|
Save 45% when you buy the CEO Series. It covers the ten core business processes and comes with nine fully-editable manuals for:
|
||
Is Toyota a Victim of “Lean”?
| by Steve Flick |
|
|
|||
| Posted in Customer Quality, Lean Six Sigma Quality, News and Announcements Tags: corrective action, lean manufacturing, quality management system, root cause | |||||
Thanks to recent reports across all media (ex., “Toyota’s Slow Awakening to a Deadly Problem“, 1 Feb 2010), we’re beginning to see the enormous scope of the acceleration error that has prompted the recall of millions of Toyota vehicles.
Toyota, a company long considered a paragon of lean manufacturing virtue (hence, its assuming the mantle of “World’s Largest Car Maker” from GM), appears to have a serious defect in many of its highest-selling products. “Unintended acceleration” has resulted in hundreds of accidents (reported so far) and the loss of untold lives. In the last two weeks, Toyota shut down the production lines of some of its most popular vehicles to address the situation.
Could it be, as some have suggested, that Toyota has been “hoist with (its) own petard”? Or, to put it another way, was Toyota done in by the very system designed to make it efficient and prosperous?
Just today (1 Feb 2010), Toyota “officially” announced it had found a way to correct the problem (one that goes beyond replacing or doctoring floor mats), but many people aren’t satisfied the manufacturing giant has found the real solution. And even if it has, it will be a long, long time before Toyota recovers from the damage it has done to its reputation.
Questions abound, including “Why didn’t Toyota conduct a thorough investigation when it first learned of the problem (back in 2007?)”, “Why did the company stay with the ‘floor mat’ explanation for so long?”, and “Why didn’t safety bodies (like the NHTSA) do more when they realized there was a problem?”
Toyota’s TPS system appears to be in need of a corrective action — the question is, “Where?” Is the problem in manufacturing only? Customer service? Marketing? Design & development? Outsourcing? Or, did Toyota get too big for its own good?
Toyota’s not the only organization incriminated in this scenario. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration doesn’t come out of this situation unbloodied and unbowed. There are allegations that it could have and should have done more to keep the defect, whatever its root cause, from getting out of control.
In a half-hearted defense of NHTSA, they appear to have been ahead of many of their counterparts around the globe. Recalls in Europe and elsewhere followed the recalls in the US. Furthermore, every government body is hurting. There isn’t anything they don’t need — the authority to inspect and recall, or enforce laws; more people; more training; and a degree of autonomy, so they’re not called on the carpet (truly, no pun intended) for doing their job.
No amount of corrective action, though, can begin to make up for the people who’ve already lost their lives. (Interesting how in a situation like this, we tend to say, “Lives were lost needlessly“, when the opposite is true. Too many times, lives have to be lost — often in numbers — before action is taken.)
Lessons we might take from this at this “early” stage? One: corporate management is increasingly susceptible to hubris as a company grows.   Maybe Toyota was afflicted with the same disease financial services caught — we haven’t seen a problem in so long, they must all be licked. Not that corporate “attitude” is the root cause of Toyota’s problem, or even a proximate cause, but the “floor mat” story should have given us all pause to reflect.
Two: nothing can completely take the place of testing and inspection. We have safety standards, regulations, etc., in place in the aerospace and food businesses. For better or worse, more is on the way. Why not make the automotive world jump similar hurdles (i.e., make safety mandatory)?
Three: the best designed, most rigorous systems eventually come apart when they’re not paid attention. CAPAs, like anything else in your Quality Management System, have to be applied continually in order for your company and your system to improve. Toyota has said it in so many ways: “Satisfactory” isn’t.
So, what happened? Your ideas?
(P.S. - Not like Toyota needed more bad news, but now they have a braking problem on the newest Prius. What do you think of that?)
Bizmanualz has been at the forefront of deploying business best practices since 1995 delivering Policies, Procedures and Forms; quality systems implementation; and strategic business process improvement to help business owners achieve the growth and expansion they envision.
Learn more about Bizmanualz solutions:
Originally published in 2010 by Bizmanualz, Inc. under the title Is Toyota a Victim of “Lean”?. All rights reserved. Reproduction permitted with attribution only. www.bizmanualz.com
One Response to “Is Toyota a Victim of “Lean”?”
Leave Your Comment











February 9th, 2010 at 10:00 am
TPS will only ensure that mfgd goods are consistently assembled. Intermittent and/or long-term wear issues are more difficult to resolve. There is an inherent attitude shift between engineering and field service that exist because many times the field over reacts or root cause analysis identifies work habits that result in the perception of an engineering problem versus a self-induced error. However, this saga seems to point to arrogance in two camps, engineering and management.
Playing Monday morning quarterback with a problem in highly complex systems, where a response is time sensitive, it would seem prudent that Toyoda should have detailed in 2007 that their initial findings indicated a floor mat issue. Then leaving the door open by identifying additional action, such as, investigation, simulation and testing they were performing to quantify the problem.
This would also have allowed them to offer the outsourced American supplier as a suspected cause without having to recant their position when the problem appeared to be more widespread. Further the potential software issues overall and mfg issues with the Prius could be identified as additional causes to be quantified, without the appearance that Toyoda was trying to hide a problem.
Transparency, isn’t this the real issue? And is the populace ready to view ‘the emperor’s new clothes’ without immediately threatening litigation based on what is exposed?