Toyota and Sun Tzu’s “Shi”
(originally written March 3. Posted March 28)
Toyota’s recent quality troubles brought a section to mind from Sun Tzu’s classic, The Art of War — the indispensible resource for generals and armchair generals alike. ;) (I decided not to cover cover Sun Tzu in our work book club, ’cause it’s just a bit too abstract. “Birds rising in flight are a sign of ambush” doesn’t really translate well to the 21st-century tech business scene.
)
Chapter 5 talks about the proper use of “shi” (roughly analogous to potential energy, or momentum) in battle. A skilful general uses this to their advantage, only launching major attacks when they’ve got momentum. Correspondingly, you do not engage an opponent when they’ve got the big Mo and you don’t.
I was recently pointed to articles by “lean manufacturing” advocates in past years, grumbling that Toyota had stopped walking the walk. But they maintained their momentum — their positive brand image and environmental “halo” from the Prius — and so were relatively invulnerable, until the recent recalls emerged. As such, arguments from American manufacturers about their near-parity in quality that would’ve fallen on deaf ears… now have an audience. And funnily enough, Hyundai’s goal of catching up to Toyota in quality may be achieved a few years early, thanks to Toyota “catching down” to everyone else in the pack.
Apple was able to take advantage of the Vista fiasco with its Mac-PC ads, which wouldn’t've been as effective if they were targeting XP, which worked adequately. And Microsoft’s “I’m a PC” campaign won’t get traction until Apple mis-steps or Microsoft someone manages to get some wind in its sails. From a fuel cell perspective, any attacks on battery-electric vehicles will be ineffectual, ’cause they’re The New Hotness right now. It’ll only be when the first missteps come that the message will firmly click that fuel cell vehicles and battery-electrics fill complementary (not competitive) niches.
On a bigger scale, the Anglo-American economic model (the “Chicago school” of Milton Friedman) rightly or wrongly largely had the run of the road for the past thirty years. Past arguments that, say, the Nordic model is more effective (deftly avoiding the traps of traditional right- and left-wing economic theory) fell largely on deaf ears — but are likely to get a broader audience now. As to whether they get a broad enough audience, that remains open to question.
Riffing on Sun Tzu, I’m reminded of the common misquotation, “the Chinese term for crisis is composed of the characters danger + opportunity”. It’s actually more along the lines of “danger + crucial point”. And the latter definitely describes the current macroeconomic situation, with ominous challenges of debt and demographics in many jurisdictions.

