Step 7 - Follow Up and Standardize: Common Pitfalls

What Good Looks Like (and Common Pitfalls)

Context

At its best, Step 7 is the living expression of Toyota’s historical follow-up pattern:
real problems triggering real confirmation by the right people at the right time.
It’s not a calendar-driven audit or a ceremonial “walk.”
It’s a pull system for leadership attention, rooted in the discipline of change-point control and anchored in human verification.

When a significant event occurs—an equipment downtime, a safety incident, a quality defect, or a process abnormality tied to a key machine function—Toyota’s standard practice is to pull the relevant technical and managerial leaders to the floor.
The goal is to review what happened, observe the countermeasure, and confirm that both the problem and its solution are physically visible and repeatable.

In a good system, the countermeasure leaves a physical trace—a device, visual control, or condition that makes it obvious the change is in place and functioning.
Paperwork may record the change, but the process itself tells the story.
This is the real meaning of “standardize and follow up” in problem solving:
the standard becomes visible in the work itself.

---

What Good Looks Like

1. Trigger-Based Follow-Up, Not Schedule-Based

   • Follow-up is pulled by events, not pushed by the calendar.
   • Quality escapes, equipment failures, or safety near-misses automatically initiate follow-up and verification routines.
   • Managers, engineers, and maintenance leaders personally check the facts before group review.

2. Integrated Change-Point Management

   • Every modification—mechanical, procedural, or training-related—is logged, verified, and tied into the daily management system.
   • Change points are monitored for a defined period until stable.
   • Visual indicators, updated work standards, and check sheets reflect the new condition.

3. Visible, Physical Countermeasures

   • Effective solutions are embedded in devices, sensors, controls, or visual feedback, not just written instructions.
   • The machine or process itself enforces the new normal (jidoka in practice).
   • Paperwork documents the change, but visibility sustains it.

4. Structured Communication and Training

   • Any change that affects operator work, maintenance routines, or quality checks triggers short-form communication and on-the-job instruction.
   • Team leaders ensure understanding through observation, not assumption.
   • Feedback loops confirm that the new standard is both understood and feasible.

5. Layered Accountability and Daily Management

   • Follow-up items appear on daily management boards for tracking and closure.
   • Supervisors, team leaders, and engineers share visibility of what was changed and why.
   • Confirmation occurs at multiple levels over time—an embedded “layered process confirmation.”

---

Common Pitfalls

1. No Real Standards or Change-Management Backbone

   • Changes occur informally with no technical or managerial documentation path.
   • Improvement relies on memory and goodwill, not structure.

2. Lack of Go-and-See Culture

   • Leaders depend on reports, photos, or emails instead of firsthand confirmation.
   • “Follow-up” happens from a desk, not at the gemba.

3. Weak Linkage Between Change Points and Daily Management

   • No system to monitor change stability or verify results over time.
   • The same problem quietly returns months later because no one was watching the follow-up window.

4. Poor Training and Communication

   • People affected by a change are not informed or retrained.
   • Standards drift quickly because understanding was assumed, not checked.

5. Administrative Compliance Instead of Real Follow-Through

   • Countermeasures end with paperwork: emails, sign-offs, or PowerPoint slides marked “completed.”
   • There is no physical verification, no teaching moment, and no visible control.
   • The “follow-up” becomes a formality rather than a confirmation.

---

Closing Reflection

Not every problem requires a formalized follow-up cycle.
Many are handled locally within the team, immediately and effectively.
But for issues with broader technical or managerial implications, the discipline of structured follow-up is non-negotiable.

Toyota’s strength was never in documents—it was in seeing, confirming, and stabilizing before moving on.
That is what good looks like in Step 7:
a system where standards live in the work, leaders confirm reality, and improvement holds its ground.

Follow-up is respect in action — the commitment to ensure that what we fixed stays fixed.