Vehicles per worker was ten times the figure of Japan in USA.
Taiichi Ohno, had joined Toyota in 1943, having worked previously in Toyoda loom-machinery plant. . Ohno gradually introduced a series of interrelated innovations in manufacturing to implement JIT combined with Jidoka (poka yoke) that complemented and rivaled the achievements of Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford.
1948: Ohno instituted a “pull” system in the machining shop for engines, asking each worker to move back to the previous station to retrieve work-in-process, just at the necessary time in the amount needed only for immediate processing. This contrasted with the traditional “push” systems used in the U.S., Japan, and Europe, where components were made according to a schedule released by production planning department.
1949: Ohno also made workers in the machining shop operate several machines each, rather than specialize This procedural change seemed to improve worker productivity. Ohno then asked production workers to conduct their own inspections. This improved quality on the line and raised worker output by cutting down on nonproductive inspection staff.
1950: Toyota extended the pull concept to mar keting through the policy of limiting production to orders received by Toyota Motor Sales from dealers.
Toyota synchronized engine and transmission machining with final assembly, to reduce further in-process inventories.
Indicator lights introduced on the engine lines alerted supervisors to problems.
1953: Ohno introduced an early “kanban” system into the machining shop, using the exchange of paper tags to signal processing operations or parts production. The Japanese called this the “super market method,” since it mimicked the practice in U.S. supermarkets where customers went to stores to buy what they wanted while the supermarket replaced items on shelves as it sold them.
To simplify manufacturing, procurement, and conveyance Toyota also instituted a standardization program for car and truck components.
1955: Toyota synchronized its body and final assembly shops to eliminate more in-process in ventories.
Controls introduced on parts deliveries further cut inventories.
Toyota started to mix the loading of components in small lots for machine tools and to mix model runs on final assembly lines to raise equipment utilization as well as lower inventories.
Line-stop buttons introduced on assembly lines gave workers authority to halt production if they noticed defects or if other problems arose.
1957: Indicator lights installed on all production lines alerted supervisors outside the machining shop to problems.
1959: A control system for internal and in-house-to-outside conveyances again cut in-process inventories and waiting time.
1961: Toyota introduced the kanban system to some outside parts suppliers.
1962: Toyota then extended the kanban system to all in-house shops, placing the entire company on a small-lot, pull system.
Foolproof devices (poka-yoke) added to machine tools helped prevent defects and overproduction.
Toyota lowered stamping-press changeover times for dies from two or three hours in previous years to fifteen minutes, Rapid setups increased equipment utilization and made small-lot production more economical, as well as helped reduce in-process inventories by cutting lead times.
1963: Managers were now asking workers to operate an average of five machines each, compared with three to four since 1949, two in 1947, and one in previous years. This seemed to raise labor productivity further.
1965: Toyota extended the kanban system to all outside parts deliveries, further reducing in-process inventories.
1971: Toyota cut die setup times for stamping presses to three minutes and adopted the practice of moving workers to different positions on assembly lines as needed.
1973: Toyota allowed suppliers to deliver directly to assembly lines, fully linking them with its in-house parts conveyance system.
Improvements in Productivity and Inventory Levels
Vehicles manufactured per worker per year tripled at Toyota between 1955 and 1957 and then rose another 60 percent by 1964. Toyota appears to have passed the productivity levels at GM, Ford, and Chrysler by 1965.
Nissan on the other hand focused on improving its levels of automation, also worked at reducing setup times, improving in-house synchronization, and controlling parts deliveries. Gross productivity levels at Nissan increased fivefold between 1955 and 1964 and doubled between 1965 and 1970.
http://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/common/pdf/production_system.pdf
World Markets Automotive Productivity Index for Europe - Results for 2000 cont.
Actual Vehicles per Employee
Manufacturer Produced 1997 1998 1999 2000
Plant Country in 2000
Nissan Sunderland UK 327,701 98 105 94 101
Toyota Burnaston UK 171,338 58 72 81 86
Ford Saarlouis Germany 383,893 59 59 77 81
GM Eisenach Germany 145,200 77 76 82 81
Ford Valencia Spain 343,794 57 58 73 77
GM Antwerp Belgium 329,300 n/a n/a 63 77
Renault Valladolid Spain 280,667 59 64 71 77
Volkswagen Pamplona Spain 376,164 77 76 60 77
Fiat Melfi Italy 364,882 70 73 70 76
Renault Novo Mesto Slovenia 122,919 n/a n/a n/a 73
Renault Palencia Spain 255,621 n/a n/a 69 71
SEAT Martorell Spain 516,146 69 69 66 71
Renault Flins France 379,722 57 59 80 70
Renault Douai France 399,933 61 68 68 67
Renault Maubeuge France 245,648 n/a 56 63 67
PSA Aulnay France 401,370 51 58 62 64
GM Zaragoza Spain 373,600 67 67 69 62
GM Bochum Germany 350,000 n/a n/a n/a 62
Ford Dagenham UK 148,000 62 61 60 62
Fiat Termini Italy 153,265 n/a n/a n/a 61
Im.
GM Ellesmere UK 169,200 n/a n/a n/a 60
Port
PSA Mulhouse France 425,764 55 58 61 59
Fiat Tychy Poland 241,651 n/a n/a n/a 59
Fiat Mirafiori Italy 379,733 54 61 58 57
PSA Vigo Spain 437,162 35 52 52 56
Honda Swindon UK 74,017 62 64 83 55
PSA Ryton UK 187,797 n/a n/a n/a 55
Peugeot
Daimler Rastatt Germany 200,000 n/a n/a 48 53
Chrysler
MG Rover Longbridge UK 178,557 34 31 n/a 52
(1)
GM Luton UK 112,900 39 43 47 49
Volkswagen Wolfsburg Germany 686,240 39 42 50 46
Volvo Ghent Belgium 122,200 n/a n/a n/a 45
Fiat (2) Cassino Italy 219,096 39 40 44 See
note
PSA Poissy France 282,985 36 45 43 44
Volvo (3) Born Netherlands 156,336 36 50 n/a 40
Volvo Torslanda Sweden 133,680 n/a n/a n/a 40
PSA Madrid Spain 166,272 n/a n/a n/a 40
Peugeot
PSA Mangualde Portugal 49,753 n/a n/a n/a 40
Peugeot
PSA Rennes France 245,860 n/a 41 39 35
GM Russelsheim Germany 189,400 n/a n/a n/a 34
Skoda Mlada Czech 264,592 33 35 32 34
Boleslav Republic
PSA Sochaux France 250,861 25 31 31 34
Renault Sandouville France 194,831 36 41 40 32
Volkswagen Emden Germany 225,693 28 37 29 27
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/nissans-sunderland-car-plant-sets-new-european-productivity-standards-154794285.html
For 2010 GM leads the pack with 42 sold per worker. Ford is a close second at 38 vehicles per employee, while VW finishes woefully behind at just 18 units per worker.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/06/which-automaker-is-the-most-productive/
Taiichi Ohno, had joined Toyota in 1943, having worked previously in Toyoda loom-machinery plant. . Ohno gradually introduced a series of interrelated innovations in manufacturing to implement JIT combined with Jidoka (poka yoke) that complemented and rivaled the achievements of Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford.
1948: Ohno instituted a “pull” system in the machining shop for engines, asking each worker to move back to the previous station to retrieve work-in-process, just at the necessary time in the amount needed only for immediate processing. This contrasted with the traditional “push” systems used in the U.S., Japan, and Europe, where components were made according to a schedule released by production planning department.
1949: Ohno also made workers in the machining shop operate several machines each, rather than specialize This procedural change seemed to improve worker productivity. Ohno then asked production workers to conduct their own inspections. This improved quality on the line and raised worker output by cutting down on nonproductive inspection staff.
1950: Toyota extended the pull concept to mar keting through the policy of limiting production to orders received by Toyota Motor Sales from dealers.
Toyota synchronized engine and transmission machining with final assembly, to reduce further in-process inventories.
Indicator lights introduced on the engine lines alerted supervisors to problems.
1953: Ohno introduced an early “kanban” system into the machining shop, using the exchange of paper tags to signal processing operations or parts production. The Japanese called this the “super market method,” since it mimicked the practice in U.S. supermarkets where customers went to stores to buy what they wanted while the supermarket replaced items on shelves as it sold them.
To simplify manufacturing, procurement, and conveyance Toyota also instituted a standardization program for car and truck components.
1955: Toyota synchronized its body and final assembly shops to eliminate more in-process in ventories.
Controls introduced on parts deliveries further cut inventories.
Toyota started to mix the loading of components in small lots for machine tools and to mix model runs on final assembly lines to raise equipment utilization as well as lower inventories.
Line-stop buttons introduced on assembly lines gave workers authority to halt production if they noticed defects or if other problems arose.
1957: Indicator lights installed on all production lines alerted supervisors outside the machining shop to problems.
1959: A control system for internal and in-house-to-outside conveyances again cut in-process inventories and waiting time.
1961: Toyota introduced the kanban system to some outside parts suppliers.
1962: Toyota then extended the kanban system to all in-house shops, placing the entire company on a small-lot, pull system.
Foolproof devices (poka-yoke) added to machine tools helped prevent defects and overproduction.
Toyota lowered stamping-press changeover times for dies from two or three hours in previous years to fifteen minutes, Rapid setups increased equipment utilization and made small-lot production more economical, as well as helped reduce in-process inventories by cutting lead times.
1963: Managers were now asking workers to operate an average of five machines each, compared with three to four since 1949, two in 1947, and one in previous years. This seemed to raise labor productivity further.
1965: Toyota extended the kanban system to all outside parts deliveries, further reducing in-process inventories.
1971: Toyota cut die setup times for stamping presses to three minutes and adopted the practice of moving workers to different positions on assembly lines as needed.
1973: Toyota allowed suppliers to deliver directly to assembly lines, fully linking them with its in-house parts conveyance system.
Improvements in Productivity and Inventory Levels
Vehicles manufactured per worker per year tripled at Toyota between 1955 and 1957 and then rose another 60 percent by 1964. Toyota appears to have passed the productivity levels at GM, Ford, and Chrysler by 1965.
Nissan on the other hand focused on improving its levels of automation, also worked at reducing setup times, improving in-house synchronization, and controlling parts deliveries. Gross productivity levels at Nissan increased fivefold between 1955 and 1964 and doubled between 1965 and 1970.
http://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/common/pdf/production_system.pdf
World Markets Automotive Productivity Index for Europe - Results for 2000 cont.
Actual Vehicles per Employee
Manufacturer Produced 1997 1998 1999 2000
Plant Country in 2000
Nissan Sunderland UK 327,701 98 105 94 101
Toyota Burnaston UK 171,338 58 72 81 86
Ford Saarlouis Germany 383,893 59 59 77 81
GM Eisenach Germany 145,200 77 76 82 81
Ford Valencia Spain 343,794 57 58 73 77
GM Antwerp Belgium 329,300 n/a n/a 63 77
Renault Valladolid Spain 280,667 59 64 71 77
Volkswagen Pamplona Spain 376,164 77 76 60 77
Fiat Melfi Italy 364,882 70 73 70 76
Renault Novo Mesto Slovenia 122,919 n/a n/a n/a 73
Renault Palencia Spain 255,621 n/a n/a 69 71
SEAT Martorell Spain 516,146 69 69 66 71
Renault Flins France 379,722 57 59 80 70
Renault Douai France 399,933 61 68 68 67
Renault Maubeuge France 245,648 n/a 56 63 67
PSA Aulnay France 401,370 51 58 62 64
GM Zaragoza Spain 373,600 67 67 69 62
GM Bochum Germany 350,000 n/a n/a n/a 62
Ford Dagenham UK 148,000 62 61 60 62
Fiat Termini Italy 153,265 n/a n/a n/a 61
Im.
GM Ellesmere UK 169,200 n/a n/a n/a 60
Port
PSA Mulhouse France 425,764 55 58 61 59
Fiat Tychy Poland 241,651 n/a n/a n/a 59
Fiat Mirafiori Italy 379,733 54 61 58 57
PSA Vigo Spain 437,162 35 52 52 56
Honda Swindon UK 74,017 62 64 83 55
PSA Ryton UK 187,797 n/a n/a n/a 55
Peugeot
Daimler Rastatt Germany 200,000 n/a n/a 48 53
Chrysler
MG Rover Longbridge UK 178,557 34 31 n/a 52
(1)
GM Luton UK 112,900 39 43 47 49
Volkswagen Wolfsburg Germany 686,240 39 42 50 46
Volvo Ghent Belgium 122,200 n/a n/a n/a 45
Fiat (2) Cassino Italy 219,096 39 40 44 See
note
PSA Poissy France 282,985 36 45 43 44
Volvo (3) Born Netherlands 156,336 36 50 n/a 40
Volvo Torslanda Sweden 133,680 n/a n/a n/a 40
PSA Madrid Spain 166,272 n/a n/a n/a 40
Peugeot
PSA Mangualde Portugal 49,753 n/a n/a n/a 40
Peugeot
PSA Rennes France 245,860 n/a 41 39 35
GM Russelsheim Germany 189,400 n/a n/a n/a 34
Skoda Mlada Czech 264,592 33 35 32 34
Boleslav Republic
PSA Sochaux France 250,861 25 31 31 34
Renault Sandouville France 194,831 36 41 40 32
Volkswagen Emden Germany 225,693 28 37 29 27
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/nissans-sunderland-car-plant-sets-new-european-productivity-standards-154794285.html
For 2010 GM leads the pack with 42 sold per worker. Ford is a close second at 38 vehicles per employee, while VW finishes woefully behind at just 18 units per worker.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/06/which-automaker-is-the-most-productive/
The blog seems to share interesting tips transmission holder, I like this information looking for an extra large automatic transmission holding fixture. Maybe I will share with facebook group friends about this blog.
ReplyDelete