The Implementation of Technical Practices and Human Factors of the Toyota Production System in Different Industries

Ching-Chow Yang,1 Tsu-Ming Yeh,2 and King-Jang Yang3

1 Department of Industrial and System Engineering, Chung-Yuan Christian University, Chungli, Taiwan 2 Department of Industrial Engineering and Technology Management, Da-Yeh University, Changhua, Taiwan 3 Department of Applied Statistics, Chung-Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan

Abstract The Toyota Production System (TPS) can result in huge benets for companies and has been widely implemented around the world. Nevertheless, most adopters emphasize only the technical practices of the TPS, but neglect the critical role of human factors in the implementation of the TPS. Therefore, this study aims at developing an integrated TPS model that fully integrates the technical elements and human elements of the TPS with Total Quality Management (TQM) practices. An empirical study was conducted to conrm the causal relationships among these constructs. In the empirical study, questionnaires were mailed and e-mailed to 620 companies that had implemented the TPS, and 151 of the completed questionnaires were valid. These 151 respondents were divided into eight categories. The results revealed that the implementation level of each construct was signicantly different in each industry. The automobile and motorcycle industries have put a great deal of effort into the application of Humanity, Human Resource Management (HRM), and TQM practices and obtained good results. Other industries, however, ignored the implementation of HRM practices. The results also revealed that the early adopters enjoyed signicant benets from the implementation of the TPS, which led high-tech companies to start adopting TPS practices and become lean enterprises. C 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Keywords: TPS; TQM; Lean; Autonomation

1. INTRODUCTION
The Toyota Production System (TPS) received a great deal of attention when the Massachusetts Institute of Technologys International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP) published its ndings about the system (Genaidy & Karwowski, 2003; Holweg, 2007). The objective of the IMVP is to investigate the productivity
Correspondence to: Tsu-Ming Yeh, Department of Industrial Engineering and Technology Management, Da-Yeh University, Changhua, Taiwan No.168, University Rd., Dacun, Changhua 51591, Taiwan. Phone: +881-4-8511888 #2228; e-mail: tmyeh@mail.dyu.edu.tw Received: 21 November 2010; revised 14 January 2011; accepted 14 January 2011 View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hfm DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20296

and quality of car manufacture and assembly methods used by car manufacturers around the world, especially Japanese car companies. The IMVP showed that Japanese car manufacturers, especially Toyota, were leading the industry in terms of productivity, quality, and inventory minimization (Krafcik, 1998; Paez et al., 2004; Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990). Womack and Jones (1994) redened the TPS as a lean production system and extended the potential scope of lean production systems within all types of organizations. Lean production has been regarded as either an evolution of, or an alternative to, previous production models, especially mass production (Bartezzaghi, 1999; Paez et al., 2004). Womack and Jones (1994) explained that companies could dramatically improve their performances by embracing the lean production approach. They asserted that, by eliminating unnecessary
c 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 22 (6) 541555 (2012)

541

Technical Practices and Human Factors of the TPS

Yang, Yeh, and Yang

steps, aligning all steps into a continuous ow, recombining labor into cross-functional teams dedicated to the activity, and continually striving for improvement, companies could develop, produce, and distribute products and services with half, or even less than half, of the human effort, space, tools, time, and overall expense that was previously required; thus, successfully implementing the TPS would result in dramatic increases in operational efciency, quality, and prots (Watanabe, 2007). Today, the lean production model is preferred to many other conventional production models, including the mass production model, because of its ability to produce high-quality and diverse products to meet the needs of various customers (Genaidy & Karwowski, 2003). Lean production has now been applied around the world in many industries (Melton, 2005). In addition to the benets and advantages that the TPS has for manufacturers, service enterprises can also benet from lean management (Arbos, 2002). The principles and practices of lean production emerged from the automobile industry in the beginning of the 1990s and then were adopted in other industries (Lee, 2010; Sepp al a & Klemola, 2004). Many companies in various industries would like to abandon their traditional production models, including the mass production model, and adopt the lean production model, but there are many obstacles to the introduction and implementation of the TPS. The largest obstacles arise from the fact that the holistic logic and management system of the TPS contrasts starkly with the traditional mass production approach (Holweg, 2007; Melton, 2005), and companies overemphasize the technical aspects of the TPS but ignore the human aspects and humanity management. Paez et al. (2004) asserted that western manufacturers often reviewed the techniques of the system, but failed to consider the capabilities of the workforce. Indeed, managers commonly misunderstand the concepts, principles, and practices that guide the TPS (Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard-Park, 2006). If industries focus only on the technical elements of the TPS, such as the kanban system, quick changeover, waste elimination, preventive maintenance, autonomation, the pull system, without integrating quality management and human-driven activities, the implementation of the TPS will not result in better performance. Therefore, this study aims at developing an integrated TPS model that fully integrates the technical elements and human elements of the TPS with Total
542

Quality Management (TQM) practices. Based on the previous literature and the authors abundant experience in related academic studies, in-depth interviews were conducted with managers in the companies that have successfully implemented the TPS and industry consultants.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW OF TPS ESSENTIALS

Many researchers are investigating the TPSs concepts, principles, practices, and systems, the essentials of which are valuable to this research. The related literature is reviewed as follows.

2.1. Concepts and Principles of the TPS

Lean production emphasizes customer needs, the reduction of the activities and costs that do not produce value for customers, and elimination of all kinds of waste in all phases of the order-delivery process (Sepp al a & Klemela, 2004). Lean production requires that employees are active, innovative, multiskilled, and continuously motivated to suggest improvements to the process and production methods (Sepp al a & Klemola, 2004). Lean production involves a new philosophy of manufacturing focusing on customer satisfaction and continuous improvement (Paez et al., 2004). Womack and Jones (1996) proposed the following principles of lean production: 1) specifying value, 2) identifying the value stream, 3) creating the value stream ow, 4) pulling value from customers, and 5) pursuing perfection. Delbridge (2003) outlined the following principles of lean manufacturing: 1) teamwork and group problem solving, 2) Just-In-Time (JIT) and total management systems, 3) continuous improvement, 4) relationships with suppliers, and 5) relationships with customers. James-Moore and Gibbons (1997) identied the following core principles of lean production: 1) ow, 2) defect prevention, 3) pull, 4) teamwork, and 5) problem solving. Liker (2004) proposed the following 14 principles of the TPS in his book The Toyota Way: 1) decisions based on the lorry-term philosophy,
DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

Yang, Yeh, and Yang

Technical Practices and Human Factors of the TPS

2) creating a continuous process ow, 3) using a pull system, 4) leveling out the workload, 5) building a culture based on achieving quality the rst time, 6) standardized tasks (processes), 7) using visual controls, 8) using reliable and thoroughly tested technology, 9) developing internal leaders, 10) developing exceptional employees and teams, 11) respecting partners and suppliers, 12) solving root problems based on a thorough understanding of the situation, 13) making decisions slowly by consensus, and 14) becoming a learning organization. Several of these principles are indeed TPS practices, such as using a pull system, using visual controls, and using standardized tasks.

1. functional management system, 2. autonomous control, 3. kanban system, 4. standard operations, 5. production smoothening, 6. multifunctional layout design, 7. reduction of setup activities, and 8. improvement activities. Paez et al. (2004) identied three core TPS techniques as 1. the kanban system, 2. production smoothening, and 3. autonomation.

2.4. Integration of Technical Elements and Human Elements

From the previous section, it is easy to see that many researchers have discussed the content of the TPS and lean production from different aspects, but it is difcult to discriminate the principles, tools, methods, and practices. Therefore, in this study, the various aspects of the TPS are categorized into elements, which include tools, methods, and practices. Several researchers divided TPS elements into two categories: technical elements and human elements. Paez et al. (2004) asserted that western manufacturers overemphasized the technical elements and neglected the human elements. Thus, they examined several studies and divided the elements discussed in those studies into technical elements and human elements. The elements from Paez et al.s (2004) study, as well as several other studies, such as Monden (1983), Fang and Kleiner (2003), Sepp al a and Klemola (2004), and Liker (2004), were examined. A complete list of elements was compiled and is presented in Table 1. Technical elements were divided into four categories: autonomation, JIT, lean manufacturing, and waste elimination. Human elements was divided into ve categories: utilization of people, exibility, human resource management (HRM) practices, creative thinking, and respect for people.

2.2. Features of the TPS

Monden (1983) asserted that the TPS includes four basic elements: JIT, autonomation, a exible workforce, and creative thinking. Womack identied TPSs three main features as 1. a new philosophy of manufacturing, focusing on customer satisfaction and continuous improvement; 2. new organizational techniques to manage product development, supply chain relations, production operations, and coordination; and 3. using techniques such as JIT, simultaneous engineering, and inventory systems (Paez et al., 2004).

2.3. Tools, Methods, and Practices of the TPS

Melton (2005) identied the key tools and techniques of the TPS as 1. kanban a visual signal to support ow by pulling a product, 2. 5Ss a visual housekeeping technique, 3. visual control a method of measuring performance at the shop oor, 4. poke yoke an error-proong technique, and 5. single minute exchange of dies a changeover reduction technique. Monden (1983) identied eight methods used to implement the TPS as

3. BUILT-IN QUALITY IN THE TPS

Without understanding the human elements, it is impossible to successfully implement the technical practices of the TPS. This doesnt mean, however,
DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

543

Technical Practices and Human Factors of the TPS TABLE 1. Comparison of the Technical Elements and Human Elements in the TPS Technical Elements Autonomation Autonomous Control Automation Built-in Quality Control Preventive Maintenance (Defect Prevention) Poke Yoke (Error-Proong) JIT Kanban System (Visual Control) Standard Operations Production Smoothing (Production Leveling) Quick Setup Times (Quick Changeover Techniques) Lot Size Reduction Continuous Flow Production Taking Time Cycle Time Reduction Supplier Partnership Using Few Suppliers Pull System (Customer Demand Pull) Lowest Inventories Lean Manufacturing U-type Manufacturing Cellular Manufacturing Multifunctional Layout Design Single Minute Exchange of Dies Multifunctional Teams Simultaneous Engineering Vertical Information Systems Effective R & D Waste Elimination Focus on Problem Solving Group Improvement Activity 5Ss Lowest Inventories 5 Whys

Yang, Yeh, and Yang

Human Elements Utilization of People Teamwork (Cross-functional) Optimized Capability High Involvement Multimachine Handling Collaboration Flexibility Multiskilled Workers Direct Authority Empowerment Enlarged Responsibility Decision Making at the Lowest Appropriate Level Practices of HRM Employee Education and Training Motivation Promotion of Leaders Internally Development of Lean Leadership at All Levels Relationships of Mutual Trust and Commitment Job Satisfaction Autonomous Decision Making Work Enrichment Ongoing Development of People Decentralized Responsibilities Creative Thinking Creating Value Capitalizing on Employees Ideas and Suggestions Maintaining Challenges to Existing Processes Pursuing Perfection Innovative Activities Respect for People Lifetime Employment Pay Graded Steeply by Seniority Treatment of Employees as Family Employees have Decision-making Power Sharing the Companys Success

that the other critical drivers of the TPS, which are quality-related activities, should be neglected. Monden (1983) presented an overview of his research project at the Toyota corporation in his book, Toyota Production System. He said that the goal of the TPS was long-term improvement, which translates into cost reduction, quality assurance, and respect for humanity. Takeuchi, Osono, & Shimizu (2008) asserted that Toyotas values, which were developed by several top managers such
544

as Sakichi Toyoda, Kiichiro Toyota, Tuiichi Ohno, Eiji Toyota, include the mindset of continuous improvement (kaizen), respect for people and their capabilities, teamwork, humility, putting the customer rst, and the importance of seeing things rsthand. Toyota has rened Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA), a continuous improvement process used throughout the business world, in the Toyota business practice process (Takeuchi et al., 2008).
DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

Yang, Yeh, and Yang

Technical Practices and Human Factors of the TPS

Watanabe (2007) emphasized that Toyota had to keep growing as it built a stronger foundation for the future. There are three keys to building a stronger foundation, including improving product quality, continually reducing costs, and developing human resources. He also emphasized that becoming number one was not about being the world leader in terms of the number of automobiles sold, but about being the best in the world in terms of quality (Watanabe, 2007). Former Toyota president Katsuaki Watanabe also asserted that the Toyota Way had been, and would continue to be, the standard for everyone who worked for Toyota all over the world (Watanabe, 2007). The Toyota Way has two main pillars: continuous improvement and respect for people (Watanabe, 2007). Toyota practiced the philosophy and principles of Total Quality Control (TQC) as early as the late 1950s, and developed the quality control circles in the early 1960s (Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard-Park, 2006; Lillrank, 1995). The Japanese version of TQC was the main reference for TQM, which was created in the 1980s (Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard-Park, 2006). Several researchers also asserted that the TPS (or lean production) actually was based on JIT, TQC (later TQM), team-based work, and exible programming (Appelbaum & Batt, 1994; Landsbergis, Cahill, & Schnall, 1999; Sepp al a & Klemola, 2004; Taira, 1996). Therefore, Liker (2004) proposed several TPS quality management principles and practices, such as

assembly line in the amount needed at the time they are needed (Genaidy & Karwowski, 2003). To successfully perform JIT there cannot be any defects in the production process. It requires a total quality system in the production process. During the implementation of Autonomation, quality should be built in. Therefore, a method to detect defects when they occur and automatically stop production so an employee can x the problem before the defect continues downstream is needed (Liker, 2004). Furthermore, when workers nd defects, the workers must have the power to stop the assembly line (usually by pushing the andon cord), solve problems, and improve their work (Genaidy & Karwowski, 2003). Employees are continuously motivated to suggest improvements in the process and production methods. Every team member is responsible for controlling quality and preventing defects in the process. Based on these TQM and HRM practices inherent in JIT and Autonomation systems, the integration of TQM and HRM practices with the JIT system is displayed in Figure 1, and the integration of TQM and HRM practices with the autorotation system in Figure 2. Nonetheless, the successful implementation of TQM and HRM practices is based on an appreciation of human activities, such as

using all the modern quality assurance methods available, quality for customers driving the rms value proposition, getting quality right the rst time, setting up built-in quality, building into the equipment the ability to detect problems and stop itself, continuous improvement based on standardization, and focusing on the customer and generating value for the customer.

respect for people, lifetime employment and job security, pay graded steeply by seniority, job satisfaction, direct authority, empowerment, pursuit of perfection, and sharing company success.

4. BUILDING TQM AND HRM PRACTICES INTO THE JIT AND AUTONOMATION
JIT and Jidoka (Autonomation) are the two pillars of the TPS (Holweg, 2007; Liker, 2004; Ohno, 1988). JIT means that the parts required for assembly reach the

Most of these activities are related to the higher orders of Maslows hierarchy of needs and include both the hygiene factors and motivational factors from Herzberg theory (Liker, 2004). Therefore, the appreciation of human activities has resulted in signicant effects on the implementation of the TPS. As a result, huge implementation performances will be reached. The frameworks are integrated in Figures 1 and 2 as the holistic TPS, which also refers to the model considered by Liker (2004) (see Figure 3).

5. THE EMPIRICAL STUDY

The holistic TPS imposes the causal relationships among the constructs like humanity-activities, TQM,
DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

545

Technical Practices and Human Factors of the TPS

Yang, Yeh, and Yang

Figure 1

Integrate TQM and HRM practices with JIT system.

TQM
Customer-focused TPM Implementation Autonomous Quality Culture Incoming Quality Quality Assurance Prevention Concept Measurement System Kaizen

Practices
Basis Principles
Multi-machines Handling Detect Defects Automatically Minutes Exchange of Dies Poke Yoke (Error-proofing) U-type Manufacturing Stop Machine Automatically Multifunctional Layout Preventive Maintenance

Autonomation

Man-machine Smooth Layout Design with Lower Labors Build-in Quality Control Zero Defect

HRM
Education and Training Work Enrichment Problem Solving Skills Employee Motivation Multi-skilled Autonomous Decision Collaboration Innovative Activities

Figure 2

Integrate TQM and HRM practices with Autonomation system.

546

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Yang, Yeh, and Yang

Technical Practices and Human Factors of the TPS

Perfermance

Customer Satisfaction
Best Quality Product and Service Lowest Cost Shortest Delivery Greatest Security Just In time
(Right Parts, Right Number, Right Time)

Lean Process
Make Value Stream Flow Reduce the Variability on Process Eliminate the Rigid Hierarchies Pursue Perfection

Autonomation (Build In Quality) Detect Defects Stop Machine Man-machine Smooth Poke Yoke Preventive Maintenance Multi-functional Layout Quick Exchange of Dies

HardSide

Pull System Production Leveling Kanban System Quick Changeover Zero Defect Lowest Inventories Take Time Standard Operations

Continuous Improvement

Eliminate Waste Visual Waste Problem Awareness 5 Whys Problem Solving Improvement Methods Statistic Tools

HRM

Multi-skilled, Empowerment Education & Training, Suggestions Motivation & Incentive SoftSide

TQM Customer-focused, Quality System, Total Standardization, Zero Defect Quality Culture

Humanity Activities Job Security, Respect for People, Direct Authority, Culture, Innovative Toyota Way, Lean Thinking

Figure 3

The holistic TPS by referring to the model considered by Liker (2004).

HRM, Continuous Improvement, JIT, Autonomation, Lean Process, and Performance. Therefore, the empirical study is conducted to conrm the causal relationships among these constructions. In the holistic TPS (Figure 3), each construction contains several practices. Therefore, the related practices for each construct are displayed in Table 2. The objectives of this empirical study are therefore

the implementation maturity of each practice from the eight constructions, and the basic respondent data (companies) including industry category and number of years since implementation.

to investigate implementation time for different industries, to determine the implementation levels of the constructs and practices, and to analyze and compare the implementation levels of the constructs for different industries, and for different implementation years.

The data-gathering tool used in this empirical study was a questionnaire survey. The questions on the questionnaire covered

The questionnaire used a ve-point Likert scale from 1 (not implemented at all) to 5 (completely implemented) to evaluate the implementation level of each construct practice. In the rst stage of research, several experts and managers who had specialized knowledge about, and experience with, the TPS were interviewed to consider the appropriateness of these constructs and their implementation status. Their insights also helped to conrm the effectiveness of the questionnaire design. In this empirical study, the participants who had implemented the TPS with lean production were needed. Because it was difcult to nd suitable participants, several industrial associations and two important nonprot organizations, including the Chinese
DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

547

Technical Practices and Human Factors of the TPS TABLE 2. Constructs and Related Practices Construct Humanity Practice Industry Job Security Respect for People Direct Authority Specied Culture Innovative Work Environment Multiskilled Employees Empowerment Education and Training Innovative Suggestions Motivation and Incentive Focus on Customers Quality System Total Standard Operations Pursuit of Zero Defects Quality Culture Innovation Waste Elimination Quality Improvement Problem Solving Elimination of Steps Without Value Elimination of Bottlenecks Pull System Kanban System Production Leveling Minimum Inventories Mixed Production Line Total Prevention Maintenance Automatically Detect and Stop Built-in Quality Control Poke Joke (error-proong) Value Stream Flow Elimination of Rigid Hierarchies Reduction of Process Variations Pursuit of Perfection Best Quality Product Shortest Delivery Time High Customer Loyalty Improved Service Quality Decreased Labor Effort Increased Productivity Increased Prots Automobile and Motorcycle Bicycle Information Technology and Network Communication Semiconductor Electronic Components Photonics Machinery Others

Yang, Yeh, and Yang TABLE 3. Distribution of Respondents by Industry Number of Participants 55 10 14 13 20 18 12 9 Percentage (%) 34.42 6.62 9.27 8.61 13.25 11.92 7.95 5.96

HRM

TQM

Continuous Improvement

JIT

Autonomation

Lean Process

Performance

Productivity Center and Corporate Synergy Development Center, were contacted. The two organizations, which were supported by government funds, helped industries to introduce and implement the TPS. In the end, the data of 620 companies that had implemented the TPS were obtained.
548

The questionnaires were sent or e-mailed to the 620 companies, and 169 responses were received, 151 of which were valid. The 151 respondents can be divided into eight categories, which are presented in Table 3. The reliability of the questionnaires was evaluated using the most widely used statistical method, Cronbachs alpha (Koufteros, 1999). The eight constructs had Cronbachs alpha values from 0.919 to 0.968, well above the 0.75 that is considered to be satisfactory for basic research (Churchill, 1991; Cronbach, Schonemann, & Mekie, 1965; Litwin, 1995). Thus, these statistical results conrm that the questionnaire had signicantly high consistency. The validity analyses included content validity and construct validity. Because the questionnaire design was discussed with the interviewed experts and managers, it was possible to conrm the content validity. The construct validity was assessed by factor loading analysis. The factor loading statistics ranged from 0.510 to 0.920, and were higher than the satisfactory level of 0.4 proposed by Nunnally and Berstein (1994). Therefore, the content validity and construct validity were found to be trustworthy. The automobile and motorcycle industries implemented the TPS earlier than others. Approximately 45 percent of companies in these industries have used the TPS for more than ten years. Half of the companies in the bicycle industry have used the TPS for more than ve years, but more than 60 percent of companies in the semiconductor, electronic components, photonics, and machinery industries have implemented the TPS in the past three years, as shown in Table 4. The automobile and motorcycle industries implemented the TPS earliest. Most car companies and motorcycle
DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

Yang, Yeh, and Yang

Technical Practices and Human Factors of the TPS

26 17.2% 39 25.8% 24 15.9% 20 13.2% 11 7.3% 31 20.5% 151 100% 3 0 1 5.5% 0% 7.1% 5 4 6 9.1% 40.0% 42.9% 7 1 4 12.7% 10.0% 28.6% 9 4 3 16.4% 40.0% 21.4% 6 0 0 10.9% 0% 0% 0 25 1 10.0% 0% 45.5% 55 10 14 100% 100% 100% Chi-square = 75.105, p value = 000 7 years less than 10 years 3 years less than 5 years 5 years less than 7 years 1 year less than 3 years More than 10 years KruskalWallis test Total
DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Machinery Photonics Electronic Components Semiconductor Automobile & Motorcycle Bicycle Information & Network

The following are the top ve practices in terms of implementation levels:

Industry, Frequency/ Percentage, Years since TPS Implementation

Job Security and Innovative Work Environment

less than 1 year

The rst, third, and fth item are included in TQM, the second is included in JIT, and the fth is included in Continuous Improvement, as can be seen in Table 6. In addition to these practices, the following practices also had high implementation levels:

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

549

Note. p < 0.01; p < 0.001

Focus on Customers, Pull System, Quality System, Waste Elimination, and Total Standard Operations.

TABLE 4. Years Since TPS Implementation Distribution for Different Industries

Next, the implementation levels of the constructs and the related practices are discussed. The TQM and Continuous Improvement practices had the highest levels of implementation (means of 3.756 and 3.639, respectively). The major reason is that TQM and Continuous Improvement (actually Continuous Improvement is a critical practice in TQM) have been widely used in Taiwan since the beginning of 1990, and have resulted in signicant improvements in performance. The implementation of TQM and Continuous Improvement is the foundation for the adoption of the TPS. The mean of the performance practice was 3.635, giving it an implementation level of 3, as can be seen in Table 5. The value of 3.635 means that implementation of the TPS will result in signicant improvement in performance. The Lean process practice had the lowest implementation level (a mean of 3.399) because the TPS had not been adopted for long enough in several industries. The implementation level of HRM was also low, with a mean of 3.481, putting this construct the second to the last in order. HRM practices are critical for implementing TPS. Thus, companies need to take steps to increase their HRM practices implementation levels.

5 38.5% 5 38.5% 1 7.7% 0 0% 1 7.7% 1 7.7% 13 100%

6 30.0% 6 30.0% 4 20.2% 1 5.0% 2 10.0% 1 5.0% 20 100%

7 38.9% 5 27.8% 4 22.2% 1 5.6% 1 5.6% 0 0% 18 100%

2 16.7% 6 50.0% 2 16.7% 1 8.3% 0 0% 1 8.3% 12 100%

6. ANALYSES OF IMPLEMENTATION LEVELS

Others

2 22.2% 2 22.2% 1 11.1% 1 11.1% 1 11.1% 2 22.2% 9 100%

companies cooperate with Japanese companies; therefore the brand names of most cars and motorcycles sold in are Japanese. This analysis addresses information about high-tech companies that have only recently started to implement the TPS with lean production.

Total

Technical Practices and Human Factors of the TPS TABLE 5. Implementation Levels of the Eight Constructs Construct Humanity HRM TQM Continuous Improvement JIT Autonomation Lean Process Performance Mean 3.583 3.481 3.756 3.639 3.546 3.596 3.399 3.635 Standard Deviation 0.640 0.697 0.739 0.726 0.707 0.710 0.680 0.643

Yang, Yeh, and Yang

from the Humanity construct,

Total Prevention Maintenance

from the Autonomation construct, and

quality improvement and problem solving

from the Continuous Improvement construct. These data show that industries emphasize not only the practices in the TQM and Continuous Improvement constructs, but also the practices in the Humanity construct. The implementation of the TPS can result in significant improvements in performance, such as increased productivity, achieving the shortest delivery time, improvement in service quality, and higher customer loyalty. These results are incentive for companies to actively implement the TPS.

7. COMPARISONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION LEVELS FOR DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES AND DIFFERENT ADOPTION TIMES
In this study it was found that the automobile, motorcycle, and bicycle industries have implemented TPS practices for longer than other industries. Thus, these industries tended to have higher levels of implementation for all of the eight constructs. Actually, the automobile and motorcycle industries had the highest levels of implementation on three constructs: TQM, Continuous Improvement, and Autonomation, as can be seen in Table 7. The bicycle industry, however, had the highest levels of implementation for other constructs, such as Humanity, HRM, JIT, Lean Process,
550

and Performance. It is worth discussing the case of the bicycle industry. Although it has not used the TPS for a long time (less than the automobile and motorcycle industries), its TPS practice implementation levels are mostly better than those of automobile and motorcycle industries. China has become the worlds factory and has increased manufacturing competitiveness rapidly. In response to Chinas challenge, Giant and Merida, two major rival rms in the bicycle industry from Taiwan, created the A-Team, an association of Taiwanese bicycle assemblers and suppliers, in 2002 to revitalize Taiwans prospects in the industry. A-Team has had a mandate to improve industry performance in three main areas: production efciency, product development, and market intelligence. A-Teams efforts emphasize the improvement of on-site management and implementation of lean production. The members have been learning TPS practices from Kuozui Motor in Taiwan, a subsidiary of Toyota, and Toyota Motors in Japan, for more than ve years. The bicycle industry has the highest implementation levels for more than half of TPS practices. The automobile and motorcycle industries have the highest levels of implementation of the other TPS practices. It can be seen in Table 7 that the implementation levels for constructs in different industries are different. A KruskalWallis test (Ruxton & Beauchamp, 2008) revealed that the implementation levels were signicantly different in different industries for each construct. Similar results were obtained using the KruskalWallis test as well. It was expected that rms that had adopted the TPS earlier would have higher implementation levels for constructs and their associated practices. It was found that the rms that had been implementing TPS practices for more than ten years had the highest implementation levels for all eight constructs (as can be seen in Table 8) and the highest implementation levels for most associated practices. A KruskalWallis test showed implementation levels for constructs and practices to be signicantly different among industries that had been using TPS practices for different amounts of time.

8. DISCUSSION
This empirical study found that TPS practice implementation levels and the resulting performance depend on efforts and amount of time since implementation
DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

Yang, Yeh, and Yang TABLE 6. Implementation Levels of the Practices Construct Humanity Practice

Technical Practices and Human Factors of the TPS

Mean 3.748 3.461 3.328 3.620 3.729 3.393 3.539 3.572 3.479 3.391 4.100 3.868 3.801 3.521 3.530 3.613 3.832 3.669 3.659 3.439 3.629 4.033 3.369 3.355 3.578 3.321 3.711 3.627 3.530 3.477 3.221 3.344 3.424 3.605 3.563 3.694 3.687 3.676 3.629 3.715 3.517

Standard Deviation 0.914 0.774 0.790 0.766 0.674 0.793 0.714 0.855 0.777 0.875 0.783 0.806 0.785 0.888 0.911 0.817 0.836 0.796 0.742 0.903 0.836 0.645 1.018 0.846 0.835 1.001 0.759 0.836 0.851 0.835 0.810 0.704 0.773 0.783 0.710 0.698 0.727 0.744 0.822 0.734 0.703

HRM

TQM

Continuous Improvement

JIT

Autonomation

Lean Process

Performance

Job Security Respect for People Direct Authority Specied Culture Innovative Work Environment Multiskilled Employees Empowerment Education and Training Innovative Suggestions Motivation and Incentive Focus on Customers Quality System Total Standard Operations Pursuit of Zero Defects Quality Culture Innovation Waste Elimination Quality Improvement Problem Solving Elimination of Steps Without Value Elimination of Bottlenecks Pull System Kanban System Production Leveling Minimum Inventories Mixed Production Line Total Prevention Maintenance Automatically Detect and Stop Built-in Quality Control Poke Joke (error-proong) Value Stream Flow Elimination of Rigid Hierarchies Reduction of Process Variations Pursuit of Perfection Best Quality Product Shortest Delivery Time High Customer Loyalty Improved Service Quality Decreased Labor Effort Increased Productivity Increased Prots

was started. In Taiwan, the car market is small and manufactures are difcult to achieve economic scale. The combined annual car sales of all three companies amount to less than three hundred thousand units. Most of the car companies implemented the TPS early, resulting in signicant improvements in performance

and quality, reductions in cost, and increases in productivity. Thus, their annual prots are increased. Toyotas subsidiary in Taiwan makes good prots almost every year. A-Team members have been implementing TPS practices for approximately seven years, and their
551

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

552
Bicycle Information & Network Semiconductor Photonics Electronic Components Machinery Others 3.790 0.925 2 3.722 0.887 2 4.083 0.857 1 3.983 0.815 1 3.887 0.941 2 3.808 0.861 1 3.645 0.856 2 3.832 0.811 2 4.154 0.802 1 3.929 0.792 1 3.869 0.801 2 3.860 0.742 2 3.943 0.766 1 3.800 0.764 2 3.858 0.833 1 4.000 0.852 1 3.566 0.882 4 3.408 0.707 4 3.841 0.816 3 3.614 0.705 3 3.449 0.946 3 3.519 0.834 4 3.363 0.777 4 3.663 0.573 4 3.337 0.919 6 3.654 0.718 3 3.533 0.958 5 3.503 1.022 5 3.110 1.024 7 3.643 0.875 3 3.327 0.805 5 3.355 0.667 7 3.238 0.832 7 3.007 0.908 8 3.442 0.975 6 3.203 0.897 7 3.243 1.040 6 3.336 0.996 7 3.108 0.801 6 3.319 0.754 8 3.429 0.832 5 3.325 1.024 5 3.440 0.980 7 3.433 1.002 6 3.425 1.040 4 3.515 1.102 5 3.037 0.800 7 3.503 0.874 5 3.205 0.817 8 3.119 0.818 7 3.269 0.845 8 3.172 0.851 8 3.042 0.944 8 3.205 0.836 8 2.917 0.815 8 3.370 0.723 6 3.650 0.959 3 3.214 1.017 6 3.803 1.028 4 3.526 1.085 4 3.397 1.059 5 3.384 1.113 6 3.546 1.122 3 3.710 0.786 3

TABLE 7. Comparison of the Implementation Levels of the Eight Constructs for Different Industries

Industry Mean, SD, Ranking Construct

Automobile & Motorcycle

Humanity

HRM

Technical Practices and Human Factors of the TPS

TQM

Continuous Improvement

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

JIT

Autonomation

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Lean Process

Performance

Yang, Yeh, and Yang

Yang, Yeh, and Yang

Technical Practices and Human Factors of the TPS

TABLE 8. Comparison of the Implementation Levels of Eight Constructs for Different Periods of Adoption Industry Mean, SD, Ranking Construct Humanity

Less Than 1 Year Less Than 3 Years Less Than 5 Years Less Than 7 Years Less Than More Than 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 7 Years 10 Years 10 Years 3.263 0.911 6 3.113 1.013 6 3.260 1.083 6 3.067 1.076 6 3.071 1.086 6 3.220 1.065 6 3.119 0.905 5 3.152 0.680 6 3.527 0.874 5 3.209 0.865 5 3.395 0.883 5 3.330 0.825 5 3.190 0.960 5 3.226 0.926 5 3.038 0.845 6 3.340 0.710 5 3.622 0.840 4 3.604 0.792 4 3.987 0.871 3 3.803 0.894 4 3.586 1.106 4 3.811 0.995 4 3.517 0.871 3 3.866 0.789 3 3.692 1.086 2 3.725 0.912 2 4.023 0.921 2 3.843 0.829 3 3.736 0.885 3 3.873 0.710 2 3.500 0.981 4 3.908 0.772 2 3.678 0.861 3 3.695 0.726 3 3.944 0.739 4 3.915 0.666 2 3.955 0.744 2 3.860 0.649 3 3.644 0.644 2 3.808 0.827 4 3.789 0.885 1 3.802 0.872 1 4.211 0.633 1 4.151 0.656 1 4.094 0.762 1 3.938 0.731 1 3.841 0.688 1 3.966 0.712 1

HRM

TQM

Continuous Improvement JIT

Autonomation

Lean Process

Performance

performances are great. Bicycle exports increased from eight hundred forty million USD in 2006 to $1.05 billion USD in 2007, resulting in a growth rate of 25.63 percent. Unit prices increased from $150 USD in 2003 to $222 USD in 2007 (see http://www.moeaidb.gov.tw, 2008). Usually traditional industries are early adopters of TPS practices, but now, more and more high-tech companies are adopting and implementing TPS practices. Companies which implementing TPS have signicant performances, especially the information and network, and photonics industries, as can be seen in Table 7. Implementation of the TPS is expected to achieve the Lean Process. Thus, Womack and Jones (1996) introduced a set of lean principles to be used by companies that wanted to implement the TPS. The use of lean principles results in achievement of the Lean Process. Because the implementation level of Lean Processes is the lowest of the eight constructs, companies

should put more effort into implementing Lean Process practices. Besides, industries also need to improve implementation of HRM practices, because the worker is at the heart of the application of lean production (Genaidy & Karwowski, 2003).

9. CONCLUSION
The automobile, motorcycle, and bicycle industries are encountering severe competition from China, but they are performing well because of their deep implementation of TPS practices. It is worth emphasizing that the automobile and motorcycle industries have high TQM and Continuous Improvement construct implementation levels, and the bicycle industry has high Humanity and HRM construct implementation levels. This evidence conrms the development of the holistic TPS, which integrates aspects of TQM, Humanity, and HRM.
DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

553

Technical Practices and Human Factors of the TPS

Yang, Yeh, and Yang

TPS and lean production have been widely adopted by companies and nonprot organizations around the world. In Taiwan, the application of TPS is popular not only with traditional industries, but also with hightech companies. Early adopters of the TPS emphasized only the hard aspects of the TPS and neglected the soft aspects. As a result, companies encountered problems implementing the TPS. Thus, the adopters of the TPS need to correct incorrect decisions and emphasize the realization of the holistic TPS.

References
Appelbaum, E., & Batt, R. (1994). The new American workplace: Transforming work systems in the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University/ILR Press. Arbos, L. C. (2002). Design of a rapid response and high efciency service by lean production principles: Methodology and evaluation of variability of performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 80, 169183. Bartezzaghi, E. (1999). The evaluation of production models: Is a new paradigm emerging? International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19(2), 229250. Churchill, G. A. (1991). Marketing research: Methodological foundation (5th ed.). New York: The Dryden Press. Cronbach, L. J., Schonemann, P., & Mekie, D. (1965). Alpha coefcients for stratied-parallel tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25, 291312. Dahlgaard, J. J, & Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2006). Lean production, six sigma, quality, TQM and company culture. The TQM Magazine, 18(3), 263281. Delbridge, R. (2003).Workers under lean manufacturing. In D. Holman, T. D. Wall, C. W. Clegg, P. Sparrow, & A. Howard (Eds.), The new workplace: A guide to the human impact of modern working practices (pp. 1936). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Fang, S., & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). Excellence at Toyota motor manufacturing in the United States. Management Research News, 26(2/3/4), 116122. Genaidy, A. M., & Karwowski, W. (2003). Human performance in lean production environment: Critical assessment and research framework. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, (13)4, 317330. Holweg, M. (2007). The genealogy of lean production. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 420437. James-Moore, S. M., & Gibbons, A. (1997). Is lean manufacture universally relevant? An investigative methodology. International Journal of Operation & Production Management, 17(9), 899911.
554

Koufteros, X. A. (1999). Testing a model of pull production: A paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Operations Management, 17, 467488. Krafcik, J. (1998). Triumph of the lean production system. Sloan Management Review, 30(1), 4152. Landsbergis, P. A., Cahill, J., & Schnall, P. (1999). The impact of lean production and related new systems of work organization on worker health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(2), 108130. Lee, T. H. (2010). Turning doctors into leaders. Harvard Business Review, April, 5059. Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the worlds greatest manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lillrank, P. (1995). The transfer of management innovations from Japan. Organization Studies, 16(6), 971 989. Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. London: Sage Publications. Melton, T. (2005). The benets of lean manufacturing: What lean thinking has to offer the process industries. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 83(A6), 662673. Monden, Y. (1983). Toyota production system: Practical approach to production management. Norcross, GA: Industrial Engineering and Management Press. Nunnally, J. C., & Berstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ohno, T. (1988). The Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. Portland, OR: Productivity Press. Paez, O., Dewees, J., Genaidy, A., Tuncel, S., Karwowski, W., & Zurada, J. (2004). The lean manufacturing enterprise: An emerging sociotechnological system integration. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 14(3), 285306. Ruxton, G. D., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Some suggestions about appropriate use of the Kruskal-Wallis test. Animal Behaviour, 76, 10831087. Sepp al a, P., & Klemola, S. (2004). How do employees perceive their organization and job when companies adopt principles of lean production? Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 14(2), 157180. Taira, K. (1996). Compatibility of human resource management, industrial relations, and engineering under mass production and lean production: An exploration. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45(2), 97117. Takeuchi, H., Osono, E., & Shimizu, N. (2008). The contradictions that drive Toyotas success. Harvard Business Review, June, 86(6), 96104.
DOI: 10.1002/hfm

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

Yang, Yeh, and Yang

Technical Practices and Human Factors of the TPS

Watanabe, K. (2007). Lessons from Toyotas long drive. Harvard Business Review, July/August, 74 83. Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1994). From lean production to the lean enterprise. Harvard Business Review, March/April, 93103.

Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Beyond Toyota: How to root out waste and pursue performance. Harvard Business Review, September/October, 140152. Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York: Macmillan.

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries

DOI: 10.1002/hfm

555