The Toyota Kata routines for improvement and coaching can significantly raise management and workplace involvement and increase the pace and energy of performance improvement. Bringing the Toyota Kata into an organization does not demand dismantling existing programs and starting from a blank slate - part of the Kata spirit is rather to start from what exists now and learn from experimenting on the road to a better way. In the context of an existing Lean Sigma deployment, the Improvement and Coaching Kata can also bring immediate benefits by increasing project impact and success rates and by aligning projects more directly with management priorities.

1. Bringing the
Toyota Kata to
Lean Sigma Deployments
by Ben Sagalovsky 2015. Based on original drawing and concepts by Mike Rother
Understand
the Direction
or Challenge
Grasp the
Current
Condition
Establish the
Next Target
Condition
CC
TC
Iterate
Toward the
Target Condition
Planning
Phase
Executing
Phase
D
M
A I
C
I

2. Bringing
Kata Principles and Practices
into existing
Lean Sigma Deployments
This publication may be reproduced, as a whole or in part, remixed or
transformed, provided that acknowledgement of the source is made.
Notification of such would be appreciated.
Benjamin Sagalovsky
Version 2.0 October 2015

3. Integrating
Kata Principles and Practices into
Existing Lean Sigma Deployments
Why considering it:
Many organizations have already developed structures for process improvement,
often based on a variation of Lean Sigma.
Incorporating the Improvement and Coaching Kata routines can significantly raise
workplace involvement and increase the pace and energy of performance
improvement. Moreover, it can bring immediate benefits by increasing project
success rates and aligning projects more directly with management priorities.
Intended audience:
Managers, deployment leaders and Lean Sigma (LS) experts who are engaged in
existing LS deployments in their organization and want to integrate the Improvement
and Coaching Kata (IK/CK) components of Toyota Kata into managerial and
supervisory routines, without disregarding the progress achieved through LS in
gaining a process view of work, developing a drive towards performance
improvement and growing a cadre of process improvement practitioners.
These notes are inspired and borrow heavily from Mike Rother’s Toyota Kata book
and the materials in the Toyota Kata Website, with both of which the reader is
assumed to be familiar.
3
by Ben Sagalovsky 2015

4. The Improvement Kata Path
4
The following slides propose three Target Conditions to consider in the initial stages of
integrating the IK/CK into LS initiatives: making changes in the improvement Process
(DMAIIC), in the identification and selection of Projects, and in the composition of the
teams and the supporting organizational structure (People).
Grasp the
Current
Condition
Establish
Your Next
Target
Condition
Understand
the
Challenge
Experiment
Toward the Target Condition
TC
TC
1
2
3
4
Having the IK/CK embedded
in the organization
The existing Lean
Sigma program Setting an appropriate
Target Condition in the
direction of the Challenge
To bring the IK/CK into an organization, nothing could be more fitting than following
the IK/CK process itself:
 Aiming for the Challenge of embedding the IK/CK dynamics in the organization,
and considering the Current Condition of an existing Lean Sigma deployment, set
an appropriate Target Condition (TC) on the way to the Challenge. Experiment in
quick PDSA cycles until that TC is reached, and then set a new one.
by Ben Sagalovsky 2015. Based on original drawing and concepts by Mike Rother

5. The Current Condition,
and Three Target Conditions to Consider
by Ben Sagalovsky 2015 5
Some specific characteristics of
traditional LS deployments stand out
when considering the Challenge of
incorporating the IK/CK …
… and suggest possible
Target Conditions to pursue:
Other
Generic
Characteristics
Selected
Facilitators,
Extensive
Training
Emphasis on
use of
statistical
methods
Lean tools
used to
enhance
Six Sigma
toolbox
Other
Local
Deployment
Characteristics
Execution
Roadmap
(DMAIIC)
Governance
and Teams
(different
from Line
organization)
Lean
Sigma
Project
Selection
(cost/benefit
on Current
Condition)
TC: Process
Roadmap
acknowledges
uncertainty and
embeds iteration
and coaching
TC: Projects
Identified by the
unfolding of key
organizational
challenges
TC: People
Structure and Teams
aligned to processes
and to
value aggregation

6. The phases in the Lean Sigma (and Six Sigma) roadmap are denoted as
DMAIC or alternatively, as we prefer in what follows, DMAIIC:
Define > Measure > Analyze > Improve > Implement > Control
DMAIIC assumes certainty: that if the DMAI piece is thoroughly carried out, and the
prescribed actions are taken, then the expected results shall be forthcoming.
But this doesn’t make the Uncertainty Zone disappear – it is still there, beyond the limit
of the team’s current knowledge and understanding. Ignoring it promotes inconsistency in
the results attained by DMAIIC projects and programs, as shown below:
Grasping the Current Condition: Roadmap
6
by Ben Sagalovsky 2015. Based on original drawing and concepts by Mike Rother
The Grey, Uncertain Zone Project
Goal
Knowledge
Threshold
Current
Condition
“Certainty”
Zone
The Grey, Uncertain Zone Project
Goal
Knowledge
Threshold
Current
Condition
“Certainty”
Zone
The Grey, Uncertain Zone
Knowledge
Threshold
Current
Condition
“Certainty”
Zone
Project
Goal
Success! Failure. Loss of morale, and of trust in the methodology
Limiting risk and ambition to ensure success.
Minimal learning, “gaming the system”
Perseverance: Initial “failure”, and then success
achieved through experimenting in the Control phase
The Grey, Uncertain Zone Project
Goal
Knowledge
Threshold
Current
Condition
“Certainty”
Zone
Execution
Roadmap
(Project-based,
DMAIC/DMAIIC)

7. Understand
the Direction
or Challenge
Grasp the
Current
Condition
Establish the
Next Target
Condition
CC
TC
1 2 3 4
Iterate
Toward the
Target Condition
Planning
Phase
Executing
Phase
D M A I C
I
TC: Process
Roadmap
acknowledges
uncertainty and
embeds iteration
and coaching
by Ben Sagalovsky 2015. Based on original drawing and concepts by Mike Rother 7
 Include in DMAIIC a clear expectation for iteration, by spelling it out as:
Define > Measure > Analyze > Innovate> Iterate > Control
 In the Define phase, align on driving the process towards a clear, agreed future Direction
or Challenge, and not just on addressing a problem within the current process.
 In Innovate, generate a full Target Condition spelling out how the process will operate,
and not just a list of improvements. Encourage teams to take risks and set this Target
Condition as a real “stretch”, knowing that there will be a chance to flesh out the
improvement details during the Iterate phase,.
 Iterate by following the process and tools of Step 4 of the IK, with the Green or Black Belt
as the Learner, supported by a Coach. In Control, transfer the Learner role to the actual
work supervisor, with the Green or Black Belt acting as the Coach with aid from a Second
Coach. Track coaching cycle metrics throughout Iterate and Control.
This Target Condition is based on matching, albeit imperfectly, the
phases of the DMAIIC roadmap to those of the Improvement Kata:
A Target Condition for the DMAIIC Roadmap
Execution
Roadmap
(Project-based,
DMAIC/DMAIIC)

8. In Lean Sigma, improvement ideas can arise from different sources.
Each opportunity has to stand on its own, and offer a clearly specified
expected benefit (most usually financial, the COPQ).
Opportunities are weighed based on some agreed criteria, and those that
rank highest are pursued as individual projects. Success is assessed
individually on each project, based on the benefit it generated.
8
Project
Selection
(cost/benefit
on Current
Condition)
Grasping the Current Condition: Project Selection
by Ben Sagalovsky 2015
etc.
Tool in search
of an application
Recurrent problems and
irritants (from Management)
Issues and ideas
(from line, staff or engineering )
Current State
“waste hunts”
(or defect,
delay
or variability
hunts)
Current State
VSM or
process maps
Data analysis
Site visits
Voice of the Customer
Strategic/Tactical Priorities
Individual
Projects,
selected on:
Likely
Financial
Benefit
Cost/Benefit
Multicriteria
Selection
Matrix
Improvement
Effort
Success
defined by
individual
project
payback
Plus: The opportunities
identified have a degree
of urgency and buy-in.
Minus: Improvement work may
be seen as “one more thing to
do”, unrelated and less
important than overall
organizational goals.
Plus: Opportunities are
worth the effort invested
and represent a good use of
available resources.
Minus: Improvement efforts drift from process
to process and from area to area, making it
difficult to get management and personnel
commitment to continuous improvement.
Plus: LS program
benefits are easy for all
to see.
Minus: Risk of “race to the bottom” where
LS is “added” to non-LS projects to beef up
program benefits.
Possible friction between LS program and
line management on benefit attribution.

9. TC: Projects
Identified by the
unfolding of key
organizational
challenges
by Ben Sagalovsky 2015
Project
Selection
(cost/benefit
on Current
Condition)
A Target Condition for
Project Identification
and Selection
 Management identifies the top-level organizational goals that represent a
significant challenge for the organization or that demand a change in how things
are currently being done.
 These goals are then cascaded down by interviewing management and SMEs,
starting at the highest levels and asking at each subsequent level what needs to be
done in order to achieve the higher-level goals. At some point this decomposition
reaches goals that can be effectively addressed through DMAIIC, and these are set
as the projects to undertake.
•Even if the organization is structured along functional lines, goals are best
unfolded along value-added processes, rather than along the functional structure.
(Additional detail can be found in Organizing for Lean).
•The highest level goals are usually defined as quantitative outcome targets. At the
appropriate level these have to be translated into process targets – how work is to
be conducted – through either a VSM exercise for identifying a Future State VSM,
or a high-level “DMAI” project.
•Project results (expected and actual) can then be “rolled up” to assess how and to
what extent those projects support the organizational goals at each level. An
individual return for each project, financial or otherwise, may also be determined
if needed in order to report progress within the existing LS framework.
9

10. The Governance and Team Structure for LS is usually set as separate
from the formal organizational structure.
The LS governance structure is typically composed of just three levels: an
(executive) LS program Sponsor, a (management-level) Champion for
each project, and a Belt in charge of each project. It may overlap with
the top-level organizational structure if high level managers are tapped
as Champions.
• Green or Black Belts lead teams over which
they do not usually have organizational
authority. Specialists (Master Black Belts
and experienced Black Belts) provide
coaching; Champions support projects and
clear hurdles.
• Each project team is cobbled together from
the different functions involved in the
process being targeted. Teams disband
once the project reaches the Control phase.
10
Governance
and Teams
(different
from Line
organization)
Team Team Team Team Team
Champion Champion Champion
Sponsor
Coaching
Organization
(Staff)
Steering Committee
Green
Belt
Black
Belt
Green
Belt
Green
Belt
• Each project reports individually to the Sponsor (or to a Sponsor-led steering committee).
– Top level managers thus have to track and steer efforts that take place much lower in
the organization, and for which they may not have much context, nor sometimes much
of an interest either. Tracking thus frequently involves only aggregate program figures
and financial impact (AFB).
– Some supervisors and managers may feel left out or “bypassed” by the LS structure.
Grasping the Current Condition: Structure
by Ben Sagalovsky 2015

11. TC: People
Structure and Teams
aligned to processes
and to
value aggregation
 A cascading set of Steering Teams is established for all value streams and key value
stream chunks; they identify, set up and track performance improvement teams and
projects at their level. Higher level Steering Teams coordinate efforts and if necessary
promote additional, integrative projects.
 Both steering and project teams include personnel from the support functions that
directly assist the corresponding value-adding area. No specific Steering Teams are
created for functional activities.
 Each Steering Team meets regularly to coordinate the improvements at their
respective level, using the Coaching Kata questions to review the rolled-up progress
and provide feedback.
 Steering Teams are led by existing managers and (formal or informal) leaders, to
ensure their involvement and buy-in.
 Project and steering teams are kept intact for at least a year at a time. They work in a
sequence of projects aiming at achieving successive TCs for the process under their
responsibility, focused on the Challenges set up by Steering Teams higher up in the
organization.
11
Governance
and Teams
(different
from Line
organization)
A Target Condition
for the
Improvement Structure
by Ben Sagalovsky 2015

12. Each of these Target Conditions requires a different level of organizational buy-in,
and thus a different level of maturity in the acceptance and implementation of
IK/CK practices:
TC Process: Roadmap acknowledges uncertainty and embeds iteration and
coaching
 It can be pursued at the individual team and project level, and thus it can be
attempted even by the individual GB or BB without further approval or support.
 Alternatively, this TC can be pursued by a MBB at a business unit or organization-wide
level by embedding the revised roadmap in training and coaching GBs and BBs.
TC Projects: Identified by the unfolding of key organizational challenges
 It needs to be driven by an organization’s Deployment Leader or senior MBB, as they
usually define the process to use in the identification and selection of LS projects.
TC People: Structure and Teams aligned to processes and to value aggregation
 It may generate some level of resistance, since it involves new roles and new time
commitments for managers and supervisors. It also demands growing a group of
second coaches to support them.
 In most cases it will be necessary to gain buy-in and experience with the IK/CK
routines and with goal decomposition before this TC can be successfully pursued.
 It may be worth considering a “slice by slice” effort, as proposed by Mike Rother,
starting with the organizational slices where this can be more favorably received.
12
Organizational Buy-in Needed to Pursue each TC
by Ben Sagalovsky 2015

13. Embeds the iterative
aspect of the IK/CK,
develops Coaching Kata
abilities in Belts and
supervisors, and
acknowledges the
existence of the
Uncertainty Zone.
Helps increase the
success ratio of LS
projects and the staying
power of the
improvements, and
spells out when and how
to transfer ownership to
line supervisors. This
enhanced success and
clarity should help
further the acceptance
of the IK/CK practices.
Makes “Understanding Direction”
a key piece of project selection
and scoping, shifting the
organization away from looking
at What can we improve, and
into What do we need to improve
to reach the organization’s vision
and goals (as per Mike Rother)
Focuses improvements on the
key value-added areas and their
value streams, and makes them
more visible to the organization.
Supports the success and
sustainability of LS by aligning
projects with the key challenges
of the organization and the goals
that managers need to meet,
making the improvement efforts
effectively relevant to all
supervisors and not “something
else” to be addressed.
Starts involving all leaders in the
IK/CK, and creating the recursive
coaching structure envisioned in
the CK.
Promotes the continuity of
steering and project teams
across time, allowing for the
IK/CK routines to take hold and
for the continuous, ongoing
improvement of processes
throughout the organization. This
starts shifting the organization
from Improving some processes
sometimes towards Improving
every process all the time (as per
Mike Rother).
For function-oriented organiza-
tions, the Improvement Structure
can help prefigure a value-driven
organization and pull existing
structures in that direction.
TC: Process
Roadmap
acknowledges
uncertainty and
embeds iteration
and coaching
TC: Projects
Identified by the
unfolding of key
organizational
challenges
TC: People
Structure and Teams
aligned to processes
and to
value aggregation
How these TCs Help Embed the IK/CK
by Ben Sagalovsky 2015 13

14. • The preceding discussion deals only with the definition of possible Target Conditions –
of course that the hard work is that of iterating and learning as we pursue them!
• There is some sequencing of difficulty and of the level of engagement needed in the
order in which the TCs were presented – still, they are there just as possible ways
forward, and not as a staged “recipe for implementation”. It is the learning acquired in
the pursuit of each TC that should dictate what may be possible for the next TC.
• Besides the specifics of each TC, it is important to assess whether a given TC should aim
directly towards establishing new processes across the whole organization, or just
within a piece of the organization or a set of projects, in order to learn from the
experience before extending it onwards.
• Working towards and even reaching these specific TCs does not exhaust the benefits
that the IK/CK can bring to the organization. They aim at providing some ideas for a
good start, not at signaling the end of the road.
I would greatly appreciate learning about the thoughts that may have come up for you as
you went through the presentation, particularly if you are currently engaged in a LS
deployment. Please share those thoughts, along with any comments, questions and
experience, in the Comments section below or directly via email at
Thanks!
Iterating Towards Getting the IK/CK
Embedded in the Organization
14
by Ben Sagalovsky 2015