Standardisation and Innovation: Navigating the Paradox

During a conference on my book in Rennes in October 2022, an audience member raised a pertinent question. He found the content interesting but struggled to see how to implement Lean within his small team, believing that standardisation would significantly hinder his team’s creativity.

This is a relatively common misconception in individualistic cultures, which often see standardisation and innovation as opposing forces. At first glance, standardisation is perceived as a constraint on creativity and entrepreneurial freedom. Paradoxically, however, standardisation forms the foundation of continuous improvement, just as innovation does. The crux of the issue lies elsewhere: in the framework within which improvement takes place.

Before delving deeper, it is essential to clarify what we mean. A standard is defined as the best-known method at any given time. It is dynamic, as it is expected to evolve whenever a better method emerges, whether in three days or five years. Other characteristics of a standard include its derivation from stakeholders, its basis in field observations, its implementation through incremental experimentation, and its ultimate service to the customer.

Thus, it is not a case of “I decide to create my standard based on whims or inspirations,” but rather “I follow the existing standard, to which I have contributed, until we collectively decide to change it for a better method.”

Standardisation, therefore, operates within a collective framework. To caricature a bit, one might say that the driver of individual innovation is to stand out from others, from colleagues – which is entirely legitimate – whereas the driver of collective innovation is to surpass the competition.

What do we need in a collective creation process? Firstly, a common and shared language (the standards) among teams. Secondly, temporal milestones, i.e., time periods during which these new standards can be tested.

In reality, standardisation and innovation are not opposed. They are, in fact, complementary, forming the two poles of continuous improvement, like two sides of a coin that cannot exist without each other.

Individualism versus Collectivism

This dimension reflects the extent, degree, and nature of the bonds between the individual and group members. It refers to the concept of identity, which is formed in relation to others.

In so-called “collectivist” cultures, people exist through their belonging to a community, so the group’s interests take precedence over personal interests. This orientation refers to a society in which people are integrated from birth into a community. In these cultures, social harmony takes precedence over independence and individual expression. Confucius aptly illustrates how individuals invest in these roles: “I am the totality of the roles I live in relation to another specific person… Taken collectively, these [roles] weave for each of us a unique pattern of personal identity, so that if some of my roles change, the others will necessarily change and make me a different person.”

You may have heard the anecdote about the Japanese who introduces himself by first stating the name of his company or institution. He then mentions his department, followed by his position, and finally his name. In Japan, each person exists in relation to others. Indeed, there are three different ways to say “I”: Watashi (私), Boku (僕), or Ore (俺). The choice of pronoun depends on the context of the conversation and the interlocutor.

As for me, I never introduce myself by speaking of others. I first speak of what characterises me, what I do or what I have (such as my job title), because I come from an individualistic culture, typical of Western societies, where the degree of attachment to a group is much weaker, and where personal fulfilment, freedom, and well-being prevail over the group. This identity construction stems from Greek philosophy, advocating the ideal of a free individual: master of his life and choices. It results in an identity more independent of others.

From Organisational Chart to Flow Diagram

Lean originated in Japan, within a collectivist culture where individuals identify through their various roles. In light of these elements, we can better understand the central role of the flow diagram in Lean. While individuals from Western cultures might turn to the organisational chart to identify their role, the focus shifts to the flow diagram in Lean. It is less about identifying people through their job titles and more about their roles in relation to others within the value chain.

This is what Virassack, a young planner, quickly discovered at Toyota Motors Europe. Upon his arrival, he joined the supply chain management department and conscientiously set about his new duties. A few weeks of intense integration and learning later, Virassack was invited to a one-on-one lunch with the Vice President of Toyota Motor Europe at the time: Mr. Tadashi Arashima. Feeling both honored and nervous, he had no idea what they were going to talk about.

Virassack tried to put on a good face during the car ride to the restaurant. Although Mr. Arashima broke the ice to put him at ease, the idea of talking with such a prominent figure made him somewhat uneasy. Upon arriving at the restaurant, they continued to discuss general topics until Tadashi Arashima asked him a question that would profoundly impact Virassack: “Do you know why your role is important, why you are here, and how you will contribute to the organization?”

Surprised by the direct question, Virassack responded that he thought his job was mainly to manage data and create error-free scheduling files. Looking back, he smiled at his naive response, but at that moment, he genuinely believed it was the right answer. Mr. Arashima, with kindness, explained to him that planning at Toyota is much more than a simple administrative task. “Planning is a strategic activity at Toyota,” he said. “Every number you enter into our systems is not just a figure but a commitment.”

Virassack listened attentively, gradually understanding the magnitude of his responsibilities. Arashima continued, “Your estimates and schedules directly contribute to management decisions. Your work has a real impact on our entire supply chain and, by extension, our overall success.”

This moment was a revelation for Virassack. He realized that each employee, through their role, constituted an essential cog in the machine. Every task, no matter how insignificant it might seem, had its importance in the whole. This awareness transformed his vision of his work. He was no longer just a data planner but a key player through his role in a larger organization.