Please write in given space only

1. As Doug Friesen, what would you do to address the problem? Where would you focus
your attention and solution efforts?

Problems faced by Doug Friesen:

· The run ratio at TMM plant was down to a meager 85% from 95%. This 10-point
drop meant a shortfall of 45 cars per shift, which had to be required overtime.
· There was a alarming concern for high level of off-line vehicle inventory.
Presumably, too many cars needed off-line operations of one type or another
before they could go on to shipping.
· This hampered delivery schedule & after investigation it was found that, the
above-mentioned deviation was due to seat assembly issues observed in new
model of Camry & introduction of Camry Wagon.

Addressing above mentioned problems:

· As Doug Friesen, I would first talk to the team leaders and members who have
compiled all the issues faced in seat assembly of cars.
· I would encourage, team members to used Andon cards to highlight issue as &
when required. I would encourage team leaders & managers to solve problem as
early as possible even if it required stoppage of lines to avoid inventory pile up
in Quality Check area.
· Parallelly, instead of getting replacements from KSF I would station a KSF
Quality expert at TMM plant to witness the issues happening & give necessary
feedback to KSF plant.
· At the same time, I would station TMM Quality expert at KSF plant to ensure
that needful changes are done at KSF in order to avoid seat assembly issues in
future cars & problems are solved at source itself. This would help piling up of
inventory at TMM which is my primary concern.
· I would invite TMC expert to check the seat assembly problem and help guide
TMM & KSF team to resolve the problem as early as possible. I would encourage
all the production team to highlight issue when observed & do proper root cause
analysis before proceeding further.
· I would help KSF team to set up their system in line with variations for seat
styles & colours and as per production plan of TMM so that parallel activities
are done at both the plants & material is received just in time with proper
quality.
· I would encourage Kanban system at TMM, wherein team members question
traditional approach of working & find effective alternatives ways of do if things
which would benefit production & TMM in future.
· At the same time, I would consult quality team & management for alternate
supplier of seats manufacturing. This being a long term goal would require time
but would help TMM in future.
· I would urge colleagues at TMM to undergo Good thinking & Good products
trainings so that right approach to produce Quality product is developed in every
member of Final assembly line.
· I would also take feedback from Production team if any Design changes are
required to address seat assembly problem and give necessary inputs to
Engineering team.

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

Ans.

TMM should focus on corrections to solve the problem at hand immediately & corrective
actions to avoid the same issue in future cars.

1) Fixing of seat assembly bolts.:

· There were occasional incidents of cross-threading, that is, when a team member shot a bolt
at an angle. This created problem in assembly of car seat.
· Team leaders tried to fix this familiar problem on-line in 30 seconds with a re-tapping tool
however, were also involved in rare incidents when someone would accidentally damage the
seat covering with hand tools.

Correction:
· A proper work instruction/ standard procedure with proper visuals & indications should be
prepared to help team members understand importance of angle required for bolt fixing in car
seat assembly.
· Awareness should be given by Production & Quality Engineers regarding the same & demo
sessions must be carried out to ensure that such issue is not repeated in further orders.
· TMM should look at alternate options like automated gun or fixture for assembly of bolts in
order to maintain perfect angle. Also, critical Quality check should be ensured for the same.

2) Hook assembly Problem:

· For car seat assembly, during rear side bolster installation, a hook protruding from the back of
that part was to be snapped into the “eye” of the body, but the hook sometimes broke off.

· As per feedback from Production team, it was suspected that its sharp edge made it brittle,
and needed a Design change since the issue was highlighted earlier by production team &
demanded the hook to be changed from metal to plastic.

Correction:

· Modifying the relevant tooling for the hook would cost KFS about $50,000. Tsutsumi, which
used the identical engineering drawings for the part, had not reported the problem.

· TMM should report the issue to Tsutsumi plant & ask for their feedback if they are taking any
counter measure to avoid breaking off of hook.

· Awareness must be given to production team at TMM, regarding work instruction followed at
TMC. Also, if any SOP is been made or needs to be revised, immediate action should be
taken to avoid breaking off of hook.

· TMM should look at alternate options like automated gun of fixture for assembly of hooks.

Corrective Actions:

· For hook breakage problem, TMM management should consult with Design team & Supplier
team, regarding quality of plastic material used for hook & investigating regarding its
material composition & tensile strength of the hook. The results should be compared with the
sample hook received from Tsutsumi plant so as further necessary changes can be
implemented at TMM.
Unrestricted
 · TMM should ensure that KFS’s team gets proper training from TMC’s kaizen expert to do
necessary changes in their system after model change. Proper set up to match variations in
seat styles & colours should be implemented at KSF plant.

· TMM should station QC experts untill the smooth delivery of seats was streamlined &
problem faced at KFS plant were addressed at source itself. After getting initial deliveries,
proper feedback for necessary changes at KFS’s plant should be given by TMM experts.

· TMM should develop alternate supplier for seat manufacturing so that load on KSF for
delivery of seats will be lowered down and KSF will able to deliver zero defect seats in time
to avoid rework at TMM.

· TMM should invite a final assembly expert from TMC to help them resolve the seat assembly
problem and give awareness to TMM production team regarding the seriousness of issue at
hand and train them at the same time.

· TMM should incorporate any new standard operating procedures or technical know-how
which in implemented at TMC after model change.

· For a long term goal, TMC & TMM should check for standardizing variation in seat styles.
This would help ramp up production at both supplier end & TMM/TMC plant.

Unrestricted
Q3. Where. if at all, does the current routine for handling defective seats deviate from the
principles of the Toyota Production System?

Ans.

· Toyota Production system was based on two main principles which evolved around reduction
of waste

1) JIDOKA- Stating that production should be stopped when problems are detected.

2) Just In Time (JIT): Focusing on producing only exact quantity of what was needed and when it
was needed,

The current routine for handling defective seats deviated from both these principles of the TPS.

a) Deviations from JIDOKA principle:

· JIDOKA stated that production should be stopped when problems were detected.

After Model change, following activities were skipped at TMM:

1) Standardized work chart was not revised & immediately posted adjacent to each workstation
on the line, thus not indicating cycle time of that station, & the timing to perform them within
one cycle.

2) The indication of green line for starting of work and red line for stopping of work was totally
skipped. There was no yellow line indicating 70% of work done since the cars were pushed
further in line without assembling seats or by assembling defective seats so as attend quality
issues at later stage.

3) The practice of pulling Andon card when the seat problem or any other problem was detected
became a formality. Flashing light & triggered loud music and litting up the work station’s
“address number” on the Andon board after pulling of Andon card was totally ignored.

4) Earlier for previous Camry model, if the team leader could not resolve the problem
immediately, he or she left the Andon on and allowed the line segment to stop at the red line,
that is, when the other work stations completed their cycles. However, after model change, this
step was totally skipped to avoid stopping production. Since there was no stoppage, the issue
did not attract group leader’s attention.

5) Earlier, before model change, team leaders & management at TMM stood by people for hours
to help them acquire the new way. Every team member focused on building quality in through
andon pulls. Team leaders were called to respond quickly, and group leaders to take
countermeasures to prevent the recurrence of the problem. However, after model change root
cause analysis (Why-Why analysis) was not done to arrest the problem permanently.

6) There was lack of leadership. Managers just wanted to keep the line going but did not focus on
developing people to resolve the issues on their own or find alternatives in case of deviation

b) Deviations from JIT principle:

· JIT stated that produce what was needed and when it was needed. So, it targeted to reduce of
waste and inventory.

Unrestricted
 · But handling of defective seats became a routine activity & cars were moved to overflow
parking area where seat replacement was done. So, it resulted in increase in inventory as well
as waste.

· Also, seats with zero defects were not produced at a time when they were needed.

After Model change, TMM did not follow below JIT principles:

1) The practice of heijunka called for evening out (balancing) the total order in the daily
production sequence was not followed. Camry Sedan & Camry Wagon were not equally
divided for a monthly production plan as did earlier. There was no planning for alternate
production of mentioned models.

2) There was no bifurcation for orders specified with moonroof option. Earlier, one out of every
four consecutive cars on the assembly line had to contain that option.

3) Considering the seat assembly problem, there was no alternate vendor developed for seat
manufacturing. Hence, total load as per changes of seat style & colour for new Camry model
was totally on KSF. Thus, KSF made mistakes in handling the entire work load. Earlier,
spreading out the demand for parts as evenly as possible relieved suppliers of a surge of
workload and facilitated their JIT production.

4) The second JIT principle was reflected in the use of Kanban cards. Although all production
plans were shared with suppliers to ease their planning, only Kanban’s triggered part
production. However, since there was only single supplier for seats i.e. KSF, the Kanban card
was not properly implemented.

Unrestricted
Q.4) What is the real problem facing Doug Friesen?

Ans

· The real problem facing Doug Friesen were:

i) Poor system for Supplier Quality Development & over dependency on

Kentucky Frame Seat (KFS) who was TMM’s sole seat supplier.

ii) Deviation from two assumptions in TPS (Toyota Production system) about
Production environments.

iii) Absence of ‘Good thinking & Good Products’ in TMM plant:

i) Poor system for Supplier Quality Management:

· KFS had been a rare exception to Toyota’s multi-vendor policy ever since TMC’s advance
scout team chose it as the seat supplier in 1986.
· TMM did not develop an alternate supplier for seat manufacturing considering ramp up in
production after change in Camry models and change in seat styles & colours.
· After introducing model change in fall of 1991, KFS had to keep up the sequential pull
system until the very last day of the old model production.
· It had only 10 days to change over its process and 10 weeks to build up to full capacity for
the new model.
· The old model Camry seat had three styles and four colors; the 1992 Camry offered only
three seat colors but had five styles.
· The problem intensified in further months, when TMM launched the Camry wagons which
added 18 seat variations worldwide including supply to Europe, Japan & Middle East.
· The run ratio was down to a meager 85% from 95%. This 10-point drop meant a shortfall of
45 cars per shift, which had to be made up with overtime.
· TMM did not ensure that KFS’s team gets proper training from TMC’s kaizen expert to do
necessary changes in their system after model change.
· TMM did not station QC experts untill the smooth delivery of seats was streamlined &
problem faced at KFS plant were addressed at source itself.
· After getting initial deliveries, proper feedback for necessary changes at KFS’s plant was not
given by TMM experts.

ii) Deviation from two assumptions in TPS (Toyota Production system)

about Production environments:

Assumptions:
1) True needs would deviate from a production plan unpredictably, no matter how meticulously
that plan was prepared: hence the virtue of JIT production.
2) Second, problems would crop up constantly on the shop floor, making deviations from
planned operating conditions inevitable: hence the virtue of jidoka.

· In case of deviation, First, a team member pulled the Andon cord to report the problem to the
team leader before installing the defective seat.
· The team leader then pulled the Andon cord to signal okay and tagged the car to alert QC
inspectors to the seat problem. The car then went through the rest of the assembly line as
usual with the defective seat in it.
· In order to avoid stoppage of lines & addressing problem at hand, TMM management took
decision of assembling faulty seats in order to keep production moving ahead and addressing
issues at a later stage.

Unrestricted
 · This resulted in cars with seat issues accumulating off-line. It was clear that TMM lacked
a “system” for recovering from the problem. This was against the above mentioned
assumptions of TPS system.

iii) Absence of ‘Good thinking & Good Products’ in TMM plant (Absence of
Root Cause Analysis):

· TPS depended on human infrastructure, symbolized by Toyota’s corporate slogan: “Good

Thinking, Good Products.”. Toyota thus instilled “good thinking” in all its employees
through Senior management coaching and internal training programs.
· These efforts cultivated two strong attitudes that permeated the organization: stick to the
facts and get down to the root cause of the problem by performing Why-Why analysis.
· TMM lacked in the above-mentioned approaches.
· At TMM, upon line-off, the car was driven to the Code 1 clinic area to see if the problem
was correctable there. If the problem called for a replacement seat, the car was moved to
the overflow parking area where the replacement seat was ordered and the car waited for
KFS’ special delivery.
· Defective seats were returned to KFS. Thus, there was no system of root cause analysis.
· At TMM, the final assembly people already knew of the problem & yet tried to finish
building the car without seat assemblies so as to void stopping the line since it be high
cost impact depending o replacement of defective seat from KSF.
· Also, KFS sometimes sent the wrong seat assemblies ones that did not match any
of the cars waiting for rework.
· Thus, the problem was not truly resolved and rework was further repeated.

Unrestricted