
workforce strategy allows Toyota to ride out the ups and downs of the market without
layoffs (Liker and Hoseus, 2008). As observed by Liker (2010), during the financial

j j
PAGE 12 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011
Table V Various motivation theories and the Toyota Way
Motivation theories Toyota’s approach

Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs Job security, good pay and safe working
conditions satisfy lower level needs
Culture of continuous improvement supports
growth towards self-actualization
Herzberg’s (1959) motivation hygiene theory 5-S, ergonomic programs, visual management
and human resource policies address hygiene
factors
Continuous improvement, job rotation and built-in
feedback support motivators
McGregor’s (1960) theory X and theory Y Each employee has responsibility and is trusted
for QC and safety
Various kaizen programmes are challenging
work that appeals to the employees
Skinner’s (1948) behavior modification Continuous flow and andon create short-lead
times for rapid feedback
Leaders constantly on the floor and providing
reinforcement
Locke’s (1968) goal-setting theory Sets goals that meet these criteria through hoshin
kanri (policy deployment)
Continuous measurements relative to targets

Source: Liker (2004, p. 195)

recession period, in some plants, 40 per cent of the workers who were not needed for
production were paid full-time to relearn its famous production system and to attack
problems in the plant with a vengeance.
B Slow evaluation and promotion. The principles underlying the promotion system at Toyota
are built in fairness and strictness (Liker and Hoseus, 2008). A plant manager at a Toyota
plant does not have the power to decide who get promoted because personal biases
would erode the trust between the company and himself (Liker and Hoseus, 2008). The
best leader should demonstrate their Toyota Way values of mutual respect and
continuous improvement, through competencies such as communication, collaboration,
problem solving ability, etc. (Liker and Hoseus, 2008). Throughout Toyota’s history, key
leaders have been found within the company, at the right time, to shape Toyota’s
development (Liker, 2004). Shopping for ‘‘successful’’ CEOs and presidents is not the
practice in Toyota because their leaders must understand the Toyota culture and
philosophy well (Liker, 2004).
B Continuous training and multi-skilling. Toyota conducts systematic company-wide and
divisional training and assignments for training purposes with an emphasis on on-the-job
training to ensure that associates can fully utilize their abilities (Toyota Motor Company, 2003,
p. 80). Toyota’s training practice has evolved from an American method called Training
Within Industry (Liker and Hoseus, 2008; Dinero, 2005). This practice is regarded as a
foundation of the TPS (Dinero, 2005, p. 52; Jusko, 2008), which develops qualified people
who are able to engaged in a variety of jobs in production, and think proactively and
analytically about their jobs. More than that, in order for the employees to remain engaged in
the repetitive working environment, Toyota provides many additional opportunities for
employees to use their creativity and to develop greater skills (Liker and Meier, 2006).

5.4. Process and people: systems approach (socio-technical system)

The ‘‘process’’ and ‘‘people’’ layer of the Toyota Way is complementary to each other. The
processes of TPS are designed to surface problems so that people can solve them, thereby
continually strengthening the system. People are carefully selected and developed over
long periods of time to be knowledgeable of problem solving, standardized tasks, etc. that
will continually improve the processes. However, as Liker (2004) observed, most US
companies have adopted a few of these technical tools but failed to understand the

j j
VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES PAGE 13
 importance of the ‘‘people’’ value that made the system work. In this sense, the
socio-technical system can be used to highlight the missing link that because technology
and organizational structures may change, the rights and needs of the employee must be
given as high a priority as those of the non-human parts of the system (Mumford, 2006).
Morgan and Liker (2005, p. 16) highlighted that only by studying people and equipment
working together can we see the way the whole system functions. The socio-technical
system model aided Morgan and Liker (2005) to build up Toyota’s product development
system based on three primary subsystems:
1. process;
2. people; and
3. tool and technology.
These three sub-systems are interrelated and interdependent and affect an organization’s
ability to achieve its external purpose. Morgan and Liker (2005, p. 17) noted that: ‘‘[. . .] what
makes lean production development truly powerful is the whole system of mutually supportive
tools, processes, and human systems working in harmony’’. This sentiment exactly parallels
the pivotal theme of the ‘‘system approach’’ that equal priority should be given to both the
people and technology aspects in the organization.
Liker and Hoseus (2008, p. 13) have highlighted that the Toyota Way model is much more
close to the ideal of the socio-technical system thinking, where the ‘‘people’’ and ‘‘process’’
aspects have been incorporated in the middle of the 4-P model. What is more, the pyramidal
structure of the Toyota Way model indicates that Toyota values their employees even more
than these lean principles, as ‘‘people and partners’’ is placed one layer above its famous
‘‘process’’ layer. Liker (2004, p. 145) noted that: ‘‘the Toyota way preaches that the worker is
the most valuable resource – not just a pair of hands taking orders, but an analyst and problem
solver’’.
Furthermore, the results of socio-technical design were always closely monitored and
recorded to establish if it had led to the efficient use of the technology (Mumford, 2006).
Therefore, another observation that connects the socio-technical system to the Toyota Way
model is that the last principle (Principle 8) of the ‘‘process’’ category can actually determine
what kind of technology is the most appropriate for Toyota to choose. Usually, the
requirements of technology were rarely discussed in the literature relating to the TPS (lean
tools). In contrast, Principle 8 of the Toyota Way follows the guidelines such as ‘‘use
technology to support people, not to replace people’’ (Liker, 2004, p. 39) are among others
concerning the new technology procurement. This reflects the central idea of the
socio-technical system that does not allow the technology to become a controlling factor
when new work systems were implemented (Mumford, 2006). It explicitly reflects that Toyota
places equal priority on people by always asking ‘‘does this technology support people, and
adding value to the current process’’ (Liker, 2004).

5.5. Problem solving: a Japanese way

Referring to the discussion on the Japanese management practices earlier in terms of its
unique approach to problem solving, it is interesting to see that the last three principles of the
Toyota Way model may have possible connection with this practice. Toyota is probably the
best, among the Japanese organizations, at problem-solving practice.
Genchi genbutsu and consensus. The first step of the Toyota Way in dealing with the
problem is called genchi genbutsu. It is viewed as one of the founder’s philosophies in
Toyota, infers that the root causes of problems are revealed by on-site investigation and
inquiry. It also reflects another characteristics of the Japanese way of problem solving that
they think and speak based on personally verified data rather than theorizing on the basis of
what others or the computer screen indicate (Liker, 2004). Apart from genchi genbutsu, the
Toyota Way model equally emphasizes the importance of building agreement (consensus) in
decision making. As Liker (2004) pointed out, how the decision being made is viewed just as
important as the quality of the decision in Toyota. Moreover, Principle 13 of the Toyota Way

j j
PAGE 14 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011
includes the important process of nemawashi (Liker, 2004, p. 241), which describes how
junior people build consensus by collectively gathering their inputs and circulating it broadly
for management approval.
Kaizen and organizational learning. The last three principles of the Toyota Way have their
root in the kaizen philosophy which uses a systematic procedure based on Deming’s PDCA.
A close examination of the PDCA methodology and the last three principles of the Toyota
Way model is tabulated in Table VI.
Liker (2004) highlighted that Toyota is probably one of the best learning organizations in the
world. This cannot be achieved without the unique Japanese kaizen philosophy, with using
the PDCA approach running at all level of the company.

5.6. Toyota Way model application: a contingency approach

The last management approach in Figure 2 – contingency approach – cannot be directly
linked to any layers of the Toyota Way model. However, it is more applicable when
considering the implementation of the Toyota Way model outside of Japan, or, to a
non-manufacturing industry. Researchers have noticed that the contingency approach
focuses on the environment, and other variables, to specific structures of organization and it
has been theorized that an organization spontaneously establishes for itself the most
effective organizational structure for the environment in which it exists. Monden (1998)
outlined that the international transfer of the Japanese production system seems possible
but only if the social environment of the country is altered to adapt to the new system. In this
sense, there were two key environmental factors, pointed out by Monden (1998), including:
1. maker-supplier relationship; and
2. the management-labor relationship that must be implemented to accommodate the
transfer of the TPS in the US manufacturing firms.
This is indicated by ‘‘contingency theory’’ that ‘‘the most efficient production systems for the
USA and Japan are different because of differences in their respective environment conditions’’
(Monden, 1998, p. 336). Similarly, the contingency theory can be applied when the Toyota Way
model serves to improve the inherent problems in other industries, for example, construction.
Much has been written on the differences between these two sectors (Koskela, 2000). This
enables the practitioners to think deeper about how to minimize such gaps with appropriate
modifications to pave the way for better implementation of the Toyota Way model.

Table VI Linking the PDCA methodology and problem-solving principles in Toyota

PDCA methodology Toyota Way Principles 12-14

Plan: before any corrective action is taken on the The Plan methodology of PDCA corresponds to
problem at hand, a number of activities should be Principles 12 and 13 of the Toyota Way
undertaken: The Toyota Way (P12) enables the leaders to go
Define the problem and see the actual situation for them to
Gather relevant information understand the problem source and identify the
Identify the root cause of the problems problem
Develop and consider the possible solutions Make the decision on the verified data
Select the best alternative for implementation 5-whys methodology (P13) as a useful tool is
employed to probe the root causes
Alternative solutions will be discussed (P13) until
a consensus is agreed
Do: implement the solution chosen as the best Solve the problem
Check: monitor the implemented solution and Principle 14 indicates that hansei is part of the
gather data of the effects of implementation and check part of the PDCA cycle. (Note: hansei is a
comparing these with the target or prediction Japanese term for self-reflection.)
Act: Establish the new process, solution, or Principle 14: kaizen activities
system as the standard if the results are
satisfactory, or taking remedial action if they are
not

j j
VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES PAGE 15
 6. Discussion
Integrating possible theories from the management domain to each layer of the Toyota Way
model resulted in better instituting of this model. This paves the way for an improved
understanding of the Toyota Way to potentially serve the non-manufacturing industry such as
construction. In the construction industry, the application of lean principles or TPS is not a
novel undertaking. The term ‘‘lean construction’’ has been widely promoted in the academia
and industry in more recent years. The concept of lean construction embraced two slightly
different interpretations as observed by Koskela et al. (2002): one is to synthesize Koskela’s
(2000) transformation-flow-value (TFV) view of the construction process as a theoretical
foundation of lean construction; the other discusses the application of lean production
methods to construction, which adopts the last planner approach (Ballard, 2000) to the
planning and management of the construction process. Another school of thought that
should be taken into account is that lean thinking principles (value, value stream, flow, pull
and perfection) as is promoted as guidelines (Womack and Jones, 1996) to the construction
industry. The Egan (1998) report has undoubtedly been responsible for popularizing the lean
label amongst construction professionals (Green and May, 2005) who see lean thinking
primarily as a set of techniques that can be directly applied to construction.
Several cases of the application of lean thinking in construction have been reported. Most of
them focused on isolated tools and techniques with limited results (Picchi and Granja, 2004).
This echoed Liker’s (2004) observation in the manufacturing context. Picchi and Granja
(2004) therefore advocated that the construction company should be considered as a whole
and on a long-term basis in order to reap broader results when practicing lean. This
acknowledged the first principle of the Toyota Way model, but failed to shed light on human
resources and problem solving principles for the construction organizations. Furthermore,
Paez et al. (2005) introduced a higher view of lean construction and lean manufacturing as a
socio-technical system. This framework implies that the operational improvement will always
rely on the joint effort of the technical and human elements that characterize the lean
enterprise (Paez et al., 2005). It also concluded that the tools presented in the context of the
lean manufacturing scenario can fit the construction industry to support the same principles
(e.g. JIT, production smoothening and autonomation).
The Toyota Way model, after Koskela’s (2000) TFV view of the construction process, might
become an alternative framework to the construction industry. This is because it is able to
offer a more comprehensive perspective of an organization as well as to facilitate the
development of a theory of production to the construction process. A comparative study of
the TFV framework and the Toyota Way model has been examined by Gao (2010), who
outlined several common basis that the two frameworks share. For example, the flow
concept is very similar to the ‘‘process’’ layer of the Toyota Way model. This is because the
TPS is the mother platform from which the flow concept was derived.

7. Conclusion
This paper sheds light on establishing the relationships between the Toyota Way model and
the management theories from the West and Japan. It needs to be acknowledged that there
is a rich theoretical foundation supporting this management model and its 14 management
principles. Mathews (1995) outlined that there were three competing production paradigms,
namely the mass, lean and socio-technical system. Firms were searching for workable
strategies at any one time, would inevitably draw inputs from all three models. The
discussion around the Toyota Way model suggested its linkage to the evolution of
management approaches that are also indirectly connected to all three models.
Efforts was made to correct an unbalanced and inconsistent view on the application of the
Toyota Way principles that existed among a majority of the industrial practitioners by
demonstrating that the hidden mechanism of the Toyota Way is integrated with its philosophy,
production system, human development and problem solving mindset. A technical mindset
is in favor of using operational methods to achieve improvements in productivity and quality,
reduction of defects and lead-time, cost savings, etc. (Emiliani, 2006) while ignoring the

j j
PAGE 16 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011
 importance of the ‘‘respect for people’’ principle is a normal phenomena. In construction, the
term ‘‘lean construction’’ – borrowing principles of lean production – is still reeling from its
weak theoretical debate. On the contrary, the Toyota Way model is available with a solid
theoretical discussion as presented in this paper. It requires the construction researchers to
revisit the mother platform of lean principles to appreciate the essence of the Toyota Way
model in their own work environment. As these principles can be put into practice, it can
achieve a far-reaching application for firms themselves over time as top managers’
understanding of them deepens.

Notes
1. J.D. Powers and Associates is a global marketing information services firm, which is best known for
its customer satisfaction research on new-car quality and long-term dependability.
2. Jidoka is literally translated as ‘‘automation with a human touch’’, yet it is still a technical term
because it means that when a problem occurs, the equipment stops immediately, preventing
defective products from being produced.
3. Takt is a German word for rhythm or meter. Takt is the rate of customer demand – the rate at which
the customer is buying a product.
Keywords:
Management theory, 4. The Toyota Way 2001, based on the dual pillar of ‘‘respect for people’’ and ‘‘continuous
improvement’’, is an internal training material published by Toyota Motor Corporation in 2003.
Japan,
Working practices, 5. Poka-yoka is a Japanese word that refers to checking devices installed in the machines to prevent
Case studies defective work.

References
Abramowitz, I. (1967), Production Management, Concepts and Analysis for Operation and Control,
Ronald Press, New York, NY.

Adler, P.S. (1993), ‘‘Time-and-motion regained’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 97-108.
Adler, P.S. (1999), ‘‘Building better bureaucracies’’, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 36-47.
Ballard, G. (2000), ‘‘The last planner system of production control’’, PhD thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, p. 198.

Bodek, N. (2008), ‘‘Toyota managers know the road to Lean is by way of motivation (quality)’’, Tooling
and Production, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 40-1.
Collins, K.F. and Muthusamy, S.K. (2007), ‘‘Applying the Toyota production system to a healthcare
organization: a case study on a rural community healthcare provider’’, Quality Management Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Compadata Surveys (2010), ‘‘Lean manufacturing and safety help manufacturers survive tough times’’,
available at: www.compdatasurveys.com/2010/12/13/lean-manufacturing-and-safety-help-
manufacturers-survive-tough-times/ (accessed 12 January 2011).
Convis, G. (2001), ‘‘Role of management in a lean manufacturing environment’’, Automotive
Manufacturing & Production, Vol. 7, pp. 1-7.
Cummings, T.G. (1978), ‘‘Self-regulating work groups: a socio-technical synthesis’’, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 625-34.

Cusumano, M.A. (1988), ‘‘Manufacturing innovation: lessons from the Japanese auto industry’’,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 29-39.
Dinero, A.D. (2005), Training within Industry: The Foundation of Lean, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Drucker, P.F. (1971), ‘‘What we can learn from Japanese management’’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 110-22.
Drucker, P.F. (1990), ‘‘The emerging theory of manufacturing’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 3,
pp. 94-102.

j j
VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES PAGE 17
 Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction, The Report of the Construction Task Force, Department of
Environment, Transport and Regions, London.

Emiliani, M.L. (2006), ‘‘Origins of lean management in America: the role of connecticut businesses’’,
Journal of Management History, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 167-84.

Flynn, J. (1998), ‘‘Taylor to TQM (part I): 100 years of production management’’, IIE Solutions,
Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 22-8.

Fujimoto, T. (1999), The Evolution of a Manufacturing System at Toyota, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.

Gao, S. (2010), ‘‘The Toyota Way model: establishing an implementation framework for large Chinese
construction firms’’, unpublished Qualifying Examination Report, National University of Singapore,
Singapore.

Gilbreth, F.B. (1911), Motion Study: A Method for Increasing the Efficiency of the Workman, D. Van
Nostrand, New York, NY.

Green, S.D. and May, S.C. (2005), ‘‘Lean construction: arenas of enactment, models of diffusion and the
meaning of ‘leanness’’’, Building Research and Information, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 498-511.

Haak, R. (2006), ‘‘Implementing process innovation – the case of the Toyota production system’’,
in Herstatt, C., Stockstrom, C., Tschirky, H. and Nagahira, A. (Eds), Management of Technology and
Innovation in Japan, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 187-203.

Hasegawa, K. (1986), Japanese-style Management: An Insider’s Analysis, Kodansha International,

Tokyo.

Hayes, R.H. and Pisano, G.P. (1994), ‘‘Beyond world-class: the new manufacturing strategy’’, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 77-87.

Herzberg, F. (1959), The Motivation to Work, Wiley, New York, NY.

Holt, K. (1999), ‘‘Management and organization through 100 years’’, Technovation, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 135-40.

Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen (Ky’zen): The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Ishikawa, K. (1985), What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Jusko, J. (2008), ‘‘Training within industry: everything old is new again’’, Industry Week, January.

Keys, J.B. and Miller, T.R. (1984), ‘‘The Japanese management theory jungle’’, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 342-53.

Keys, J.B., Denton, L.T. and Miller, T.R. (1994), ‘‘The Japanese management theory jungle-revisited’’,
Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 373-402.

Kono, T. (1982), ‘‘Japanese management philosophy: can it be exported?’’, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 90-102.

Kono, T. and Clegg, S. (2001), Trends in Japanese Management: Continuing Strengths, Current
Problems and Changing Priorities, Palgrave, New York, NY.

Koskela, L. (2000), An Exploration Towards A Production Theory and Its Application to Construction,
Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo.

Koskela, L., Howell, G., Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I. (2002), ‘‘The foundations of lean construction’’,
in Hellingsworth, B., Best, R. and de Valence, G. (Eds), Design and Construction: Building in Value,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 211-26.

Kreitner, R. (2007), Management, 10th ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. (1967), ‘‘Differentiation and integration in complex organizations’’,

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-30.

Lee, B.H. and Jo, H.J. (2007), ‘‘The mutation of the Toyota production system: adapting the TPS at
Hyundai Motor Company’’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 16, pp. 3665-79.

Leggett, S.C. (2010), ‘‘TPS troubles: is Toyota or its production system to blame for recalls?’’, Quality
Progress, April.

j j
PAGE 18 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011
Levinson, W.A. (2002), Henry Ford’s Lean Vision: Enduring Principles from the First Ford Motor Plant,
Productivity Press, New York, NY.

Liker, J.K. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Liker, J.K. (2010), ‘‘Toyota’s lost its quality edge? Not so fast’’, Business Week, 28 January (Viewpoint).

Liker, J.K. and Hoseus, M. (2008), Toyota Culture: The Heart and Soul of the Toyota Way, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.

Liker, J.K. and Meier, D. (2006), The Toyota Way Field Book: A Practical Guide for Implementing Toyota’s
4Ps, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Lillrank, P. (1995), ‘‘The transfer of management innovations from Japan’’, Organization Studies, Vol. 16
No. 6, pp. 971-89.

Locke, E.A. (1968), ‘‘Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives’’, Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 157-89.

McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Maslow, A.H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Mathews, J. (1995), ‘‘Organizational innovation: competing models of productive efficiency’’, Human

System Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 71-90.

Miller, K. (2008), Organizational Communication: Approaches and Processes, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Monden, Y. (1998), Toyota Production System, 3rd ed., Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA.

Moore, R. (2007), Selecting the Right Manufacturing Improvement Tools: What Tool? When?, Elsevier,
Amsterdam.

Morgan, J.M. and Liker, J.K. (2006), The Toyota Product Development System: Integrating People,
Process, and Technology, Productivity Press, New York, NY.

Muffatto, M. (1999), ‘‘Evolution of production paradigms: the Toyota and Volvo cases’’, Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 15-25.

Mullins, L.J. (2007), Management and Organisational Behaviour, Prentice-Hall, Harlow.

Mumford, E. (1994), ‘‘New treatments or old remedies: is business process reengineering really
socio-technical design?’’, The Journal of Strategic Information System, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 313-26.

Mumford, E. (2006), ‘‘The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its success, failures and
potential’’, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 317-42.

Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-scale Production, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA.

Ouchi, W.G. (1981), Theory Z: How American Business can Meet the Japanese Challenge,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Paez, O., Salem, S., Solomon, J. and Genaidy, A. (2005), ‘‘Moving from lean manufacturing to lean
construction: toward a common socio-technological framework’’, Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Manufacturing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 233-45.

Paez, O., Dewees, J., Genaidy, A., Tuncel, S., Karwowski, W. and Zurada, J. (2004), ‘‘The lean
manufacturing enterprise: an emerging socio-technological system integration’’, Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 285-306.

Picchi, F.A. and Granja, A.D. (2004), ‘‘Construction sites: using lean principles to seek broader
implementations’’, Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC-12), Helsingør, Denmark, 3-6 August.

Santos, A., Powell, J.A. and Sarshar, M. (2002), ‘‘Evolution of management theory: the case of
production management in construction’’, Management Decision, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 788-96.

Schonberger, R.J. (2007), ‘‘Japanese production management: an evolution – with mixed success’’,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 403-19.

j j
VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES PAGE 19
 Shelderake, J. (1996), Management Theory: From Taylorism to Japanization, International Thomson
Business Press, London.
Skinner, B.F. (1948), The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis, D. Appleton-Century,
New York, NY.
Spear, S. (2010), Learning from Toyota’s Stumble, available at: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/01/learning_
from_toyotas_stumble.html (accessed 12 March 2010).
Sugimori, Y., Kusunoki, K., Cho, F. and Uchikawa, S. (1977), ‘‘Toyota production system and kanban
system materialization of just-in-time and respect-for-human system’’, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 553-64.
Taj, S. (2007), ‘‘Lean manufacturing performance in China: assessment of 65 manufacturing plants’’,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 217-34.

Taylor, F.W. (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Taylor, M. and Taylor, A. (2008), ‘‘Operations management research in the automotive sector: some
contemporary issues and future direction’’, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 480-9.
Towill, D.R. (2010), ‘‘Industrial engineering the Toyota production system’’, Journal of Management
History, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 327-45.
Toyota Motor Corporation (2003), Environment & Social Report 2003, Toyota Motor Corporation, Tokyo,
p. 84.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson
Associates, New York, NY.
Wren, D.A. and Bedeian, A.G. (2009), The Evolution of Management Thought, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Wyman, O. (2008), The Harbour ReportTM North America 2008, Oliver Wyman, Detroit, MI.

j j
PAGE 20 EMERALD EMERGING MARKETS CASE STUDIES VOL. 1 NO. 1 2011