Thursday, October 13, 2016

LEAN HARD TALK. Critique to "Toyota Kata Unified Field Theory" by Bill Constantino

Bill Constantino "Toyota Kata Unified Field Theory" in

Dear Mr. Constantino, it is not clear to me if when you refer to “Unified Field Theory” you understand what you are refering to / talking about. 
For instance… From a psychological perspective, the “life space” of a process owner is the combination of all the factors that influences a person's behavior at any time. The interactions between process owner, his/her behavior and the environment make up a dynamic field, which means that the state of any part of the field depends on every other part of it. (Martin, 2003). There have been numerous efforts to quantify such interactions. 
From a physical perspective, a “field” describes the interaction of objects through field equations. For instance a gravitational field. 
Your “Toyota KATA Unified Field Theory” seems to describe solely the interaction of a process owner with several other “target oportunities”. But, what about the rest of the process owners in the organization? Could you explain the gravitational field of the solar system by describing solely the interaction between sun and earth? Could you explain such a field by neglecting the fact that other planets are turning around a sun which is also moving within a galaxy? And what about the dynamics of the galaxy? on and on… 
It is highly questionable that the election of an individual “target state” can be wisely made considering indivual process owners. What are the consequences of achieving a “target-state” for the rest of the organization? This is not explained by KATA. Target States are per definition contrary to the notion of an inter-dependent reality inherent to the nature of organizations / field theory. 
Until you don’t provide a quantifiable approach that describes such systemic interactions, you will not have a “unified field theory”. Until you do not provide equations that describe these interactions you will have nothing at all. 
For this reasons, chances are that the Toyota KATA and a “Unified Field Theory”, based on the notion of “Target States” such as described by Mr. Rother, becomes a Clay-Feet-Giant unable to create the necessary conditions for alignment. 
For these reasons (and some more) is KATA, as described by M. Rother, not the correct approach to create organizational alignment and cannot be used as backbone of Hoshin Kanri. 
You can contact me under @h4lean in twitter. Happy to continue the lean hard talk. 
Best Regards, J Villalba
Martin, John Levi (July 2003). "What Is Field Theory?". American Journal of Sociology. 109 (1): 1–49