The Global Journal of Business and Economics A NIU Online ... · 9/15/2017 · Group, built-in-quality, BIQ, continuous improvement, control plans, Deming, Shewhart- Deming cycle,

Elements of Quality in Automobile Supply Chains: A Shewhart-Deming Cycle View P. 1

The GJBE (http://novainteru.com/niu-journals), Volume 2, Issue 1 (September 2017) P. 1

Elements of Quality in Automobile Supply Chains: A Shewhart-Deming Cycle View

Gregoire Nleme

Novays Consulting and Doctorate of Business Administration candidate at Walden University

Email address [email protected]

September 15, 2017

Abstract

There are few pieces of literature explaining processes that assure quality through the

whole automobile supply chain from design through the suppliers, the warehouses,

transportation, and vehicle operations. There is little literature that proposes how and why

managers should use the Shewhart-Deming cycle framework Plan Do Check Act (PDCA) to

improve and sustain quality throughout the automobile supply chain. In this paper, I am first

describing how automobile manufacturers and suppliers plan for and assure quality throughout

their supply chains. I propose a Shewhart-Deming cycle framework for controlling and

improving quality in automobile supply chains at the suppliers, in product development, at

transportation and warehouse vendors, and in vehicle operations. I give many examples of

current drivers and barriers to good quality in supply chains and I give empirical examples that

illustrate how using the Shewhart-Deming cycle Framework can help managers control or

improve quality. I also propose further research.

Key Words

Advanced product quality planning, APQP, audit, automobile, Automobile Industry Action

Group, built-in-quality, BIQ, continuous improvement, control plans, Deming, Shewhart-

Deming cycle, design, design changes, design reviews, design verification, discontinuity,

discontinuities, empowerment, FMEA, framework, inspections, managers, Plan Do Check Act,

PDCA, process re-engineering, production part approval process, PPAP, product development,

production, product and process validation, recalls, reviews, Shewhart, suppliers, transportation,

warehouse, transportation.

The Global Journal of Business and Economics

A NIU Online journal



Elements of Quality in Automobile Supply Chains: A Shewhart-Deming Cycle View

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to examine the use of Shewhart-Deming cycles to plan, control,

and improve quality in automobile supply chains (Best & Neuhauser, 2006; Moen & Norman,

2006). I will first present how managers plan for and control quality throughout the automobile

supply chain, clarifying the product design phase, the manufacturing process phase, the assurance

of quality at suppliers’ operations , and the assurance of quality in the warehouse and logistic

vendors’ processes. I will give more details on the mechanisms of assembly defects throughout the

vehicle assembly lines and potential solutions to such defects. I will then present a Shewhart-

Deming cycle framework for each of the supply chain stages that I just described and I will present

empirical examples that support how the Shewhart-Deming cycle framework can help improve and

assure quality in automobile supply chains. Existing literature will support the rationale where it is

necessary.

The question being asked in this paper is to explain how managers can use a Shewhart- Deming

cycle to assure and improve the quality performance throughout their automobile supply chain. A

Shewhart-Deming cycle here means the management cycle PDCA initially developed by Shewhart

(Best & Neuhauser, 2006; Henry, 2007; Moen & Norman, 2006). Deming after working with Shewhart

went to Japan in the 1950s where he trained Japanese companies in his quality philosophy which

fundamental component was the PDCA cycle. Managers plan for their business processes, have their

team implement the processes, assess the progress toward the objective, when they have evidences of

variations, the resolve variations and adjust their processes or product design.

The quality of an automobile manufacturer’s supply chain is arguably a relevant determinant of

the automobile manufacturer performance (Henry, 2007; Johnson; 2004; Trent & Montzca, 1999).

Suppliers, logistic vendors, automobile manufacturers, dealerships, and research partners all belong to

the supply network. They all need to perform at a higher level for the automobile manufacturer to sell

vehicles that customers want at an acceptable price per value offered. Attributes such as quality, power,

fuel efficiency, and comfort constitute the determinants of value for the customers. Of those attributes,

quality is probably the one which is the most positively correlated to an automobile manufacturer’s

brand equity (Henry, 2007).

Initial quality and long term dependability constitute the three quality metrics the most used in the

industry (Consumer Report, n. d; Power, n. d). Two firms are the most trusted quality rating companies

for the automobile manufacturers: Consumers Reports, and JD Powers and Associates (Consumer

Report, n. d; Power, n. d). Those companies offer quality ratings for automobile manufacturers’ new

and used vehicles. The quality ratings and the customers’ experiences spread by words of mouth

enable the pubic to recognize good quality brands versus the poor quality brands. Quality has enabled

Toyota to be recognized as one of the strongest brands for the last previous two decades. PDCA had

enabled Toyota to produce vehicles with superior quality and dependability (Henry, 2007; Sobek II &

Smalley, 2008).

However, the quality recalls of 2010 have brought Toyota to review its processes

(Bandyopadhyay, 2010; International Business Times, 2010; Minhyung, 2010; New York Time, 2011).

One can therefore ask the following question: Why did PDCA not work? Recently in 2013 and 2014,

automobile suppliers and manufacturers have experienced quality recalls (Bloomberg News, 2014).

Many of the recalls have involved components that suppliers

manufactured and that the automobile manufacturers assembled such as airbags, switches, or power

steering components (International Business Times, 2014; New York Times, 2014). The current review

of quality in automobile supply chains and the proposed Shewhart-Deming Cycle framework may help

understand the drivers of poor quality in automobile supply chains. The Shewhart-Deming Cycle

framework should also enable a better communication and use of feedback to the teams and managers

who can help resolve variations, prevent re-occurrence, and adjust current processes and current



product design. The PDCA cycle is equivalent to the Plan Do Study Act (PDSA), Walter Shewhart

initial’s definition of the cycle in which the Study step is identical to the Check step (Best &

Neuhausser, 2006; Mauleon & Bergman, 2009; Moen & Norman, 2006; Stauffer, 2003). In the

remaining lines of this paper, I will use the term PDCA instead of PDSA.

1. Defining the Automobile Supply Chain Quality

Tan (2001) defined supply chain management as the management of links among each element

of the manufacturing and supply system from raw material to the end user. Wisner and Tan (2000, p 33)

claimed that manufacturers often used supply chain management to describe the integration and

collaborative actions led by manufacturers with first and second-tier suppliers to reduce costs, improve

quality, and delivery. In this paper, I will consider second-tier suppliers also called tier-two automobile

suppliers and first tier automobile suppliers also called tier-one suppliers. I will consider the

manufacturer’s vehicle assembly plants to be the vehicle

manufacturer’s manufacturing locations. I will consider powertrain assembly plants made of engine

plants and transmission plants to be internal tier-one suppliers, and casting plants or forging plants to be

tier-two internal suppliers. I will also consider stamping plants to be internal

tier-one suppliers to the vehicles assembly plants. Figure 1 illustrates the general configuration

of the automobile supply chain.

Figure 1. Automobile Supply chain

2. Quality in Design

2.1 Design Requirements

There are many workgroups or work stations affect the quality of the components,

modules, and vehicle-in-process in an automobile assembly line. From the earlier years of the

automobile assembly, quality has been critically important as a requirement from the

manufacturer towards its suppliers (Ford, 1926). Today automobile manufacturers and their

suppliers need to work together to maximize value, minimize risks, remain adaptive, and

continuously improve (Chopra & Sodhi, 2004; Lee, 2004; Liao & Hong, 2007; Liker & Choi,

2004). For an automobile to be of superior quality, all the components have to be of a high

quality level, all the systems have to be of good quality. As engineers integrate components to

systems and to the whole vehicles, the relationships at the interfaces have to be conforming to

the specifications so that fits and functions are as expected per design specifications.



Quality starts from the design specifications per the Shewhart’s cycle of specification-

production- inspection, the initial cycle that evolved into PDSA the equivalent of the Shewhart-

Deming cycle PDCA (Moen & Norman, 2006). Specifications have to represent agreed upon

knowledge added to the experiences of customers and engineers throughout the field.

Manufacturers and suppliers may use Quality Function Deployment (QFD) to capture customers’ wants

and translate them into design specification (Ginn, Jones, Rahnejat, & Zairi, 1998). They may also use

Six Sigma (Bandyopadhyay & Jenicke, 2007). Thus, the steel sheets used for stamping are different

from the steel used for the axle or for the disc brakes and should comply with specific requirements.

Heat treating components to relieve inner stresses through annealing (the steel is left in the oven at a

constant temperature and then cool to room temperature) or quenching in a bath of oil to make the steel

more ductile or harder depending on its function in service are examples of processes that directly affect

the use of the components in service.

Similarly, a chemical treatment is necessary to make the steel resistant to oxidation so that it

resists to rusting in service. Paint has to adhere enough to plastics or steel so it does not peel off in

service. Another example of an end use requirement in terms of specifications is on the engine. The cap

of the oil reservoir has to be sealed strongly enough so that in service, it does not get opened while the

vehicle goes through bumps. Another good example is on the wheels.

Engineers must design the nuts and bolts so that while in service, the wheels do not fall off even though

the vehicle is driven for several hundred thousand miles. Finally, airbags are supposed to engage in

case a vehicle hits a target at 30 miles or more per hour, protecting the driver or the passenger from

having their head hits the steering wheel or the instrument panel and being killed. The extended list of

examples that I gave above illustrates the importance of design requirements as meaningful

requirements for many drivers and vehicle occupants, and for the public.

To translate those requirements into engineering specifications, teams of engineers from the

suppliers and the automobile manufacturers meet to agree upon the specifications and their

implications to the supplier’s processes, cost per unit, and to the manufacturer’s manufacturing

processes. It is the beginning of the collaboration between a supplier and the manufacturer in order to

design a component or a system and the collaboration between design engineering and manufacturing

to make sure that the future components, manufacturing processes, and manufacturing equipment fit

the vehicle being designed, and that vehicle and system design specification are met upon assembly.

Collaboration between the suppliers and the manufacturer is necessary because it improves the quality

of the vehicles and reduces product development time (Tae-Hoon, 2007).

2.2 Verification of the Quality in Design through Testing and Computer Simulation

In order to verify the quality of the design, there are several methods that design engineers use.

First the engineers describe the design on a drawing which may be computerized or not. A critical

verification is the compliance to the interfaces that is done on a computer using computer-aided design

interface verification software. This step also includes verification of fit among different components.

For instance, engineers must ensure that hoses, the engine, and different reservoirs all fit inside the

engine compartment with no or minimum contact before completing the last prototypes of all the

components that the production operators will assemble inside the engine compartment.

Engineers also need to verify the resistance to efforts and crash through computer aid design,

using linear final element simulation, displacement simulation, and plastic deformation simulation.

Computer simulated verification helps reduce the number of prototypes for testing and the number of

destructive tests. Tests can be destructive or not. Destructive tests are costlier than non destructive tests

because each test specimen costs money. Engineers must also run functional tests and durability tests.

In functional testing, engineers and technicians verify the functions of the system. They can for

instance verify the function of an airbag or that of a headlamp. It is better for the supplier to ship the

components and sub-assemblies being sure that they will function properly as designed. The test can

also be a durability test in which testers submit subsystems of the vehicle or entire vehicles to loads that



represent hundred thousand of cycles. The cycles often represent durations greater than the expected

life of the vehicle. Automobile manufacturers run many of the tests to comply with federal regulations.

Many of the federal regulations are safety requirements.

The supplier must perform tests on components and subsystems as agreed upon with the

manufacturer while the automobile manufacturer’s engineering teams must run other tests.

Trained professionals perform other inspections visually, for fit or appearance. The set of all the tests

that verify a good design constitutes what is called design verification and readers may find some

explanations in the AIAG’s advanced product quality planning (APQP) manual (AIAG, n. d.; Thisse,

1998). Unfortunately, a product can be of a good design and when manufactured it may not comply

with the intent of the design. The process of approving that the product being manufactured complies

with design specification is called product and process validation.

2.3 Product and Process Validations

Product and process validations are done in sequential phases initially using prototypes and later

using earlier units build during the launch period. Initially, the manufacturers build earlier prototypes in

a non production environment, with components that are not certified for production and using non

production tools. Engineers and technicians test those prototypes for function and for resistance. With

the use of computer aided simulation, the number of prototypes can be reduced. After each built phase,

there is a review of the quality of the design with respect to function, appearance, resistance, and

manufacturability. The last built phases use production approved parts and production tools. Upon those

last phases, design engineers and production professionals detect potential earlier production quality

concerns such as misfits, and difficult assemblies, and continuously review quality followed by

feedbacks to suppliers, vendors, and other functional groups such as manufacturing engineering,

material engineering, design engineering, and industrial engineering. Typically, continuous corrective

actions enable improvement toward the targeted quality and cycle times and a vehicle may not reach its

expected quality level without quality parts from suppliers (Curcokvic, Vickery, & Droge, 1999).

2.4. Planning for Supplier Quality

To make sure that all the suppliers comply with quality requirements agreed upon by experts

from the larger automobile manufacturers from the USA, the Big Three automobile manufacturers

(Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motor) defined under an organization called the

Automobile Industry Action Group (AIAG, n. d.), located in Southfield, Michigan, the APQP manual

which listed and still lists the requirements in terms of processes

for the suppliers to plan for an acceptable product quality. Thisse (1998) lists the five phases of

APQP:

Phase 1) Planning and defining the product quality requirements using customers’ needs and

expectations,

Phase 2) Product design and development for design features and for characteristics, Phase

3) Process design and development,

Phase 4) Product and process validation,

Phase 5) Feedback assessment and corrective actions

The AIAG’s APQP manual includes the five phases that I just listed (AIAG, n. d.). The manual defines

how suppliers working mutually with the manufacturer on the design of the components must complete

actions that ensure the manufacturing and delivery of quality products to the manufacturer. To ensure

quality, a supplier must create several control plans.

A control plan defines measurements, tests, sample sizes, frequencies, and reaction plans to be

done in order to make sure that products that workers manufacture following a given process are of good

quality. There are prototype control plans, pre-launch control plans, and production control plans. In

order to create a control plan, the engineers and other personnel of interest (material, quality,

manufacturing, production, program management), working in teams, must first complete a design



failure mode and effect analysis (DFMEA) that they will use as an input for the three control plans that I

just defined above. The supplier’s designs team must define the planned process flow diagram and then

go through each of the manufacturing, test, and inspection processes. For the Production control plan, a

program team must complete a process failure mode and effect analysis (PFMEA), and if needed for

important equipment used in production, another team must complete an equipment failure mode and

effect analysis (EFMEA).

A failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) is a table that lists failure modes for a product or

process and their occurrences, the effects of such failure modes and their severity; and the detection

methods and ease to detect the effects of such failure modes. AIAG has developed guidelines for

completing FMEAs and there are more current editions of the guidelines that customers may order from

AIG (AIAG, 1996). Quality professionals usually label the occurrence O, the severity S, and the

detection D. The value of those numbers ranks from 1 to 10, 10 being respectively the most frequent,

the most severe, and the most difficult to detect.

Once the working team agrees on O, S, and D, a team member can then compute the product of

those numbers. Quality professionals call the product of those numbers the risk priority (RPN) number:

RPN = O x S x D

For the design team, the strategy for maximum quality is to define corrective actions or reaction

plans for RPN greater than a given number for instance 64 (4 x 4 x 4). FMEAs are critical to good

product design and good product quality but often managers or engineers may take them for granted

and complete FMEAs too fast without taking into account the objectivity and rigor required. When

under pressure to release documents to a manufacturer, one or two engineers may complete a DFMEA

even though the right process is to complete a DFMEA in a cross-functional team made of engineers of

various experiences, material experts, process experts, and manufacturing experts. The team must also

follow the guidelines for assigning O, S, and D ratings (AIAG, 1996, n. d.; Teng, Ho, & Shumar, 2006).

A supplier’s team may tend to assign lower ratings to make the manufacturer easily

approve their APQP program. For that reason, managers of suppliers’ team responsible for

design, automobile manufacturers’ supplier quality engineers, and design release engineers need to

show the highest level of professionalism, objectivity, and integrity. The prevention of quality recalls

starts with the completion of DFMEAs, PFMEAs, EFMEAs, and control plans that are thorough and

rigorous. The documents that I just mentioned need to be thorough and representative of the lived work-

in-process in supplier’s manufacturing operations and in vehicle assembly operations. The documents

must also represent the customer’s experiences, taking into account past experiences, current trends,

and judgments by respected experts.

DFMEAs, PFMEAs, process flow diagrams, and control plans are living documents.

Engineering teams need to update them every time they receive feedback on the product from

testing, inspection, difficulties, or concerns in the manufacturing operations, or in the form of

customer complaints.

A critical step within the APQP process is the Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) which

is the process of approving samples of prototype parts made using the program production processes.

The PPAP encompasses the last verification and validation from prototypes through production. PPAP

samples represent production parts and are conforming to the design intent under normal production

conditions. Once the manufacturer approves part for PPAP, there is usually a document signed off by

the supplier’s engineer, manager, or designee and the Vehicle manufacturer’s supplier quality engineers,

managers, or designees called the part submission warrant.

An important consideration for external tier-one suppliers is their compliance to ISO 9000

technical specifications TS 16949. From 1994 to the mid 2000s, the Big Three mandated QS9000, a set

of quality requirements, to their suppliers. QS 9000 certification ensured that the suppliers follow a

system approach to planning and controlling quality and were subject to regular audits of their quality

system (Corbett, 2006; Johnson, 2002). Quality system here means the set of all the processes that are

formal and written and that describe the way the business is done (Corbett, 2006; Johnson, 2002;



Romano, 2002). Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company and General Motors Company required their

suppliers to be QS 9000 certified until the mid 2000s (Corbett, 2006; Liu, 2009), but agreed that after

2008, those requirements would become equivalent to ISO TS 16949. TS 16949 and PPAP manuals are

requirement manuals while the APQP manual is a reference manual (AIAG), other reference manuals

are the Statistical Process Control Manual, the Measurement System Analysis Manual (MSA), and the

FMEA manual. Automobile quality professionals can order those manual from the AIAG located in

Southfield, Michigan (AIAG, n. d.).

Automobile suppliers need to use those manuals in order to make sure that their manufacturing

operations comply with the best practices for planning for product quality in design and in production.

Thisse (1998) and AIAG (1996, n. d.) listed TS 16949 requirements. More, the TS 16949 reference

manual, the AIAG’s PPAP manual, and other AIAG’s reference manuals list all the requirements and

guidelines necessary for implementing APQP (Liu, 2009). Thisse (1998) noted that APQP when

effectively implemented is good for business for the following reasons: It promotes system thinking on

processes from design to production, fosters teamwork through kaizen events such as those needed to

create a cross-function based FMEA; and drives prevention, objective corrective actions, ownership of

issues, and continuous improvement.

In order to continuously improve in product development, the manufacturer’s leadership has to

define continuous improvement on safety, cost, and quality, as a core trait of the business culture and as

a business capability. By safety, I mean the safety systems that protect the drivers and other occupants

of the vehicles as well as drivers of other vehicles on the road. Safety, cost, and quality mean value to

the customers. Management commitment to continuous improvement and prevention of defects in

design is a requirement in product development systems of type Toyota Product Development System

(Liker & Morgan, 2011). People competency development and empowerment is also a perquisite for

nurturing a culture that prevents quality defects in design (Johnson, 2004). Finally, when used

throughout design and when combined with tests, and simulations, Design for Six Sigma may enable

the design of products with tolerances and specifications at a Six Sigma quality level upon production.

The effectiveness of the processes I have just described depends on the people who implement,

manage, and oversee those processes communicate the vision for quality and lead toward the execution

of the quality plan (Johnson, 2004). If engineers, technicians, and managers do not receive the proper

training and resources or if their behaviors do not comply with the need for objectivity, integrity, and

professionalism at all time, the design may not be robust. More, if managers are not reviewing design

actions or do not define transparent, standardized, and objective reviews there may still be flaws in

design. Managers need to empower their people so they can themselves improve processes (Cleary,

1995; Johnson, 2004). Thus, senior managers may take the following actions:

1) Allocate enough resources to properly train and develop product development

personnel with an emphasis on ethics, leadership behavior, and effective cross-

functional communication.

2) Allocate enough resources for technologies that enable robust and fast designs such as

computer driven simulations for instance for crash, plastic, and elastic efforts; and for

electrical functions.

3) Allocate enough resources for efficient testing and enough resources for collaborating with

and developing suppliers using where needed front loading which is the earlier collaboration

at the start of the program or postponement which is collaboration in later stages of the

programs (Binder, Gust, & Clegg, 2008)

4) Control APQP processes and testing in all suppliers’ sites and manufacturing design sites

using a Shewhart-Deming circle process PDCA.

5) Focus on controlling supplier discontinuities to minimize risk, automobile manufacturers

may source the same components (perhaps for different vehicle models) to different

suppliers; the goal here being to have those different suppliers follow the best and same

quality control processes and PDCA as well



Until now, I have discussed design quality and the planning of product quality, usually done by

suppliers with the collaboration and assistance of the manufacturer’s designers, engineers, and supplier

quality personnel. Even when the extended design team has followed all design control processes and

had ensured a robust design, the manufacturer may still produce vehicles with unwanted defects that

may lead to quality recalls if the program team has not

planned for quality in production and if the production team does not define or follow processes that

ensure in-process quality. In the next subsection, I will discuss quality in production.

3. Quality in Production

The processes that drive quality in production are similar for tier 1 and tier 2 suppliers and to

some extent for the manufacturer’s production facility. The Big Three automobile

manufacturers require their first tier suppliers to be TS 16949 compliant. For that for reason, tier-one

suppliers usually have control plans for their manufacturing processes. Managers need to make sure that

their teams update control plans after engineering changes, after process and equipment changes, and

whenever the DFMEA or the PFMEA change. Even after engineers or specialists have updated

documents, production workers may not follow the sampling and frequencies of tests and inspection. It

is the responsibility of the leadership team at the supplier’s manufacturing location and at the

manufacturer’s vehicle operation to enforce compliance to prescribed processes.

For some automobile manufacturers’ assembly lines may not have control plans immediately

available for their production workers in a format similar to that of their suppliers, but rather work

instructions and procedure. In the work instruction, the specialists who wrote the work instruction may

include a description of the inspection methods, specifications, and frequencies in different forms

computerized or on hard copies. The absence of a unique form that includes all control methods,

locations, and frequencies may not help the workforce easily verify standards when needed, delaying an

opportunity for improvement. Even when process experts have defined all complete control plans,

prescribed processes may be flawed, thus managers and workers need to have a mindset improvement.

3.1. Ensuring Quality in Process Design

Preferably, quality should be built in the processes during design. For continuous process

manufacturing, managers must make sure that there is a monitoring systems for the equipment, the

atmosphere, chemical, temperature, other input materials, and other significant process parameters. In

that case the process team can easily adjust the process to control the significant parameters, and

production personnel can alert troubleshooting personnel whenever the process goes out of control.

Everything else done properly, the manufacturing team has to perform equipment maintenance

effectively with an emphasis on prevention. Again, here compliance depends on the commitment level

and training level of the leadership and manufacturing professionals.

For assembly manufacturing at a supplier location or at the vehicle assembly location,

process teams can mistake proof individual manufacturing operations using Poke Yoke.

Production supervisors or manufacturing leaders must still complete scheduled audits on the

effectiveness of the Poke Yoke with timely and documented adjustments when needed (per PDCA).

However, not all the individual manufacturing operations can be mistake or error proof. Managers

cannot rely on downstream inspection to ensure quality. For assembly operations, it is better for work-

in-process to move further without defects. A solution that can improve quality for operations that do

not have mistake proof or error proof devices is a combination of build-in- quality checks, visual

management, and standardized processes.

3.2. The importance of build in quality checks (BIQ)

BIQ checks are successive inspections often visual or tactile that production workers may

perform besides their assembly work. When there is no mistake proving device, it is necessary that the

defects do not travel from one workstation to the other. If chained build-in-quality checks are used



where the next operator verifies the significant to quality elements of the previous operations, the

operators after a while reach a state of work harmony where they stop all the defects no further than at

the next workstations. Operators stop the line in very short intervals and the number of stops becomes

minimal. BIQ checks appear intuitively easy but in practice they are not for several reasons.

When there is a labor union in the manufacturing location, the production workforce and the

company have to follow contractual agreements. The agreements may impose separation between

inspection labor and assembly labor. In such a case, the contract may prohibit an assembly operator

from inspecting work-in-process coming from operations set upstream. Even when there is no union or

when the union agrees for the presence of BIQ checks in the manufacturing operation, there may still be

barriers to quality improvement using BIQ checks. A common one is the negation of management to

include inspection in work instructions for a common reason which is that inspection cannot stop

defects from occurring.

However even an inspector who only catches 85% of the defects may help improve quality

sizably. Let assume that a job is newly designed and the operator are still working through their

learning curve releasing one percent of defects (1%). If the line produces one thousand vehicles per day,

there will be ten defects out of the work station per day, If the operator next to the workstation catches

eighty five percent of defects, there will be only two defects leaving the work-workstations More

because the line stop immediately eight times out of

ten when the defects occur, the operator doing the job gets more emphasis on the attention needed to

perform the assembly without the defect, Hence BIQ checks help improve the learning curve.

The absence of visual management relying on good work instructions and visual aids describing

where, when, and how workers should assemble the parts or perform inspect checks, is a deterrent to

the effectiveness of BIQ checks and to the control of quality at the workstation in general. Incomplete

or insufficient training leads to workers not buying completely into in- process-quality control which

may lead to higher variations in the completion of BIQ checks. In order to have effective BIQ checks

and effective in-process quality control, the workforce needs to apply standardized work where the

easiest and best steps for completing the work are the standards for all regular workers, rotating

workers, or relief workers on a given job. When the standards change, managers must ensure that that

the workers document changes in the work instructions and in eventual visual aids. Manufacturing

personnel may document refinements and descriptions of the specific steps for ensuring quality in

subsets of the work instructions which are critical element instructions. I will give another mathematical

proof of the advantage of BIQ checks in the next paragraph.

A solution to the union resistance to BIQ checks is for management to make the business case

for build in quality check and then convince the union that its members and the company will all

benefit from BIQ checks. Let us suppose that there are 10 successive workstations each having a

critical to quality characteristic not controlled by a mistake proofing device. Assuming that managers

assign each operator to visually verify the element themselves with a close-the- loop inspection, and

then ask for the next operation to verify the element from the previous operations, the later one is a BIQ

checks. The close-the-loop inspection is an element of the current operator’s work. The next nine BIQ

checks are inspection operations assigned to each worker.

Assuming that each operator can make one mistake over 1000 assemblies (1000 per million),

there will be a risk of 10 defects for every 1000 vehicles made from the 10 operations. Let assume that

with a B.I.Q check, each next operator can catch such defects 9 times out of 10, then for the nine jobs

after the first one there will be a risk of 0.1 defects passing out of 1000 assemblies (1-0.9 = 0.1. and 0.1

x 0.001 =0.0001). With BIQ, the number of defects that can leave the workstation is 1.9 out of 1000 (9

x 0.1 + 1). With BIQ, the workers have reduced the number of potential defects by 81% from 10 to 1.9

over 1000.

With 100 jobs that have one defects passing out of 100 assemblies and that the operators perform

a closed-loop inspections themselves, then the combined rate of defects for the two adjacent

workstations become one defect per 10,000 assemblies. if the second operator inspects the critical to



quality elements coming out of the first workstation and catches 98 defects out of 100, then the first

workstation will release two defects per million (1-0.98 = 0.02 and 0.02 x 0,0001=0.000002). In this

case, with BIQ checks, there will be two defects per million. The first job, a manual assembly has just

improved its quality level from one defect per 100 to two defects per million (better than a Six Sigma

level quality which is at 3.4 defects per million) using BIQ checks and without any mistake proofing

device.

The examples above are fundamental examples of alternatives to standard Andon processes

where the operators have to stop the line completely. I am not claiming that BIQ checks are better

than Andon but that BIQ checks combined with work-group problem solving

gives an alternative that works as well as the standard Andon while giving all the workers the

opportunity to pay attention to the vehicle in process and to, in a medium to long run, stop the line

less, improving productivity and quality simultaneously. Hence BIQ checks enforce ownership of

quality by the workers, a behavior needed to drive continuous improvement (Cleary, 1995).

3.3. Beyond BIQs. Standardization and In-Process Quality Control

Quality defects may cause line stoppages, repairs, and retests. Sometime, they may force

managers to cancel a whole vehicle and rebuild a unit. When a quality issue occurs, it is better to stop

the line, acknowledge the issue as critical, define a containment action, verify the effectiveness of the

containment action, and set-up a team to resolve the problem. Operators must be able to detect quality

issues, communicate them to their work group leaders and to management, so they can altogether

resolve the issues. Management can provide resources and coaching but should always keep in mind

that it is better to have the workforce involved in problem solving. Managers need to also make sure

that there are no hidden issues that are off any formal record, clearly there should be continuous efforts

to have no hidden factory.

Managers must ensure that they monitor occurrences of in-process quality defects in order to be

able to identify areas needing quality improvements. Managers must also monitor the cost of quality

and the cost savings from problem solving actions in order to link quality actions to monetary amounts.

Managers can then use defects and cost figures to request resources from senior management, to rally

the workforce on a focus on quality, and to congratulate the workforce when there is a meaningful

quality improvement or reduction in the cost of poor Discontinuities in Manpower Assigned to Jobs.

An effective process for protecting product quality is the process for controlling discontinuities

for operators that are assigned to jobs. Discontinuities occur during planned leaves (lunch and planed

breaks) and unplanned leaves (when an operator suddenly gets ill or just decides to leave for an

emergency). In those instances, a utility operator or two not fully trained operators may do a job

normally assigned to one operator, and defects in those cases will more likely leave the work station.

However if chained BIQ checks are used, operators may detect the defects immediately.

The other instances of discontinuities occur at the beginning of the shift when workers arrive late

or are absent; or when there is a major breakdown which is a typical case where operators may lose their

work cadence, becoming more subject to distraction, which may lead to defects. If two not fully trained

workers do a one-person job, more defects may again leave the workstation. A common example of

mechanism of defects may occur when operators come back from breaks and start working on a work-

in-process vehicle behind the vehicle they were supposed to work on after break, in that case incomplete

assemblies on missed assemblies may occur. A solution to such defects is to verify a few processes

around the operation when a different operator starts the job and when the regular operator on the job

starts working again after breaks. Flagging of the last vehicle that the operator worked on before break

is also a potential solution. All the solutions that I have hinted on this subsection require the

involvement and ownership of the process by workers otherwise the operation may not realize all the

benefits from the solutions that I just described.

3.4 Discontinuities in Equipment Functions



Another type of discontinuity is that of equipment that stops working after a breakdown. For assembly

operations, technicians or leaders must replace torque guns periodically. In a lean manufacturing

process, the need for efficiency requires quick-change-over where qualified technicians have already

calibrated replacement torque guns, and verified them for proper function. When replacing torque guns,

it is critical to verify a meaningful number of assemblies for torque and angle. A sample size of 30 jobs

is an acceptable for statistical significance with a calibrated torque reader. For adaptive controlled guns,

which are guns that are mistake proof by mean of programmable logic controllers, a smaller sample size

(five to ten) may be enough for verifying that the program and the mechanical function are both still

effective.

3.5 Operator versatility

Training of operators is critical because it helps increase operator versatility. Having at least five

employees trained for each job helps reduce the chance of having two not fully trained operators

assigned to a job initially designed for one person. Seemingly, having an agreed upon plan for job

rotations for the workforce within a working group instead of job classification helps maintain

versatility at the highest level. Managers must clearly define the processes that ensure product quality

and have all workers fully trained on those processes. The experience has shown that suppliers may

have more flexible work classifications than vehicle manufacturers. Hence, it is probably easier to train

workers at supplier plants and to implement build-in-quality-checks at those plants. However, because

of the urgency of global competition, automobile manufacturers’ executives must work with the

organized union when there is one, to make the workforce follow processes that ensure superior quality

without the limitations that may occur because of job classification.

3.6 Problem solving

Managers also recognize the need for problem solving, and with a commitment to lean

principles, they need to involve workers in problem solving (Rahman, Laosirihongthong, & Sohal,

2010; Shah & Ward, 2007). Kaizen events or small groups meetings must include production workers,

workers from several supporting groups, and if possible supplier representatives. Cross-functional

teams made of engineering, production, suppliers, and quality professionals may work together to

resolve the most critical quality concerns. Using communication technology, managers may use live

video conferences, or voice conferences to run meetings that involve teams spread across different

cities worldwide.

Managers have the discretion to select a problem solving technique of their choice. Such choice

is normally strategic, thus managers should ensure that the technique they choose fits the company’s

culture and other processes. For instance, General Motors uses Shining problem solving and lean

techniques, BMW and Ford use Six Sigma and lean techniques, Toyota relies more on lean techniques

such as 5 whys, management by walk-around, Go-see, and Kaizen events. Typically, if managers use

statistical techniques then 8D problem solving, Shainin problem solving, and Six Sigma become

equivalent.

Unlike Six Sigma and Shainin problem solving, the 8D problem solving approach and similar

techniques do not explicitly have a link to statistics. Most problem solving techniques such as Six

Sigma, Shainin problem solving, and 8D techniques include lean techniques such as 5 Whys, and

Fishbone diagrams also called Ishikawa diagrams. However, because Six Sigma and Shanin problem

solving prescribe statistical techniques in their processes, workers who get trained in those techniques

become knowledgeable in applied statistics, which is an enabler of

continuous improvement (Stauffer, 2003). The major advantage of statistics is that it helps define root

causes and solutions based on scientific evidences, a major capability according one of the pioneer or

modern quality control, Walter Shewhart (Stauffer, 2003). Thus, if problem solvers use statistics to

determine a root cause and a solution to a problem, then after implementing the solution, there will be

less likelihood of reoccurrence of the defect mechanisms that led to the defect.



3.7 Closing the Loop - PDCA

In assembly operations and in manufacturing operation in general, managers need to have in

mind that they are dealing with systems of people, material, equipment, and processes that are explicitly

written or tacit (not written but informally known by people). The goals of managers with respect to

quality are to 1) make sure that processes that affect quality are explicit and formally written, 2) to

make sure that people follow explicit processes a prescribed, and 3) to make sure that every worker

follows leadership behaviors that protect product quality, typically: integrity, teamwork, ownership, and

compliance to business processes. Just because an operation has well written work instructions,

procedures, visual aids, and supposedly trained workers as recorded in versatility matrix does not mean

that people follow the written processes. It is necessary to verify that people are doing what they have

been trained for and assigned to do. Managers and all workers need to understand that reviewing people

work is a process that cannot be compromised or neglected.

I have always been amazed by the number of manufacturing operations that have many well

written processes complying with lean manufacturing principles but for which managers are often

surprised by the fact that people do not follow the processes. The Shewhart-Deming Cycle

PDCA is critical because many variables may change hourly, daily or sometime in any processes.

Thus, processes may therefore need adjustments, elimination, and renewal. Even for problem solving

projects that have been completed and approved using Six Sigma, Shainin problem solving, 8D

analysis, or any other problem solving method; managers must still verify the effectiveness of the

solution. Managers need to make sure that when the leaders of the problem solving project leave the

operation, the remaining workers still implement the solutions to the problem. The workforce needs to

sustain problem solving over time, and in this case managers should assign workers to perform planned

audits and reviews; and associated corrective actions, thus the Shewhart-Deming cycle PDCA still

applies:

Plan: Train workers relying on work instructions, specifications, and other standards

Do: Let the worker do the jobs

Check: Verify the work done and the quality of the product coming out of it (end users’

feedback as customer complaints included).

Act: Help workers identify needed adjustments or improvements to the standards and

implement as needed.

More, managers must review work without blaming workers. After managers plan for work with

the initial work instruction, operators will learn the job and identify themselves factors that may make

the job easier for most workers. Operators may suggest adjusting some steps and for that reasons

managers need to have open minds that objectively assess workers’ ideas as a prerequisite for

continuous improvement. People have different physiologies and anatomies and for that reason, they

may learn the same job at different speed, hence flexibility in actions and decision making is a

requirement for good manufacturing supervisors and managers.

The senior managers of the manufacturing facility must make sure that managers and

supervisors follow PDCA all the time otherwise managers and the workforce cannot sustain the

manufacturing of vehicles with a high quality level. Again the workforce needs to follow the PDCA

process with a clear understanding of its positive impact on recall prevention. A daily meeting can be

useful for addressing warranty and other defects that occur in service, and that customers and dealers

feed back to the manufacturers.

Finally, managers must tract quality defects that violate government regulations and record

resolutions to such problems for traceability and replication in other manufacturer-owned facilities.

Recording occurrences of and solutions to defects helps reduce the cost of future campaigns in case of a

recall or a detection of such defects at the dealership or in service by customers. The best level of

urgency for preventing recalls is to treat each occurrence of governmental regulated defects and high

severity defects as a recall; and review the whole process from the supplier to the dealer in order to



understand what went wrong, and eventually implement corrective actions. Cross-functional teams

made of engineering, production, suppliers, and quality professionals should work together to resolve

the most critical quality concerns. Again keep a log of lesson learned which include solution to critical

to safety defects for replication complies with the necessity share knowledge throughout the supply

chain in order to optimize the rate of quality improvement (Myers & Cheung, 2008).

4. Improving Supplier Quality

As for the manufacturers, suppliers follow their product development and production control

plans to ensure optimal quality for supplied products. Suppliers need to perform control plan audits.

Tier-one suppliers use both incoming inspections and outgoing inspections; and

planned audits at tier-two suppliers to verify the quality of products purchased from tier-two

suppliers and to ensure that the products shipped to the automobile manufacturers are of the highest

quality level. Suppliers should certify their outgoing stock. They can certify the stock using

temporary workers to reduce costs but the suppliers will still have to properly train temporary

workers.

When needed, inspectors may use acceptance sampling following the Military rules or other

approved rules. An example of rule is to check 45 to 50 parts out of a lot of 500 if the automobile

manufacturer believes that the lot is suspect. As production workers assemble incoming parts, they may

notice defects and then reject defective parts. Managers need to monitor occurrences of scraps and their

costs and include scrap reviews in a planned lean Go See walk-around throughout the physical

operation. Those occurrences of incoming defects need to be communicated to the supplier as soon as

possible preferably the same day. With the existence of high resolution information technologies, the

manufacturers may send videos and images of the defective conditions or mechanisms to the suppliers

wherever they are located worldwide.

Suppliers may resolve the quality issue using lean manufacturing techniques such as Kaizen, Jidoka,

Five Whys, and Six Sigma (Bandyopadhyay and Jenicke, 2007). Suppliers may also use 8D analysis,

Shainin problem solving, or any other problem solving method.

I have already made some important remarks on APQP, problem solving, and production

quality control in the previous subsection and those remarks are still applicable for suppliers.

Automobile manufacturers must assist their-one suppliers to continuously improve quality and

maintain an acceptable quality level. They can do so trough quality audits, training, and

involvement in problem solving, knowledge sharing, and teamwork in product development. Again

here the Shewhart-Deming cycle, PDCA, still applies:

Plan: The manufacturer work with the tier-one supplier to agree on control plans for

quality,

Do: Suppliers manufacture components or modules and ship them to the automobile

manufacturer. The manufacturer assembles components and modules. The manufacturer sells vehicles

to dealerships and fleet services. Dealership and fleet services sell or rent vehicles to en use customers.

End use customers drive vehicles.

Check: Vehicles assembly plants detect incoming quality defects off line in line. Dealerships

identify defects. End use customers detect defects in service and take the vehicle to dealerships’ repair

shops

Act: The manufacturer or the suppliers assign teams to resolve the quality concerns.

Problem solving teams identify solutions (manufacturing, transit or design), verify solutions, make

process changes, train workers on new processes, and update work-instructions, visual aids,

procedures, FMEAs, control plans, ad design specifications.

5. Quality in Warehouses and Through Transportation

Many defects can occur when parts or vehicles are being transported. It is important to identify

and to solve them with the same level of attention as defects that occur in the assembly process.



Defects that occur between the plant and the dealership need to be understood as well. The logistic

companies that are ISO 9001 certified may be good partners for automobile manufacturers and

suppliers assuming that the logistics partner’s leadership is effective in driving compliance to ISO

required processes.

Similar to collaborative work with components or modules suppliers, the manufacturer needs to

work with suppliers of transportation or warehouse services to plan for quality and to ensure that the

supplier team controls quality during the storage and shipment of products. The manufacturer and the

suppliers of transportation and warehouse services still need to complete APQP, design verification,

and product and process validation and make sure that the suppliers of bins, boxes, racks, and other

packaging materials complete APQP processes. Design in this case includes systems for packaging

parts and modules and typically involves tier-two suppliers of boxes, bins, wraps, covering mats, racks,

and other accessories that the suppliers may use to pack the parts. Processes typically include handling,

packing, storage, stacking of racks in warehouses, and in trucks; sequencing of boxes, bins, and of

fully loaded racks; and staging in trucks’ trailers.

All my comments on problem solving, PDCA, and BIQ still apply and noticeably the suppliers of

components and the manufacturer’s operations are active actors since their operators often have to pack

products in boxes, load boxes in racks, and load racks in trucks. If operators miss any of the process steps

that include a critical to quality characteristic, the consequences can be very negative for the product

quality. For instance, televisions to be assembled in vehicles and wire connectors may get damaged if

operator stages them improperly in a warehouse.

Windshields and vehicle windows made of glass may be subject to residual stresses and become

easily breakable upon assembly or in service. In this particular case, the safety of the driver, the

passengers, and the public become at risk. Seemingly, if operators sequenced boxes or bins incorrectly,

material handlers at the vehicle assembly plants may deliver the wrong parts to the assembly line,

causing line stoppage or wrong assemblies

6. A Framework for Sustaining High Quality Level in Automobile Supply Chains

I am proposing a framework for ensuring high quality throughout an automobile supply chain as

a briefing of my notes on previous pages. The framework relies on Shewhart-Deming cycle PDCA. I

am calling the Shewhart-Deming cycle framework for quality in automobile supply chains because it

relies on the management cycle that both Walter Shewhart and Edward Deming developed (Cleary,

1995; Mauleon & Bergman, 2009; Stauffer, 2003). I am dividing the framework in four quadrants:

I. Sustaining High Quality of Products in Suppliers’ Operations (6.1)

II. Sustaining High Quality of Products in Warehouse and Transportation

Operations (see 6.2)

III. Sustaining High Quality in Product Development (see 6.3)

IV. Sustaining High Quality in Manufacturing Operations (see 6.4)

I will review each of the four quadrants above and illustrate with short cases how PDCA can

help assure or improve quality in each of the four quadrants. I have also listed the interactions among

the four quadrants in Figure 2.

6.1 Sustaining High Quality of Products in Suppliers of Products’ Operations

Plan. The supplier works with the manufacturer to plan for the quality of the components or

sub-assemblies and to progressively design the components and sub-assemblies. Here, suppliers have

more responsibilities in the design at the components and subassemblies, and follow APQP processes

with deliverables at several phases. The supplier also plans for its own manufacturing processes and for

the processes for shipping components or sub-assemblies to the manufacturer

Do. The supplier progressively finalizes the design working with the manufacturer and

providing outputs at several stages in the form of prototypes, design verification reports (DVRs),

FMEAs, control plans, process-flow diagrams, test samples, and PPAP builds, other PPAP materials,



components, and sub-assemblies, and simulation reports. Here, suppliers design, manufacture the

products, and ship them to the manufacturers or in some cases to retailers.

Check. The supplier progressively reviews the design and the output that I described above

in internal engineering management reviews and through testing or simulation. The

manufacturer’s product development team reviews the deliverable that the suppliers submitted: design

review events, vehicle prototype build events, products and vehicle launches, and in normal production

through inspection, testing, and quality reviews. The manufacturer inspects incoming parts of line and

also identifies issues with incoming parts through inspection and concerns on vehicle-in-process. After

the manufacturer sells vehicles to dealerships and to end use customers, the suppliers receive feedbacks

in the form of customer complaints and warranty occurrences. The supplier performs other checks

through second party and third party audits.

Act. Following reviews, inspections, and audits, suppliers’ engineering and process teams go

through team problem solving and define root causes and solutions that resolve the design concerns.

The teams then make changes to the design and to processes. The teams may update drawings,

FMEAs, control plans, procedures, work-instructions, process flow diagram, visual aids, customer

bulletins, owner manuals, and specifications. Figure 2 illustrates the steps that I just described as well

as the people who should perform the tasks in the PDCA cycle.

Figure 2. Supplier quality PDCA cycle

Illustrative case 1. A supplier of metallic components to a tier-one supplier had to increase its

•Check: The supplier reviews its design

•The manufacturer reviews the supplier’s design, and

the supplier’s components in its manufacturing

processes and at

•the end customer

•Supplier performs 2nd party

and

•3rd party audits

• Act. The supplier

• reviews its

• design

• The manufacturer reviews the supplier’s design

• The supplier receives feedback from the manufacturer’s processes and the customers, resolve issues, &adjust its process

•Do. The supplier progressively finalizes the design working with the manufacturer

• :prototypes, design verification reports (DVRs), and other deliverables

•Plan. The suppliers works with the manufacturer to plan for quality: APQP.

• The supplier plan for the manufacturing processes and

• for the shipping of components Who ?

Engineers, designers,

specialists, managers, and

Technicians fro

the suppliers & the

manufacturer


specialists, and technicians

from both the suppliers

and the manufacturers

Supplier’s design and process review teams

and managers

Internal auditors Third party auditors

Manufacturer’s quality, product development, &

manufacturing team

Supplier’s quality team

Managers, engineers,

production workers, .



production because of an increase in demand. Managers decided to add an automated process for the

treatment of metallic components. On the day of the installation of the new automated process,

production workers mixed parts treated under the manual process with parts treated using the automated

process. The production manager did not inform the quality director of the start-up of the new parts.

Production shipped many parts to the customers two weeks later assuming that parts were normally

treated to the specifications basing their decision on the record of measurements on samples for the

latest three weeks. A week after the parts were shipped, the customer called complaining that its workers

have found parts that were not fully treated and that they needed good replacement parts urgently.

The supplier was located out of the U.S. at least 4,000 miles away. In this case, because of the

long distance separating the supplier from its customer and because the supplier has been in business for

more than a decade without noticeable quality complaints, the customer did not send a team to the

supplier location for a quality audit. More, the supplier was ISO 9001 certified which gave the customer

another argument to trust the supplier for the quality of its products.

Because the supplier was ISO 9001 certified, the customer management team assumed that in the PDCA

cycle, the supplier team planned the processes according to ISO 9001 requirements and per the quality

manual, work instructions and other documents; and that the supplier’s quality and production teams did

the work complying with the processes prescribed in the Do phase.

However having a good plan written and recorded in documents was not enough. Since none of

the worker thought about segregating the products manufactured through the manual process from those

manufactured through the automated process, then either the plan (the process as written) was not good

enough but still passed the ISO 9001 certification, the plan was good but the workers were not trained to

the plan, or the plan was good but the workers just forgot or failed to follow the process. A good process

here is a process that mandates segregation of products manufactured using two different methods and

certification of the new process through a process called PPAP.

However, there was a catalyst to mistake. The inspector recorded measurement from sample and

perhaps as they always did with the manual operation; they trusted the sampling on an automated

process with equipment at startup. I have already explained PPAP earlier when I discussed APQP.

More, managers completed a review of the start-up of the new process but missed to verify segregation

and PPAP with a close monitoring of the outputs from the new equipment could have help detect the

variations in the treatment of metallic parts.

Here, there might have been a distance between upper management and line managers where

managers trusted the frontline managers’ answers to review questions. However, for the reviews to be

effective, managers should have gone to the process area to see themselves to avoid surprises. In this

case there were failures within the PDCA cycle, which resulted to defects from a supplier with a good

quality record shipping defects to one of its customers. Another lesson to be learned here is the need for

process discipline and cross-functional reviews; as well as the need for manager to go see at the

workstation when launching new equipment. Normally quality workers, production workers,

maintenance workers, and engineers should all be trained in the process for launching new equipment

and there should be sign-off from managers or specialist of different function to minimize the risk of

not following the prescribed process.

6.2 Sustaining High Quality of Products in Warehouse and Transportation Operations Plan.

Suppliers of transportation services and warehouse services work with the

manufacturer to plan for quality following APQP processes and provide deliverables similar to the ones

that suppliers of products provide. There is an emphasis on protecting components and sub-assemblies

from damages or contamination while being stored in warehouses and throughout transportation. The

suppliers of warehouse and transportation services work with the manufacturers and suppliers of bins,

racks, boxes, and other packaging materials.

Do. The suppliers of transportation and warehouse services progressively finalize the design

of bins, materials, other equipment, and their planned processes working with the



manufacturer and packaging suppliers, and providing outputs at several stages in the form of

prototypes, design verification reports (DVRs), FMEAs, control plans, process-flow diagrams, PPAP

builds, and other PPAP materials. The suppliers of transportation and warehouse services store

products in warehouses and transport products to manufacturers and assemblers. Tier two suppliers of

packaging materials will have to submit many of the outputs that I just listed as APQP deliverables to

the manufacturers or the suppliers of warehouse and transportation services.

Check. The suppliers of transportation and warehouse services progressively review the design

and the outputs that I described above in internal engineering management reviews and trough testing or

simulation. The manufacturer reviews the deliverable that the suppliers submitted: Design review

events, vehicle prototype build events, products and vehicle launches, and in normal production through

inspection and quality reviews. While the manufacturer assembles the vehicle and after the

manufacturer sells vehicles to dealerships and to end use customers, the suppliers receive feedback in

the form of manufacturer’s complaints, customer complaints, and warranty occurrences. The supplier

receives other feedbacks trough second- party and third-party audits.

Act. Following reviews, inspections, and audits, suppliers of packaging’s and suppliers of

warehouse and transportation services’ engineering and process teams go through team problem solving

and define root causes and solutions that resolve the design concerns. The teams then make changes to

the design and to processes. The teams may update drawings, FMEAs, control plans, procedures, work-

instructions, process flow diagram, visual aids, customer

bulletins, owner manuals, and specifications. Figure 3 illustrates the steps that I just described as well

as the people who should perform the tasks in the PDCA cycle.



Figure 3. PDCA cycle for quality in warehouse and upon transportation

Illustrative case 2. An automobile manufacturer realized that windshields on one of the

trucks assembled in a given plant had been breaking at an unusual rate after being released off the

assembly line. Breakages had occurred at some of the dealerships and in the staging yards around the

assembly plant. There have also been a few occurrences at the end customers.

The plant had a daily schedule of reviews of quality at the plant level and each department had its

own reviews. The assistant final area manager who owned the assembly of the windshield to the front

frame had a daily review of quality and other operating indicators for the final area. He called for a

meeting to be attended by representatives of the supplier, design engineering, supplier quality, material

management, maintenance, material handling, production, and quality. Because the defect affected the

safety of the vehicle occupants, the person representing quality was also an expert in government

quality and safety regulations for the plant. The assistant manager sent the following agenda to the : 1)

review of the process at the supplier, 2) review of the loading, transportation, and unloading process; 3)

review of the windshield assembly process and staging area, and 4) review of the windshield inspection

processes including the carwash process. The manager also decided to have two meetings per week, one

on Monday of every week, and the other on Thursdays of every week.

Following the first meeting, the supplier reviewed its windshield manufacturing process,

emphasizing on the compliance to prescribed heating and cooling temperatures, uniformity of

windshield thickness and material consistency, its windshield loading process, and the quality of the



shipping racks. The shipping racks had supporting openings covered with soft plastics and as a

preventive measure, it was necessary to make sure that no plastic cover was damaged or removed.

Process engineering and maintenance had to verify the pressure of the robot arm when decking

the windshield to the front frame, and they had to verify the pressure of the rolls on the windshield as

well. There were two rolls placed adjacent to each other that applied pressure to the windshield to

make sure that the urethane stuck consistently on the sheet metal.

The assistant area manager called the body shop and required that they verified the smoothness

of the sheet metal all around the frame and particularly on the areas where the urethane was applied.

When there was a burr on the sheet metal, decking a windshield on it could lead to high residual

stresses which might cause breakages sometimes after the windshield had being assembled. The

assistant manager also had the supervisor verify the consistency to the statistical process control process

(SPC) of assembly gaps, a good method to control the robustness of the decking operation with respect

to urethane thickness. Urethane served as the bonding material between the glass and the sheet metal.

To verify that the defect mechanism did not originate from the manual operation, the assistant manager

requested that all manual decking be submitted to SPC measurements.

The plant material team manager, meeting with the production team at the windshield decking

area, reviewed the unloading and staging of the rack around the robot decking area. The team took a

resolution to discard any rack with suspect windshields for review and sorting.

After problem solving, the supplier redefined its staging process in the rack and refurbished all the rack.

The supplier also started verifying the loading of the rack into the truck and included all the changes to

its control plan and FMEA. Production adjusted its operations to better control manual decking using

SPC. Manual decking was necessary when the robot had a breakdown that might lead to line stoppages

that managers judged excessive. The most experienced operator retrained all the operators who were

more likely to perform manual decking when a major robot downtime occurred. The Body shop

completed the resolution of burrs on sheet metal and committed to 100% of body-in-process with burrs

in the windshield opening frame. Maintenance retrained its technicians responsible for robot setup and

for roll pressure application.

Finally, production updated its work instruction and design engineering promised to include

changed to design and process FMEAs as needed. The team agreed that one or a combination of the

variations that the team members worked on may have caused the defects. PDCA was already an

ongoing process in the plant with the following evidences.

Plan: All managers at the suppliers and at the assembly have defined processes for

manufacturing windshields, loading windshields in shipping racks, and shipping windshield to the

vehicle assembly plant. The vehicle assembly plant had defined processes for handling and decking

windshield to the vehicles, and for controlling the behavior of the windshield assembly throughout the

flow of in-process vehicles from the windshield decking area to the end of final inspection.

Do: The workers and the suppliers and vehicle assembly plant have executed the processes,

assembling vehicles that the automobile manufacturers sold to dealers and other end customers.

Check: The assistant area manager had performed daily reviews of the quality of the vehicle,

reviewing internal plant data and data customers’ data from the dealerships, end customers, and from

quality rating agency such as JD Power and Associates. The assistant managers and the supervisors

also reviewed processes daily often meeting at the workstation with either the most variations or

unusual variations.

Act: The assistant manager had acknowledged the urgency and acted accordingly by calling for

a cross-functional team meeting that included stakeholders throughout the supply chain. The whole

team acted by engaging into problem solving, by reporting the progress twice per week, and by

adjusting the processes to remove driver of defective windshields. By acting with urgency and by

bringing all the stakeholders throughout the supply chain to work on an urgent quality issues, the team

resolved a quality issue that affected the safety of the vehicle occupants and therefore prevented a

potential quality recall.



In this case, the assistant final area manager had been proactive and the whole cross- functional

team had shown sense of urgency ad by doing avoided to have a defect to continue leaving the plant,

thus preventing a potential recall. Some of the issues such as burrs on sheet metal have been re-

occurring, which is often the case in assembly plant. However such issues have to resolve completely

down to the root cause because the cost of solving the problem very lower compared to the cost of

having safety defects at the customers. Another lesson year is the need to involve supplier in the

problem solving stage when a quality issue occurs it can be caused by design, a supplier

manufacturing process, the manufacturer’s assembly plant process, upon transportation or storage, or

by an improper usage by a customer. The problem solving team should review all those possibilities

and process by elimination until the team finds the probable root cause.

6.3 Assuring High Quality in Product Development

Plan. As I already described in the previous pages, engineers and cross-functional teams plan

for quality in design by defining design specifications at the vehicle level, the system level, the

subassembly level, and the component level; and to design manufacturing processes for the assembly

of the new vehicles. The suppliers work with the manufacturer to plan for the quality of the

components and sub-assemblies and to progressively design the components and sub- assemblies; as

well as the processes that they will follow to manufacture the components. The manufacturer often has

supplier quality engineers assist its engineers in reviewing, auditing, and facilitating the work done by

the suppliers’ engineering teams. The manufacturers’ design

engineers also work with manufacturing engineers, designers, material experts, and core

engineers to select technologies and design features based on the experiences and previous

knowledge in order to comply with agreed upon design specifications.

Do. The manufacturers progressively finalizes the design working with the manufacturers and

providing output at several stages in the form of prototypes, design verification reports (DVRs),

FMEAs, control plans, process-flow diagrams, test samples, and PPAP builds, other PPAP materials,

and simulation reports. Suppliers finalize the design of components and sub- assemblies. Suppliers

produce prototypes and send them to the manufacturer’s engineering teams. The manufacturer’s

engineering teams use the parts to build of prototype vehicles or to verify the design physically. The

teams also progressively develop new manufacturing processes and new manufacturing equipment

Check. The manufacturer’s engineering team progressively reviews the design and the APQP

outputs that I described above in internal engineering management reviews, prototype build event, new

equipment trials, and through testing or simulation. The manufacturer’s engineering teams review the

deliverables that the suppliers and the internal engineering teams submitted: design review events,

vehicle prototype build events, products and vehicle launches, and in normal production through

inspection and quality reviews. In the events that I described earlier, the engineering teams may review

test samples, test results, simulation results, FMEAs, control plans, process flow diagrams, PPAP

samples, and DVRs. After the manufacturer sells vehicles to dealerships and to end use customers, the

manufacturer receive feedbacks in the form of customer complaints and warranty occurrences and use.

The manufacturers received other feedbacks by completing second-party and third party audits.

Act. Following reviews, inspections, and audits, engineering and process teams go

through team problem solving and define root causes and solutions that resolve the design

concerns. The teams then make changes to the design and to processes. The teams may update

drawings, FMEAs, control plans, procedures, work-instructions, process flow diagram, visual

aids, customer bulletins, owner manuals, equipment, and specifications. Figure 4 illustrates an

overview of the PDCA cycle for quality in product development. The cross-functional nature of

the work and the joint work between the suppliers and the automobile manufacturer are

noticeable.



Figure 4. PDCA for quality in product development

•Check: The

• manufacturer reviews its designs: design reviews,

prototype builds and reviews, simulations, reviews of test

results, engineering judgments, and market trials.

The manufacturers and the suppliers also review

customer feedback (quality, dependability, sales volumes, customer surveys) for current

or previous programs..

• Act. Engineers and

• cross-functional teams

• solvedesign concerns, make

• changes to the design, and

• update drawings, digital models, FMEAs, procedures, customer bulletinsm specifications, other documenrs and entities (e,g timing, sources, change control records ..).

•Do. The suppliers and manufacturer's product

development teams progressively finalizes the

design

• :prototypes, design), FMEAs, control plans, test samples,

PPAP builds, updated drawings, digital files, and

other deliverables.; and received feedback from

customers

• Plan • Engineers and cross-functional

teams define design specifications and plan for

designing the product and the manufacturing processes for

the assembly of the new vehicles. The suppliers and the

manufacturer plan for the quality of the components and

sub-assemblies and to progressively design the

components, sub-assemblies and related processes

Who ?


specialists, managers, and

Technicians from the

suppliers & the

manufacturer


specialists, and technicians

from both the suppliers'

and the manufacturer's product development

teams

Supplier’s design and process review teams

and managers

Internal auditors Third party auditors

Manufacturer’s quality, product development,

& manufacturing team


Managers, product development

engineers, production

workers,, supplier s' engineering teams .



Illustrative case 3. An automobile manufacturer was jointly designing airbags with an

airbag supplier. Airbags are safety components that should not fail in service. The Engineering

manager asked one of his engineering team supervisors (who directly reported to him) whether

or not his team was making progress in the development of the products. The engineering

supervisor replied that the design was in progress and that the team had completed verification

and validation as prescribed by the federal regulations. The engineering manager then retorted

that he had noticed many recalls on airbags from different suppliers and different automobile

manufacturers and that he had to be cautious. He gave the team five days to prepare for a design

review. He also gave his team and the suppliers’ teams the agenda for the upcoming meeting: a)

verification of DFMEA, b) verification of design verification reports, c) verification of

compatibility analyses, d) review of tests and engineering analyses, e) federal compliance

review, review of initial supplier’s PFMEA, f) review of planned vehicle assembly plant’s

process FMEA.

Throughout the review, the manager found that many high risk priority items above 100

did neither have a leader nor a team assigned to work on reducing the risk priority numbers and

that many control methods for detection were visual inspection but were assigned detection

ratings as low as 2. The manager also found that the wiring inside one of the prototype could

interfere with assembly tooling which may cause wiring damage. Thus he requested that a

severity of 9 or 10 be assigned to such risk. The manager assigned smaller teams made of

designers, engineers, and suppliers’ engineers to resolve each of the issues identified and the

team made corrective actions. The team incorporated the corrective actions in the next build of

prototype and ensured during manufacturing validation with both simulation and assembly using

production tools that the risk of damaging the wiring was not longer significant. Workers at

the supplier and the manufacturer updated the DFMEA, PFMEA, control plans, work

instructions according to the corrective actions that the team made.

In this case, for the PDCA cycle, the team has planned for the design processes (Plan),

had done the design even though the design was not complete (Do), and in the Check and Act

phase, a manager had identified potential issues relying on feedback from the industry wide

customer base and taking the time to review objectively without blame every phase of the design

from the start of the planning to the week when the manager had called for the meeting. Here a

manager had been proactive in the Check and Act phases. The manager and his team did not hide

any issue but recorded all the minutes and subsequent communications for traceability. By

finding root cause to problems, implementing corrective action preventive actions, the manager

and his team were able to prevent defective airbag assemblies that might have caused unwanted

safety recalls.

Managers need to be proactive in monitoring quality to protect the customers. They

should replicate processes that deliver the highest quality in all their assembly plants. A state of

mind where managers always follows new recalls from competitors and verify whether their

supplier or their manufacturing process can generate such a defect is necessary. Such a state of

mind is necessary because different manufacturers share the same suppliers and suppliers have

manufacturing spread in three to five continents. Questions such as "if it happened to them, ca it

happen here” are valid questions. Seemingly the suppliers need to review their in all their

facilities. The same reasoning is valid for similar products with questions such as “if it occurs

under the driver side airbag, can it occurs under the passenger airbag?” Typically when major

recalls occur, manufacturers should verify such recalls in all their assembly plants and all the

suppliers’ facilities that produce similar products. The action that I described here are costly but



their cost is negligible compare to the cost of a single recall in term of monetary amount and

damage in reputation.

6.4 Sustaining High Quality in Manufacturing Operations

Plan. The manufacturer or supplier plan for each operation, with working spaces that

allow ease of work and minimum mistake using Poke Yoke, Build-in-Quality (BIQ) checks,

standardized works, quick change over, work instructions, critical element instructions; visual

aids, control plans, process flow diagrams, PFMEAs, cycle plans, other process improvement

techniques, acceptance sampling plan for incoming material where needed; and equipment that

are calibrated to deliver the assigned specifications. The manufacturer reviews the deliverable

that the suppliers submitted: design review events, vehicle prototype build events, products and

vehicle launches, and in normal production through inspection, in-process quality concerns, and

quality reviews. After the manufacturer sells vehicles to dealerships and to end use customers,

the suppliers receive feedbacks in the form of customer complaints and warranty occurrences.

The supplier performs other checks through second party and third party audits.

Do. Production assembles and manufactures products or vehicles, following prescribed

processes and ships them to the dealerships. End use customers purchase the vehicles and drive

them.

Check. The supplier and manufacturers progressively reviews feedback from their

internal inspection, in-process concerns, and internal testing. They also review feedback from

customers and dealerships. The manufacturers send feedback on incoming quality, misfits, or

other concerns to the suppliers. Finally, the manufacturers receive feedbacks from second-party

audits and third-party audits.

Act. Following reviews, inspections, and audits, engineering and process teams go

through team problem solving and define root causes and solutions that resolve the

manufacturing and assembly concerns. The manufacturer’s teams may send feedback to the

suppliers for problems that originated from the suppliers. The teams then make changes to the

processes. The teams may update drawings, process FMEAs, control plans, procedures, work-

instructions, process flow diagram, visual aids, customer bulletins, owner manuals, and

specifications.

In the manufacturing planning phase, there are inner PDCA cycles in which managers

adjust the plan following reviews. It is important to understand that in the product development

stage, teams plan for manufacturing until launch after which the Do phase of the PDCA cycle for

manufacturing begins. When production starts, the equipment becomes production equipment

and the products are no longer prototypes but production products and there are ongoing reviews

as I described in the Check phase with feedback to production teams, manufacturing engineering

teams, design engineering teams, other support teams including the quality team and the after

sales team; and to the suppliers. Figure 5 displays an overview of the PDCA cycle for quality in

manufacturing. Again, the cross-functional nature of the work and the feedback to several teams

including suppliers’ teams is also noticeable.



Figure 5. PDCA for quality in manufacturing

Illustrative case. An automobile manufacturer just got a recall initiated by the United

States of America’ Government. The defects being recalled had caused accidents and might

cause deaths upon accidents. Initial investigations proved that the managers at different levels of

the company knew about the defects a few years ago. There had even been traces of emails,

which evidences communications among engineers and managers following business reviews. In

this case even though there were written plans in the PDCA cycle for quality in the automobile

manufacturer’s design and manufacturing teams, people did not act with integrity in the do

phase because they did not disclose quality issues that they knew about. Thus, following the

check phase typically made of reviews teams were not effective at identifying and addressing

critical quality issues. Managers might have not help when asked for help to identify the root

causes and to resolve issues that ultimately led to quality recalls.

For the PDCA cycle to be effective there need to be integrity and teamwork and workers

should not fear for retaliation or blame if they ask for help. There will always be errors, which is

one of the reasons why there is a Check phase and an Act phase. Managers need to act with

integrity and make sure that their team members understand that they must act with integrity

without which the team cannot protect the quality of the product that the manufacturer sells to

customers.

6.5 Some Remarks on the Act Steps

The Act step includes adjustment to, the elimination of, and the introduction of one or all

among processes, actions, behaviors, and strategies. When the manufacturer’s design teams and

process teams receive feedbacks from reviews, inspections, audits, and customer complaints they

• Plan. The manufacturer & suppliers plan for each operation: lean & safe working space, control plans, PFMEAs, tooling,

• work instructions &

• other documents

• other processes

• incoming materials

• prototype build events

• vehicle launches,

• Capacity utilization

Who? Engineers, designers, specialists, managers, technicians from both the suppliers and the manufacturer

Engineers, designers, specialists, managers, technicians from both the suppliers assisted

as needed by the manufacturer’s

product development team

• DO. The Production assembles and manufactures products or vehicles, following prescribed processes and ships them to the

dealerships.

• End use customers

• purchase the

• vehicles

• and drive them

• Act. The manufacturer’s engineering , quality, & production teams

• find solutions to concerns,

• make changes to the processes, & documents

• The supplier resolves concerns from the manufacturer &customers, and adjust processes & design


Managers, engineers, production workers.

Manufacturer’ s production and quality team teams and managers Internal

auditors, third party auditors, dealerships, & quality rating

agencies

• Check: The suppliers and

manufacturer review

• feedback from: internal inspection, in-process concerns, internal testing, customers and

dealerships, 2nd & 3rd party

audits.



must identify the sources of the mechanisms that led to the quality concern. A flaw in design at

the supplier level or at the manufacturer level may generate a defect. Variations in the suppliers’

or manufacturer’s manufacturing processes; in a warehouse, or upon transportation may also

create a defect. Once the teams identify the sources of the defect mechanisms, they must contact

the managers of the areas source of the defect mechanisms in order to initiate problem solving.

The absence of a customer sale bulletins describing the steps require for proper usage may also

lead to defects. Once the problem is solved, then the teams must update many documents in

different areas of the supply chain. For instance a design defect may lead to changes in the

supplier’s PFMEA, the manufacturer control plan, and the owner manual. A variation in the

manufacturer’s assembly plant’s process may originate a defect.

For instance, workers may make mistakes in the selection of odometers written in both

kilometers and miles for vehicles to be sold in Canada and in miles for vehicles to be sold in the

United States (U.S.). If a chief engineer decides to communize the odometers into one odometer

written in both miles and kilometers, then the following will happen: The design team will remove

the odometer from the list of U.S. vehicle components, the program team will change the owner

manuals for U.S. vehicles, the program team will notify the supplier of the odometers about the

cancellation of odometers written in miles only, the supplier will have to change its PFMEA,

DFMEA, control plans, and work instructions; the manufacturer’s vehicle assembly plant will have

to change its control plan, its work instructions, its odometer supply plans, as well as the working

spaces for operators who assemble the odometers into the instrument panels.

The two examples above illustrate the ramifications that one solution to a defect

throughout the supply chain may cause. In each of the actions that I just listed there is an

opportunity for making another mistake that may cause a quality concern at the customer level.

Typically resolving one defect leads to the update of many documents and processes throughout

the supply chains. If the teams responsible for the updates do not verify their actions, workers

will create many more defects. In the later example, fixing one defect eventually leads to ten

opportunities of defects. I call those updates and changes upon problem solving discontinuities

in processes upon problem solving. Workers were following a known standard process, and at

some point of time, a change occurs in a process step. The discontinuity occurs in the exact

instance of that change, which is again an instance of a high probability for defect creation.

Finally, the manufacturer needs to make sure that knowledge is spread through the

network of supply chains. If vehicle assembly plant A solves a critical quality issue, assembly

plant B and C should not recreate different solutions in case they experience the same issue in

the future. Sharing knowledge is known to be necessary (Myers & Cheung, 2008). However,

its implementation is often not effective, leading many losses of opportunities to improve

performance throughout the supply chain faster.



Figure 6. The Shewhart-Deming cycle framework for quality in automobile supply chains

Conclusion

I this paper, I have described the key components of quality planning and control in

automobile supply chains. The aim of my description was to give practitioners of automobile

quality, managers, and executives an overview needed to simplify the complexity in factors,

tasks, and actors that affect the design and production of vehicles with the best quality possible. I

have tried to give a thorough overview that clarifies the quite wide scope of the determinants of

good quality in automobile supply chains. I have broken down the discussion in four quadrants

in order to review some differences, similarities, and needed collaborations among suppliers of

material, components, and sub-assemblies; suppliers of transportation and warehouse services,

automobile manufacturers’ product development, and automobile manufacturers’ vehicle

operations. The four quadrants are:

1. Suppliers of materials, components, and subassemblies

2. Suppliers of logistics operations



3. Product development

4. Manufacturer’s vehicle operations

I have proposed the use of the Shewhart-Deming cycle framework throughout the supply

chain in order to sustain continuous improvement. For each defect, managers can trace the origin

to the stage and phase where the defect generated. The defect may have generated at the supplier

level during the planning product quality or during production. A defect may have occurred

when the manufacturer’s engineers designed a component or a system. A defect may have

occurred upon transportation or at different supplier facilities than the current supplier. A

defect may have occurred in vehicle assembly process.

I have presented cases that illustrate the ability of the Shewhart-Deming cycle framework

to help understand the defect mechanisms and to bring cross-functional teams of workers

together in order to resolve quality concerns or prevent the occurrence of quality concerns. Thus,

I have proposed what I called a Shewhart-Deming cycle framework for planning and controlling

quality throughout the supply chain and I had supported with cases. The cases illustrate that the

actions of managers, their sense of urgency, and the discipline of the people that work in the four

phases of the PDCA cycle and at different areas of the supply chain are enablers of quality

assurance and quality improvement. For the cross-functional teams whose works affect the

quality of the vehicles, a mindset of quality improvement while rejecting the status quo and

anticipating potential quality concerns, is an enabler for continuous improvement in vehicle

quality. Thus managers should not only monitor the quality of their own product but also

monitor recalls from competitors and verify that their processes are proof of such defects.

I have also introduced the notion of discontinuities in working processes, which I believe

when not controlled is a major enabler of customer quality defects. There should be more

research done on the control of quality in instance of discontinuities in working processes. There

should also be more research done on the understanding of mechanisms of automotive recalls

through qualitative, quantitative, and case study research. Finally, I have emphasized the need

for exhaustiveness on the use of feedbacks; integrity, professionalism, and training of the

workforce that plans for and controls quality. This is also another area where more research is

needed.

For additional future research beyond the ones I just listed, there should be more cases

and more detailed cases for each quadrant of the supply chain that help understand the

mechanism of quality defects in operations that have shown commitment to the Shewhart-

Deming cycle and continuous improvement. There should also be more research that map

vehicle quality recalls to the quadrant that generated the defects and the phase of the PDCA

process that failed to protect the customers. Here, researchers who will analyze pasts and future

automobile recalls may break them down per quadrant source: 1) Supplier of material,

components, and subassemblies, 2) suppliers of transportation and warehouse services, 3)

Automobile manufacturer’s product development, and 4) Automobile manufacturer vehicle

operations.

Researchers should complete those studies in a spirit of openness focusing on the

processes and considering people as actors. Other research studies could be qualitative research

using interviews of managers and other workers on the PDCA process within the working area.

Business processes within the automobile supply chain are dynamic and no company can

mistake proof all its business processes, hence there will always be unexpected variation but

what matters is the attitudes of managers and their teams to such variation. This paper give some

elements of continuity on the work of authors such as Bandyopadhyay and Jenicke (2007) and

Bandyopadhyay (2010) on automobile recalls, Six Sigma in the automobile industry, and

performance in automobile supply chains in general



References

AIAG (1996). Guidelines for Auditing FMEAs per QS 9000. Potential Failure Mode Effect

Analysis Reference Manual, February

AIAG (n. d.). Retrieved from the URL www.aiag.org.

Bandyopadhyay, P. (2010). An Exploratory Study on Motor Vehicles Recall in the US - Trend

Analysis of Recalls Due to Commonality in Vehicles Design. Social Science Research

Network. SSRN-id1617704. May 2010. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com

Bandyopadhyay, J. K., & Jenicke, L O. (2007). Six Sigma approach to quality assurance in

Global supply chains: A study of United States automakers. International Journal of

Management, 24(1), 101–107. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com

Best, M. & Neuhauser, D. (2006). Walter A Shewhart, 1924, and the Hawthorne factory. Quality

and Safety in Health Care, 15(2): 142–143. doi:10.1136/qshc.2006.018093

Binder, M., Gust, .P. & Clegg, B. (2008). The importance of collaborative frontloading in

automotive supply networks. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. 19(3),

315-331. doi:10.1108/17410380810853759

Bloomberg News (2014, December 20). Auto recalls surpass 60 million in 2014, nearly twice

the previous U.S. record Retrieved from

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2014/12/us_auto_recalls_exceed_60_mill.

ht ml

Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2004). Managing risk to avoid supply-chain Breakdown. MIT

Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 53–61. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com

Cleary, B. A. (1995). Supporting Empowerment with Deming’s PDSA cycle.

Empowerment in Organizations, 03(2), 34-39. Retrieved from

ezp.waldenulibrary.org

Corbett, C. J. (2006). Global diffusion of ISO 9000 certification through supply

chains. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 8(4), 330–350.

Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org

Curcokvic, .S, Vickery, S. K., & Droge, C. (1999). Quality and Business Performance: An

Empirical Study of First-Tier Automotive Suppliers. Quality Management Journal, 6(2).

Ford, H. (1926). Today and Tomorrow. Productivity Press. 1988 edition.

Ginn, D M, Jones, D. V., Rahnejat, H., & Zairi, M. (1998). The QFD/FMEA interface.

European Journal of Innovation Management, 1(1)

Henry, J. (2007). Company's quality crusade was launched by an American, Automotive

News, 82, 10/29/2007 Supplement.

International Business Times (2010, December 29). Major recalls in 2010. Retrieved

from http://www.ibtimes.com/major-car-recalls-2010-252105

Johnson, D. (2002). Empirical Study of Second-tier automotive suppliers achieving

QS9000. Reference No. 718. International Journal of Production & Operation

Management. 22 (7/8). 902-928. doi:10.110801443570210436298

Johnson, D. M (2004), Empirical study of QS-9000 using principal components analysis and

robust regression. Quality Management Journal, 11(1)

Lee, H., L. (2004).The triple-A supply chain. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 102-112.

Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org

Liao, K., & Hong, P. (2007). Building global supplier networks: A supplier portfolio entry

model. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 20(5), 511–526. Retrieved

from http://web.ebscohost.com.

Liker, J., K., Choi, T., Y. (2004). Building deep supplier relationships. Harvard

http://www.aiag.org/

http://papers.ssrn.com/

http://web.ebscohost.com/

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2014/12/us_auto_recalls_exceed_60_mill.ht

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2014/12/us_auto_recalls_exceed_60_mill.ht


http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/

http://www.ibtimes.com/major-car-recalls-2010-252105

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/




Business Review. (12). 104-113. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.

Liker, J. K., & Morgan, J. (2011). Lean product development as a system: A case study of

body and stamping development at Ford. Engineering Management Journal, 23(1),

16-28.

Retrieved from http://www.asem.org/asemweb-emj.html

Liu, C. (2009). Effect of ISO/TS 16949 on Six Sigma: The empirical case of Taiwanese

and related industries. Total Quality Management, 20(11), 1229-1245.

doi:10.1080/14783360903247502

Mauleon, C. & Bergman, B. (2009). Exploring the epistemological origins of Shewhart and

Deming’s theories of quality. Influences from C.I. Lewis’ conceptualistic

pragmatism. Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(2), 160-171.

doi:10.1108/17566690910971436

Minhyung, K. (2010). Risks of Global Production Systems. Lessons from Toyota mass recalls.

SERI Quarterly. July 2010. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com

Moen, R., & Norman, C. (2006). Evolution of the PDCA Cycle. Retrieved from

http://kaizensite.com/learninglean/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Evolution-of-PDCA.pdf

Myers, M. B., & Cheung, M. (2008). Sharing global supply chain knowledge. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 49(4), 67–73. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com

New York Time (2011, January 20). 2010 Record year for “voluntary” recalls. Retrieved from

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/2010-a-record-year-for-voluntary-

recalls/?_r=0

Rahman. S., Laosirihongthong, T., & Sohal, A. S (2010). Impact of lean strategy on operational

performance: A study of Thai manufacturing companies. Journal of Manufacturing

Technology Management, 21, 839-852. doi:10.1108/17410381011077946

Romano, P. (2002). Impact of supply chain sensitivity to quality certification on quality

management practices and performances. Total Quality Management, 13(7), 981–1000.

Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.

Shah, R., & Ward, P. (2007). Defining and developing measures of lean performances. Journal

of Operations Management, 25, 785-805. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.019

Sobek II, D., & Smalley, A. (2008). Understanding A3 thinking; a critical component of the

Toyota PDCA management system. Productivity Press. Taylor and Francis Group. New

York: NY. Retrieved from https:boos.google.com

Stauffer, J. (2003). SQC before Deming: The work of Walter Shewhart. Journal of Applied

Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(4)

Tae-Hoon, P. (2007). Hierarchical structures and competitive strategies in car development:

Inter-organizational relationships with Toyota’s first-, second-, and third-tier suppliers.

Asian Business and Management, 6, 179-198. doi:10.1057/palgrave.abm.9200220

Tan, K. C. (2001). A framework of supply chain management literature. European Journal of

Purchasing and Supply Management, 7. Retrieved from http://www.elsevier.com

Teng, S. G, Ho, M. H., Shumar, D., & Liu, P. C. (2006). Implementing FMEA in a collaborative

supply chain environment. The International Journal of Quality and Reliability

Management, 23(2/3), 179-196

Thisse, L. C. (1998). Advanced quality planning: A guide for any organization

Quality Progress 31, (2), 73-77. Retrieved from http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org

Trent, R J., Monczka, R. (1999). Achieving world-class supplier quality. Total Quality

Management, 10(6), 927-934. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.

Wisner, J., & Tan, K. C. (2000). Supply chain management and its impact on

purchasing. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 36(4), 33–42. Retrieved from the

http://web.ebscohost.com.


http://www.asem.org/asemweb-emj.html


http://kaizensite.com/learninglean/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Evolution-of-PDCA.pdf


http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/2010-a-record-year-for-voluntary-


http://www.elsevier.com/

http://proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=23729&TS=1298789837&clientId=70192&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQD

http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/



Documents

The Global Journal of Business and Economics A NIU Online ... · 9/15/2017 · Group, built-in-quality, BIQ, continuous improvement, control plans, Deming, Shewhart- Deming cycle,