In his classic book, “Antifragility,” Nassim Nicholas Taleb describes the Lindy Effect. The following quote, while stripping away some of the academic detail that Taleb goes on to apply, gives us a decent enough starting point for this article:
“If a book has been in print for forty years, I can expect it to be in print for another forty years. But, and that is the main difference, if it survives another decade, then it will be expected to be in print for another fifty years. This, simply, as a rule, tells you why things that have been around for a long time are not “ageing” like persons, but “ageing” in reverse. Every year that passes without extinction doubles the additional life expectancy.” (Antifragile, Taleb, p318.)
In other words, what was a good idea will pretty much always be a good idea.
This concept is undoubtedly true of Lean in general and some lean tools specifically. The difficulty comes when lean is deployed as a set of “must-have” initiatives, without reference to specific problem-solving. Kanban is fantastic and was just what Toyota needed to pull value through their system, but that doesn’t mean that it is necessarily the answer for my or your organisation. The clue is in the word “answer.” The term “answer” implies that there is a question. Tool deployment for the sake of tool deployment will give benefits, but they may not last. What is the problem that we are trying to solve?
Taleb’s argument is based around a statistical probability that, at any time, most things are approximately halfway through their life cycle. It is the safest guess, based on the numbers. In terms of lean methods, my intuition (the least scientific approach) is that lean, particularly here in the West, is still very young. I base this assertion around my feeling that, for much of its existence, lean has been misunderstood by many of its practitioners. I also wonder if the concept or system under focus needs to be in its steady, almost “adult” state?
Each of us, as children, changed on an almost daily basis. It is only in adulthood that our paths become more statistically predictable. I follow a lot of lean thinkers on various social media platforms, and I feel that there is a much more consistent message and body of knowledge spread over a wider area. There are more leaders and experts, and crucially, they give a much more consistent message.
TPS was always the Toyota Production System. But now, more often than ever, you will see references to the Thinking Production System, a much more accurate moniker, in my view. Lean giant, Mike Rother, has for some time been heavily endorsing the Toyota Kata, with its coaching and improvement routines. Link personal growth, through coaching, with the lean tools as problem-solving methods, and you have something far more sustainable and effective.
However, there is one approach that has been on my mind for a while – and which certainly springs into my consciousness when thinking about the Lindy Effect.
I refer to the Training Within Industry “J” Programs, which we have talked about on this blog before.
Given that these programs are now over eighty years old, could we expect them to be around in 2100? Like lean methods, the TWI “J” Programs were born out of necessity. In the case of TWI Job Instruction Training, the four-step method was designed to train people quickly and effectively, to add skill and value to the US war economy. When this urgency was removed, the programs fell out of favour, in the West, at least. However, they were taken up with some vigour in the rebuilding of Japan, and history has told us many times how that story ends, particularly in the automotive industry.
I sit writing this in January of 2022, in a post-Brexit and, hopefully soon, a post-pandemic UK. In the run-up to Christmas 2021, skill shortages were very high on the agenda of many sectors and organisations. It is straightforward to put together a causal narrative that highlights the influence of both Covid-19 and Brexit on this turn of events, but history may judge that view to be overly simplistic, particularly as similar hurdles are being reported both in Europe and the US.
What we do have, however, are the beginnings of an interesting problem statement regarding a shortage of skills in many sectors, with employers coming under increasing pressure to secure the brightest talents.
When we have greater clarity into this evolving problem and the root causes have been examined and measured for veracity, I begin to suspect that Training Within Industry will enjoy something of a renaissance.
One of the best texts on the topic is “The TWI Facilitator’s Guide: How To Use The TWI Programs Successfully,” by Donald. A. Dinero.
Within the work, Dinero describes how each of the TWI Programs addresses a different human motivational factor. Job Instruction Training addresses our need to be competent and through that the natural work ethic of most people. Put simply; there is a human need to add value. Job Methods give us the opportunity to work with autonomy and find the best way to do our work. Finally, Job Relations helps us to navigate how we all work with one another in harmony. Ally these to the five needs of the supervisor, and we a perfect way to tap into the thinking side of our thinking people systems. When we add lean tools, which are now trained as part of problem-solving, rather than deployed for the sake of it, we achieve a potent mix. Throw in scientific thinking nurtured through coaching, and the alchemy becomes unstoppable.
But the first step, of reducing variation during initial training, remains a potent foundation stone. If the Lindy effect is broadly correct, expect to see Training Within Industry being rolled out for many decades to come as the cornerstone of standardisation, standard work, and 5S.
Simon D. Gary is the author of “Super Lean – Unlock Your Company’s Million-Dollar Edge.” Further details are available here.