You are on page 1of 3

Summary and Recommendation

Toyota Motors Manufacturing (TMM) currently faces a huge problem due to defective
seats in its Camry Model. Kentucky Framed Seat (KFS), Toyota’s sole seat supplier is
responsible for majority of the problems, with missing parts and material flaws the
main causes. Toyota is currently addressing these issues off-line, which is a
deviation from the Toyota Production System (TPS).
Below are our recommendations to overcome the issue in the short-term and longterm:
Short-term solutions:
a) Station a Toyota Quality Control (QC) personnel at KFS to complete the quality
check and/or a QC personnel at the arrival dock to check for defects before it
enters the line.
b) KFS should be notified as soon as the problem is detected on the line so that
a replacement can be made available at the earliest.
c) An inventory of the different seat styles can be kept as safety stock for use
whenever a defective seat is encountered. Though this goes against the
principles of TPS, this will provide a good short-term fix for the problem
without affecting the production volumes.
Long-term solutions:
a) Educate and train KFS on the TPS system to ensure problems are detected at
KFS and thorough quality checks are performed before the parts are delivered
to TMM.
b) Assess the need for variety and the 36 different styles. KFS was a reliable
supplier till the number of styles increased. Alternatively, TMM quality control
could go to KFS to identify the source of the problem and implement tools
such as the 5 Why’s to address the issues.
c) Implement the tooling change to correct the design of the hook or roll back
the material change to plastic. This has to be done after a thorough root
cause analysis in conjunction with Tsutsumi who are not facing the issue.
d) TMM could use an alternate supplier who can keep up with the variety
requirements and minimize defects.
Since most of the problems are due to missing parts and material flaws, the line
should not be stopped when a problem is detected until some of the solutions above
are implemented.
If TMM is able to implement the QC check at the arrival dock, then Jidoka should be
followed as assembly issues like cross-threading and wrong installation are now
more likely than defective parts. Jidoka should also be implemented if there is a
safety stock as mentioned above, as it makes sense to stop the line and replace the
seat and this will not hold up production for too long.
JIT principles in TPS

because of the increasing off-line inventory due to the seat problem. This required upstream stations to have the capacity of switching among parts with little setup time. Creating a flowing production process was prerequisite for TPS – information flow was in line with physical flow of parts. JIT principles that TPS incorporated were produce only what was needed. the sales company was not getting cars on time as promised. Cost / pull= Salary∈$ /hr ×Overtime Premium × 769× Durationof Stoppage 60 The value of a chord pull in each of the three cases can be estimated by using the cycle time of 57 seconds to calculate the throughput rate and calculating the loss incurred for the time lost due to a chord pull. This went against the JIT principle of producing (and supplying) when something was needed.JIT (Just-In-Time) was a guiding principle that TPS adopted to facilitate identification of waste in the production process. produce only when it was needed. parts were pulled from downstream instead of being pushed from upstream based on actual usage instead of scheduled usage. TPS followed these principles by the use of planning practices such as  Heijunka (evening out the total order in daily production sequence) served the purpose of spreading demand and relieving the surge work load pressure of suppliers to facilitate JIT production. 2 .  Kanban cards used to trigger part production thereby controlling production and information flow. Any deviation from true production needs was thought of as waste. the cost per pull can be calculated as follows. Andon Pull System Assuming that 769 team members were employed in each shift at $17/hr with an over-time premium of 50% along with one team leader per team with an additional premium of 6. produce only how much was needed.5% (average of 5-8%). However.

3 .