Ans 1

a. Here are the same reasons for the chassis co.’s contribution-
1) Cost is not determined
2)In project management, no skill-basedpersonare there.
3) Low ability and skills in the fields of manufacturing, engineering and
automation technology.
4) They choose poor tier 2 suppliers.
5) They didn't understand the need and changes that Toyota wants.
6) They didn't respond to get new person who has skills.

b. Here are the answers of Toyota contribution-

1) They found their problems very late.
2) They thought that their tier 2 is very good
3) They thought that there is good transition between responsa and suprima.
4) They made falls assumption regarding abilities of the chassis Co’s.

Toyota thought that they have workers with ability and skills, good transition as
well as they have persons who can learn many things from different projects.
Many of people can ask many questions that why the Toyota fails this time or
how they succeeded in Japan. It can answer as the Toyota have good suppliers
with good skills in the field of logistics and also in project management. They
can make also learn from different projects and apply them to get better results.
This can also be stated as Toyota wanted to expand their business at globe but
they didn't meet the same experience as in Japan in fields of production and
supply. They must have work on their tier 1 suppliers to enhance their skills
which helps the company to expand globally.
Ans 2 b) As an in charge at ChassiCo, we would make sure that there is a
complete transparency and visibility in the production process as one of the
reasons why the new model of Toyota car failed was a lack of understanding of
mistakes that were being made at the production and assembling level. Another
reason for the massive failure was no or bad quality check and assurance. No
quality standards were being followed, hence, we would set up a separate
quality control and check team for all the supplies and ensure an efficient and
effective quality check at every stage of production process. We would increase
communication level as lack of communication and right information flow
between both the companies with regards to cost and quality standards not being
met was one of the major reasons behind the new model failure. Had the
company informed Toyota about their inability of sourcing quality products
from correct sources and the lack of technological competency, Toyota could
have delayed the launch of the new model. This communication gapled to the
failed product in the market. As in charge we would also make sure to acquire
skilled engineering team and train the present employees and managers about
new technology. Also, improved project management and crisis management
would be given importance by us. We would make sure that the every project is
managed properly, for that all the aspects about the project like total cost,
material sourcing, capacity of the plant and infrastructure requirements would
be planned well in advance.
Ans 3. Considering these causes:
(a) What are Toyota’s options for resolving the crisis?
 As per the guidelines given by the Toyota they should stop thinking that
their suppliers are completely fit for any change in the responsibilities.
 Toyota should also have other supplier options who can better work on
quality and who can better align with the Toyota Production process.
 Toyota should cooperate with the risks faced by the supplier’s workers so
that it doesn’t become constraint in fulfilling the capacity and quality
prescribed by Toyota.
Ans 3 b) As an in charge at Toyota we would increase control and
responsibility over the production process as lack of regular visits, inspection
and control over production process resulted in the product failure. Quality
check teams would have been sent for regular visits to the ChassiCo's Athens
plant by us. That would ensure total quality control andfollowing of Just In
Time model by the company. Since, no regular quality checks and visits were
made to the plant by Toyota team, they could not recognise the problems and
mismanagement taking place at the time of production. This issue could have
been taken care by the management had there been a regular report and
information being demanded from ChassiCo. As in charges, we would have
made sure that regular reporting is done so that there is no communication gap
between the two organisations regarding the problems faced by ChassiCo. We
would have also increased the investment so that the other company would not
have to face the burnt of excessive expenditure and pressure of meeting the set
cost. Also, as in charges, we would have trained the ChassiCo’s engineering and
technical team so that they could keep up with the increased automation and
improved technology.
Overview
One of the brand widely known for its high quality products and Just in Time
manufacturing is regarded as the one that will definitely meet the consumers
demand for quality and never face stock out situation. The Japanese brand
Toyota fails to deliver its promise and faced issues in its Suprima model
because of very poor visibility of the stock and low quality of the supplier.
The issues occur during the new model launch in 2003. Toyota earlier used to
source the parts for manufacturing and check its quality according to their
highly preventive scheme but, in this case all the accountability of sourcing the
parts was with ChassisCo.
The reason behind this situation was that ChassisCo didn’t follow the principles
that Toyota had implemented for its every suppliers was to get intimated about
any risk involved in sourcing raw materials form its suppliers.
The other reason was that ChassisCo lacks in project management skills. They
have a little investment on Information Technology infrastructure which was the
main reason of its poor visibility and they were unable to track parts along their
supply chain.
Toyota also miscalculated the ability of ChassisCo who was facing capacity
issue because of the rise in demand created by new launches from a set of
different customers. The rotation of their experienced engineers across different
geographies was a big mistake since they would have known about the
consequences of switching to automated welding process.
Going for higher plant density and jeopardized the quality of the parts to source
products from suppliers at low bids was the main reason behind the issue.
Group Contribution
Saakshi Sinha- Question 2(a)
Samiksha Sicarwar- Question 3(a)
Vaibhav Garg- Question 2(a)
Utsav Hajela- overview
Sourabh Jain- Question 1
Vinit Kumar- Question 3(b)