> Because of Japanese continuous improvement, or Kaizen, it is difficult, if not impossible to do.
Oh great point! Yeah, the problem I think in most of these type of large systems migration choices is that they view only two discrete states, the present state and the target state -- and then try and build and plan for all contingencies. Some of the smarter ones try and define the target state primed to become the next present state with an eye towards a new target state, but in practice I don't think this style of thinking works very well.
In the Soviet example, they were looking at the present state of Japanese manufacturing capability and shooting for that as a target, while the Japanese were improving it every minute of every day. There is no goal in Kaizen, all that matters is the process of improvement. It's a very Zen way of looking at the world that I think thankfully is finding it's way into more modern principles of iterative development (it's amazing how ever-present Kaizen is in Western management training -- but I never got the impression that any of the texts really "got it", instead it's lots of discussion of studying it and trying to figure out how to adapt these two state processes to Kaizen principles without ever understanding the continuous nature of it).
A variation can be encountered during product management involved features and prices.
In more than a few cases, the product specifications for an update or a new product can indicate near feature parity with a current competitive product, usually with a small increment past that current product.
Not what the competitive products would offer at the completion of the development cycle you're launching; not where the competing product would be in six or eighteen months; after however long it takes to get your new product to market.
Leading a moving target by an appropriate amount is a regular challenge of product development.
And you can win against Kaizen by going asymmetric. By allowing your competitor to optimize what you cause to be the wrong problem.
Kaizen isn't a perpetual advantage. Just look at what demographics are doing to the Japanese economy and manufacturing base. Korea is the new Japan in many ways, and any honest Japanese manager will willingly tell you as much. Korea came from literally nowhere to catch up to Japan, despite kaizen.
Disruption, rising costs, aging demographics, etc., can easily shift industrial edge from one country or region to another.
I'm not denigrating kaizen, mind you. It's still a valuable principle, and one that will continue to confer many advantages to the Japanese industrial base. But it's not a sufficient advantage in perpetuity.
Oh great point! Yeah, the problem I think in most of these type of large systems migration choices is that they view only two discrete states, the present state and the target state -- and then try and build and plan for all contingencies. Some of the smarter ones try and define the target state primed to become the next present state with an eye towards a new target state, but in practice I don't think this style of thinking works very well.
In the Soviet example, they were looking at the present state of Japanese manufacturing capability and shooting for that as a target, while the Japanese were improving it every minute of every day. There is no goal in Kaizen, all that matters is the process of improvement. It's a very Zen way of looking at the world that I think thankfully is finding it's way into more modern principles of iterative development (it's amazing how ever-present Kaizen is in Western management training -- but I never got the impression that any of the texts really "got it", instead it's lots of discussion of studying it and trying to figure out how to adapt these two state processes to Kaizen principles without ever understanding the continuous nature of it).