Search This Blog

Tuesday, 13 May 2014

History of Toyota. Part 20 (1950-51): Modernization of Facilities

Training at the Ford Motor Company and Observation of American Machinery Manufacturers
Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. ended a two-month labor dispute on June 10, 1950. The company announced a new employment system, and measures designed to effect a reorganization-such as labor-management negotiations on a new labor agreement and revision of the salary system-were started. It was under these circumstances that Toyota Motor Sales Co., Ltd. President Shotaro Kamiya and Kanto Auto Works, Ltd. President Hidejiro Okuda1 departed for the United States on June 23.
Eiji Toyoda, President Kamiya of Toyota Motor Sales Co., Ltd. (left) and President Okuda of Kanto Auto Works, Ltd. (right) with Mr. White (rear) of Ford at Ford Motor Company
The purposes of their trip were to observe the American automobile industry and to negotiate a technical tie-up agreement with Ford Motor Company (Ford). Managing Director Eiji Toyoda, who also travelled to the U.S. about a half month later on July 11, recalled, "Kamiya of Toyota Motor Sales Co., Ltd. traveled to America as an advance team to negotiate basic technical guidance so that when I traveled to America, I could sign the agreement."2 The negotiations proceeded smoothly right up to just before the signing, but the entire process returned to the beginning as a result of effects from the Korean War, which had broken out on June 25. President Kamiya and President Okuda concluded the negotiations and returned to Japan, leaving Managing Director Eiji behind, on September 30.

The contract signed with Ford included the dispatch of three engineers3, and a technical tie-up suitable for Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.'s production scale was anticipated. With the outbreak of the Korean War, however, the American government prohibited overseas investment and issued an order requiring confinement of key engineers, making implementation of the agreement impossible. In response to these developments, Ford agreed to accept trainees from Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. in place of sending engineers.
Managing Director Eiji became the first trainee at Ford. He spent approximately one and a half months from July 20 to September 8 observing the River Rouge Plant, Highland Park Plant, Mound Road Plant, Ypsilanti Plant, Dearborn Plant, Canton Plant and other sites, and was instructed by various Ford personnel.4 He also visited Chrysler Corporation, the Budd Company, Timken Detroit Axle Company, Muskegon Piston Ring Company, Bauer Roller Bearing Company, and others.
In addition, Managing Director Eiji visited 21 machine tool companies from August 7 to September 29 and observed the latest machine tools. Of these companies, Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. had installed machine tools from 15 of them at the time of its foundation, and Managing Director Eiji was able to confirm directly the advances in performance of machine tools by observing the equipment and to acquire useful information regarding future equipment updates.

Following Managing Director Eiji, Managing Director Shoichi Saito traveled to the United States on October 3 and underwent training at the Ford River Rouge Plant for about one and a half months. Following his return to Japan, Managing Director Saito introduced a suggestion system based on Ford's suggestion system in order to gather ideas from a wide range of employees. The system, which went into operation in May 1951, was the Creative Idea Suggestion System. Over time, the system has been improved and expanded.
One thing that both Managing Director Eiji and Managing Director Saito mentioned after their time in the U.S. was the surprising quality of the materials used in America. Managing Director Eiji stated in response to a request for information from the Society of Automotive Engineers of Japan, "Japan's automobile industry facilities and engineers are good, but our machine tools and materials are inferior. If we can solve this problem, we can manufacture good and economic vehicles that are equal to America's. This is the conclusion that I drew during my recent travels."5 When Kiichiro Toyoda entered the automobile business, he decided to produce steel and machine tools internally because the materials and machine tools available in Japan at that time were inadequate. Even in 1950, fully 17 years later, the company was still facing the same problem.

Later, when recalling his training at Ford, Eiji made the following statement.
I felt that I was being honest in saying: “Ford’s not doing anything we don’t already know”. But at the same time I was certainly not presumptuously downplaying Ford’s tremendous lead. After all, their daily output was 8,000 units; ours was a piddling 40. You might as well compare a pebble with a boulder. In terms of corporate size, we were in very different leagues. Yet, I didn’t think that there was such a large gap in technology. The difference lay mainly in the scale of production. I felt that if the size of Toyota’s operations grew large enough, we’d be fully able to handle an American-type production system.

Special Demand Caused by Korean War
On June 25, 1950, the Army of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) crossed the 38th Parallel and invaded the Republic of Korea (South Korea). This was the start of the Korean War.

Model BMV cargo truck supplied under special demand
To rapidly supply equipment to the South Korean Army, industrial capacity in Japan-which was the closest country to the battlefront-was used, and as early as July 10, an inquiry concerning trucks was received from the procurement division of the Eighth United States Army. Toyota received an order for 1,000 Model BM trucks, and Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. and Toyota Motor Sales Co., Ltd. jointly entered into an agreement for their supply on July 31. The agreement called for 200 trucks to be delivered in August and 400 each in September and October. Toyota later received an order for 2,329 trucks on August 29 and an order for an additional 1,350 trucks on March 1, 1951, for a total of 4,679 Model BM trucks. The total value of these orders was 3.66 billion yen.
In response to this special demand, Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. increased its monthly production plan from 650 units to 1,000 units. The increase in production was implemented by having current employees work two hours overtime each day, and the planned shift from the Model BM truck to the Model MX truck was postponed until after the delivery of all BM trucks.

Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.'s business performance improved rapidly as a result of the Korean War special procurement demand. The situation was explained as follows in the 22nd Business Report (covering April to September 1950) as follows:
Although prices for materials, parts, tires, and so on repeatedly rose after the outbreak of the Korean War due to automobile sale pricing controls-which in the past were a major restraint on operations-were eliminated in the middle of April, we have been able to maintain profitability by adjusting automobile sales prices, and since the resolution of the labor dispute, results have been improving every month as production increases in response to demand.
Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. fell into a condition of management crisis as a result of the effects from the Dodge Line and it was necessary to reduce personnel, but following the outbreak of the Korean War, business performance recovered and the company was able to take new steps forward.

Machinery repair work at a machinery plant
President Kiichiro Toyoda served as director of the Temporary Reconstruction Office from April 1946 to March 1947 and encouraged the restoration of machine tools that had been overused during the war. The repairs, however, did not go beyond minimal emergency measures. Systematic restoration work began in 1948, but restoration of machine tools in use at plants required replacement and supplementary units, so there was a limit to what could be done.

In January 1951, approval was received for temporary use of government-owned and some privately-owned equipment formerly designated for reparations, and the situation changed. By using such equipment, restoration of general-purpose machine tools was expected to proceed according to plan.
According to a survey conducted by the machining plant-which was responsible for the restoration of equipment-at the end of 19501, Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. had approximately 2,700 machine tools and approximately 2,000 industrial machines including presses and forges for a total of approximately 4,700 machines. Of these, 47 percent were in use for less than 10 years, and 53 percent were in use for 10 to 20 years. Also, 69 percent of the machines were manufactured in Japan and 31 percent were imported.

When categorized by precision and functionality, facilities and machinery was divided as follows.
1)1,556 machines (33 percent) had good or generally good precision and functionality.
2)2,262 (48 percent) machines had somewhat poor precision and functionality.
3)888 (19 percent) machines had substantially poor or nearly unusable precision and functionality.
The machines in category (3) required immediate restoration, while those in category (2) needed a systematic restoration in stages.

Restoration was implemented based on the survey, and restoration of the machines in substantially poor condition2 was completed in 1952 while outdated belt-driven lathes and milling machines were improved until they could be discarded. In addition to restoring precision and functionality, active efforts were made to modernize refurbished equipment and changes were made from flat belt drives to V-belt or gear drives, necessary functions were automated or semi-automated, and automated specialized equipment using idle power units was introduced.

Facility Modernization Five-year Plan-Towards a System for Producing 3,000 Vehicles per Month
While equipment and machinery was restored, automation of machine tools was also implemented. Specific automation measures included the introduction of automatic delivery equipment using plate cams and automatic shut-down devices using micro-switches. This was technology developed as a result of observations made in the United States.
The automation of equipment was an essential condition for putting one employee in charge of several machines, an idea proposed by Koromo Plant Machining Plant General Manager Taiichi Ono.
General Manager Ono had been an engineer at Toyoda Boshoku Corporation where he observed a single worker operating up to 20 automatic looms. He believed that it was inefficient for each worker to operate only one machine.

The engine plant and powertrain plant under the machining division of Koromo Plant had been separate organizations, but they were integrated in August 1949 to establish a single machinery plant. At that time, investigations of having one worker operate several machines began with General Manager Ono playing a central role.
Having one worker operate multiple machines was premised on the automation of machine tools, for example, in the use of automatic shut off and automatic parts feeds. It would be possible if processes could consist of automatic multi-cut lathes, automatic special-purpose machines using various types of power units, and so on. However, the costs required for automation were considerable, and the necessary returns could not be guaranteed with small-scale production.

Equipment was converted into simple automatic machinery by installing simple cam-feed mechanisms and micro-switches and giving the equipment automatic feed and automatic shutdown functions. By introducing this type of automation, it became possible for a single worker to operate multiple machines, dramatically raising work efficiency.

When one worker was responsible for multiple machines, there was no time for the workers to sharpen the machinery tools (cutting tools), and it became necessary to specialize tool sharpening. As a result, a centralized sharpening system was introduced at all machine plants in November 1951, and the Central Tool Department performed tool collection, sharpening, and delivery.

Source: Toyota Motor Co. Ltd 

For more on theory and case studies onhttp://expertresearchers.blogspot.com

No comments:

Post a Comment