Toyota Motor Manufacturing and its Problems - Essay Example

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Case Study Problem Statement A Camry seat is made up several pieces that result in several challenges. These features include the front assemblies both left and right, the backrests and the rear seat bench as well as the rear side bolsters. To the final assembly of the seat, it was subject to damage and it is by far the heaviest of all installed parts. In terms of quality control, the seat features had to be included since it is considered as a safety item and had to meet strict standards required for the crash performance of the Toyota cars. It is also a sensory item where customers have to be satisfied with the texture of the surface finish. In terms of purchasing, the seat made up the highest expenses of all purchased parts. The fabric made up almost half of its $740 cost (Mishina & Takeda, 2015). As a result, the company wishes to find out the immediate actions that should be taken so as to address the Camry seat problem. The company also wishes to examine whether the current method of handling seat defects that are the TMM method has been in line with the Toyota Production System’s philosophy. Situation Analysis Internal (in the TMM) When the Toyota Motor Manufacturing was established in 1988 in Georgetown, the plant had a sole objective of producing 200,000 Camry seats that would replace the bulk of similar model imports from Japan. Toyota has an objective of providing cheaper and better cars for more people meaning that the company has to produce cars that meet the wide range of customer preferences with minimal flaws. The company also has to provide vehicles with perfect timing and at an affordable price. As Toyota was forced to cut its cost dramatically without large economies of scale compared to the American firms, the company needed a new source of economies in order to satisfy its customers with a wide variety, timeliness and quality at a reasonable price (Mishina &Takeda, 2015). The Toyota Production system, therefore, evolved as an answer to this challenge through eliminating wastes. The Toyota Motor Manufacturing sole supplier for seats was the Kentucky Framed Seat. As the cars went down the TMM’s assembly line, the seat assembly pieces in KFS had to do the same with the matching pieces emerging at one end fully inspected. A truckload of the fifty-eight seats would then arrive at TMM after thirty minutes. Upon reaching TMM, the seats would be offloaded to the staging line that was not big enough to accommodate the whole truckload. The seats, therefore, had to have to wait in the specific line until a space in the overhead conveyor. The conveyor line is synchronized with the assembly line and runs above a panel of steel mesh that protects the cars and people below. The seats travel a quarter of a kilometer to the Final 1 which has the rear seat loading workstation. The seat that meets the appropriate standards is lowered to the Final one’s side after fifty-seven seconds. At this point, the seat meets the matching vehicle for the first time. A member of the team unstraps the set of seats and puts the rear seats into the car at the rear seat loading station. The assemblies of the front seats slide to the side to give room for the set of seats next in line. The front seats are then returned to the conveyor belt and taken to the appropriate side of the assembly line that is a few meters downstream. Upon reaching the front seat installation station, the members of the team guide the front seat assemblies into the car. The assemblies are fixed with four bolts in place using a pneumatic wrench. The rear pieces of the sea are bolted in the subsequent line segment that is referred to as Final 2(Mishina &Takeda, 2015). External (at the Supplier, KFS). To be honest, the ability of KFS to meet the needs of the sequential pull system is indeed exceptional. The supplier had abandoned the conventional industry practice where the automakers would assemble the seats themselves from purchased components such as metal frames, foam, and sewn fabric covers. The supplier was located close to TMM, and the proximity was of great importance in the sequential pull system. The introduction of visual controls would master quick changeovers and reduce assembly labor content. QC troubleshooters had to be sent back and forth thus the TMM’s slow ramp-up schedule facilitated the process. However after production of a certain model, the supplier only has ten days to change its process and around ten weeks to embrace a new model process. The lack of line stoppages in the assembly would also ensure that the run ratio reduced to 85% from 95%. The vehicles were therefore delayed, and the customers did not receive their purchases in real time. Timeliness is a clear principle of the Toyota Motor Manufacturing that appears to be breached in this case. Alternatives and Decision a) Bring the supplier’s model process and the TMM to one facility TMM plant KFS model process Pros It will reduce the thirty-minute time wastage as well as reduce the transport costs. Cons There might be overcrowding of the plant if the supplier is brought in the same facility as their space will have to be created. b) Expansion of the staging line in TMM Pros 1) The staging line will be enabled to handle the whole truckload brought in from the supplier. 2) The delay experienced when the seats have to wait for a space to be created on the conveyor line will be minimized. Cons The expansion of the staging line might be a bit expensive for the company, but it has to be put up to do away with the delay. c) Put the front and rear seats at the same time at the fixing pneumatic wrench. Pros 1) Will reduce the time wastage as the front set has to be taken to another section downstream for fixation. 2) Reduces mechanical injury risk to workers as the conveyor belt passes overhead. Cons There are no cons when the process is taken carefully since the process reduces delay. The putting aside of the front seats in the current process may end up damaging them as they await their turn downstream. Decision plan. The current process should not terminate. Instead after the completion of the current model, the supplier’s subsequent model should consider moving closer to the TMM plant. The above alternatives all look into minimizing delays either by expansion of the current activities or bringing the two plants closer. They should, therefore, be carried out in stages and not spontaneously to avoid excessive costs. References Read More