RSS

Tag Archives: General Motors

Did Quality Programs kill GM?

Are Quality Methodologies All Smoke and Mirrors? Part One

Can we blame quality programs for GM’s demise?

World War III has begun. This time it’s not a war of battleships, bullets and bombs—this is an economic war. The weapons are televisions, steel, cars, and clothes. This is a war where we have no allies. Every nation is out to capture more of its share of the U.S. and world’s market. We are being attacked with tires from Brazil, cars from Japan, radios from Taiwan, clothes from China, cosmetics from France, shoes from Italy, and beef from Argentina and Australia.

Businesses in the United States entered the 1980s with a deep-seated resolution to stop the flood of import products and as a result, a group of “new admirals and generals” took over to reestablish our industrial leadership. These were people such as John Akers of IBM, F. James McDonald of General Motors Corp. (GM), Jim Olson of AT&T, and John Young of Hewlett-Packard. Industrial leaders like these laid out strategies to thrust the United States back to the prominence it once had. But it takes years to reestablish a reputation once it has been destroyed or at least tarnished.

General Motors—one of the most powerful and respected organizations—is now in bankruptcy. Why did this happen? What did they try to do that didn’t work? To help understand this, I will report on an interview I had in 1988 with GM’s corporate president, F. James McDonald, which was documented in my book, The Quality/Profit Connection (American Society for Quality Control, 1989).

General Motors celebrated its 100th anniversary on September 16, 2008. It was on this date in 1909 that William C. Durant founded. General Motors Co, predecessor of the current GM. The first motor company acquired by Durant was the Buick Motor Co.

In 1988, GM had 151 facilities operating throughout the United States, in 26 states and 90 cities; in Canada, there were 13 GM plants. It had assembly, manufacturing, distribution, sales, or warehousing operations in 37 other countries. GM also had equity interest in associated companies, which conducted assembly, manufacturing, or distribution in several countries. The average worldwide employment totaled approximately 748,000 men and women in 1984.

Following is an excerpt from my interview with F. James McDonald, president of GM from 1981 to 1987.

H. James Harrington: What were the circumstances leading to the current focus of GM on quality improvement?

F. James McDonald: Efficient, small, high-quality vehicles from Japan, and the availability of these vehicles at just the right time in history were watershed events in the U.S. auto industry. Their perceived quality became the benchmark for all cars—in effect, customer standards changed dramatically. And that change swept through the entire line of products.

HJH: Do you have an official quality policy?

McDonald: Actually, the new quality consciousness at GM began with the development of a quality ethic for all GM units and operations. The essence of this ethic boils down to this: Quality is the number one operating priority at GM today.

HJH: To what sections of the business is it being applied?

McDonald: Quality improvement is being applied to all areas of our business. Specific quality objectives and strategies must be included within each unit’s five-year business plan. All departments within a business, and of course, each employee, contribute to meeting those quality objectives.

On new product programs, resources are allocated very early when our ability to influence the outcome is greatest. This includes the front-loading of people from all disciplines including marketing, product engineering, manufacturing, assembly, quality assurance, financial, and materials management. This includes early sourcing decisions so our suppliers can work with product development teams on potential problems and improvement.

HJH: What activities were undertaken to start the quality improvement process and when did it start?

McDonald: At GM today, we have this kind of strategic vision, and that vision is simply to offer world-class quality in every market segment. By world-class, we mean parity with, or superiority to, the best in the field—product for product.

To assist the operating units in this effort, the corporation has issued four key success factors for quality, which help focus the GM quality ethic and its six mandates. Research has shown that these key success factors must be addressed in business planning and implementation strategies if meaningful quality improvement is to occur.

Let’s take a look at what the key success factors and the associated objectives are.

Management commitment. Managers at all levels must be committed to continuous quality improvement and demonstrate their commitment by word or action.

People development process. Every employee, regardless of function or level, must have the encouragement, support, and opportunity to be a contributing member of the quality improvement effort.

Quality performance processes. Each task and activity must have processes and tools to ensure conformance to specifications and to provide for continuous quality improvement.

Customer satisfaction. General Motors must be the world leader in quality, reliability, durability, performance, service, and value, as confirmed by customer-defined measures and marketplace response.

We have also identified the major steps to carry out improvements on any given project and have found that they work quite well.

HJH: What is the role of top management in the improvement process?
McDonald: Achieving true quality maturity is totally the responsibility of top management in our company. Others may carry it out to one degree or another, but those at the top must be willing to go the whole route.

We believe that the whole top management team must be aboard. Even the most inspiring leader can’t hope to reach the organization without total commitment from everyone at the top.

HJH: What is the role of the employees and the union in the improvement process?

McDonald: We are absolutely convinced that eventual success depends heavily on the employees. As we discussed, one of our key success factors for quality improvement concerns people-development processes.

For instance, we’ve trained more than 30,000 GM workers in statistical process control techniques. And I must say, to see these tools put to work right on the line is one of the most rewarding experiences I’ve had at GM. So, I think we’re on the right track on the employee side—even though we still have a ways to go.

HJH:What problems did you have in implementing the improvement process?
McDonald: Prevention within manufacturing can take you only so far along the journey. Greater success must come from moving the focus upstream, to design and engineering, for example, by combining the talents of design engineering, processing, and manufacturing, and having them work together as a team instead of individually. That’s the place to start if you’re serious about doing everything right the first time. Our product development teams on new products that we have previously mentioned are addressing this in a fine manner. We are also initiating this concept in our daily operations.

General Motor’s reorganization of its North American passenger cars and its worldwide truck and bus operations addressed changes necessary to ensure quality improvement, accountability for results, and effective allocation of resources. The reorganization was quality-driven from the beginning.

On reviewing McDonald’s comments, I see he was saying all the right things and doing all the right things, but the results have been disastrous for GM investors, employees, suppliers, and the United States.

H. James Harrington; Quality Digest; Are Quality Methodologies All Smoke and Mirrors? Part One

Strategic Vision Inc. recognizes the efforts coming from Detroit

01 Jul

(Strategic Vision: San Diego) — Volkswagen of America and Ford Motor Corp. were recently announced as full-line corporate leaders in Strategic Vision Inc.’s (SVI) Total Quality Index (TQI). Across their various brands, both corporations are consistently producing vehicles judged high in perceived quality and emotional delight, resulting in models that customers can love. Volkswagen of America also had the greatest number of TQI leaders across the segments being measured than any other brand: Rabbit, Jetta, CC, New Beetle, Tiguan, and Audi A4. Ford has Focus as the leader in the popular Small Car segment.

The TQI asks buyers to rate all aspects of the ownership experience from buying and owning to performance and driving—much more than simply counting problems. Results from studies that measure the number of problems or the overall satisfaction of a vehicle do not measure the customers’ commitment to, advocacy for, or loyalty to their vehicles accurately. “In today’s difficult market, the difference between products that generate consideration, build brands, and increase sales versus those that do not is often how much delight and love the product generates with its customers,” says Darrel Edwards, Ph.D., chairman of Strategic Vision.

In a recently published survey conducted by another research company that only counted problems, MINI was rated the worst quality brand. However, in Strategic Vision’s most recent research study, which examines the entire ownership experience and MINI owners’ perceptions of quality, from styling to performance, including what went wrong and what created delight, MINI is the highest rated brand in total quality in its price category. Therefore, it is not a surprise that MINI was one of the two brands to increase sales during last year’s start of the U.S. and automotive recession. “When you have a product worthy of love, customers will come,” says Alexander Edwards, president of SVI.

The past 12 months have been rough for domestic manufacturers as constant negative news is delivered, bankruptcies are filed, and the mantra, “Why won’t Detroit build quality vehicles that people want to buy?” is stated again and again. However, it is important to note that four of the top ten-selling vehicles in the first quarter of this year were domestics. Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler have all scored well with customers in total quality and in sales.

General Motors had four segment leaders: Pontiac G8, GMC Envoy, Yukon XL and the Chevrolet Corvette (which was the highest rated TQI of any vehicles this year). Customers report that these vehicles deliver what they want from each segment. These leaders have delightful interiors, performance, and styling, providing customers an added sense of security, confidence, fun and excitement. It’s also important to note that Saturn and Pontiac brands performed well in TQI across most of their models, with both brands tied for having the highest TQI scores in their price segment.

The Chrysler Group has increased in total quality from last year with the Dodge Ram leading the way with the highest Total Quality score of any truck in the history of the 15-year study. This is also the first time the Ram has achieved this honor since 1999 when it lost its title for the first time to competition. Customers specifically noted that the Ram has the best added storage capability along with the best truck interior ever rated by customers. “For truck buyers, the Dodge Ram has reclaimed its perceived leadership in innovation, a corporate hallmark,” says Edwards. “We have tracked innovation as a critical dimension in success since 1979 and have shown that it has been the single most powerful factor in success across categories, especially among automobiles.”

American Honda Motors, Nissan Motor Corp., and Toyota Motor Sales each led in two segments with strong positions in many others. The Nissan Maxima tied with the G8 in the large car segment while the Infiniti FX and EX, both competing in the near-luxury utility segment tied with each other. The FX and EX both delivered strong performance and exterior styling that led to a greater perception of quality leading to an enhanced sense of prestige and individuality for their owners.

For American Honda Motors, the Honda Ridgeline and Odyssey lead their segments with delightful capability and overall flexibility in each of the models. Both models show innovation that produces leadership. Odyssey became a leader among minivans when it offered the most innovative product in its segment years ago. Ridgeline burst onto the scene as Truck of the Year with innovation unmatched by competition in its segment. Although Ridgeline’s price has kept sales below that of competitors, those who buy it often report that they are delighted with almost every aspect. The innovation and delight delivered by each of these leaders cause owners to state that their next vehicle will be a Honda.

Toyota Motor Sales led with the all-new Toyota Venza and Toyota 4Runner. Both vehicles, as do most Toyota and Lexus products, delivered high levels of trust associated with the Toyota brand name and the brand’s attention to interior details. Customers reported that both of these vehicles showed increased thoughtfulness in their design. Few things-gone-wrong combined with higher expected durability and reliability provided a foundation for Toyota’s leadership position in these segments. With the added thoughtfulness and utility of the products, Toyota’s customers were truly delighted.

Having few problems (solid initial quality) can provide foundational assurance to customers, increasing brand trust and expected durability and reliability. As seen in similar studies, SVI found that the number of problems per vehicle found in the Lexus brand is statistically the lowest of all brands. Lexus’ goal should be to focus on enhanced products and communications to show customers that they are focused on delivering more than basic satisfaction as they build on their foundation.

Finally, in the Luxury categories the BMW X3 tied with the Infiniti FX and EX on Total Quality. The Mercedes S-Class has again defined luxury in its class, leading for the fourth time in the past six years. The Land Rover Range Rover is the leader in the Luxury utility segment. Many other Land Rover/Jaguar models also scored very well with models like the Range Rover Sport, Jaguar XF, and Jaguar XJ scoring just below top positions in their segments.

Buyers rated the following vehicles tops in their segments:

Segment	Winner(s)	TQI Score
Small Car	Ford Focus Sedan	877
Small Multi-Function	Volkswagen Rabbit	889
Mid-Size Car	Volkswagen Jetta Sedan	891
Large Car	Nissan Maxima Pontiac G8	900 899
Near-Luxury Car	Volkswagen CC Sedan Audi A4 Sedan	923 922
Luxury Car	Mercedes-Benz S-Class	934
Specialty Coupe	Volkswagen New Beetle	924
Premium Coupe	Chevrolet Corvette Coupe	938
Minivan	Honda Odyssey	865
Entry Utility	Volkswagen Tiguan	914
Mid-Size Crossover Utility	Toyota Venza	925
Mid-Size Traditional Utility	GMC Envoy Toyota 4Runner	859 858
Large Utility	GMC Yukon XL	899
Near-Luxury Utility	Infiniti FX Infiniti EX35 BMW X3	906 904 904
Luxury Utility	Land Rover Range Rover	920
Standard Pickup	Honda Ridgeline	874
Full-Size Pickup	Dodge Ram 1500	899

The TQI was calculated from 20,101 buyers who bought 2008 and 2009 models in September to December of 2008.

For more information please visit www.strategicvision.com.

1 Comment

Posted by cebrianpablo on July 1, 2009 in Total Quality Management, Toyota

Tags: General Motors, loyalty, Quality, Toyota

GM leaves Nummi, the hot potato is in Toyota’s hands

30 Jun

DETROIT — General Motors said Monday that it was pulling out of its joint venture with Toyota, a longstanding partnership between two of the auto industry’s biggest rivals that exposed G.M. to more efficient Japanese manufacturing techniques and produced Toyota’s first American-made vehicles.

Roger B. Smith, right, former G.M. chairman, with Eiji Toyoda, the former chairman of Toyota, at the Nummi plant in 1985.

The joint venture, known as New United Motor Manufacturing Inc., or Nummi, has built more than six million vehicles at a plant in Fremont, Calif., since 1984. The plant builds two Toyota models, the Corolla sedan and Tacoma pickup truck, and a small crossover vehicle for G.M., the Pontiac Vibe.

G.M. is eliminating the Pontiac brand next year and plans to discontinue the Vibe in August. It said Monday that it was unable to reach an agreement with Toyota “on a future product plant that made sense for all parties” and that its stake in the Nummi plant would not be part of the company after emerging from bankruptcy later this summer.

“It’s the end of a remarkable educational experiment,” said James P. Womack, the chairman of the Lean Enterprise Institute, an organization in Cambridge, Mass., that promotes efficiency in manufacturing and commerce.

“The product was never the point at this plant,” Mr. Womack said. “It was a way for Toyota to figure out how to apply its system in the United States and for G.M. to try to figure out how Toyota was doing the things it was doing.”

G.M.’s withdrawal from the venture, which is half owned by each of the companies, creates an uncertain future for the Fremont plant, which has more than 4,700 employees in five million square feet of assembly space. It is the last auto plant operating in California and Toyota’s only plant represented by the United Automobile Workers.

Toyota said in a statement that it was sorry G.M. was pulling out and that it had not decided what to do with the plant.

“We will consider alternatives by taking into account various factors, including the current distressed market conditions, our overall North American manufacturing capacity, and the viability of the facility as a stand-alone operation without G.M. production,” the statement said.

Nummi has been running well below capacity for some time. Now, analysts say the deep industry downturn, coupled with G.M.’s decision to cut its ties, gives Toyota an opportunity to shut the plant. However, Toyota executives are sensitive to the American political climate, and the company could choose to keep the plant open in some fashion rather than risk the heat of shutting it down and eliminating jobs held by U.A.W. members.

Toyota recently denied reports that it might build its hybrid sedan, the Prius, at Nummi.

Both of the vehicles that Toyota builds in Fremont are also assembled elsewhere: the Corolla in Canada and the Tacoma in Mexico. (By producing the small Tacoma in California, Toyota avoids a tariff that the United States imposes on imported compact pickup trucks.)

When Nummi was formed, Toyota was a comparatively small but rapidly growing player in the United States while G.M. had a firm grip on its title as the world’s largest automaker. Toyota unseated G.M. at the industry’s pinnacle last year, aided by what it learned from Nummi.

G.M., meanwhile, was a slow learner and only recently began successfully applying the techniques it gained from working with Toyota, Mr. Womack said. Now, Nummi has outlived its usefulness for G.M. and is far away from all of the company’s other manufacturing locations.

“They learned a great deal in theory but nothing in practice for about 15 years,” he said. “G.M. has learned what they could and they don’t need that capacity anymore.”

By NICK BUNKLEY
Micheline Maynard contributed reporting.

Read the full story at New York Times

A Lean revenge against mass production from ”The Economist” point of view. Part III

08 Jun

“… Only in the 1970s, after the first oil shock, did faults start to become visible. The finned and chromed V8-powered monsters beloved of Americans were replaced by dumpy, front-wheel-drive boxes designed to meet new rules (known as CAFE standards) limiting the average fuel economy of carmakers fleets and to compete with Japanese imports. As well as being dull to look at, the new cars were less reliable than equivalent Japanese models.

By the early 1980s it had begun to dawn on GM that the Japanese could not only make better cars but also do so far more efficiently. A joint venture with Toyota to manufacture cars in California was an eye-opener. It convinced GM’s management that “lean” manufacturing was of the highest importance. Unfortunately, that meant still less attention being paid to the quality of the cars GM was turning out. Most were indistinguishable, badge-engineered non-entities. As the appeal of its products sank, so did the prices GM could ask. New ways had to be found to cut costs further, making the cars still less attractive to buyers….”

Briefing. The bankruptcy of General Motors. A giant falls. The Economist. June 6th-12^th 2009. Pp 58-60. Ed. The Economist Newspaper Ltd.

1 Comment

Posted by cebrianpablo on June 8, 2009 in Lean Manufacturing

Tags: efficiency, General Motors, Lean Manufacturing, Toyota

The blog from a Lean Thinker