Tools and Methods
Context and Caution
Before naming tools, it’s important to remember the foundation:
All of TPS depends on technology, behavior, and management systems working together.
No single tool makes follow-up or standardization work on its own.
Machines, methods, and human habits must reinforce each other.
When any one of those three weakens, results drift and learning erodes.
Step 7 is where that integration is tested every day.
1. Change-Point Management – The Core Discipline
Inside Toyota, any alteration to a process, part, or machine is defined as a change point—a new datum surface, clamp redesign, filter relocation, pulley, belt, or even a minor routing change.
Each change triggers a change-point management cycle linking the technical, human, and managerial sides of follow-up:
- Designation – Identify and register the affected element.
- Implementation – Execute the modification safely and precisely.
- Documentation – Record it through the cascading standards: TMS, TMR, MTS, and local Work Standards.
- Verification – Monitor for a fixed period to confirm stability.
- Communication & Training – Ensure all affected personnel understand what changed and why.
Nothing was ever considered “done” until the follow-up period confirmed stability.
Spare-parts control followed the same logic. At Kamigo, parts were stocked only when replacement time exceeded a few hours. Nearby vendors made immediate supply possible; overseas plants held more inventory. Even this stocking policy was standardized—a perfect example of how technology decisions and management systems intertwined.
Change-point control remains the technical backbone of Step 7: it forces documentation, visual confirmation, and leader involvement into one disciplined rhythm.
2. Daily Management and Visible Confirmation
Once change points were logged, they appeared on Shop-Floor Daily Management Boards—pull signals for leadership attention.
Open items were discussed during the morning huddle, assigned, and tracked to closure.
A follow-up could mean:
- Adding a visual device to distinguish normal vs. abnormal conditions.
- Updating a Work Standard or Standardized Work Sheet.
- Conducting retraining or re-certification.
- Defining an observation window for stability confirmation.
The principle was always the same: make conditions visible and confirm them routinely.
A system that required a report to discover a problem was already too late.
3. Three Patterns of Gemba Follow-Up
Over the years, three distinct patterns of shop-floor follow-up emerged.
All share the same purpose—see conditions firsthand, confirm stability, and teach—but differ in how they are triggered.
Pattern 1 – The Historic Pull System (Japan 1960s–1980s)
During his heyday at Kamigo, Taiichi Ohno personally reviewed morning reports of the prior day’s abnormalities.
By the time his daily staff meeting began, supporting managers were expected to know the facts.
No one wanted to be embarrassed by not understanding a problem or mis-stating it.
That expectation bred a culture where maintenance, engineering, and quality leaders personally checked issues on the floor before Ohno arrived.
Managers had structured logs summarizing the previous 12–24 hours: night-shift incidents, safety or quality issues, downtime events. The lead area manager decided who would verify each situation, how, and when.
Supervisors learned those change points during shift-hand-off meetings and often inspected them before higher-ups came by.
This was the original “pull system” of follow-up—targeted, time-sensitive, and fact-driven. Leaders were pulled to where problems had actually occurred, and sometimes the day’s work culminated in a small group meeting at the specific machine or cell to confirm closure.
Pattern 2 – The Scheduled Verification System (Overseas 1990s Onward)
As Toyota expanded abroad, less-experienced managers required structure.
Japanese coordinators introduced scheduled daily Gemba visits—time-based, group follow-ups verifying prior-day problems and active change points.
These were never ceremonial; they were teaching systems for observation and confirmation.
Details varied by process area—paint, casting, machining, assembly—but the intent was consistent: ensure disciplined follow-up even when experience was still developing.
Pattern 3 – The Management Gemba Walk (Lean Derivative)
Later, companies without Toyota’s embedded culture adopted the Gemba Walk as a stand-alone practice.
Its intent—getting leadership to the floor—is good, but without change-point structure or technical focus it often becomes a push system: everyone walks at 10 a.m., audits 5S, fills out a waste checklist, and leaves.
Done well, it builds awareness; done poorly, it turns into a “management parade.”
The difference is not about sincerity but about system maturity.
Toyota’s version was always anchored in actual problems and driven by follow-up necessity, not the calendar.
4. Integrated Tools and Systems
Viewed together, the technical and human mechanisms of Step 7 form an integrated network:
| Layer | Example Tools / Practices | Primary Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Technology | Change-point logs, visual devices, sensors, sight windows | Make normal/abnormal instantly visible |
| Behavior | Supervisors’ follow-ups, shift hand-off checks, operator awareness | Build discipline and accountability |
| Management System | Daily boards, spare-parts standards, Gemba verification cadence | Align, sustain, and escalate learning |
No single document or board sustains improvement.
What matters is how these elements interact to create habitual confirmation.
Follow-up is the daily rhythm that prevents drift, teaches judgment, and turns one fix into a better standard.
Closing Thought
Every follow-up tool inside Toyota—whether a change-point sheet, a visual device, or a Gemba routine—exists to do one thing:
see reality early and act before stability is lost.
When technology, behavior, and management align, sustainment becomes natural rather than forced.
That is the quiet genius behind Step 7: the system teaches itself to stay learned.