The main purpose of this case study is to talk about how Toyota overcame their production problems in their Georgetown, Kentucky Plant. Toyota has always strived for “better cars for more people”. Therefore when their company started having trouble with the run ratio and seat defects of their cars it was very intense. In early 1992, the concern about product proliferation began to arise. The old model Camry consisted of seats that had five styles and only three seat colors. In March, TMM launched the Camry wagons and it became the source of these cars for
Toyota worldwide. During this time Toyota developed a seat problem that caused for immediate action to take place. The manager, Doug Friesen, was the person in charge of making sure this error was corrected. In order to keep production rate up they needed to continue to produce quality cars. Using the Toyota Production System (TPS) the company was able to reduce cost by eliminating waste. The company uses Just-In-Time production, Jidoka, and Kaizen as ways to reduce production problems and make sustainable cars.
The plant had been hectic and with the production of the station wagon they had to make the employees work overtime just to correct the problems. In addition to the problems, numerous cars were sitting off the line with no seats at all. It is hard to believe that a company as big as
Toyota would have this type of problem but things of this nature happen within various businesses. Later on he met with his manager Mike DePrile and Rodger Lewis and they discussed the issues and did a walkthrough of the parking area. It was up to Doug Friesen to find out how to solve the problem and he did so by communicating with employees and going through the assembly lines for himself. In the end, Friesen took on full responsibility for allowing the seat problem to go on so long and was beginning to think of ways to make others aware of the problems as well as solve them.

1. If I were Doug Friesen, to address the problem with the current seat problem I would take the issue with my staff. There is obliviously a problem with the way the cars are being produced. I would continue to have the current workers work but I would have to communicate with my quality control department, assembly team, and my production control department. Quality control already knew that the seats were going to be a safety issue because the “feel” of the surface had no precise standards. Purchasing the seat is the most expensive part of the vehicle; therefore it should be carefully assembled and installed correctly. Within the case it states that
Frieson did not really find out what happened till he returned home from his trip to Japan. That’s when he found out the seats were poorly put together and the run ratio was down to 85% from the 95% it was early in the month. In my opinion he should have known before it got to the point where they had to stop production of numerous cars.
I would have kept in touch with my plant or had someone doing a walk through to let me know if there was anything out the normal happening, especially since we were developing new types of seats. Once I meet with my employees I would give feedback about the work that they have done. I would let them know that since the company was not producing the cars on time that mean reduced the sales. I do agree with having the team work overtime to correct the problem because my main focus would be to get as many cars on the road as possible. After I handle my employees I would address the general manager, Mike DaPhile because being in a higher position I know he would want to know every situation whether it is good or bad within the company. I would discuss my efforts in trying to correct the problem and state how it would never happen again. The best thing to do to correct something like this is to find the root of the problem. I would start with the assembly line and find out why the production plan was ignored.

Once this happens I would