Operations Management
Bonus: Case #5

Toyota Motor Manufacturing, USA, Inc.
Case Questions:
1. As Doug Friesen, what would you do to address the seat problem? Where would you focus your attention and solution efforts?
2. What options exist? What would you recommend? Why?
3. Where, if at all, does the current routine for handling defective seats deviate from the principles of the Toyota Production System?
4. What is the real problem facing Doug Friesen?

1. In addressing the seat problem as Doug Friesen, I would start by establishing the problem at hand. It is necessary to understand the signs of problems within TMM and how they relate back to the defective seats. This will firstly be established by explaining the low run ratio. On April 27th 1992, Doug Friesen noticed that the run ratio was down to a meager 85% from the normal 95%. This figure measures the number of cars actually assembled in proportion to the number of cars that could have been assembled with no line stoppages. This 10-point drop led to a shortfall of 45 cars per shift, which had to be made up with overtime. In addition, there is another problem to address- the high level of off-line vehicle inventory. Too many cars needed off-line operations of one type or another before they could go on to shipping. After addressing the seat problem, I would focus my attention and solution efforts on the exception in the case of the defective seats and the coordination between the plant and seat supplier. The exception was based on three reasons- first, the final assembly people already knew of the problem; second, it was possible to finish building the car without seat assemblies; third, it was felt that stopping the line was too expensive given how long it took to obtain the replacement seat. Doug Friesen should focus on these exceptions given the problems that followed. There were reports of