Quake forces Toyota to halt production
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,604
From: Milton, FL
Quake forces Toyota to halt production
The temporary closure of auto parts maker Riken Corp.'s plant at Kashiwazaki city, near the epicenter of Monday's magnitude 6.8 quake, has forced Toyota, Nissan Motor Co. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. and Fuji Heavy Industries to scale back production.
Toyota, Japan's No. 1 automaker, will stop production lines at a dozen factories centered in central Aichi prefecture Thursday afternoon and all day Friday, said Toyota spokesman Paul Nolasco.
The company will assess the situation at Riken, supplier of key transmission and engine parts to Toyota, before deciding whether to resume production on Monday, he said.
Toyota, Japan's No. 1 automaker, will stop production lines at a dozen factories centered in central Aichi prefecture Thursday afternoon and all day Friday, said Toyota spokesman Paul Nolasco.
The company will assess the situation at Riken, supplier of key transmission and engine parts to Toyota, before deciding whether to resume production on Monday, he said.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 39
From: Titusville
considering it takes around 2 months for the product to get here, those kind of delays can be fixed with changing allocations to the regional distributors. The cars on my lot arrive in Jacksonville about 3 months after they roll off the line, so we are able to adjust inventory accordingly by the time they arrive.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Feng-Shue, Grasshopper, feng-shue.
JIT manufacturing is another bean-counter's management theory to minimize costs by minimizing inventory and handling. Realists like me prefer to have some buffer (a.k.a. "inventory") on hand for emergencies, oversights, unexpected orders, and such. But guys like me will never become a CEO of a big organization because I am too wasteful and don't know the intricacies of running a company efficiently.
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Nah... consumers stop buying too after an earthquake, so everything is peaceful and harmonious.
Feng-Shue, Grasshopper, feng-shue.
JIT manufacturing is another bean-counter's management theory to minimize costs by minimizing inventory and handling. Realists like me prefer to have some buffer (a.k.a. "inventory") on hand for emergencies, oversights, unexpected orders, and such. But guys like me will never become a CEO of a big organization because I am too wasteful and don't know the intricacies of running a company efficiently.
Feng-Shue, Grasshopper, feng-shue.
JIT manufacturing is another bean-counter's management theory to minimize costs by minimizing inventory and handling. Realists like me prefer to have some buffer (a.k.a. "inventory") on hand for emergencies, oversights, unexpected orders, and such. But guys like me will never become a CEO of a big organization because I am too wasteful and don't know the intricacies of running a company efficiently.
Proud,
There is a danger of JIT processes but it isn’t just a theory…it works.
The occasional stoppage that can be caused is just not a sufficient enough risk to ever go back to the “old way” of doing things and keeping a large inventory of parts/raw materials on hand “just in case”.
I’ve personally seen companies I’ve worked for throw away tens of millions of dollar$ of “stuff” that had been kept in inventory so long (because it might be needed some day) that it became worthless; ultimately the consumer and the stockholders pay for that waste.
I agree there needs to be a buffer but it has to be reasonable – JIT processes have made business much less expensive in the long run and that ultimately helps everyone.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 854
From: neverneverland
Proud,
There is a danger of JIT processes but it isn’t just a theory…it works.
The occasional stoppage that can be caused is just not a sufficient enough risk to ever go back to the “old way” of doing things and keeping a large inventory of parts/raw materials on hand “just in case”.
I’ve personally seen companies I’ve worked for throw away tens of millions of dollar$ of “stuff” that had been kept in inventory so long (because it might be needed some day) that it became worthless; ultimately the consumer and the stockholders pay for that waste.
I agree there needs to be a buffer but it has to be reasonable – JIT processes have made business much less expensive in the long run and that ultimately helps everyone.
There is a danger of JIT processes but it isn’t just a theory…it works.
The occasional stoppage that can be caused is just not a sufficient enough risk to ever go back to the “old way” of doing things and keeping a large inventory of parts/raw materials on hand “just in case”.
I’ve personally seen companies I’ve worked for throw away tens of millions of dollar$ of “stuff” that had been kept in inventory so long (because it might be needed some day) that it became worthless; ultimately the consumer and the stockholders pay for that waste.
I agree there needs to be a buffer but it has to be reasonable – JIT processes have made business much less expensive in the long run and that ultimately helps everyone.
It is common for the production PO's to list 3-4 week safety stock, especially if you are importing from across the Pacific.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,887
From: northeast Miss.
Supplier here... JIT means big inventory fo me Son!
Yes, it is. The supply doesn't just sit, fwiw. We just have mor eon hand than we would (in theory) need for a couple weeks.
Speaking of old/new way of doing things (which is almost tounge-in-cheek)... The only thing JIT does is shift warehouse responsibilities from buyer to vendor.
The occasional stoppage that can be caused is just not a sufficient enough risk to ever go back to the “old way” of doing things and keeping a large inventory of parts/raw materials on hand “just in case”.
Speaking of old/new way of doing things (which is almost tounge-in-cheek)... The only thing JIT does is shift warehouse responsibilities from buyer to vendor.
Last edited by graham; Jul 19, 2007 at 03:45 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Proud,
There is a danger of JIT processes but it isn’t just a theory…it works.
The occasional stoppage that can be caused is just not a sufficient enough risk to ever go back to the “old way” of doing things and keeping a large inventory of parts/raw materials on hand “just in case”.
Tell that to a Tier 1 supplier who gets billed for line downtime when Ford or GM shuts down due to no parts on the line!
BECAUSE a semi-truck jacknifed on the way to the plant, the truck got snowed-in at a truck stop, the plane could not take off or land due to weather, the delivery truck broke-down, etc. - NONE of which is the fault of the component supplier or the customer either one.
I’ve personally seen companies I’ve worked for throw away tens of millions of dollar$ of “stuff” that had been kept in inventory so long (because it might be needed some day) that it became worthless; ultimately the consumer and the stockholders pay for that waste.
Me too - and that is a down-side to be sure.
I agree there needs to be a buffer but it has to be reasonable – JIT processes have made business much less expensive in the long run and that ultimately helps everyone.
There is a danger of JIT processes but it isn’t just a theory…it works.
The occasional stoppage that can be caused is just not a sufficient enough risk to ever go back to the “old way” of doing things and keeping a large inventory of parts/raw materials on hand “just in case”.
Tell that to a Tier 1 supplier who gets billed for line downtime when Ford or GM shuts down due to no parts on the line!
BECAUSE a semi-truck jacknifed on the way to the plant, the truck got snowed-in at a truck stop, the plane could not take off or land due to weather, the delivery truck broke-down, etc. - NONE of which is the fault of the component supplier or the customer either one.
I’ve personally seen companies I’ve worked for throw away tens of millions of dollar$ of “stuff” that had been kept in inventory so long (because it might be needed some day) that it became worthless; ultimately the consumer and the stockholders pay for that waste.
Me too - and that is a down-side to be sure.
I agree there needs to be a buffer but it has to be reasonable – JIT processes have made business much less expensive in the long run and that ultimately helps everyone.
There are a few risks to keeping stock on-hand, like a revision change or the customer going to another provider, BUT there is always some material somewhere in the pipe. The company I work for has to pile it up on OUR shelves and send it out as it is asked for.
The kicker is when GM calls up and says,"Instead of 8,000 widgets for the GMT900 this week, we need 16,000. Deliver them on-time or we will derate you for non-performance because we are giving you 3-days notice."
If I don't have either 1) product on the shelf or 2) raw material on my shelf, then I DON'T MAKE THE ORDER. The rest is obvious.
My point is, There is a difference between a theoretically perfect world and the REAL world. I live more in the latter, with dirty hands, scarred knuckles, and grey hair. The guy who runs the calculator and writes checks might have an ink stain on his finger.
The CONCEPT of JIT is great, but it's implementation and success are only as good as everyone (and everything's) committment to operate inside that system as it was designed and agreed to operate.
To speak more in street-slang, JIT is a customer's way of passing the "inventory" problem on to the next ****-ant down the chain, and claiming some kind of financial success on paper for the results.
We call that "passing the buck" at my house, not "revolutionary thinking".
The best thing to do is analyse the consumption rate, plan accordingly, and stick to the plan. Personally, I think it is better than insurance to have a few days' extra inventory on-hand for unexpected orders or emergencies, and that is not JIT protocol.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Originally Posted by graham
Speaking of old/new way of doing things (which is almost tounge-in-cheek)... The only thing JIT does is shift warehouse responsibilities from buyer to vendor.
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
What you were “seconding” above is true of course but so?
Every business has the right to request whatever they want from a potential vendor/supplier seeking to sell them something; it’s up to each vendor to decide if the potential profit in the contract being offered is enough to offset the potential risk of meeting those demands (includign JIT inventory)…if the profits aren’t sufficient then the vendor’s should just say no.
At some point, the vendors have to take responsibility for the stipulations they agree to in the contract or not take the contract in the first place.
Every business has the right to request whatever they want from a potential vendor/supplier seeking to sell them something; it’s up to each vendor to decide if the potential profit in the contract being offered is enough to offset the potential risk of meeting those demands (includign JIT inventory)…if the profits aren’t sufficient then the vendor’s should just say no.
At some point, the vendors have to take responsibility for the stipulations they agree to in the contract or not take the contract in the first place.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
What you were “seconding” above is true of course but so?
Every business has the right to request whatever they want from a potential vendor/supplier seeking to sell them something; it’s up to each vendor to decide if the potential profit in the contract being offered is enough to offset the potential risk of meeting those demands (includign JIT inventory)…if the profits aren’t sufficient then the vendor’s should just say no.
At some point, the vendors have to take responsibility for the stipulations they agree to in the contract or not take the contract in the first place.
Every business has the right to request whatever they want from a potential vendor/supplier seeking to sell them something; it’s up to each vendor to decide if the potential profit in the contract being offered is enough to offset the potential risk of meeting those demands (includign JIT inventory)…if the profits aren’t sufficient then the vendor’s should just say no.
At some point, the vendors have to take responsibility for the stipulations they agree to in the contract or not take the contract in the first place.
Because they will not only entertain your offer of not participating in the current job, but they will often further your desires by neglecting to offer you new business opportunities, and will sometimes even take away some of the business you are burdened with already.
As someone just said earlier today, it's easy to make such statements in the comfort of your own PC, but come out here into the business world with me and try swallowing some of these great theories.
Bottom line is, you give them what they want, or you die. Just ask people at Delphi, Lear, Visteon, and a dozen other companies that are out of a job right now.
Sure, we try to pass the buck along and do the same with our suppliers too, but with each added layer of complexity and passed responsibility, you simply add another box of possible failures in the system... another supplier to have a power failure, a shipping accident, a natural disaster, etc. Again, this goes back to the short-sighted success theory of JIT - it's about "me" not about "me and my suppliers".
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
As a company that depends mostly on Ford, GM, and DCX for it's revenue, you don't simply stand up and tell the giant "NO".
Because they will not only entertain your offer of not participating in the current job, but they will often further your desires by neglecting to offer you new business opportunities, and will sometimes even take away some of the business you are burdened with already.
As someone just said earlier today, it's easy to make such statements in the comfort of your own PC, but come out here into the business world with me and try swallowing some of these great theories.
Bottom line is, you give them what they want, or you die. Just ask people at Delphi, Lear, Visteon, and a dozen other companies that are out of a job right now.
Sure, we try to pass the buck along and do the same with our suppliers too, but with each added layer of complexity and passed responsibility, you simply add another box of possible failures in the system... another supplier to have a power failure, a shipping accident, a natural disaster, etc. Again, this goes back to the short-sighted success theory of JIT - it's about "me" not about "me and my suppliers".
Because they will not only entertain your offer of not participating in the current job, but they will often further your desires by neglecting to offer you new business opportunities, and will sometimes even take away some of the business you are burdened with already.
As someone just said earlier today, it's easy to make such statements in the comfort of your own PC, but come out here into the business world with me and try swallowing some of these great theories.
Bottom line is, you give them what they want, or you die. Just ask people at Delphi, Lear, Visteon, and a dozen other companies that are out of a job right now.
Sure, we try to pass the buck along and do the same with our suppliers too, but with each added layer of complexity and passed responsibility, you simply add another box of possible failures in the system... another supplier to have a power failure, a shipping accident, a natural disaster, etc. Again, this goes back to the short-sighted success theory of JIT - it's about "me" not about "me and my suppliers".
No matter what the industry, taking contracts you can't really make a profit on in the hopes of securing more contracts from the same customer in the future will likely only cause more loss, not more profit as the future contracts, even if offerd, aren't likely to be more favorable to the supplier; more likely even less favorable than the earlier ones they couldn't make a profit on.
Such logic is also not that far removed form the adage that a company can loos money on each unit sold but make it up in volume.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,370
From: Germany
well it hurts to be bloated... like gm's been doing... idling plants can be extremely expensive... but toyota doesnt have to worry about unions... they just say... hey ur not getting paid today... go home
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Maybe you thinkg all manufacturers should adopt the UAW's model of paying workers to not work for weeks, months or longer in their "job banks"?
