Testing a theoretical model underlying the ‘Toyota Way’ – an empirical study involving a large global sample of Toyota facilities

In this paper, we empirically test the theoretical model underlying the Toyota Way (TW), based on data obtained from Toyota’s logistics, sales and marketing functions across 27 countries. TW is the result of Toyota attempting to codify its culture to the global community. Using structural equation modelling techniques we show that the TW-associated measures challenge, kaizen, genchi genbutsu, respect and teamwork do adequately operationally define the TW; the first three measures corresponding to the construct ‘process improvement’ and the final two measures corresponding to the construct ‘people development’. Empirically, people development is found to have no direct effect on how the TW is deployed across a business unit. However, people development is found to be indirectly related to TW deployment through the mediating effect of process improvement. Our study provides quantitative evidence that while the intangible aspects of the TW (modelled as people development) may not directly relate to the results, they are an integral component of a complete implementation of the TW and related ‘Lean’ systems. By logical extension, this provides support for adoption of a holistic and long-term strategy, integrating soft and hard elements, by those organisations attempting to implement and sustain Toyota-style systems.

[1]  Masaaki Imai,et al.  Gemba Kaizen: A Commonsense, Low-Cost Approach to Management , 1997 .

[2]  Y. Sugimori,et al.  Toyota production system and Kanban system Materialization of just-in-time and respect-for-human system , 1977 .

[3]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[4]  Richard Makadok.  Toward a synthesis of the resource‐based and dynamic‐capability views of rent creation , 2001 .

[5]  José Moyano-Fuentes,et al.  What can we learn from the evolution of research on lean management assessment? , 2013 .

[6]  Wynne W. Chin.  The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. , 1998 .

[7]  Wallace J. Hopp,et al.  Factory physics : foundations of manufacturing management , 1996 .

[8]  S. Hershberger,et al.  A Simple Rule for Generating Equivalent Models in Covariance Structure Modeling. , 1990, Multivariate behavioral research.

[9]  M. L. Emiliani,et al.  Origins of lean management in America: The role of Connecticut businesses , 2006 .

[10]  Kouichi Shimizu,et al.  Reorienting Kaizen Activities at Toyota : Kaizen, Production Efficiency, and Humanization of Work , 2004 .

[11]  J A Davy,et al.  A derivation of the underlying constructs of just-in-time management systems. , 1992, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[12]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[13]  Jan Olhager,et al.  Evolution of operations planning and control: from production to supply chains , 2013 .

[14]  T. C. Powell.  Total Quality Management as Competitive Advantage , 1995 .

[15]  Jeffrey K. Liker,et al.  The Toyota Production System and art: making highly customized and creative products the Toyota way , 2007 .

[16]  R. Sitgreaves.  Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). , 1979 .

[17]  Ajay Das,et al.  Looking beyond the obvious: Unraveling the Toyota production system , 2010 .

[18]  S. Spear,et al.  Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System , 1999 .

[19]  Barbara M. Byrne,et al.  Structural equation modeling with AMOS , 2010 .

[20]  F. David,et al.  Chase, Jacobs, and Aquilano, 2004, Operations Management for Competitive Advantage Tenth Edition, Mc Graw Hill, New York. , 2004 .

[21]  Richard S. Wellins,et al.  Empowered Teams: Creating Self-Directed Work Groups That Improve Quality, Productivity, and Participation , 1991 .

[22]  Matthias Holweg,et al.  The genealogy of lean production , 2007 .

[23]  David Gadenne,et al.  An investigation of the hard and soft quality management factors of Australian SMEs and their association with firm performance , 2009 .

[24]  Barbara M. Byrne,et al.  Structural equation modeling with EQS : basic concepts, applications, and programming , 2000 .

[25]  Evangelos Psomas,et al.  The impact of “soft” and “hard” TQM elements on quality management results , 2009 .

[26]  Masaaki Imai,et al.  Kaizen (Ky'zen) : the key to Japan's competitive success / Masaaki Imai , 1986 .

[27]  Richard B. Chase,et al.  Operations Management , 2019, CCSP (ISC)2 Certified Cloud Security Professional Official Study Guide, 2nd Edition.

[28]  Roger G. Schroeder,et al.  The Impact of Quality Management Practices on Performance and Competitive Advantage , 1995 .

[29]  J. H. Dyer,et al.  Creating and managing a high‐performance knowledge‐sharing network: the Toyota case , 2000 .

[30]  P. Herrmann,et al.  Evolution of Strategic Management: The Need for New Dominant Designs , 2005 .

[31]  Knowlton W. Johnson.  Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: Testing a Theory for Research Use , 1998 .

[32]  賴聖哲,et al.  軟硬實力對供應鏈整合之影響;The Impact of Soft and Hard Skills on Supply Chain Integration and Performance , 2012 .

[33]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[34]  Steve New,et al.  Celebrating the enigma: the continuing puzzle of the Toyota Production System , 2007 .

[35]  Gill Thomas,et al.  Respect for People , 2008 .

[36]  J. Liker.  The Toyota Way , 2003 .

[37]  Byron J. Finch.  Operations Now: Supply Chain Profitability and Performance , 2007 .

[38]  Yasuhiro Monden,et al.  Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to Just-In-Time , 1993 .

[39]  Richard J. Schonberger,et al.  Japanese production management: An evolution—With mixed success , 2007 .

[40]  Thierno M. O. Diallo,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 2014 .

[41]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  A Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1984 .

[42]  Mike Rother,et al.  Toyota Kata: Managing People for Improvement, Adaptiveness and Superior Results , 2009 .

[43]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[44]  Åke Sandberg.  Enriching Production: Perspectives on Volvo's Uddevalla plant as an alternative to lean production , 1995 .

[45]  Daniel Roos,et al.  The machine that changed the world : the story of lean production , 1991 .

[46]  Jeffrey K. Liker,et al.  Toyota Culture: The Heart and Soul of the Toyota Way , 2008 .

[47]  James P. Womack,et al.  Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation , 1996 .

[48]  Wallace J. Hopp,et al.  To Pull or Not to Pull: What Is the Question? , 2004, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag..

[49]  今井 正明,et al.  Kaizen (Ky'zen) : the key to Japan's competitive success , 1986 .

[50]  E. Schein.  Organizational Culture and Leadership , 1991 .

[51]  Reha Uzsoy,et al.  The impact of simultaneous continuous improvement in setup time and repair time on manufacturing cycle times under uncertain conditions , 2013 .

[52]  J. Barney,et al.  The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991 , 2001 .

[53]  P. Hines,et al.  Learning to evolve: A review of contemporary lean thinking , 2004 .

[54]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  The resource‐based view of the firm: Ten years after , 1995 .

[55]  Mikko A. Junttila,et al.  A resource-based view of manufacturing strategy and the relationship to manufacturing performance , 2002 .

[56]  Torbjørn H. Netland,et al.  Exploring the phenomenon of company-specific production systems: one-best-way or own-best-way? , 2013 .

[57]  大野 耐一,et al.  Toyota production system : beyond large-scale production , 1988 .

[58]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[59]  Rachna Shah,et al.  Defining and developing measures of lean production , 2007 .