The phrase "All models are wrong" is a common statistical aphorism that George E.P. Box turned into the popular saying "All models are wrong, but some are useful." This aphorism recognizes that models, whether conceptual or statistical, always fall short of fully representing the complexity of reality, but can still be useful. Perhaps this was why Taiichi Ohno, one of the key figures behind the development of the Toyota Production System (TPS), initially had reservations about documenting the system. It is said that he believed documenting every detail of TPS would limit flexibility and hinder continuous improvement. Nevertheless, the business world will forever be grateful that the TPS model was established, allowing many organizations to learn from it and use it to develop their own systems.

Toyota formulated this TPS House model at a time when it was trying to spread TPS thinking both within the company and to its suppliers by showing top management how it fit into their extended just-in-time supply chain. The success rate of companies implementing TPS or Lean Thinking can vary widely depending on several factors, such as leadership commitment, the cultural readiness of the organization, the level of employee involvement and the specific implementation strategies employed. It is challenging to give an exact percentage of companies' success rate, but based on studies and industry experience, this is a rough estimate:

Highly successful companies experience significant improvements in productivity, quality, cost reduction and customer satisfaction. They maintain long-term benefits and often become market leaders in operational excellence. They embed Lean Thinking into their organizational culture, processes and management systems. They constantly seek improvement and adapt their practices to changing challenges. Moderately successful companies may not reach the same level as highly successful companies, but they still derive tangible benefits from TPS or Lean Thinking.

If we look at the TPS house, we see that it mainly shows the tools and practices to achieve operational excellence. However, simply copying TPS practices without understanding the underlying philosophy is the main reason for failures and suboptimal results. This led the Lean Enterprise Institute to develop a model to guide and introduce change in organizations that want to undertake the lean transform journey. Moreover, this model can be used to systematically solve problems at any level of an organization, from board-level strategy to the front line.

Another important aspect of this model is the recognition that any organization's transformation journey will be situational and must begin with understanding the problem or problems the organization is trying to solve. Therefore, the model focuses not on giving answers and deploying tools, but on asking questions based on principles. The main questions or dimensions of this model are:

1. What is the value-driven goal? Or what is the problem to be solved?
2. What is the work that needs to be done (to solve the problem)?
3. What capabilities are required (to do the work to solve the problem)?
4. What management system - operating system and leadership behavior - is required?
5. What basic thinking, including mindsets and assumptions, are required for the organization as a purposeful socio-technical system?

Based on common observations and discussions within the lean community, the dimension that often receives less attention than the other dimensions is basic thinking and ways of thinking. The purpose of this article is to add some perspective and input on this dimension. Looking at the position of this dimension as the foundation on which the transformation house is built should highlight its importance. For this reflection, we need another model that comes from Systems Thinking, called The Iceberg Model (Four Levels of Thinking).

The four-level thinking model shows the depth of thinking we apply to events and helps us understand how different aspects (events, patterns, systemic structures and mental models) affect our perception and problem solving. It is called the "iceberg" because most of the complexity of a visible event lies below the surface.

In organizations without Lean Thinking, most managers will probably prefer to address problems at the event level because they are visible. However, the level of event thinking is the most superficial and actions based on event thinking are reactive and can only temporarily combat symptoms. The absence of deep thinking in an organization suggests that if an employee makes a mistake, the first reaction will be to blame him. The repetition of such events implies that trust between management and employees is likely to be minimal. If trust is weak, things like investing in people development will not happen, reinforcing trust in top-down approaches.... which further reinforces the mental models of no trust.

A lean organization recognizes the need to develop deep levels of thinking in its people. Both management and staff are trained and equipped to perform root cause analysis and identify the structures responsible for the unwanted cause-and-effect. In addition, building trust and investing in people development are ingrained in the mindset of a lean organization. Therefore, the key consideration for the Basic Thinking dimension of the Lean Transformation Framework is to dwell on our recognition of the importance of developing systemic and scientific thinking in people and building trust between employees and management. Without this mindset, it will be difficult to sustain the other elements of the Lean Transformation Framework.

If you have used the LTF, we want to hear from you. How has it helped you and what are some of the challenges you face in your transformation journey? How have you approached and worked with the Basic Thinking dimension? By the way, is it a coincidence that the proposed Basic Thinking considerations correspond to the pillars of the Toyota Way (a set of principles that define Toyota Motor Corporation's organizational culture, formalized in 2001 after decades of academic research on the Toyota Production System)?

^Author