Bob,

I think his point was that the words in themselves have come to have little meaning because of the jokingly way many companies have chosen to implement these practices. My company is no exception. We have great knowlege and talent where i work, but vitually no management skills. I work for one of the largest aerospace companies in the world. We have seriousdeep rooted problems, while at the same time the leadership take claim to the fact that we are an ISO 9001 comapny, that practices Six Sigma and others. It is the implementation, whih in our case is nothing more than smoke and mirros and makes virtually no impact on real company practice at all. It ends up as business as usual which is sad.

Bill

 

Having had experience with GE Space Division, Boeing and the reminants of **** Engineering, I understand how quality can be nothing more than eyewash and a waste of time. But there was a difference with ISO 9000:1994 that is missing in ISO 9000:2000 and that was the outline . . . the 20 steps.

I'll join anyone in condeming just about every quality system that has shown up with the exception of the now, defunct, ISO 9000:1994. That one had some teeth and when I had to deal with suppliers, I could tell the quantitative difference between those who had it and those who didn't. For example, ISO 9000:1994 required product records from materials through end product that could be traced back in the event of an error. This allowed them to find a problem and track it back to all simularly built versions and warn the customers about the same latent defect. Having a broken product is bad enough but when the vendor doesn't let me know about these defects, I feel like I'm being blind-sided. I should NOT have to rediscover every latent defect.

Now I have no great respect for quality auditors as technologists. They are at best 'technical readers' (as opposed to technical writers.) But that is all they have to be and their sole function should be to read and verify what is written provided the documentation has some purpose or goals and objectives.

With ISO 9000:1994, it was possible for non-technical, quality auditors to do as useful job because there were hard requirements in the standard. But with ISO 9000:2000, we enter an Alice and Wonderland world ruled by Humpty Dumpty ("I pay my words extra to mean what I want them to mean.") and the Red Queen ("I can believe six impossible things before breakfast.") Management basicly sets the scope of their ISO 9000:2000 world and everything else, the hard requirements of ISO 9000:1994 are ignored. It is a world where the processes and procedures aren't worth the paper and labor wasted on making them except to flog the individual contributor while letting management evade responsibility for their failings.

Bob Wilson

 

Oh my, I created and off topic monster. Better feed it.

Well Bob, that was basically what my friend stated. Doesn't mean the company is going down the tubes because they pushed this paper, mostly for nothing, but anymore any type of quality standard is done so that products, documents, promotional materials and packaging can be labeled as manufactured under [enter standards type or brand here].

TQM and 6-sigma are basically the same thing, with the latter tweaked a little, painted a little differently and waxed poetically upon by business textbooks and instructors. Every class I took during my MBA which mentioned 6-sigma in the text had the professor turning around and stating that it was the same as TQM. Of course, it was also emphasized that neither were worth anything unless they became part of the corporate culture and were actually delivered upon. That is where the message gets lost, with management. As soon as management realizes that any type of ongoing quality standard or achievement process is going to cost serious money, at least initially and in the short term, they scatter away from it as fast as they can. Then they choose lower cost alternatives which will have no long term impact at all. It is totally throwing good money after bad, but better to do that then nothing at all; at least in some management cultures that is how it works out.

 

May I take us off ISO for a little bit?

I smile when I read "the big three".

USA Today "The latest figure, announced by Toyota in a release, marks a 4% increase over the 9.04 million vehicles the company expects to produce this year (2006) and easily clears the 9.2 million vehicles GM is estimated to have produced this year (2006)."

GM expects to produce less next year (2007).

That puts Toyota at 9.42 million and GM at less than 9.2 million for 2007.

So maybe it will happen sooner rather thatn later.

My first Toyota was used, I later found out it had body work. It was a Camry and did just fine even in it's wounded state, but then all the GM vehicles I have owned never really game me much trouble either. I would run them to 100,000 mi and trade.

The first new Toyota was the wife's 2005 Prius because it was on the lot and the local Honda dealer didn't have a hybrid. I liked it enough that I got the Highlander Hybrid. 12,000 mi on the Prius and 25,000 on the Highlander. Prius got the updated software and the Highlander just regular service.

I see no reason to go back to my old habits unless there is a product shift in "the big three". I like the emission rating and mileage compared to my previous monster SUV. I would like to think I'm a better eco-person now.

I was at a GM dealer recently and saw nothing on the lot that interested me. That is unusual for me to be at a dealer and find nothing to even look at.

So I vote Likely rather than Yery Likely.

 

Alan,
You are quoting U.S. figures only, and the 4% sounds about right, GM lost 5% of the U.S. market share in 2006, however, they managed a 14% increase of the world market including Russia, South America and China. GM is still the big behemouth in the world market. GM plans an cross breeding many of the popular European models and introducing them here in the U.S.. That will at least give them more material to play with. Should be interesting to see what they come up with and how they fare. Right now the big three do have mechanically sound but mostly boring vehicles though there are some standouts

I will still go to a GM or Ford dealer and give them first shot at it, and if they have the goods, I am there, however, that being said, in their current state, I would most likely end up with a Toyota, Honda or other import. I bought a Honda this time around, and that says a lot because I get a special GM discount that works out to less than what the dealer pays.

Bill

 

Hey Bill,

I think at 9 million, they are talking global if this Economic Times article is correct.

"Toyota had 15.3%, a gain of 2 percentage points, and Honda’s share rose 0.5 point to 9.1%. Toyota’s gains may help it end GM’s reign as the world’s largest automaker during 2007. Through nine months this year, Toyota’s global sales rose 8% to 6.61 million while GM’s fell 2.5% to 6.89 million. Ford is the No 3 automaker after GM and Toyota. DaimlerChrysler is fifth largest."

I don't watch the sales that closely and I know you can spin the numbers by quoting US, North America and global but I think these articles are using global.

Not having had enough trouble with, specifically GM, I would agree that I would give them a shot but not with what I saw during my last visit to a dealer. I saw somewhere that GM claims they are going to own the hybrid space in the future. What else could they say.

My Toyotas are doing just fine.

Al

 

I would prefer an American car and have only owned an American cars until now. I think it's despicable that the American hybrids are only in SUVs and trucks (e.g. Ford Escape, Saturn Vue, Chevrolet Silverado) or are going to be in cars with only a few more MPG (e.g. Saturn Aura, Chevy Malibu) so they can keep the "power". These cars will have a 2.4L engine, mainly for propulsion, and will only have a 10% increase in fuel efficiency. These companies are missing the boat. If they had a good hybrid with comparable emissions I would have bought it. I don't think I'm alone in thinking this.

Toyota and Honda are the only companies that have the right idea about what a hybrid is used for, to save on gas, decrease emissions and decrease our impact on this planet. Ford and GM are only trying to decrease the MPG on there worse cars, SUVs, so they can fit under the MPG allowed by each manufacture by law. Why can't Saturn put a hybrid in there Ion or Ford put it in there Focus?

The next time I will buy a full electric or a plug in hybrid if I have to. If the American companies have not learned by then, it will be another Toyota.

 

I would agree. I think the American companies did a poor job several years ago and that's because they could. No one at that time was going to buy a Japaneses car (bad sentiments) and there was a lot of American pride in "Made in the USA" but I think that's over since everything in the stores are "Made in y" where y does not equal USA. Thus, people bought American cars because it was the American thing to do. Unfortunately a lot of people no longer think this, but I do. Now, American companies make good cars, but so do the Japanese. It's the perception that lingers on. In addition, I think the American companies cannot give up selling the SUVs. I don't know why they have this addiction they cannot kick.

I'll give my experience with cars.
1993 Saturn SL. My first car and I loved it. Only minor problems; alternator replaced, transmission fluid leak. Around $1000 on non-maintenance repairs. Drove it until 2000 with >100k miles when someone decided to plow into the side of it and flip it. I came out with no injuries except the scratches on my arms from crawling out my upside-down car.
2000 Chrylser Cirrus. My second car and still have it, 81k miles. Only minor problems, e.g., battery, gasket on door failed, motor on window failed. I've probably only spend around $2000 on non-maintenance repairs. Since moving to the city (from the suburbs) and with parking a problem , I will be selling it soon.
1999 Plymouth Breeze. My wife's first bought car. Just sold it with 73k miles. Slightly more problems, mainly oil leak and replaced sensors. Spent around $3000 on non-maintenance repairs.

This has been my experience and I would say a pretty good one. But everything is a crap shoot. Even with six sigma engineering, you could have gotten the one statistical outlier that ruins everything.

So you have my 2 cents here and the 2 cents above. Sorry for the long 4 cents.

 

I would love to buy american built cars, unfortunately they don't have the product lines to compete in the areas I (and I'm sure others) value in a vehicle:

1) Superior FE - by definition this is the ability to achieve combined use (city/highway) FE in excess of 40 - 45 mpg.

This first point is very important to me, but not for the typical financial reasons associated with higher gas mileage. The issue is that many of our current economic and foreign policy issues are the result of this country's insatiable appetite for oil. If, as a nation, we made a fundamental shift in our consumption rates, we would have significantly more resources available to address domestic economic issues and to invest in new industries to employ Americans. It would perhaps also alleviate the need for my brother and son to be in a middle eastern country getting shot at regularly.

2) The ability to produce significantly lower emissions.

Living in a part of the country subjected to regular inversions where the air quality levels can reach toxic levels, lower emissions is a critical "quality of life" concern. One of the big reasons American auto makers made the shift to SUVs was the fact that they were not required to meet the same emission standards (a situation that I believe has been rectified recently). So not only did the SUVs create a higher economic dependence on foreign oil sources, they also assisted in making it more difficult to breathe.

All that said, it can be argued the American automakers were simply delivering a product the public wants - regardless of whether it was good for them or not <grin>.

UTpiper

 

I have had more VW's then TOYOTA'S but that number is changing. I am more in favor of a a FORWARD thinking automaker then a REAR facing one.