Since the 1990s, research has been done on lean production systems with progressive development of a scale for measuring characteristic leanness in efficient production organizations. For example, Shah and Ward (2003, 2007) originated from the HPM and IMSS surveys become as the de facto standard. However, the explanations of these studies were not necessarily convincing. In contrast, in the IMVP survey, site visits were made to automakers’ development and production genba or sites in each country surveyed, in addition to the use of questionnaires. However, in actuality, a comparison of multiple Japanese automakers showed differences in methods and means for achieving just-in-time production in organizations, even at the genba that would be believed to score high on a leanness scale, such as JIT production. It is difficult to detect and measure these differences through large-scale cross-industry questionnaire surveys alone, and there is a possibility that this difficulty manifests in the weak explanatory power of the lean studies. Approaches to explaining differences in performance using “leanness scale” are based on a lean hypothesis where there is a best practice lean situation transcending nations and industries, yet its low explanatory power creates suspicion with regard to the validity of this hypothesis.

The notion that you are free to do what you want with your property is extremely childish and immature, regardless of whether the property in question is an animal, a physical object, or a company. An owner has responsibilities, and even owner-managers are not free to do whatever they want with their companies. Doing so would be treating the company like one’s personal property and such acts are punishable by law. In conclusion, it is crucial to understand that owners have responsibilities as long as they call themselves owners.

Even when customers are satisfied, they could be having experiences not intended by the company. By comparing dyad relationships between headquarters and stores of a Japanese auto dealer company, this paper examines how decision authority on touchpoints should be distributed to create a superior customer experience. Overall, decision authority was distributed towards stores; however, two stores known for high-quality customer experiences had headquarters exercise decision authority on brand promotion touchpoints. Further, these two stores adapted interpersonal touchpoints to brand promotion touchpoints created by headquarters. In short, from a brand perspective, it is desirable to differentiate decision authority while achieving consistency between touchpoints.