Toyota Motors

Toyota Motors

1. What would you do to address the seat problem? Where would you focus your attention and solution efforts?

We would focus on a series of actions:

We would first collect data on seats defect issue and try to find out what is the cause of the problem using the 5 Why's analysis. On the other hand we would ask KFS management to do the same thing. Then arrange a meeting with people involved in QM and come up and agree on a solution.

TMM should investigate the issue of why are there differences in the 1st shift and 2nd shift at the rear seat installation (left as well as write hand side)?

KFS should investigate what is wrong with rear seat: hook, lack of communication/synchronization between team KFS and TMM team.

In the effort of addressing the seat problem, we would also build a tiger team with the specific target to solve this issue in a determined period of time. The team should have just this issue to solve (a project based activity). Team members should be managers from TMM (mandatory Shirley Sargent, Da Prille, Lewis, Creemens) and with participation of KFS representative managers and somebody experienced from Tsutsumi. Taking into consideration that Tsutsumi didn't report so far any problem with the same engineering drawings, and also looking at their decrease in defects rate (from 7 occurrences per shift to one per shift by April), it looks that if they had a problem with the seats, they managed to solve it from the beginning. So, they should act like a benchmark for TMM; however, nobody asked them about it, even both plants belong to the same company. So internal cooperation should be encouraged between both factories.

In this team, as framework for thinking, we would encourage the team to use the Six Thinking Hats Method, for getting the real causes and finding optimal solutions. This method brings during 90' huge savings in multinational companies (IBM, Nippon Telephone and Telegraph, British Airways, Pepsico). The six hats represent six modes of thinking and are directions to think rather than labels for thinking. That is, the hats are used proactively rather than reactively.

Our focus and attention would also be on the product line of KFS, to better understand how they changed it in order to produce the new seats. We would further compare their work, KP's and performance with a Tsutsumi supplier: to see their way of working, and make a comparison on TQM from both suppliers. In this respect, together with KFS, a quality audit should be started at KFS production line, in order to understand what problems they are facing on the production line. So far nobody asked this question, or involve the teams in a constructive discussion.

2. What options exist? What would you recommend? Why?

Our recommendations are the following:

a) Improve production process at KFS, by helping their team implement kaizen and TQM process (visual control, 5 Why method, brainstorming). This can be done in time, and it can be a project based activity, done by a mixed team: KFS and TMM.

• Advantage: handle better variation in seat styles

b) Find 1-2 alternative vendors for seat sets

• Advantages: minimize the risk of depending on one single supplier

• Disadvantages: logistics from bringing in seats

c) Ensure that all suppliers are properly trained in producing all seat variations; direct help and support to the suppliers every time when a changes occur in Toyota products, in order to be sure that the supplier fully understands all the new product requirements. Training is required through F2F sessions and then through productive workshops, organized in the production plant.

d) Provide training to the suppliers regarding jidoka and kaizen tools, in order to streamline their production process