Criticizing Lean

I have received a fair amount of criticism for blog posts that I have written over the last few years criticizing “Lean,” the MIT studies that resulted in “Lean,” the work of James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones, and the work of the Lean Enterprise Institute and the Lean Enterprise Academy. The tone of my writing, I am told, can come across as personal attacks (read this to understand the tone of my writing; it’s tough because people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake).

But are my criticisms actually personal attacks?

The feedback I have received inspired my curiosity, so I went back and reviewed all blog posts that criticized “Lean,” Womack, and so on. I wanted to review the context for each occurrence of criticism. Below is an accounting of the relevant blog posts by category:

Compliment the Work

http://www.bobemiliani.com/evolving-out-of-need/

http://www.bobemiliani.com/the-back-story-lean-leadership-research/

http://www.bobemiliani.com/read-to-succeed/

Criticism of the Work or Arguments

http://www.bobemiliani.com/evolving-out-of-need/

http://www.bobemiliani.com/leans-bad-timing/

http://www.bobemiliani.com/lean-management-and-the-public-good/

http://www.bobemiliani.com/leans-midlife-crisis/

http://www.bobemiliani.com/seddons-amazing-discovery/

http://www.bobemiliani.com/reverse-toyota-way/

http://www.bobemiliani.com/just-too-late/

http://www.bobemiliani.com/evolution-and-future-of-lean/

http://www.bobemiliani.com/much-study-little-understanding/

http://www.bobemiliani.com/yasuhiro-monden/

http://www.bobemiliani.com/shifting-definitions-of-lean-thinking/

Personal Criticisms (Ad hominem Attacks)

None

• • • •

People may not generally realize the basis for my criticisms are from a scholarly perspective informed by my role as a university professor. Scholarly criticism was one of the things that I was trained to do in my B.S, M.S., and Ph.D. programs. It is more generally called “critical thinking.” In Lean world, it is called asking “Why?,” and always challenging conventions and pre-conceptions. That’s what we do, isn’t it?

Anyone whose name is associated with a scholarly work (e.g. Womack and Jones) is subject to scholarly criticism by other scholars. Such criticism can have the appearance of ad hominem attacks, but are not that at all. People who present themselves as scholars and who also exist as leaders in a field are, naturally, targets for very close scrutiny of their work.

Criticism is a value-laden activity for moving a field of knowledge forward because it helps people recognize problems think and prompts them to do research and explore new ideas. My father was a scientist, and I knew a lot about his work. The written criticisms that the researchers in the field leveled at each other were very aggressive in regard to theory, practice, or both. Disagreement was welcomed as an important and worthwhile challenge (“Challenge,” you will recall, is an element of The Toyota Way 2001). Comprehending criticism and defending one’s views was an opportunity to learn more, not less. 

Yet, interestingly, the researchers were good friends with shared interests and a responsibility to advance their field of science, which they took very seriously. Service to the science stood well above personal gain. They met at conferences a few times a year, dined together, drank beer until late into the night. They were inclusive and invited the younger scientists to join them whenever possible, and usually paid for their meals and drinks. They would visit each other’s university labs, give lectures to students, and dine in each other’s homes in the evening. There was some shop talk, but mostly it was eating, drinking, telling jokes, and recounting funny stories until midnight. These important aspects seem to be missing among the leading figures of the Lean community.

In my view, Womack and Jones’  work, and that of the MIT researchers, has many serious shortcomings. They missed key things that have proven to be very important in the practical application of Lean (e.g. the existence of Fake Lean, Lean failures, and so on). While that is hindsight, it is still fair to criticize their work. For example, the work of Adam Smith is criticized to this day and will be in the future.

I think something for which they can be criticized for, as I have pointed out, is failing to adjust, correct, or improve their work when evidence – primarily coming from others – presents itself. Womack and LEI and Jones and LEA have been slow to do this or, in some cases, (apparently) unwilling. The lack of responsiveness does not serve the community that depends on them. 

Advancing a field of study, whether its theoretical or practical aspects, is difficult. People are generally not receptive to the “odd views” that invariably accompany criticism. At times, it can be appear to some be distasteful or even ugly. And it is difficult to take criticism. But it is not rude, and disagreement should be welcomed.

Lean people should welcome criticism as they are, themselves, supposed to be exceptional critical thinkers and problem-solvers, comfortable speaking truth to power. But, the general reaction is to ignore criticism and blindly accept the conventions and pre-conceptions associated with Lean. That is an enormous blind spot that limits people’s ability to improve and evolve their knowledge and practice of Lean. By doing so, they opt-out of advancing the thinking and practice of Lean management.

Criticism informs people about problems. It is necessary, even fundamental to human existence, as we are always looking to improve. You can’t improve if you don’t know about problems.

from Bob Emiliani http://www.bobemiliani.com/criticizing-lean/