Page 222 - The Toyota Way Fieldbook
P. 222

Chapter 9






           Make Technology Fit with


          People and Lean Processes








        Back to the Abacus?

        “Lean is antitechnology.” “Those lean bigots are always bad-mouthing IT.” “If
        it were up to the lean dreamers we would scrap all our computers and even our
        pens are too high tech—they want pencil and paper.” These are examples of
        statements we often hear, particularly from frustrated IT professionals who are
        being blocked by the lean folks from implementing the technologies they had
        planned. The impression is that Toyota does not believe in advanced technology
        of any kind. They seem to imagine Toyota as a company where everyone carries
        an abacus on their belts.
            Let’s get this myth off the table immediately. The reality is that Toyota is a
        technology-based company. In fact, they are among the most sophisticated users
        of advanced technology in the world. We have not measured technology use in
        Toyota versus the competition, but we can tell you that they use it, and use lots of
        it—robots, supercomputers, desktop computers, RF scanning technology, SAP,
        lights-out factories, and so on. Consider the technology in Toyota products—i the
        first company to make a mass production hybrid vehicle filled with computer
        chips galore—and Toyotas in Japan are filled with GPS systems for navigation.
            The point of confusion is simple. It’s not that Toyota avoids advanced tech-
        nology, but that Toyota views technology differently. When lean experts advise
        a company to stop using the MRP (Material Requirements Planning) system as
        it is being used, or to shut down the automated storage and retrieval system, or
        to stop investing in that high-technology paint booth, they are not saying stop
        using technology but saying stop using technology in a way that produces
        waste. Stop using technology as a substitute for thinking.

        Copyright © 2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Click here for terms of use.
   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227