​Back in the late 1500's, the Republic of Venice relied on rapid production techniques to survive.  The Venice arsenal was produced by the largest industrial plant in the world at that time.  The plant built warships.  Because the Republic could not possibly afford to maintain a peacetime fleet large enough to repel attackers, it instead stood ready with the plant to literally build an entire fleet of ships on short notice--sometimes 100 ships in six weeks.  It did this using techniques that were nothing short of enlightened, even by today's standards.  The plant employed 1500 workers and covered 60 acres.  It was the world's first large-scale assembly line.  Necessity was the mother of invention.  Reflect on that for a moment--better production techniques were used because survival--and victory--depended on it.  

Two centuries later it was weapons again.  Eli Whitney was awarded the contract to manufacture muskets for George Washington.  A factory was built in New Haven, Connecticut.  Some advanced production techniques were used:  ordered integrated workflow; standardized, interchangeable parts; focused factory areas; dedicated machines; error-proofing mechanisms to reduce variations from personal craft.  This example, too, is notable for the urgency that prompted innovation.  America needed arms to protect itself in an era of international military conquest:  better production techniques were used because survival--and victory--depended on it. 

​Still later, Henry Ford led a revolution of a different kind in this country.  Ford can accurately be called "The Father of Cycle Time Management."  Ford was a man who hated to waste time.  In 1926 he wrote, "Time waste differs from material waste in that there can be no salvage.  The easiest of all wastes, and the hardest to correct, is the waste of time, because wasted time does not litter the floor like wasted material."  Between 1913 and 1914, Ford doubled production with no increase in the workforce.  Between 1920 and 1926, cycle time was reduced by 90% from 21 days to 2 days.
 
The secret to Ford's success was a new process model for automobile manufacturing--Continuous Flow Assembly.  And while his emergency was not a military one, remember that Ford was trying to build and dominate a brand new industry.  He was quite literally trying to change the world.  Like the other precursors of the JIT production system, better production techniques were used because survival--and victory--depended on it.

In 1949, Kiirchiro Toyoda sent his grandson to spend the summer at the Ford plant in Rouge.  Soon thereafter, the Toyota system of manufacturing was born.  To say that Toyota borrowed from Ford is not accurate.  To say that Toyota copied Ford is not accurate.  Toyota learned from Ford, especially from Ford's mistakes.  The Toyota system was in some ways a revolution, just as Ford's had been.  There were striking differences between how Toyota and Ford built cars.  JIT was continuing to evolve.
 
One difference was that Ford relied on maximum lot sizes and minimum numbers of setups.  Toyota, on the other hand, strove to reduce lot sizes to eventually produce each and every product uniquely.
 
Another big difference was in the control of production.  Kanban was used as the major tool in Toyota's JIT production system.
 
A third key difference was in the rearrangement of equipment.  Instead of grouping all machines together by type of machine--all of the lathes here, all of the milling machines over there, for example--Toyota arranged the machines in the order that they were used in the manufacturing process.  This meant low inventories and small lot sizes.
 
These were revolutionary changes in automobile manufacturing.  What prompted such innovation?  Toyota was one of many Japanese manufacturers trying desperately to build something from what little was left of Japanese industry following World War II.  Better production techniques were used because survival--and victory--depended on it.
 
We all know the result.  Today, Toyota dominates the automobile market and is a model for manufacturing excellence. And Ford, the proverbial mentor, nearly failed before following the path of its protégé.  The student became the teacher, and the teacher the student.  In the school of hard knocks, Ford has learned a lot in the past decade, and better production techniques are being used because survival--and victory--depend on it.

​Dr. Deming and Dr. Juran transformed manufacturing in the United States. Each rose from poor beginnings to become cornerstone leaders of the quality control movement. 

Joseph Juran, a child immigrant from Romania, worked his way up the ladder at the Western Electric Company, formerly a division of AT&T. Juran invented the Pareto principle, which states that 80 percent of waste comes from 20 percent of procedures.
 
For decades, Juran helped U.S. manufacturers cut waste and deliver better products. Now, we apply our learnings from Dr. Juran across all sectors of business. Here’s a video of Steve Jobs when he was president at Next, on working with Dr. Juran:

Dr. Deming spent most of his childhood on a barren farm in Cody, Wyoming. His family lived on the bare minimum to survive. He went on to study engineering and eventually earned his doctorate in physics.
 
Deming began his transformative work in Japan. He pioneered the use of applied statistics in the factories, and production soared. In 1960 he was awarded the Awarded the Second Order Medal of the Sacred Treasure by the Emperor of Japan for his service in saving the economy of the wore-torn nation from desolation.
 
After teaching all over the world, he returned to the United States. My wife, Joanne, was one of Dr. Deming’s protégés before we met. In addition to playing an instrumental role in Boeing’s Lean implementation during the late 1980s, she had the rare opportunity to shadow W. Edwards Deming during his consultations with Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, and Harvard. She also assisted him at some of his seminars.

​Deming taught the world that systems are responsible for waste, and way get rid of waste is through continuous improvement. As Deming said, “The timid and the fainthearted, and the people who expect quick results, are doomed to disappointment.”
 
At JBA, Dr. Deming has taught us to look critically at every tiny part of the hospital care process. When we find problems, we then act step by step to reclaim wasted time and supplies.
​
When I was handed the responsibility to start a quality revolution at Boeing in the mid 1980s all Boeing senior leaders were required to attend the Juran and Deming seminars. In addition we formed a Quality Improvement Center that was staffed with the best and brightest executive potential candidates representing all Boeing functions. They also attended Juran and Deming and other specialized training.
 
Dr. Deming also taught us the importance of getting upper level management on board before a transformation. Ultimately, as Deming says, management is responsible for the system. To get sustainable results, management has to be committed to the long haul of continuous improvement.

When the Toyota Group (replacing the Toyoda family’s d with a t) set up an automobile-manufacturing operation in the 1930s, Sakichi’s son Kiichiro headed the new venture. He traveled to the United States to study Henry Ford’s system in operation, and he returned with a strong grasp of Ford’s conveyor system and an even stronger desire to adapt that system to the small volumes of the Japanese market (Toyota Manufacturing Kentucky 2015). Soon thereafter, the first Toyota system of manufacturing was born. To say that Toyota copied Ford is not accurate—Toyota learned from Ford, especially from Ford’s mistakes. This point demonstrates the driving power of the Toyota system: continuous improvement.
           
Taiichi Ohno, Toyota’s chief process engineer, added many of the tools and detailed production processes to Kiichiro Toyoda’s vision, and he understood that what would soon become TPS could be applied more broadly than just to manufacturing. In his book Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production (1988, xv), he states:

​Ohno is best remembered for the implementation of the just-in-time strategy in the TPS. He went on to publish three books and mentor young managers at the Toyota Group.
 
Together, Ohno and Toyoda ushered the Toyota Group into an era of world-class production. 

​Sakichi Toyoda, founder of the Toyota Group, lived out the spirit of kaizen from childhood. As a teenager, Toyoda led study groups focused on self-improvement for other young people. He also wanted to find a way to improve society on a large scale, through the use of new machine technology.
 
In the 1890s Toyoda invented a loom that would stop automatically if any of the threads snapped. His invention reduced defects and raised yields, because the loom would not continue using up thread and producing imperfect fabric after a problem occurred. The new loom also enabled a single operator to handle dozens of looms, revolutionizing the textile industry.

​The principle of designing equipment to stop automatically and to immediately call attention to problems is crucial to the Toyota Production System (TPS). The TPS was developed by Toyoda’s son, Kiichiro, and Toyota’s chief process engineer, Taiichi Ohno, who standardized the core of Sakichi’s learnings.

Throughout his time as an engineer at the Toyota Group, Sakichi Toyoda committed himself to rigorous study. Just as we take company tours today, Toyoda traveled to the U.S. and Europe to see how other textile factories organized their production, often after the Toyota Group suffered a setback. Each time a product failed, Toyoda looked for ways to fix the problem. He did not give up on his products. He did not cover up his mistakes. He sought continuous improvement.