Saturday, September 15, 2007

Fable for Our Times...

The following was forwarded to me from an unknown source by my friend Mark (thanks Mark!). It captures the essence of the dilemma burdening our culture.

A Fable for Our Times

A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (General Motors)
decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced
long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate
the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior
management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person
steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person
rowing.

Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a
consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second
opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the
boat, while not enough people were rowing.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent
another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was
totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering
superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They
also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person
rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the
'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free
pens and a certificate of completion for the rower. There was discussion
of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days
for practices and bonuses.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower (a reduction in
workforce) for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold
the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The
money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the
next year's racing team was "out-sourced" to India ...

Sadly, the End.

However, sad, but oh so true! Here's something else to think about:
Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the
US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has
spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the
US

The last quarter's results:

Toyota makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in
losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads.

Comment:
In the training and orientations I do for our clients I typically introduce the Toyota Production System as a tangible and real-world example of practical, applied efficiency improvement that has yielded bottom-line results. I then present the irony...TPS is based on the Deming improvement methodology (Deming Method). Edwards Deming was an American statistician sent to Japan under the Marshall Plan after WWII to help them rebuild the Japanese economy. Prior to going to Japan he approached the Big 3 but was rebuffed: "We don't need no stinkin' quality; we've got market share." Today, Toyota has the lowest defect rate per 100 vehicles manufactured among the major automotive manufacturers, has replaced Ford as number two in sales volume and is on track to displace Chevy as the single best selling brand in the United States. As to R&D: they're positioned to dominate NASCAR, an American tradition, in the next two years. Toyota listened, the Big 3 didn't.

These basic principles of quality, the underlying principles, such as efficiency, fact-based decision making, lean manufacturing and management accountability have been around since the 30's and 40's. Interestingly, of Deming's famous 14 Points concerning quality, half of them identify management responsibilities (or point to management's negligence) as critical factors in quality systems. In Deming's day, as today, corporations were blaming the production worker for defects when, in fact, in most cases it was the system within which the production worker operated. The production worker has no control over the system. Only management can change that.

Labels:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home