Toyota & ISO 9001 - Toyota Production System (TPS)

[Marc]

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

 

[rrramirez]

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

 

[Roger Eastin]

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.

 

[Andy Bassett]

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

 

[Alchemists]

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

 

[Marc]

Contemporary comments?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Moving forward.

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.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

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.

 

[Baldrick]

I see no conflict...

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?

 

[Marc]

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.