Applying Six Sigma to Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc. (an Operations Management Commentary)

The Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U. S. A. , Inc. (TMM) case involves a scenario where – as a result of deviating from Toyota Production System (TPS) practices. TMM found itself faced with quality issues (i. e. , a â€Å"hook† component in the car seat would break during installation) that created a bottleneck in the production process, a pile-up of cars with quality issues waiting to be addressed at the clinic and overflow parking areas of the Kentucky plant – and therefore failed to avoid some of the â€Å"wastes† (i. e. wastes of time, material and production utility as a result of defective products) that the TPS philosophy in itself was designed to eliminate. In the context of a customer value-driven approach, this meant the seat problem gave issues to the final assembly team (e. g. , being bulky and prone to damage, it was likely time-consuming to install), the QC team (e. g. , in relation to crash-test performance, and also in terms of not being broke n or defective), the ultimate customer (i. e. , in terms of surface finish). The goal of the Six Sigma strategy is to improve the quality of process outputs by addressing errors through minimizing variability in the manufacturing process – i. e. , the production process can statistically be expected to be free of errors or defects at the Six Sigma confidence level (effectively only 3. 4 defects per million). In the case of a manufacturing entity like TMM, Six Sigma could be implemented through the so-called â€Å"DMAIC† methodology, which involves defining the problem, measuring and analysing relevant data (i. e. statistical data), improving or optimizing – based on the data analysis, and controlling and monitoring the implemented improvements to address any deviations from the optimized process. TPS and Six Sigma philosophies both employ process-based (as opposed to a functional) approaches to process optimization and improving quality. However, the Six Sigma approach takes this to another level by putting problem solving in the context of reducing risks of â€Å"deviation† from the norm. Six Sigma calls for the use of verifiable quantitative data – i. e. , statistical data and analysis – as basis for designing or optimizing a process (i. e. attempting to eliminate risk of variation), and quantitatively monitoring compliance (or deviations) from these targets. In the case of TMM’s seat hook problem, TPS would ideally have called for production to stop at the first sign of problem, and drilling down to the source of the problem through techniques such as the â€Å"5 Why’s†. A statistical approach, however, such as determining the number of defects in relation to the entire production lot, and in relation to Company standards, and subsequently monitoring whether the improvements to address the problems are operating as designed could have provided a more rationalized solution. Six Sigma could also benefit TMM through improving the â€Å"value† of the suppliers, by helping them improve their own processes and products. For example, if the â€Å"5 Why’s† pointed to a problem in KFS’ own production process, TMM could work with KFS to obtain statistical data as basis for comparing production output with quality standards (e. g. , defect rate, or maybe even compliance with existing manufacturing tolerance levels), identify deviations/ problems, and monitor effectiveness of solutions. By using a Six Sigma approach as early as the supplier level, TMM should, theoretically, be able to expect a higher quality level in the production inputs that it receives, which invariably, should also translate into a higher quality level the finished product. Six Sigma could also be used to optimize the overall efficiency of the production process. Six Sigma could be used to determine standards for production efficiency, like task times, cycle times and throughput times, and if monitored properly, deviations from the standard should easily be detected. When combined with other TPS techniques such as the â€Å"5 Why’s†, the problem – once identified and defined properly – could be addressed immediately, and Six Sigma approach (i. e. , DMAIC) should again measure the effectiveness of new solutions. From the broader perspective, Six Sigma as a philosophy benefits the Company’s stakeholders by adding value to TMM as a whole – the assurance of being able to produce quality products with virtually zero defects raises the overall perception of TMM and its products. Likewise, on the micro perspective, with each process being viewed as a customer of the preceding one, Six Sigma adds value to the predecessor (i. e. , â€Å"supplier†, or preceding production task) by providing assurance over the quality of the production inputs. Nonetheless, the success of any such philosophy – whether TPS, or Six Sigma, or a combination of both – really depends on the people tasked with implementing the philosophy. Six Sigma approach at TMM may still be doomed without a corresponding improvement in the culture and mindset of people attempting to employ the philosophy. References: -Kazuhiro Mishina, â€Å"Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U. S. A. , Inc. † (Business Case), HBS Premier Business Case Collection, September 8, 1992 -De Feo, Joseph A. ; Barnard, William (2005). JURAN Institute's Six Sigma Breakthrough and Beyond – Quality Performance Breakthrough Methods. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited. -Tennant, Geoff (2001). SIX SIGMA: SPC and TQM in Manufacturing and Services. Gower Publishing, Ltd.. p. 6. ISBN 0566083744.