Anyone hear anything about this?

From: "David M. Jenkins"
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Toyota & ISO 9000
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 16:51:48 GMT

Friend of mine in the UK forwarded this Japanese news item to me.

"The following was reported in Nikkei Business. Nikkei Business is published weekly and one of the most popular business journals in Japan.

In October of 1999 it featured a three-week series about ISO 9000 problems in Japan. In the articles it said that Toyota decided not to get ISO9000 because it saw no value in terms of quality and thus saw no need to register.

The decision had been made after the Shimoyama factory, which is an engine plant, had registered to ISO9001. When introducing new things, Toyota's philosophy is to test actually before installation rather than discuss on the desk. The Shimoyama factory had been selected as a test plant.

And after the test, Toyota concluded there was no value in ISO9000 registration."

Interesting that Toyota - a company much admired for its approach to quality - should reject ISO 9001 registration. I haven't seen the original article: does anyone out there know if it is ISO 9001 that Toyota rejected or ISO 9001 registration?

David M. Jenkins
Vancouver, BC

Toyota Japan rejects ISO 9000

My thanks to Takaji Nishizawa, a leading industrial consultant in Japan,
for this item:

>>
The following was reported in Nikkei Business. Nikkei Business is published
weekly and one of the most popular business journals in Japan.

In October of 1999 it featured a three-week series about ISO 9000 problems in
Japan. In the articles it said that Toyota decided not to get ISO9000
because it saw no value in terms of quality and thus saw no need to register.

The decision had been made after the Shimoyama factory, which is an engine
plant, had registered to ISO9001. When introducing new things, Toyota's
philosophy is to test actually before installation rather than discuss on
the desk. The Shimoyama factory had been selected as a test plant.

And after the test, Toyota concluded there was no value in ISO9000
registration.

<<

No surprise there! Our advice remains the same: do not register to ISO
9000.
Takaji Nishizawa also tells me that the ISO 9000 assessors are charging
high fees in Japan - reflecting the seller's market. Why do Japanese
companies register? Same as for all other countries: market-place coercion.

Vanguard News October 2000

Each to his own... I think for companies with "mature" quality systems, registration is not essential. It should form a base for quality systems thinking within an organization. Particularly, for small companies, ISO9000 can be a good first step for this systems thinking and I think registration is a tool to hold the organization's feet to the fire. You may not need it forever, but it helps to begin with it.

I agree wholeheartedly with Roger. IMHO it is not correct to promote ISO as a tool suitable for all business's in all environments, neither is it correct to write ISo off as bureacratic waste of time, as Vangaurd persistently do.

It is a tool that can be most successfully used in a environment that has a manufacturing bias, that maybe has a discipline/cohesion problem, and that is taking ISO 9000 as a first step on the quality road. It can be bent of course to all other situations, but i beleive you sacrifice some results during the 'bending'.

Regards



------------------
Andy B

The decision to pursue ISO9000 in the absence of a mandate to do so is an important one. Automobile manufacturers do not fall into the category of "required to register". The engine plant at Toyota looked carefully at the value produced by pursuit of / registration to ISO9000 and found it added little value 'for them'. Toyota as a whole has a mature, robust approach to Quality Management - one which includes the requirements of ISO9001:94 and the recommendations of ISO9004:94.
Since pursuit of registration would not likely improve their competitive position, nor would it enhance either bottom or top line performance, their choice was entirely appropriate.
Mindless pursuit of anything is a waste of resources. Toyota did their homework - including an aggressive pilot, and made a choice.
We should all be as smart.....

Jeffrey Edwards

Contemporary comments?

Contemporary comments?There is no DRIVER (pun not intended) for Toyota to "implement" ISO 9001, but, as mentioned a couple of times, this should NOT be misconstrued as Toyota being adverse to ISO Management Systems Standards, since all of their North American operations, INCLUDING manufacturing plants, parts & distribution centers, warehouses and other sites have implemented and attained certification to ISO 14001. Some have also adopted and attained certification to OHSAS 18001.

There is no DRIVER (pun not intended) for Toyota to "implement" ISO 9001, but, as mentioned a couple of times, this should NOT be misconstrued as Toyota being adverse to ISO Management Systems Standards, since all of their North American operations, INCLUDING manufacturing plants, parts & distribution centers, warehouses and other sites have implemented and attained certification to ISO 14001. Some have also adopted and attained certification to OHSAS 18001.


I have been in many plants - World Class, good ones, average ones, and even pretty poor ones. It is kind of interesting, but it generally is not the world-class ones who argue they don't need ISO, TS, or whatever.

Maybe they could have achieved world class without it, but they generally recognize the value from a disciplined approach to quality management. I have heard large tier 1's argue against it, but generally not the few world-class ones I've seen.

Toyota indeed has the same general principles at work in a disciplined fashion in their systems. It is not in a casual, ad-hoc manner.

Does anyone doubt that Toyota are not compliant with ISO9001:2000? Can anyone identify something in the standard that Toyota DON'T do? Is there any of the 8 fundamental principles of ISO9000 that Toyota DON'T agree with? I doubt it, but I'd be happy to hear someone tell me I'm wrong.

Toyota aren't saying "ISO9000 is wrong". They're just saying "We've already got a system that does all that and more so there's no need".

I see nothing wrong with that?

Yes - I think that is the default conclusion. I don't think anyone is saying there is something 'wrong' with what Toyota is doing.

Remember, this thread was started in 2000. I was mostly wondering if anything has changed.

Yes Marc, I know what you mean. I think this is a good thread, and the Toyota issue remains a good starting point for it, largely because ISO9000 detractors the world over use Toyota as "evidence" against the standard. The argument seems to be:

a) Toyota make the most reliable cars in the world
b) Toyota aren't registered to ISO9000
c) A lot of other car manufacturers are registered to ISO9000
d) Therefore ISO9000 is garbage

I'm not sure I agree with the logic.

Yes Marc, I know what you mean. I think this is a good thread, and the Toyota issue remains a good starting point for it, largely because ISO9000 detractors the world over use Toyota as "evidence" against the standard. The argument seems to be:

a) Toyota make the most reliable cars in the world
b) Toyota aren't registered to ISO9000
c) A lot of other car manufacturers are registered to ISO9000
d) Therefore ISO9000 is garbage

I'm not sure I agree with the logic.

I definitely don't agree with the logic. ISO presents a good base for any organized quality system and as said earlier you can bet Toyota is most probably at least compliant with 9001. Toyota has been in our plants on numerous occasions and seems to be closely aligned with our QMS.

If you were to ask the Toyota management if a structured quality management system is beneficial, they would say it is with no uncertainty. My guess would be they would point to ISO as a good starting point. Toyota found no benefit in registration. This says nothing about their perception of the benefits of a good QMS based on ISO.

I will argue till the cows come home with anyone who says ISO 9001 is garbage. In my opinion, anyone who is serious about quality should have a QMS based on solid footing like ISO 9001. Like Toyota, I see very little value in registration and unless mandated (which Toyota is not), it would be my preference to be compliant but not registered/certified.

Dave

I definitely don't agree with the logic. ISO presents a good base for any organized quality system and as said earlier you can bet Toyota is most probably at least compliant with 9001. Toyota has been in our plants on numerous occasions and seems to be closely aligned with our QMS.

If you were to ask the Toyota management if a structured quality management system is beneficial, they would say it is with no uncertainty. My guess would be they would point to ISO as a good starting point. Toyota found no benefit in registration. This says nothing about their perception of the benefits of a good QMS based on ISO.

I will argue till the cows come home with anyone who says ISO 9001 is garbage. In my opinion, anyone who is serious about quality should have a QMS based on solid footing like ISO 9001. Like Toyota, I see very little value in registration and unless mandated (which Toyota is not), it would be my preference to be compliant but not registered/certified.

Dave

I have no disagreement in principle, but it's always seemed to be that if you gathered some reasonably intelligent and experienced people and asked them to design a quality system, (assuming they had no knowledge of ISO 9000) the product would look a lot like ISO 9000. Oh, wait a minute--that's what ISO did!

The only legitimate argument (and I'm not going to engage in one in this thread) regards the value of registration, not the value of ISO 9000 itself.

I have read posts here that refer to "TPS" requirements. Toyota Production System requirements may not be exactly ISO9001, or may be better.
If anyone here is involved directly with Toyota maybe they can define "TPS" and how it compares to ISO9001 or TS16949.

I also agree with Jim regarding the mandated registration process.

I have read posts here that refer to "TPS" requirements. Toyota Production System requirements may not be exactly ISO9001, or may be better.
If anyone here is involved directly with Toyota maybe they can define "TPS" and how it compares to ISO9001 or TS16949.I am personally involved with Toyota Motor Sales USA deployment and certification to ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001.

Concerning TPS, check this link (http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/special/tps/tps.html). One aspect of TPS, according to the link is Train people to follow rules and standards as if second nature. Nothing that I read about TPS negates basic concepts of ISO 9000/9001/9004. Concerning value of registration, Toyota did not have any "mandate" to attain ISO 14001/OHSAS 18001 certification. Still they've done, and continue to do it. For an organization that excels at eliminating muda and non-value added activities, how could that be, Jim?:confused:

Is there any of the 8 fundamental principles of ISO9000 that Toyota DON'T agree with?Right on!:agree1: Actually, the mutually beneficial relationship principle is FULLY embraced by Toyota, while most domestic manufacturers have developed and refined over several decades a totally confrontational supplier relationship approach. It is the I-WIN-YOU-LOSE mindset.

Concerning value of registration, Toyota did not have any "mandate" to attain ISO 14001/OHSAS 18001 certification. Still they've done, and continue to do it. For an organization that excels at eliminating muda and non-value added activities, how could that be, Jim?:confused:

Apples and oranges, Sid. I was referring to ISO 9000, not 14001, which is a decidedly different kettle of fish. But it seems to me that if we extend your suggestion that Toyota's registration to 14001 is evidence of the intrinsic value of registration, shouldn't we also assume that their lack of ISO 9000 registration is evidence of its lack of value?

Apples and oranges, Sid. I was referring to ISO 9000, not 14001, which is a decidedly different kettle of fish.? Different STAKEHOLDERS, but similar in nature and approach. But it seems to me that if we extend your suggestion that Toyota's registration to 14001 is evidence of the intrinsic value of registration, shouldn't we also assume that their lack of ISO 9000 registration is evidence of its lack of value?To make a broad, generic statement that registration of a management system is ALWAYS valuable would be stupid. You have never heard me saying that. What I have always said is that registration to a management system standard CAN be valuable. However, all involved parties have to be serious about it.

Different STAKEHOLDERS, but similar in nature and approach.]

I think that there might be compelling economic reasons for having evidence of environmental responsibility that don't apply to ISO 9000. I don't think anyone was ever sued by the government for having a lousy quality system.

To make a broad, generic statement that registration of a management system is ALWAYS valuable would be stupid. You have never heard me saying that. What I have always said is that registration to a management system standard CAN be valuable. However, all involved parties have to be serious about it.

See, we agree:D :agree: .

I think that there might be compelling economic reasons for having evidence of environmental responsibility that don't apply to ISO 9000. I don't think anyone was ever sued by the government for having a lousy quality system.



See, we agree:D :agree: .Nice try, Jim (That nice JSW05 would never have said that:lol: ). Toyota only has to comply with the law. They may want to get some external reconition of their EMS as a responsible corporation but might also see the benefit of quality certification for the same reason and the fact that lots of people have heard of ISO 9001. In fact both UK plants have ISO 9001 registration as well as operating TPS.

They have the same likelihood of being sued for a product liability (quality) problem as for an environmental spill IMHO.

Can anyone identify something in the standard that Toyota DON'T do? Is there any of the 8 fundamental principles of ISO9000 that Toyota DON'T agree with?

I can't speak for Toyota but I worked at Honda (Civic Plant) the nineties and my guess would be: training records, documented work instructions and maybe no documentation on some of the required processes. part of TPS is standardized work, but work instrucitons and processes are known and trained and maintained by the discipline of standardized work, rather than by writing it down - and certainly the assemblers don't refer to written instructions while doing the job. Of course ISO doesn't requrie that WIs be documented so this isn't technically a miss - but it isn't traditional.

What Toyota is saying is that Registration is non value add. Tehy 'know' they have a good system, but they require registration or compliance for suppliers becuase they don't trust them to have a good QMS and they don't want to do the auditing themselves.

What Toyota is saying is that Registration is non value add. Really? I missed that statement. Can you please point us where exactly such Toyota communication is captured?

Pardon me, I lost my clarity from the first sentence: What HONDA SAID IN THE EARLY NINTIES is what I meant to type concerning the value add of registration, et al. In fact my entire post is related to the decisions that Honda made in the first half of the last decade in Ohio for it's automotive plants. Similar business to Toyota - but not the same.

I think that there might be compelling economic reasons for having evidence of environmental responsibility that don't apply to ISO 9000. I don't think anyone was ever sued by the government for having a lousy quality system.. Like demonstrated in this thread: How costly can a quality system problem be? Guidant vs. the FDA (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14702), failure to maintain an effective QMS can be very costly.