Big 3 Engineers Not Up With Toyota's

[nsap]

According to the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, as well as studies by others, Toyota's development engineers are four times as productive as their U.S. counterparts.

And you know how they do it, right? They trim away every ounce of fat. Anything that doesn't add value for the end user is purged as relentlessly as carbohydrates from the Atkins diet.

Wrong.

That may be how they do it in manufacturing, but it's not what makes Toyota's development engineers so productive. They're four times as productive because they take a much more efficient approach to product development than U.S. engineers.

In the West, engineers focus on developing new vehicles one at a time.

At Toyota, engineers focus on learning as much as possible and using that knowledge to develop a stream of excellent vehicles.

Designing a radiator

Western engineers define several product concepts and select the one that has the most promise. They draw up specifications and divide them into subsystems; the subsystems are designed, built and rolled up for system testing. If results aren't up to snuff, the team reworks the specs and the designs accordingly, an inherently nonproductive and confusing endeavor.

In contrast, Toyota engineers concentrate their efforts at the lowest possible design level where knowledge can be used to bring about results customers care about. They focus on gaining a thorough understanding of the technology of a subsystem so they can use it in future designs.

For example, a radiator is a natural automobile subsystem. Traditionally, a radiator will be designed for a specific vehicle based on mechanical specifications written for that vehicle.

Toyota, instead, would consider a range of radiator solutions based on cooling capacities and the cooling demands of various engines that might be used. How the radiator actually fits into a vehicle and attaches to other components would be kept loose or be allowed to float so that Toyota's knowledge of radiator technology could be used to create the optimum design.

Another way to think of Toyota's system is "test and design" rather than the traditional "design and test."

Toyota engineers test at the fundamental knowledge level so they don't have to test at the later, more expensive stages of design. They can do this because over the years they have learned a great deal that can be applied to many projects and systems.

Save it, reuse it

Everything learned is recorded and reused. Waste is any activity that doesn't provide knowledge that has value in the development of new products. Even knowledge that something won't work is good because it identifies a direction engineers should avoid in the future.

You might say the Toyota system is knowledge-based as contrasted with the usual Western system, which is process- or compliance-based.

Failure to understand that difference is why so many companies are having such a hard time emulating the Toyota system.

The most common mistake is thinking that lean manufacturing techniques can lead the transformation in development. There's nothing wrong with waste removal; but by itself, it will not create a knowledge-based development environment.

When companies do realize that development and manufacturing are different, they often try to copy Toyota's development practices exactly. That seems logical. But the Toyota system arose from a different culture. Attempting to impose Toyota's

techniques as-is likely will result in culture shock, chaos and a drop in productivity.

Football isn't baseball

The next mistake is thinking that standard product development processes are a good starting point; that by modifying the process, you can create a learning environment. That is like trying to graft the rules of football onto baseball. It won't work.



Article Here

[powervette]

:drunk:

[Bryden.Morris05]

Would it be possible to post the entire article?

Thanks,

[zaxxis]

I guess Toyota's "crap" doesn't stink either, eh?



-Z

[gmsickofan]

At Toyota, engineers focus on learning as much as possible and using that knowledge to develop a stream of excellent vehicles.

GM engineers focus on how to make 5 different rebadges for its various divisions, while Toyota has only 2 (and now Scion). :P

[Swahili]

GM's quality is going up, Toyota's quality is either staying the same or going down. GM is improving, Toyota is not. GM vehicles stomped the competition in those vehicle quality studies that were posted here a little while ago. As long as GM stays on this path of continuous improvement, I don't think they have anything to worry about, other than bringing out products people want a little quicker than they do.

[mbukukanyau]

Originally posted by nsap@Sep 27 2004, 11:46 AM

It seems to me these are cultural diferences, it does not in anyway make Japanese engineers better, they are just doing things diferently....

[wroberts]

In the West, engineers focus on developing new vehicles one at a time

God is this true at Ford. As a supplier I work on different lines within Ford. But Never would you ever expect that just because you used something as simple as a ground terminal on say a Lincoln you could possibly think you use it on a Ford vehicle thats a different platform. You can spend months trying to convice a team that whats considered best practice on one platform could EVEN BE USED on another.
Different programs even have different design guidlines.

It seems like GM parts bin approach is like Toyota. Look see what you have, what works well and reuse it. Don't redesign everything for each vehicle. (you know the stupid little stuff that you can't see)

[paul8488]

Originally posted by wroberts@Sep 27 2004, 02:37 PM
It seems like GM parts bin approach is like Toyota. Look see what you have, what works well and reuse it. Don't redesign everything for each vehicle. (you know the stupid little stuff that you can't see)

It's one tiny example, but I like it: the round reverse (and signal maybe... they're split half and half red and white) lights in the Solstice came from the Envoy. That's the kind of parts-bin sharing that makes sense. No one will look at the Solstice and say "ugh, it has an Envoy rear end". They're just the little lights set into the bumper, but it represents some money saved. Not much in the grand scheme of things, perhaps, but apparently a very large percentage of the Solstice comes from elsewhere at GM, though you wouldn't know it to look at it. There are at least a few GM engineers who can match wits with Toyotas best!

[mrfunji]

I disagree. Toyota is not the shan-gra-la of automotive engineering. Every company knows that "design and test" is far more expensive that "test and design" and trys to shy away from that practice.

It's not that American auto engineers are stupid, they know what to do and the best process to do it, it's more of a matter of execution and motivation which relates back to culture.

The secret to happiness is motivation - if a particular project motivates you, then it will be enjoyable to work on. An American designer might not be particularly excited about designing parts for a Minivan, and might take a few shortcuts in his design just to get it done. A Japanese designer however, will take pride in designing his part to be flawless. And a Japenese validation engineer will take pride in finding that one flaw that made it through. That mentality serves as their motivation.

Of course, an engineer that would take shortcuts should theoretically never be hired...

[T-Type]

As an engineer for a supplier to the big 2.5 (DCX only gets 1/2 credit :P ), I can say what they are saying about the domestics is true. Components were designed for specific vehicle applications with limited knowledge/awareness of other applications. However I do see this changing. For example, I've been working closely with Ford lately and based on the project I'm involved in, they are making an effort to share good design information company wide. DCX also has a system to track good design information so it can be used in future designs. They are nowhere near where Toyota sounds to be, but they are moving in that direction.

My experience with the big 2.5 is that they do not reinvent the wheel on every program with each component. They usually only do so if it's cheaper (but just as good) or better (in that order).

[MalibuZ31]

I haven't heard of or remember Toyota making anything that changed the industry or anything. This guy makes it seems like the cars are better because more research goes into the subsytems and are used universally within.

In some ways (price & reliability) it may be superior but performance and exclusiveness may matter more to other buyers.

[stewacide]

I read an article a couple months back where Bill Ford outlined exactly this as a Ford's biggest technical hurdle: going from a company that designed vehicles in a vacume to the leader in component shareing. They seem to be making a lot of progress...

[dav305z]

ford seems still to be in the process of gelling together all of its '90's aquisitions. i say this because i think many ford brands are showing little "ford" influence as of yet. the new volvo based 500 and the upcoming mazda 6 based fusion seem to reveal that they are getting the hang of things.

[lio45]

Originally posted by gmsickofan@Sep 27 2004, 09:13 AM
GM engineers focus on how to make 5 different rebadges for its various divisions, while Toyota has only 2 (and now Scion). :P

That's not really an excuse, knowing how long it must take them to do their rebadging work...