Integrating Continuous Improvement and Standardization - "The Toyota Way"

[bobdoering]

But, but, but-uuut-uut-ut-t - What about ISO / TS 16949? Isn't ISO / TS 16949 supposed to make everything 'better'???

We know that the standard does not ensure perfect parts. I am not one to rush to blame the standard. What I rush to blame is people who are looking for the fastest way to meet the standard, with the most shortcuts and the least effort. What makes Toyota work may not be so much the tools, but the culture that supplies the resources to use the tools in a thorough and supportive manner. That is why they do not fear competitors touring their plant, they know they do not have the guts or management support to make those kinds of cultural changes.

Are we heading toward the controversial forum again? ....oh, boy....

 

[Marc]

We know that the standard does not ensure perfect parts. I am not one to rush to blame the standard.

Actually one does have to go back to the original intent of QS-9000. Like ISO 9001, QS-9000 was not really a quality standard per se. It was, at the time, expected to reduce or eliminate the time and expense of supplier audits by the 'Big 3', and as way way to shift the costs to suppliers. QS-9000 was really GM's 'baby'. Chrysler sorta bought in, but Ford never fully bought in. Ford still has the QOS and Q1, I think.

 

[bobdoering]

Actually one does have to go back to the original intent of QS-9000. Like ISO 9001, QS-9000 was not really a quality standard per se. It was, at the time, expected to reduce or eliminate the time and expense of supplier audits by the 'Big 3', and as way way to shift the costs to suppliers. QS-9000 was really GM's 'baby'. Chrysler sorta bought in, but Ford never fully bought in. Ford still has the QOS and Q1, I think.

Even now, with TS16949, the volumes of customer specific requirements tend to defeat the idea of 'standard'. ISO did not help that. And, yes, by implementing third party auditors they were able to scale way back on their personnel that used to audit their suppliers and shift the audit costs. It also cut back on direct communication from the OEMs to the suppliers. It was an improvement over Targets for Excellence and some other nonsense. But from the first edition of QS, the customer specifics just grew and grew....

The concepts of FMEA, APQP, MSA, etc. were an important improvement over pre-QS. Even now, there are folks learning from the requirements.

Again, it is the culture of doing the minimum requirement that is generating the minimum results. The same thing would happen implementing the Toyota approach with the same attitude.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

We know that the standard does not ensure perfect parts. I am not one to rush to blame the standard. What I rush to blame is people who are looking for the fastest way to meet the standard, with the most shortcuts and the least effort. What makes Toyota work may not be so much the tools, but the culture that supplies the resources to use the tools in a thorough and supportive manner. That is why they do not fear competitors touring their plant, they know they do not have the guts or management support to make those kinds of cultural changes.

Are we heading toward the controversial forum again? ....oh, boy....

The tools in Toyota System, and ISO based programs are basically the same or at least similar quality tools. It is not the "program" that makes a company succesful, it is the application. I have many ISO and TS clients who have worked to achieve top notch performance metrics. I am sure that many companies got similar benefits from Toyota tools.

As I have said often, I OWN very good exercise equipment, but I don't use it much. The equipment is very good, but I have a pudgy figure. But, if I applied the tools, I would be more fit.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Actually one does have to go back to the original intent of QS-9000. Like ISO 9001, QS-9000 was not really a quality standard per se. It was, at the time, expected to reduce or eliminate the time and expense of supplier audits by the 'Big 3', and as way way to shift the costs to suppliers. QS-9000 was really GM's 'baby'. Chrysler sorta bought in, but Ford never fully bought in. Ford still has the QOS and Q1, I think.

I don't fully agree. i would flip that comment. It certainly was an attempt to improve the supply chain. Because each OE already had a program trying to achieve that (Targets, Q1, etc.). However, they ALSOsaw that by standardizing the programs, they could reduce costs (and shift the cost to the suppliers).

But, I think it would be unfair to suggest the only goal was to shift cost, not quality. If quality was not a goal,they could have just dropped it. No, they were clearly trying to close the gap with the European and Asian companies.

 

[bobdoering]

As I have said often, I OWN very good exercise equipment, but I don't use it much. The equipment is very good, but I have a pudgy figure. But, if I applied the tools, I would be more fit.

Yes, yet using the same analogy most companies think they can compete in the Olympics in a month or so with your equipment.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: Shades of Jonathon Swift!

... I fear Jim is more right than wrong.

Nothing to fear. Even Jim is allowed to be right sometimes...

I have to ask myself this question:
"If the 75,000 number is accurate, how did Toyota manage to get one auto out the door BEFORE 75,000 improvements were made? How much did each improvement lower the price of an automobile or a corresponding increase in Toyota's bottom line?"

Remember, Toyota focuses on getting improvements at all levels and processes in the organization, not just in the cars.

THAT is a significant difference between Toyota and the detroit 3, and I don't think it gets enough attention.

Everytime I go into a company for the first time, the front office is a ripe, juicy fruit, just waiting to squeeze out improvements.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

With all due respect, it seems like people just don't understand how much a billion is, and how ludicrous it is that a company would even attempt to count that high. But let's do the math anyway:

75000 suggestions implemented in one year (out of what total, by the way?) = approximately 204 per day implemented. You call this "doable," I call it absurd, but never mind. Let's say that Toyota has, for the sake of discussion, 100 plants involved, and that the 204-per-day number is typical. So thats 204 x 100= 20,400 suggestions implemented every day. So in one year the total would be 7,446,000 implemented. Wow. They must have a few thousand people who do nothing but count. So at that stupendous rate, how long would it take to reach the magic billion level? Well, 1,000,000,000/7,446,000= 134 years. Still sound doable? When do we get started?

OK, let's tackle the math...

1,000,000,000 suggestions
over 40 years = 25,000,000 suggestions / yr

# of employees - 316,121 - (2008 employees from Hoovers.com)
79 - suggestions / yr / employee


ummm. yeah, it could be doable. Probably not practical, but within the realm of possibility... (Of course, they did not have 300,000 employees in the early years.)

But, if GM were doing 79 suggestions per employee per year...would they be sitting before Congress?

Heck, if they did 10! per employee...

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Yes, yet using the same analogy most companies think they can compete in the Olympics in a month or so with your equipment.

great, point Bob. And of course, it only works for those companies who continue to put forth the effort, develop good skills (or get good training), and do good work...