Page 394 - The Toyota Way Fieldbook

Chapter 17. Plan-Do-Check-Act 367

guidelines ensures Toyota immediate returns on activities, as well as verifica-
tion of success for the long term.
At its core, a “plan” details what, who, when, where, and, if necessary, the
how. Begin with the short-term countermeasures. Identify actions that will mit-
igate the effects of the problem (i.e., control the occurrence). Identify actions that
will ensure that the effects of the problem do not affect others outside the area,
especially customers.
Identify the person (not group) who will have responsibility for ensuring
the successful completion of the countermeasure. The responsible person does
not have to actually implement the action, but does have the responsibility and
accountability to explain the plan, coordinate efforts, schedule additional resources,
verify completion according to plan, and provide updates of progress.

TRAP
In many cases there’s confusion between responsibility for making
sure the countermeasure is completed successfully and responsi-
bility for actually doing the work. More complex issues tend to be
assigned to “the team” rather than to a specific individual, because
of the perception that the implementation will require additional
people, or that the entire group wants input or involvement. This
leads to lack of individual responsibility, vague expectations,
and limited results. Always identify a specific person willing to
take the lead role. Others may be assigned as support if necessary,
but the leader assumes responsibility. At Toyota, it is always clear
which one person is responsible for results. That is the essence of
accountability.

Note that in some cases the implementation of countermeasures should be
“phased,” or sequential. When attacking the root cause of a quality problem, for
example, simultaneous implementation of multiple countermeasures makes it
difficult to understand the effectiveness of each individual countermeasure.
This “shotgun” approach may lead to success, but there won’t be a clear under-
standing of how the success was achieved. In the scientific method, if an exper-
iment is conducted but the results are not repeatable, no effective conclusion
can be drawn. In this case the result cannot be reliably duplicated, and future
problem-solving activities will be less effective because how the result was
achieved is not known.
The action plan (from chapter 15 wood sawing clean up case) summary is pre-
sented in Figure 17-1. Note that this is not a completely detailed plan, with actions
and responsibilities developed for the team. But this level of detail is not important