Seat Problems Of Toyota

Seat Problems

In early 1992, TMM became the sole source of new Camry wagons with more than 41 seat variations exported over the world. Doug Friesen, manager of assembly for TMM, confronted seat problems resulting in drop of run ratio (production level) and in increase of overtime works, lead- time and off-line vehicle inventory.

Assumptions

First, reduction of seat variance is not considered as an alternative because Doug is a manager of assembly without control over sales decisions. Second, although inefficient feedback system is observed, improvement of information sharing is not considered as an alternative because Doug requires specific solutions for seat problems after all feedbacks are shared and discussed.

Analysis of Seat Problems

Two major problems are observed: process and feedback management problems in TMM and quality control management issues in KFS.

Failure of seat quality management in KFS caused most seat problems such as problematic (wrong, missing, broken) parts, wrinkles, no-op of rear seat lock, and missing bolster according to the Exhibit 7 and Appendix 2. In addition, because KSF inspect 100 % of seats before shipping them, these kinds of problematic parts should not be shipped or allocated to the assembly line if the inspection process was appropriately executed. The Exhibit 8 confirmed again that most defects are caused by elements that KFS are responsible for such as metal flaw, missing part, wrong part, seat backset breakage, no-op, headrest built wrong. Regarding to TMM, most quality problems are attributed to employees in charge of tightening rear and front seat backboard and seat bolster broke in these two exhibits.

Exhibit 10 and interview with Shirley, the group leader of Final 2, indicate that rear seat design or installation process has a structural problem because failure of rear seat installation is consistently observed more frequently than failure of front seat installation. In addition, this pattern is the same regardless of left- or right-hand station and regardless of 1st or 2nd shift. In addition, failure of rear seat installation is constantly reported more frequently in 1st shift than that of 2nd shift. Therefore, there will be 2nd shift specific reasons as well such as employee training or response of the management.

Alternative-1 : Retraining of inspection operators in KSF and information sharing

Alternative 1 suggests 1) sharing TMMÐŽ¦s seat quality review report with KSF to encourage them to improve quality and 2) retraining inspection operators in KSF to effectively remove problematic seats before they are shipped.

Currently shipped seats are directly assigned to the seat staging in TMM without additional inspection in TMM. If all seats are properly inspected in KSP before shipped, no defect seat should be found in TMMÐŽ¦s assembly line, resulting in waste of labor hours and in increase of rework costs and level of off-line vehicle inventory. Therefore, education of inspection operations in KSF how to deal with 41 seat variation will reduce number of seats problems reported in the Clinic Area. By sharing TMMÐŽ¦s quality review report with KSF, the firm will be able to analyze areas with fundamental defect problems.

Positive side of this solution is that TMM will not spend additional expense or labor hours on solving this problem. To encourage supplier to set up high standard of quality is consistent with ToyotaÐŽ¦s philosophy. Moreover, impact of the training will take effect right away.

However, it is uncertain whether KSF will accept this proposal, whether proper level of training will be provided to the inspection operators, whether KSF has ability to deal with 41 seat variations, or whether it is a fault of poor education of inspectors or lack of inspection operators.

Alternative-2: Additional inspection of TMM before seats are shipped

Alternative 2 recommend 1) allocating TMM inspectors to KSF in order to remove problematic seats and replace seats with flaws before they are shipped and 2) sharing feedback from these inspectors with KSF to encourage it to fix fundamental quality problems.

If additional inspection is executed in TMM after receiving seats, it is uncertain whether these problematic seats will be replaced on time because all seats are shipped just several hours before they are assigned to the assembly line according to JIT. By sharing TMM inspectorsÐŽ¦ feedbacks with KSF, the firm will be able to find potential areas attributable to defects.

Because this solution does not relay on KSF, TMM can independently conduct this plan without wasting time to negotiate with KSF about inspector retraining or level of education. In addition, as TMM engineers inspect seats, TMM can assure quality of inspection. By sharing inspection results with KSF and by presenting seriousness of this problem, KSF will be stimulated to increase its quality. This is the fastest method to reduce number of seat problems.

However, TMM should spend additional expense s to inspect seats with defects for which KSF are responsible. It is uncertain how long TMM should expense for additional inspections and whether KSF can fix its fundamental issues related to seat quality.