The “Toyota system” and its “worshippers”




This is an ironic newsletter – we like having fun.

Some “resumé” for those who have not read Issue nr.1.

Why a newsletter on misfits? The idea came to us in Lugano on a Sunday afternoon: we were thinking about a seminar we had attended the week before in another country, and we were laughing at the “visible project management” which had even been called a methodology.

Because of a strange coincidence, the evening before we had been writing an introduction to project management; to our own surprise, part of that introduction had to be dedicated to de-mithing some “conventional wisdom” elements.

So, this is where, how and why this newsletter was born.







 Some time ago, we wrote a tiny article on the “Toyota system”, Toyota and Fiat. We guessed; in view of the latest news … were we right?


The news

Before that, an old piece of news: it would appear Fiat began adopting the “Toyota system” in its Melfi site.

 An article (July 1st, 2008) reported that the Melfi site of Fiat was going to stop production for three days.

On December 22nd, 2008, Toyota announced a loss: “The carmaker will post a 150 billion yen ($1.7 billion) loss in the year through March …” and “The carmaker’s sales in the U.S., traditionally its most profitable market, plunged 34 percent in November. Toyota’s European sales dropped 34 percent last month, according to the European Automobile Manufacturers Association in Brussels.

 On January 13th, 2009, an influential financial newspaper published an article: Fiat’s `number two´ had left Fiat the day before.

 today (January 14th, 2009), an influential financial newspaper published two articles, one beside the other.

According to the article on Toyota, starting in June, 2009, `a member of the Toyoda family which founded the group´ will return to the `command post´.

According to both articles on Fiat, Fiat’s “number 2” had been working for Toyota from 1998 to 2002, in particular for Toyota Motor Europe with `amongst other tasks, responsibility for product planning and coordination of the Lexus brand commercial planning and the task of General Manager, Product Management Division [link]´.

Now, is it a case? The historic Toyota management takes the lead again (getting rid of the recent management) and … Fiat’s “number 2” leaves Fiat.


Some considerations

 The “Toyota system”. We have never liked it.

In our opinion, it is solely applicable to very big companies operating in the car industry or similar industries; even in that case, we think it implies unnecessary expenses (e.g., “Set Based Concurrent Engineering”) and it can be worth only in bullish times.

Moreover, in our opinion it is not a project management methodology, it is a work philosophy tailored for the Japanese mentality.

Nonetheless, at project management seminars scores of people “worship” it, refer to it and so on. Why? Because Toyota was selling scores of cars.

How often have we heard of “best practice”, which in itself is a good concept and means “take the experience of others into consideration with a pinch of salt”? Maybe one doesn’t like salt, or maybe it is easier to go to the Board and say “Look, Toyota is making money, let’s copy them!”

Whoever says “I follow the Toyota system”, says it proudly, he/she seems to say “I am making use of the best”.

 It was once said that an ordeal would reveal the truth; nowadays, one would speak of “trial by fire”, but they have a different meaning: the latter refers to “real fighting” (for us, practical use), the former refers to a telling situation such as bad markets (or a very difficult fighting situation for a soldier).

What is the ordeal revealing?


You know, at seminars we met some people who said they had tried to apply the “Toyota system” in the West but, unless they extensively modified it, results wouldn’t be acceptable.

Nonetheless, the “Toyota system” couldn’t be discussed, not really. As a result, scores of “project managers” began pronouncing those two words more and more often; it was “trendy”, you know.

Sometimes, people termed “outmoded” those competitors who hadn’t adopted the “Toyota system”.

As for us, “poor” certified Project Managers, who knew of the Western methodologies we were making use of? If one had spoken of the “Toyota system”, everyone would have been interested; if someone had spoken of Prince2, people would have looked lost.


But … in the meantime Chinese companies were selling more and more; not cars, but they were conquering the world. Try to guess? Prince2, the Project Management methodology born in Europe, was conquering China.

Stop! What is that?

Everyone in Europe was looking in awe at Chinese results; all the while, Europeans were going crazy for an Asian “work philosophy”. China was being conquered by a true Project Management methodology, and a very successful one (in Europe!) if only for that.

What is that?





How is it that excellent Western methodologies are forgotten to the advantage of exotic “systems”?

Because it is easy. It is easy to go to a buyer and tell him “I bring the X system; look, others are making money”.

How much more difficult it is to tell buyers “I have a successful methodology you may have never heard of; I have studied a lot to learn it and pass exams”! After all, what does the Swiss or Italian buyer know of Prince2, for example?

And … one must be certified to apply Prince2 or PMP; is that true for other “methods”?

And … when one is applying a true methodology, one can’t drift too much.

It is said that rudderless ships are good only at drifting; true captains hate drifting because they are very good at navigating.


The only problem is … how can passengers find out which ships will probably begin drifting once the port is no longer in sight?

Look for the rudder, ask to see it and ask the captain for certificates attesting his rank.



“Misfits of project management” is free and can be freely forwarded: some healthy fun is necessary in these modern times.

Being an ironic newsletter, it reflects only ideas. “Answers” or assertions that are not between inverted commas [‘….’] are not to be considered as “true” answers or assertions: that is only a way to express ironically what is perceived.

We make use of another set of inverted commas [“….”]: those are no quotations at all, just a literary device of ours to make concepts clearer.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.