The Toyota New Global Architecture (TGNA) is in my opinion, not a revolutionary system. While it is admirable for any company to initiate improvements and strive to be an industry leader, TGNA appears to be tweaking or subtle facelift of existing structures and principles. What was truly revolutionary with Toyota was the establishment of the Toyota Production system in 1948, which many companies worldwide adopted under the term “Just in Time Production” (“TNGA explained: engineering for the future”, 2015). Another revolutionary system is ISO 9000, which is an international set of standards for quality management (Knowles, 2011). ISO 9000 has become popular because it is understood and can be implemented globally and research has shown that ISO certification drives business improvement (Knowles, 2011). This scope and depth of global reach and impact are missing from the Toyota initiative. The goals of TNGA are to get back to successful basics, through increased efficiency of their development processes, while also decreasing costs (“TNGA explained: engineering for the future”, 2015). I consider this initiative to fit under the existing “Total Quality Management (TQM)” structure, which strives to achieve high quality as defined by the customer (James, 2011).
The aims of TQM are designed to permeate the company and are characterized by continuous improvement (James, 2011). This is admirable, though hardly revolutionary. Looking at the background of this initiative, it came following the global financial crisis and the credit crunch that followed it (“TNGA explained: engineering for the future”, 2015). This strikes me more as reactionary corporate behavior than revolutionary. I believe that the goal of Toyota with this initiative is to be revolutionary and this may, in fact, come to fruition, but I don’t believe that the means (the TGNA) is revolutionary. As stated, the chief aim of TGNA is to revolutionize vehicle development by better melding planning and design to increase efficiency (“TNGA explained: engineering for the future”, 2015).
It remains to be seen if this will indeed start a revolution with Toyota operations.
Absolutely. There were clear-cut and valid reasons for initiating this new approach. Simply put, Toyota had become too cumbersome and too cluttered in terms of its concepts and designs. Prior to TGNA, Toyota had over 100 car platforms and over 800 powertrains! They had made the determination, rightly in my opinion that their efforts were too fragmented and splintered and would benefit from some clear, concentrated focus. The main criteria for quality are performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability and aesthetics (James, 2011). Without a clear path of direction from concept to customer experience, these various factors will wane in quality and Toyota will miss their performance goals. The fact that Toyota initiated this new system seems to indicate that they have adopted a self-assessment model of quality. Self-assessment models can be useful in that they help a company gain consensus, provide data, establish a common approach, engage in group assessment and help managers drive improvement (Knowles, 2011).
Whether Toyota successfully drives this change in the quality structure of its company depends on many things. These key drivers are will, focus and capability (Knowles, 2014). In order for these key drivers to be present, senior management must buy in first, Toyota must define its key values, engage the wider organization, have the necessary infrastructure and support, and they must encourage continual learning, have measurement and recognition systems in place and must communicate information on a frequent, in-depth level to its employees.
The biggest change is the new approach that Toyota wants its engineers to adopt. In the past, Engineers had become too isolated from the rest of the company and would be out of lockstep with each other. In the new system, engineers are expected to be more “hands-on”, meaning that they will be spending more time behind the wheel, actually driving the cars that they design, thus re-igniting their passion for creating amazing automobiles (“TNGA explained: engineering for the future”, 2015). Toyota is trying to get its engineers and design team more engaged with the final product and by making a stronger connection between design and final product, create a greater sense of ownership for its final product (“TNGA explained: engineering for the future”, 2015).
This, in turn, will create fresh new ideas within a more direct, streamlined process of design and manufacturing. They are viewing their engineering group as the catalyst for enhanced operations and intending this change in mindset to flow through the company. Toyota is striving for more flexibility in design, in the hopes that this will inspire new, world-class creations (“TNGA explained: engineering for the future”, 2015). There are several reasons why companies fall down on quality management. Lack of leadership, short-term focus, lack of customer focus, cost/quality trade-off, lack of systems thinking, human resources mentality and waste are all major culprits (Knowles, 2011). With TGNA, Toyota is attempting to address many of these downfalls. They are exhibiting leadership, they are thinking long term and they are getting their engineers and designers to shift their focus more on the final product, which places the company’s focus back on the customers’ needs, wants and ultimate satisfaction. It is this change in mindset that is the greatest change brought forth by this initiative and it is Toyota’s intention to take its global operations to the next level. References James, T. (2011). Operations Strategy. Bookboon. Knowles, G. (2011). Quality Management. Bookboon. Unknown. (2015, April 15). TNGA explained: engineering for the future. Official Blog of Toyota GB. Retrieved from: http://blog.toyota.co.uk/tnga-explained-engineering-for-the-future
Comments
Post a Comment