INTRODUCTIONToyota Motor Manufacturing faces a big challenge with its seats installed in the plant for Camry’s in Georgetown. The seat supplier is Kentucky Framed Seat which is responsible for thismajor problem being the sole supplier for Toyota Motor Manufacturing This is because of the material flaws and parts which were missing and considered as the major encountered defects. Inaddition the problems are frequently occurring with an increase in demands for the seats. Due to this production level is decreasing, resulting in an overtime works and is considered as addressing the issue offline which is not as per company standards. PROBLEM STATEMENTMajor problem is the increase in number of defective seats for Camry’s. This results in company’s deviation from its normal production plan due to lack of planning and decision making as it doesn’t have alternatives to recover. KEY FACTORS-On April 27ththe Production Run ration dropped from 95% to 85%. -This resulted in production of less cars which were close to 45 to 50 which is a decrease in production per shift. This also resulted in overtime of workers. -The number of cars which needed offline operations increased before they went on shipping. -The production of missing cars by the staff in the overtime will cost TMM an excess amount of $16000 per shift. -This would totally come around $8.4 million per year if it has two shifts, where staff work for 5 days in a week. DECISION CRITERIA/MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS-Currently TMM had 353 stations with 769 employees-The wage per hour is $17.00-Overtime wage is $25.50
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Case Study Essay
1285 Words6 Pages
Main problem: Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A. (TMM) is deviating from the standard assembly line principle of jidoka in an attempt to avoid expenses incurred from stopping the production line for seat quality defects. This deviation has contributed to the inability to identify the root cause of the problem, which has led to decreased run ratios on the line and an excess of defective automobiles in the overflow lot for multiple days. If this problem isn’t fixed quickly, an increased amount of waste will continue to be incurred and customer value will be threatened.
Friesen is truly struggling to find a way to "have his cake and eat it too". Friesen is passionate about TPS ways of achieving lean manufacturing by staying…show more content…
There are a few alternatives for Friesen to take at this point:
1. Continue the deviation to the production process, but start a full investigation into uncovering what the true root causes of the seat problems are, utilizing key personnel from assembly, production control, quality control and the supplier (KFS).
2. Immediately cease the deviation to production process and go back to jidoka and the andon pull standards, which would mean stopping production when defective seats are encountered.
3. Go back to the traditional production process, but have in stock a small ‘buffer’ of seat inventory to call on when defective seats are encountered on the line. So let’s evaluate these alternatives. By implementing the first solution, to continue the attempt to solve the problem off the line, the benefits are no stoppage to the production process, and therefore, a potential cost savings. However, this benefit is short term. The downsides are numerous and most likely more costly in the long run. Until the problem is solved run ratios will continue to be low, defects will be high, and the overflow lot will continue to grow – excessive waste will continue to happen. In addition, customer value will continue to be threatened. Also, by stopping the production line time and time again to deal with the defective seat, the flow of the production line will still be disrupted. And, since this alternative might not utilize those employees that are closest to the production