It appears the bridge is burning for Toyota as wel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
... 'Six Sigma' seems to be one of the more widely copied current practices, used in a number of industries, and it was initially developed at Motorola.

I remember when Six Sigma came out almost 20 years ago. This was a time when companies were trying to one-up each other in quality. One company started bragging about how they improved their quality. Another started bragging about the quality they will soon achieve. Motorola topped it all by introducing Six Sigma... a standard that they were attempting to achieve. They never achieved it - nobody has. It was just the ultimate in all bragging rights. Nobody was able to top this braggadocio.
 
Originally Posted By: lovcom


Nice try, but your argument makes no sense.

Most of those GM models you list are the same car, just differnet badge or slightly different body shape.


Lots of them are, sure. And they were assembled at different facilities, even though they shared platforms. That's another part of the problem. GM's sprawling empire of disorganization.

Quote:
And forget about numbers, if you look at PERCENTAGES, then you will readly see that percentage wise, you are MUCH MORE likely to have failures with the domestic brands. And if you look at percentages, the number of models for a given make does not matter one bit.


Yes, look at percentages. And you will see that certain vehicles have fantastic reliability, while others were horrendous. But if GM had a platform that was overall, horrible, in terms of reliability and based four bloody cars off it, then you have FOUR separate vehicles with atrocious reliability ratings. This does a fantastic job of dragging down the overall numbers.

As I said earlier, I'm not defending GM. But there's more to it than simply "GM is junk".
 
"Motorola topped it all by introducing Six Sigma... a standard that they were attempting to achieve. They never achieved it - nobody has."

It's just another corrective action process, like '8D', 'KT', etc., but a bigger hammer for longer term issues. Whether or not someone achieves 'six sigma' is in itself a questionable point, especially when one considers that at the actual level of implementation the term relates to a limit, a standard deviation, and a mean of a single parameter. Something like a car has thousands of such parameters, and it would be folly to try to make all of them meet 'six sigma'. In some cases the limits themselves are questionable, in others it's just not needed, but in other cases high levels of predictability / quality / reliability are needed for a parameter.
 
1sttruck said:
".. Toyota is always mentioned as being the standard for ALL MANUFACTURING...PERIOD!"

Well, they seem to have more copied practices ( remember when the movies stereotyped the Japanese for copying in minute detail every successful practice..... well we now need to poke fun ourselves too ) than any other single company, but certainly not all practices. 'Six Sigma' seems to be one of the more widely copied current practices, used in a number of industries, and it was initially developed at Motorola.

Toyota seems to have made all of these practices work in their house better than the other manufacturing companies have.

Watch NFL Football on any Sunday and the team that wins isn't always the stronger team, it's the team that makes the fewest mistakes.
 
I would suggest that Toyota probably does not use Six Sigma, or it is not the reason for succcess. Japanese manufacturing in general benefitted from the work of W. E. Deming, and as a Deming disciple I can tell you that Deming philosopy is very different from Six Sigma.
 
"I would suggest that Toyota probably does not use Six Sigma, or it is not the reason for succcess. Japanese manufacturing in general benefitted from the work of W. E. Deming, and as a Deming disciple I can tell you that Deming philosopy is very different from Six Sigma."

Japanese manufacturing initially benefitted from Sarasohn and Protzman during the occupation, and later from Deming; see below for something similar that I've posted several times on bitog. I first read the story as something like 'Lessons Learned and Lesson Forgotten' in Forbes a couple of decades ago, and have come to appreciate it more over the years.

It's easy to get become a 'true believer' about some program, but having seen so many quality programs introduced over the years I look at each as a tool, typically useful in some situations but not all, but certainly more useful in a box full of tools as opposed to being the 'one true program' to be used in all situations.

A decade and a half ago I worked with fortune 100 company to develop critical performance parameters for it's products and we ended up using a uniform distribution with 4.5s to compare to limits; that's about seven sigma to the limits using a normal distribution, so we were certainly the goodest of all as were SEVEN SIGMA ! Not, as it's just something that made sense to us due to how our parts, assemblies, and products were characterized, and wouldn't make sense to blindly copy elsewhere. Tools don't think, people do.



http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/deming/about

The Deming Center, located within Columbia Business School, was founded in 1990 during W. Edwards Deming's last year at Columbia. The center focuses on developing thought leadership in three major initiatives: Revenue Optimization, Advanced Commerce Research, and Six Sigma. The center organizes major conferences and seminars in an effort to bridge the gap between industry and academia. It also sponsors the Deming Cup, an award that recognizes individuals for operations excellence.


http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/deming/six_sigma

Six Sigma is the Deming Center’s newest initiative. While the Deming Center's three initiatives are all inextricably linked to one another in their pursuit of quality management, service, and profit goals, Six Sigma is universally recognized as an effective tool to drive efficiency and quality across many industries. Six Sigma embodies the principles of total quality management that W. Edwards Deming sought to establish in every industry he touched. Six Sigma methodology also focuses on measuring results by reducing product or service failure rates to 3.4 per million. All aspects of a Six Sigma company’s infrastructure must be analyzed, and if necessary, restructured to increase revenues and raise the level of customer satisfaction.



http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2000/pulpit_20000525_000408.html

Stranger in a Strange Land: How Homer Sarasohn Brought Industrial Quality to Japan and Why It Took Japan So Long to Learn

......After he set up the Electrical Test Laboratory, Sarasohn wanted to develop a course in American management techniques specifically for Japanese plant managers. But some members of the occupation forces opposed spreading U.S. production know-how to the Japanese.

The issue was decided in a 20-minute presentation before General MacArthur. The General had long before stopped following the letter of his original orders, which told him specifically to "not assume any responsibility for the economic rehabilitation or strengthening of the Japanese economy." Sarasohn argued that without better management, Japan would be a long-term drain on U.S. taxpayers. His opposition, the head of the Economics and Social Section, argued that the program Sarasohn was proposing could turn Japan into an economic monster that would threaten the U.S. in world markets.

"Go do it," MacArthur said casually on his way out the door, changing the course of world history.

Working with Charles Protzman, an engineer from Western Electric who had been brought in to run the Japanese telephone system, Sarasohn wrote a textbook and prepared a syllabus for what they called the Civil Communication Section Management Seminar. It was a required seminar for senior electronics industry executives, meeting eight hours per day, four days per week for eight weeks.

"The course was quality control, management concepts, and philosophy," Sarasohn remembered. "We'd ask them why their companies were in business, and they'd either look at us blankly or say that they were in business to make a profit, which was incorrect. The right answer was that they were in business to achieve some appropriate long-term goal, like taking the technical lead in manufacturing radio equipment. Unless you can come up with a reason, a motto, a clear statement of why you are in business, then you aren't in business. And we taught them that that motto had to be understood at all levels of the company."

"The example we held up was Newport News Shipbuilding, whose motto was: 'We will build good ships here — at a profit if we can, at a loss if we must, but always good ships,'" Sarasohn said.

The CCS Management Seminar was taught in Tokyo and Osaka, and covered a systems approach to manufacturing, integrating customer satisfaction into continued product development. The seminars taught industrial engineering, cost control, and the value of investing in research and development. They taught that workers on all levels of the company should be included in product development. But mainly the course stressed quality control, that it is a state of mind that can't be inspected into a product. Quality, the managers were taught, is a measure of the worthiness of their companies.

Managers who had finished the CCS course were required to teach the same lessons again to executives at their own factories, using the textbook written by Sarasohn and Protzman. After both men left Japan in 1950, the CCS Management Seminar was given for the next 25 years by the Japan Management Association. Their textbook, Fundamentals of Industrial Management, is still in print in Japan.

Early graduates Sarasohn's seminar were Ibuka and Morita of Sony, Matsushita Electric's Masaharu Matsushita, and Mitsubishi Electric's Takeo Kato.........
 
Don't believe Columbia on that, they are just highlighting Six Signma because it is the current fad. As someone who has been studying Deming for twenty years, I assure you that Six Sigma and Deming have little in common (except maybe at Columbia). You don't have to take my word from it, research it on the Deming Electronic Network, which includes people who worked closely with Dr. Deming.

Also, a quick perusal of Google suggests that Six Sigma is not the dominant philosophy at Toyota. I am aware that Deming was not the only wise quality person active in Japan after the war. (As an aside, the question of why a company is in business is highly consistant with Deming.) My main point is that Six Sigma has significant limitations as a philosophy, and is not Deming.
 
It takes a while for feed back to reach general public. Japanese have been making junk since last 5 years. People have started noticing but they still do not believe it. Please do not send profits abroad, keep them here so we can use them for our schools, symphony etc.
People who have run down American cars, have never owned one, can not define why they call them junk. Also problems with Japanese cars are not seen as problems, like Honda Transmission,water pumps, Toytoa sludge etc etc.
 
Quote:
People who have run down American cars, have never owned one,
crackmeup2.gif

I will nominate that for the nonsensical statement of the day.

The people who liked them the least have had more than one.
 
Originally Posted By: XS650
Quote:
People who have run down American cars, have never owned one,
crackmeup2.gif

I will nominate that for the nonsensical statement of the day.

The people who liked them the least have had more than one.




...and can say in detail why they consider them junk.
 
Quote:
People who have run down American cars, have never owned one, can not define why they call them junk. Also problems with Japanese cars are not seen as problems, like Honda Transmission,water pumps, Toytoa sludge etc etc.


Even if they had no inherent design flaws and performed adequately for xx years, American cars are 100% designed to be passe~. They may accidentally put out something that has lasting visual appeal. Import designs appear (to me) to not make any passe~ fashion statements upon their debut ..or at least remain unoffensive when superseded.

I can't really figure how traditional manufactures achieve this programmed boredom quotient, but they do it very well. They're way too easy to part with.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
People who have run down American cars, have never owned one, can not define why they call them junk. Also problems with Japanese cars are not seen as problems, like Honda Transmission,water pumps, Toytoa sludge etc etc.


Even if they had no inherent design flaws and performed adequately for xx years, American cars are 100% designed to be passe~. They may accidentally put out something that has lasting visual appeal. Import designs appear (to me) to not make any passe~ fashion statements upon their debut ..or at least remain unoffensive when superseded.

I can't really figure how traditional manufactures achieve this programmed boredom quotient, but they do it very well. They're way too easy to part with.



I'm disagreeing with you quite a bit here lately, Gary
wink.gif


American cars have had their ups and downs in style, as all companies do at some point. But to suggest that the Asian companies are at the forefront of the style council... kind of hard to swallow.

I can think of (in the last ten years) off the top of my head radical departures in style for the Big Three: The PT Cruiser, The Chrysler 300, The Thunderbird, The Mustang, The Pontiac Aztec, The GTO, the Sky/Solstice, the Magnum, the Charger, the Challenger, the HHR, etc. Love em or hate em, they were quite drastic upon arrival.

I can't think of an Asian car that really turned my head since the 240/280Z. Wait, I can: the Kia Amanti. But even though it's pretty classy looking for an Asian make, it still looks like a baby 300.

I think that Japan is really conservative in their efforts and make churn out run-of-the mill, unobtrusive, non-offensive cars that will appeal to the masses. Sort of like America was doing in the seventies/eighties. I couldn't tell you the difference between an Accord or a Camry unless I was looking at the name-plate. To paraphrase Marv, "They all look like electric shavers to me."
 
Quote:
But to suggest that the Asian companies are at the forefront of the style council... kind of hard to swallow.


I never said that they were on the forefront of style. If anything, I'd say the exact opposite. Most eliminate "style" from the equation ..and do it rather well, imo.

No one can EVER call a Camry stylish ..yet they sell quite well and carry decent resale value. Same with a long list of Asian designs. When I look at a Camry, I don't see it as being either en vogue or antiquated. It's transportation.

Meanwhile US (most) offerings tend to (imo) attempt to take advantage of what's working today.

Most change a domestic like they would swap out a leisure suit.
 
In the past Japanese vehicles have had conservative styling, but some of their newer designs are a bit odd IMO. Examples: 2007+ Camry, anything from Scion, the new Tundra, etc. I doubt these vehicles will have "timeless" styling. It's like they tried to give them bold styling, but didn't really know how to do it.

That's not to say the domestics always get it right either. GM especially has produced some vehicles that appear to be the result of a bad acid trip. And I agree that domestics tend to fall hard for fads.
 
They are "borrowing" from the Germans (again). Many of Honda's (for example) styling traits are right off a BMW....
 
The 6- sigma is passe. The new thing is "RED-X". I'm going thru it now and GM has been into it for atleast the last 5 years. Basically a way overenginered way of anaylizing parts and processes. Also includes a big 5-why system where you keep asking your self why until you get an answer. You know why did Joe fall? Why did he trip on the mat? Why was the mat uneven? Because the mat was old - solution=replace mat.
 
Quote:
Examples: 2007+ Camry, anything from Scion, the new Tundra, etc.


I find nothing remarkable about the 07 Camry. I don't see anything "future tacky" about it either. It won't stand out in a parking lot of its contemporaries and comparables. I drive by a used car lot that has almost its entire inventory comprised of 3-5 year old Asian designed cars. On a drive by, you're looking at various shade of color and ..that's about it.
21.gif
The distinctions are invisible to me. I'm looking for the difference between the two images below ..aside from one being a 4 door and other a 2 door.

When I "2007 (insert Asian name of choice)" in google and hit images, I'm confronted with various shades of "the same thing" in my beholding eye
21.gif
Mitsubishi Gallant ..Camry ..Scion Xc ... Just what does everyone else see as the distinctions, something similar to a 1975 Mustang II and a 1975 Pinto
54.gif


211469.2-lg.jpg


sc_07sciontcspec.jpg


Now if you're talking the Xb .. I don't think that its passe~. That clown car will evolve and morph just like a Civic did.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Examples: 2007+ Camry, anything from Scion, the new Tundra, etc.


I find nothing remarkable about the 07 Camry. I don't see anything "future tacky" about it either. It won't stand out in a parking lot of its contemporaries and comparables. I drive by a used car lot that has almost its entire inventory comprised of 3-5 year old Asian designed cars. On a drive by, you're looking at various shade of color and ..that's about it.
21.gif
The distinctions are invisible to me. I'm looking for the difference between the two images below ..aside from one being a 4 door and other a 2 door.

When I "2007 (insert Asian name of choice)" in google and hit images, I'm confronted with various shades of "the same thing" in my beholding eye
21.gif
Mitsubishi Gallant ..Camry ..Scion Xc ... Just what does everyone else see as the distinctions, something similar to a 1975 Mustang II and a 1975 Pinto
54.gif


211469.2-lg.jpg


sc_07sciontcspec.jpg


Now if you're talking the Xb .. I don't think that its passe~. That clown car will evolve and morph just like a Civic did.


The attempted Bangle-butt and bulging hood are what I don't like about the new Camry.

The best looking Camrys were the ones made in the mid to late 1990s. Boring, unoffensive, but not bad looking either. A set of BBS wheels made them pretty good looking cars. Wheels won't fix a 2007+ model.

I'm not big on the anime character look that many Japanese cars are starting to get. It's just not my style.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom