Repair -Taiichi Ohno's another quote-

Since my last post was about Hozen 【保全】(Maintenance), this is a related topic.

Taiichi Ohno said, “Repair and repair are different.”

🤯

What he highlighted is that there are two kinds of repairs.

Shuzen 【修繕】 and Shuri 【修理】.

Let’s understand the difference.

Both words start with Shu 【修】. This means to put things back in good or decent condition. The left represents humans, and the right represents washing the hair. This starts to mean internalizing or learning something from such an original meaning. For example, a master’s degree is called Shushi 【修士】. Both “repair” start with this symbol and connect to different things.

The second symbol of Shuzen is Zen 【繕】. It has thread 【糸】 on the left and good 【善】 on the right, the same symbol used in Kaizen. It meant to fix something with a thread. From such a meaning, at least in Japan, it meant only looking good from the outside, hiding something bad, and pretending to get through the situation. Ohno is saying this kind of “repair” is not correct. (Thread and good look like a good combination, especially for Toyota, but we still have this negative view.)

The second symbol of Shuri is Ri 【理】, which means science or logic. Therefore, the meaning of this repair is to restore things to a scientific or logical condition or to learn about science or logic. Ohno is saying that the true meaning of “repair” is to learn about the root cause of a problem and preventing from reoccurring, which is the logical or scientific condition.

Which repair is predominant?

Even worse, aren’t we promoting or heronizing Shuzen, the “fake Repair”? Every factory has a maintenance master. When a machine has a problem, this master is invited. Somehow, the machine ran after the repair, so nobody cared about what had been fixed. Sometimes, it was just duct tape. Sometimes, it was a part, not the right one, but the one that happened to fit. One machine had eight different kinds of screws used, but nobody knew why. Even though the problem occurs repeatedly, this repair guru is the hero since it does get the machine moving, at least for now. Today, there is an even worse type of “fake repair.” Those are fake KPIs. Instead of accurately measuring every downtime and how long it took to repair, we calculate some rate to hide those issues. For example, there are many places where they claim that “OEE has to be 85%,” so they came up with silly numbers and equations so that the current condition becomes 85%. Once you learn to “fake,” it becomes difficult to become honest. Leadership requires enormous energy to earn the trust that showing the actual number is allowed, plus coaching so that they learn how to solve problems correctly.

As I try to understand Ohno's message, another question comes to my mind. Is monitoring the “mean time between failures” and “mean time to repair” essential? Or what is more important is what science or logic have we learned, and is our current condition according to this learning? For example, when you are on an aircraft, do you want to hear that your flight will challenge you to break the mean time between failures? Or is there some science or logic that the safety of the flight is guaranteed? The important thing is not the KPIs of the “mean time between failures” and “mean time to repair.” It is the logic and science behind those numbers. Without a change in them, the KPIs should not change. Every “repair” is an opportunity to learn something new. Are we fully utilizing those opportunities? The missed learning opportunity is a more significant problem that nobody other than Ohno cares about.

This repair (“Shuzen”) and repair (“Shuri”) should apply to a broader context, not just for equipment—for example, quality issues. Are we repairing defects quickly or learning why the defect was made and preventing them from reoccurring? There are many places where they are super efficient in fixing defects, but no root cause analysis. Sometimes, we need to slow down or at least preserve the evidence so that we can problem-solve. I don't know how many times I had to dig into the trash bin to find the perfect evidence to discover the root cause. The same questions should apply to standardized work, pull systems (Kanban), sequences (Heizyunka), or entire TPS. TPS is not about putting temporary fixes to problems. Every problem highlighted, which they highlight many, is an opportunity to learn the root cause. This careful distinction between Shuzen and Shuri is an essential responsibility of a manager and the essence of TPS.

So, which “repair,” Shuzen or Shuri, are you doing in your organization?

P.S.

The confusion of repair “Shuri” has a long history in Japan.

The word “Shuri” first appears in Japanese mythology. The myth starts with, “The two gods “created” the country.” This created part uses the word Shuri. It is meant to internalize the logic or law to build the foundation of Japan.

In the 8th century, Japan imported an ancient Chinese governance system, creating a building and repair position. This was initially called “Eizen【営繕】,” but by the 9th century, it was replaced as “Shuri.” The original responsibility was much bigger than just repair. They were responsible for building palaces, shrines, ships, weapons, roads, and bridges. But they quickly became ineffective. For example, the Head of Shuri was a famous poet who had nothing to do with the work. I bet he never went to Genba.

It got even worse as Japan entered the Samurai era. The Samurai started self-proclaiming government job titles, including Shuri. Some of the most violent and destructive Samurai self-proclaiming Shuri is just irony. Not so violent, but one example of such Samurai is Ohno Shuri, who died by Harakiri in a burning castle. What a name!