Featured Video
This Week in Quality Digest Live
Lean Features
Harish Jose
The dangers of misapplying linearity
Trevor Blumenau
Inexpensive wireless pick-to-light systems put warehouse productivity in reach for everyone
Bonnie Stone
Five critical lean tools
Tonianne DeMaria
You can’t step in the same river twice
Jordan Kraemer
Stop doing companies’ digital busywork for free

More Features

Lean News
Management's role in improving work climate and culture
Helps manufacturers by focusing on problems and problem resolution in real time
Ask questions, exchange ideas and best practices, share product tips, discuss challenges in quality improvement initiatives
It’s time that healthcare began to learn a long-term strategic approach to transformation
Combines 3D scanner, touch probe, and software to reduce production times by 30%
Phillips Precision rounds out Inspection Arsenal quick-swap fixturing with Loc-N-Load plates
Partnership for a Cleaner Environment (PACE) program has grown to more than 40 suppliers in 40 countries
Describes how the company applied lean tools and techniques across its products, processes, and partners

More News

Harish Jose

Lean

Epistemology at the Gemba

Multiple perspectives of knowledge and wisdom

Published: Monday, October 30, 2017 - 11:03

Today I will look at epistemology at the gemba. Epistemology is the part of philosophy that deals with the theory of knowledge. It tries to answer the questions, “How do we know things, and what are the limits of our knowledge?” I have been learning about epistemology for a while now, and I find it an enthralling subject.

The best place to start this topic is with Meno’s paradox. Plato wrote about Meno’s paradox as a conversation between Socrates and Meno in the book aptly called Meno. This is also called the “paradox of inquiry.” The paradox starts with the statement that if you know something, then you do not need to inquire about it. Further, if you do not know something, then the inquiry is not possible, because you do not know what you are looking for. Thus, in either case inquiry is useless. Plato believed that we are all born with complete knowledge, and all we need to do is recollect what we know as needed.

Today, philosophers point out that knowledge is possible through two methods:
• Rationalism, which states that knowledge comes from within and does not need to rely on experience.
• Empiricism, which states that knowledge comes from experience using our senses.

David Hume, one of the great empiricist philosophers, classified all objects of human inquiries into two categories, which aligned with the two above-mentioned sources of knowledge:
Relation of ideas. These are tautological statements that are true by themselves. These can also be called “analytical statements” or “necessary statements.” Examples are, “All bachelors are unmarried men,” or, “Dogs are mammals.” We can know this just by looking at the statement, and no further inquiry is needed. These ideas and observations do not rely on the world.
Matters of facts. These are statements that need further confirmation by evidence. These can also be called “synthetic” or “contingent” statements. Examples are, “It is sunny today,” or, “The Eiffel Tower is 15 cm taller in the summer.” These rely on the world and experience in the particular matter.

As science progressed, so did epistemology. More value was placed on empiricism, and one of the most famous of these philosophical movements was logical positivism. The central theme of logical positivism is verificationism, which means that all claims must be verifiable to make sense cognitively. This approach required an objective look at science and empiricism, and relied on the concept of positivism. Positivism was an approach to explain the world objectively and deterministically. It treated the nature of reality as objective, single, and fragmentable. This promoted the idea of reductionism where everything can be taken apart and studied. The world was viewed as a machine where direct cause-and-effect relationships existed.

One of the main criticisms of logical positivism was that the claim of verificationism itself was not empirically verifiable. Another main criticism was ignoring the observer as being part of the system. The world cannot be viewed independently of the observer. The world is, in fact, a social construct relying on multiple interpretations. The knowing and the knower are always interacting, and cannot be separated. This type of approach to creating the reality of the world is called interpretivism.

Stephen Pepper was one of the critics of logical positivism. He believed that it is not possible to have pure, objective facts. In his 1942 book, World Hypotheses (University of California Press, 1942), he proposed the idea of world views or world hypotheses, through which we create the meaning to reality. Four of his world views are:
Formism. This is the world view where we make sense of things by identifying similarities and differences, thereby putting those things into categories.
Mechanism. This is the world view where we make sense of the world as if it were a machine. We assume that there are direct cause-and-effect relationships, and we can take things apart to make sense of them.
Organicism. This is the world view where importance is placed on creating an organic perspective of the world, where parts come together to create a coherent whole.
Contextualism. This is the world view where we place value in the context of the world and its parts. This allows us to see the complexity of the world. Pepper identified the context through the two fundamental categories—quality and texture. Quality refers to the total character of an event, and texture refers to the details and relations that make up this total character. Viewing the world in terms of context helps us to adopt the required strategies to meet the unpredictability of the world.

My own thoughts on epistemology favors empiricism but also relies on interpretivism. The four world views proposed by Pepper help us to understand reality from multiple perspectives.

This brings me to some concepts in the Toyota Production System (TPS). One of the main tenets of TPS is “Grasp the situation.” This is preceded by going to the gemba, the actual workplace where the action is. Once at the gemba, one has to grasp the reality—what is really going on. This requires one to put personal biases aside and view the gemba through the eyes of the operators. I like the use of the verb “grasp,” which indicates a tactile nature, as if you are actually trying to “feel out” the problem. Observation is the first step for empiricism. This can be achieved only by going to the gemba.

Most of the time, when we are informed of a problem, we do not clearly understand it. Sometimes, the problem statement can be, “It does not work. Again!” This vague problem statement does not help us much. The problem is experienced by the operator and is external to you. Once we are at the gemba, we can start asking questions and even feel the operation by working at the station where the problem occurred. One of the sayings at Toyota is, “Look with your feet, and think with your hands.” This tactile nature of learning helps us understand the implicit knowledge of the operator.

Another Toyotaism that is meaningful to this discussion is: “There is a difference between Toyota Production System and Toyota’s production system.” The Toyota Production System is static. It can be treated as explicit knowledge where every single tenet, every single tool, and every single concept is written down. However, what Toyota does on a day-to-day basis is personal to the Toyota plant. This cannot be written down. Toyota’s Production System is dynamic, where the solutions are unique to the problems that the specific Toyota plant experiences.

Another concept that Toyota emphasizes is gaining consensus. This ensures that multiple perspectives are utilized to create the common reality. The concept of wa, or harmony, is important in the Japanese culture.

Final words

How do you know what you know? This is an epistemological question. If you are asked to implement 5S or any other lean tool, you need to know why it needs to be implemented. Do you know which problem it is trying to address? If you are asked to help solve a problem on the floor, how would you know what needs to be done? Empiricism is a great way to gain knowledge, for it implies using your senses. The best way to do this is to go to the actual place where the action is. In addition to this, be open to others’ perspectives. The reality must be built upon multiple perspectives.

I will finish with a Zenful story of mine. The student was in awe of his master. One day, he told the master, “Master, you are truly wise. Do you have any words of wisdom for me?”

The master replied, “I may be wise today. However, wisdom is a habit. Wisdom comes with knowledge only through experience. Thus, I may no longer be a wise man tomorrow.”

Always keep on learning....

Discuss

About The Author

Harish Jose’s picture

Harish Jose

Harish Jose has more than seven years experience in the medical device field. He is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Rolla (U.S.), where he obtained a master’s degree in manufacturing engineering and published two articles. Harish is an ASQ member with multiple ASQ certifications, including Quality Engineer, Six Sigma Black Belt, and Reliability Engineer. He is a subject matter expert in lean, data science, database programming, and industrial experiments. Harish publishes frequently on his blog harishnotebook. He can be reached on LinkedIn.

Comments

Your article "Epistemology at the Gemba"

This is a great article -- very well-written, deeply thoughtful, & intelligent. The part about 'Western' Epistemology is especially cogent.

One thought I had was:  as a not-so-good student of 'Western' Philosophy, I eventually found it much easier to grasp and achieve 'Insight' into  'Epistemology' through exposure to Buddhist  'dharma' Teachings (you may already have done so).

Two such insights for me are:  1)  that 'it's all in your Mind', so to speak  – i.e. that one believes (perhaps very, very, strongly) that one 'knows' something/anything .   2) that how & what you interpret your experience -- & what you 'make' of that 'interpretation' – i.e. your interpretations of your interpretations (i.e. 'thinking'), ad infinitum, is what's actually happening –– and often as not, or if you are lucky, it 'agrees' with the Physical Universe (viz. predictability of consequence & condition), and-or with some degree of the 'Human Universe' of other Minds.

Sorry if the above is too obscure or concentrated. It's a very deep subject, & I haven’t yet managed to shove it into one paragraph!

Looking forward greatly to reading your blog.

Sincerely, Ben Ovshinsky 

Thank you for your kind words

Hi Ben,

Thank you for your kind words. It does appear that the context of "knowing" changed as we learned more about the natural laws (more empirical than rational). In the "beginning", the emphasis was on rationalism possibly due to lack of tools to learn about the world. 

Rationalism does have merit and so does empiricism. To paraphrase Buddha, the middle way might be the best.

Sincerely,

Harish