Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
The primary reason for choosing this research topic is my genuine interest in cars and my intention to work in the automobile industry. And there could not be a better topic than to study the most significant change at the top which is the emergence of Toyota as the global leader. Although a lot has been written about Toyota, but this dissertation will study it from a different perspective, i.e. innovation management and critical success factors.
Toyota Motors Corporation (TMC) has become one of the biggest car manufacturers of the world from a humble start seventy years ago (Toyota, 2008). Toyota’s has been one of the most phenomenal success stories in the ultra-competitive automobile industry and can be a great benchmark for any company. The company has posted record annual earnings for almost a decade and has become the most profitable car manufacturer on the planet. And in the market that matters the most, the USA, its unbroken sequence of record sales stretches back even further. Fifty years ago, the Big 3 US carmakers (GM, Ford, Chrysler) dominated the industry, both in the US and worldwide. Now Toyota is set to overtake GM as the world’s largest carmaker, ending 70 years of dominance (BBC, 2007). Toyota’s success is even more remarkable given the problems elsewhere in the industry (see Appendix 1). GM and Ford are cutting thousands of jobs and closing plants, while Toyota is building one new plant each year. Ford in particular has found the going tough and a $12.7 billion deficit in 2006 coupled with significant losses among its subsidiaries signals the most miserable year of the company’s existence. As GM and Ford have racked up huge losses in the past few years, their financial ratings have shrunk. Toyota is now worth 10 times as much as GM on the stock market. So how has Toyota managed to buck the trend so dramatically? (Strategic Direction, 2007)
Toyota’s success with U.S. customers begins with the appeal of its cars and trucks, which are prized for their quality and durability, ease of operation, and thoughtful features such as controls that are intuitive to operate. Since demand is high and inventories typically low, Toyota, unlike Detroit, sells cars with skimpy marketing incentives, which protects its margins and boosts resale prices (Taylor, 2003).
Moreover, Toyota does its homework thoroughly. For instance, the company closely monitors economic and demographic developments and regularly sends its researchers out in the field to interview those who matter most – people who buy the cars. Keeping its ear to the ground ensures that the automaker remains best positioned to anticipate evolving customer preferences and future trends. Others carry out similar functions, so what makes Toyota different? How can a Japanese company be best at knowing what does the American car buyer want? This dissertation attempts to find out these factors from a different perspective; innovation.
The competitive advantage that many Japanese firms had gained in their respective industries came not from advantages in “hard” technology … but from the way they manned the same technology … Toyota attained holistic integration of technology with people, organization, product and strategy … the difference lay in their socio-technical system (Liker and Meier, 2006).
1.2 Aims and objectives of research
The aim of this dissertation is to establish the factors leading to Toyota’s success over GM in the US automobile market.
In order to achieve this aim, the following objectives have been set:-
In order to achieve these aims and objectives, literature review is carried out in the next chapter which critically evaluates the theory surrounding this topic and then refined research questions are developed which will be answered by collecting secondary data.
1.3 Structure of dissertation
This dissertation has been divided into five chapters. They are organised as follows:
The first chapter describes the background of this research, a brief introduction about Toyota and this dissertation’s structure. It also mentions the aims and objectives of this dissertation which are broad but get refined at the end of chapter two.
The second chapter critically evaluates the literature studied for this dissertation including innovation theory, critical success factors and other factors. It forms five propositions at the end of that chapter which are more refined research questions.
Chapter three describes the methodology and discusses how the research is conducted to achieve the objectives set earlier. This chapter reviews the various factors of research design like research philosophy, paradigm, strategy and approach. It evaluates the options available and justifies the options chosen by the author.
After methodology, research findings and discussion are presented in chapter four. Here secondary data is presented and used to test the propositions formed at the end of chapter two.
Chapter five finishes this dissertation with conclusions and recommendations. And finally, the author shares his learning experience in the reflections section.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This part of the dissertation will start with reviewing critically the body of literature in innovation theory and changing critical success factors in context to the automobile industry in general, and Toyota and GM in particular, to help explain the former’s success over latter in US market. Besides these two theories; some other theories like national competitive advantage, lean etc are discussed in the third section. This chapter will end in forming research propositions based on the theories reviewed. Although this chapter is primarily designed to review general theory concerning automobile industry, the author has cited particular examples about Toyota and GM in some places as seen relevant to stress the point.
Innovation is defined in Oxford dictionary as ‘… something established by introducing new methods, ideas, or products’. In today’s competitive world, innovation essentially can provide companies new ways to beat the competition. “Innovation process involves the exploration and exploitation of opportunities for new or improved products, processes or services, based either on an advance in technical practise, or a change in market demand, or a combination of the two. Innovation is therefore essentially a matching process” (Fagerberg et al, 2006).
‘… not to innovate is to die’ wrote Christopher Freeman (1982) in his famous study of the economics of innovation. Certainly companies that have established themselves as technical and market leaders have shown an ability to develop successful new products. Innovation is defined by Myers and Marquis (1969; cited by Trott 2005) as not a single action but a total process of interrelated sub processes. It is not just the conception of a new idea, nor the invention of a new device, nor the development of a new market. The process is a combination of all these things acting in an integrated fashion. A new idea is normally the starting point for innovation. It is neither innovation nor invention; it is merely a concept or thought. The process of converting these ideas into a new product or service is invention. To convert that to a successful profit generating offering in a market is exploitation. And this complete process is innovation.
Innovation has long been argued the engine of growth. Schumpeter (1934, 1939 and 1942; cited by Trott 2005) was among the first economist to emphasise the importance of new products as stimuli to economic growth. He argued that the competition posed by new products was far more important than marginal changes in the prices of existing products. For example, a car manufacturer can achieve far more growth by introducing new, efficient cars or new features than just slicing down prices.
Fane et al. (2003) studied the Schumpeter’s view in detail. Schumpeter employed innovation to explain Kondratiev’s “long waves” in business cycle theory, those of 54 to 60 years’ duration, and the nature of the economic growth processes. The Kondratiev/Schumpeterian view gained increased popularity at the end of the 20th century. Innovation, for Schumpeter, was not the same thing as invention – innovations may be copied and may not be protected by “intellectual property rights”, or IPRs, (with the exception, perhaps, of trade secrets) while inventions are protected for a specified period of time by IPRs such as patents and copyrights. Innovations for Schumpeter reflect: the introduction of “new methods of production” or a change in current production functions; the creation of “new forms of organisation”; the discovery of “new sources of supply”; or the opening of “new trade routes and markets”. Further, he identified the source of innovation as the consequences of the actions within a capitalist system of the entrepreneur seeking competitive advantage in the quest for profit.
Another theory argues that sustained economic growth arises from competition among firms. Firms try to increase their profits by devoting resources to creating new products and developing new ways of making existing products. There have been many economists supporting the argument that innovations could be associated with waves of economic growth as mentioned earlier. Albernathy and Utterback (1978) contended that at the birth of any industrial sector there is radical product innovation which is then followed by radical innovation in production process, followed, in turn, by wide-spread incremental innovation.
Some firms develop a reputation for innovation and it helps propagate a virtuous circle that reinforces a company’s abilities. Trott (2005) views this concept as a specific example of Porter’s (1985) notion of competitive advantage. Porter argued that those companies who are able to achieve competitive advantage – that is, above-average performance in an industry sector – are able to reinvest this additional profit into the activities that created the advantage in the first place, thus creating a virtuous circle of improvement, or competitive advantage. The success or failure of a firm depends on a strategic competitive advantage. Competitive advantage can be achieved by delivering the product at lower cost or by offering unique benefits to the buyer. It can take many years for a company to build a reputation for being innovative, but once it has done so, it attracts further creative people leading to further leaps in innovation. But the company also has to provide the right atmosphere for that by encouraging creativity and willingness to accept new ideas like Toyota does.
Marketing also plays a very important role in the innovation process as it helps in finding out what customers want. This is crucial as success in the future will lie in the ability to acquire and utilize knowledge and apply this to the development of new products which meets and exceed the target customers’ expectations. But recent studies by Hamel & Prahalad (1994) and Christensen (2003) suggest that listening to your customer may actually stifle technological innovation and be detrimental to long term business success. While sustaining or incremental innovation may appeal to existing customers as they provide improvements to established products; disruptive innovations tend to create new markets which eventually capture the existing markets. For example, the launches of video CDs have made the VHS cassettes obsolete.
2.1.1 Models of innovation
There are two schools of thought over what drives innovation; market-based view and resource-based view. The market-based view argues that market conditions provide the context which facilitate or constrain the extent of innovation activity. This of course depends on the firm’s ability to recognise opportunities in the market place. The resource based view of innovation considers that a market-driven orientation does not provide a secure foundation for formulating innovation strategies for markets which are dynamic and volatile; rather a firm’s own resources provide a much more stable context in which to develop its innovation activity and shape its markets in accordance to its own views (Wernerfelt, 1995).
2.1.2 Types of Innovation
Innovation can be divided into following types (adapted from Trott, 2005):
Among the various types of innovations mentioned, the author will discuss some crucial management and environmental innovations which will help in tracing down the factors behind Toyota’s success.
2.1.3 Management Innovation 1: Total Quality Management (TQM)
TQM can be defined as: An effective system for integrating the quality development, quality maintenance and quality improvement efforts of the various groups in an organization so to enable production and service at the most economical levels which allows for full customer satisfaction (Feigenbaum, 1986).
An effective TQM approach demands all the employees in an organization to be involved. It regards quality as the responsibility of everyone and not limited to a manager or a particular department. Quality and employee improvements are therefore inextricably linked and should be part of a continuous cycle. TQM is an ongoing process of continuous improvements and incremental innovations. The impact of small, relatively easy to achieve improvements can be very positive. Much of the improvement in the reliability of cars over the past twenty years has been attributed to a very large number of improvements initiated by thousands of employees in all the manufacturing companies involved (Trott, 2005).
Toyota’s commitment to quality can be appreciated by this example. If there is even a small defect like a seatbelt not fitted properly, the workers can pull a cord and stop the production line until the problem is resolved. Workers at the Toyota plant in Georgetown, Kentucky, pull the cord 2,000 times a week – and their care is what makes Toyota one of the most reliable, and most desired, brands in the US. In contrast, workers at Ford’s brand-new truck plant in Dearborn, Michigan, pull the cord only twice a week – indicating the legacy of generations of mistrust between shop-floor workers and managers (Schifferes, 2007).
Toyota’s relentless cost engineering creates efficiencies that Detroit can chase but not match. Its philosophy of continuous improvement–rethinking the thousands of steps that go into building each model–allows Toyota to constantly trim material costs and production time. For example, the company lowered the base price of its 1997 Camry by 4%, after taking steps that included streamlining the front-bumper assembly from 20 parts to 13 and reducing the number of steel body fasteners from 53 to 15. Such improvements enable Toyota to assemble a car in 21 hours, vs. 25 for Ford, 27 for Chrysler and 29 for GM (Greenwald et al., 1996). (See also appendix 4)
However, in pursuit of continuous improvement, there could be some stages where a radical change may involve complete withdrawal of a procedure leading to potential job losses for the employees. So the employees would be reluctant to pursue that idea. The very feeling of process ownership by the employees may obstruct radical change, i.e. TQM may not support major innovation (Giaver, 1998).
2.1.4 Management Innovation 2: Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
QFD is another important management innovation. Making design decisions concurrently rather than sequentially requires superior coordination among the parties involved – marketing, engineering, operations and most importantly, the customer. Quality function deployment is a structured approach to this problem that relates the voice of the customer to every stage of the design and delivering process. It promotes better understanding of customer demands and design interactions.
For a company to achieve its own quality goals it must include and consider the quality programmes of its suppliers and customers. Identifying the causes of uncertainty, determining how this affects other activities in the supply chain and formulating ways of reducing or eliminating the uncertainty is essential to the management of all the processes involved. Here is an example to illustrate this. McDonald’s built a restaurant in Moscow. To achieve its required and expected level of quality and service, the company set up an entire supply chain for growing, processing and distributing the food. McDonald’s made sure that all parties along the whole chain understood its expectations of performance and closely monitored performance (Upton, 1998).
The QFD approach requires trust between all parties. As in the modern world, the competition between organizations effectively becomes competition between supply chains. Only by innovating within the organization’s supply chain, in terms of product and service, will the organization survive.
2.1.5 Management Innovation 3: Business Process Re-engineering (BPR)
This is a completely opposite approach to that of incremental innovation preached in TQM. Slack et al. (2004) defines BPR as ‘The fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service and speed’.
This approach is quite similar to that of Peters (1997) who suggests total destruction of company systems, hierarchy and procedures and replacing them with a multitude of single-person business units working as professionals. He argues that small modest improvement enshrined in TQM detracts effort from the real need to reinvent the business, i.e. ‘Incrementalism is an enemy of innovation’. He argues that a radical approach is the only way organizations can be sufficiently innovative to survive in the twenty-first century.
But BPR is criticised as one of the major downsizing tools common in 1980s and 1990s. The combination of radical downsizing and redesign can mean the loss of core experience from the operation. If taken too far (e.g. if the short term improvement was achieved at the expense of support for R&D expenditure) the resulting organization could become hollow and die. Also, the core business has to be sound otherwise BPR is akin to ‘flogging a dead horse’ (Trott, 2005). So, an organization has to take care that their core knowledge is passed on and they do not suffer due to BPR.
2.1.6 Environmental Innovation
The author has found a gap in literature in the form of environment innovation. It is not limited to any product or process innovation, but it is the holistic process companies have to follow to keep pace with the changing environment (also see section 2.2.1). Companies round the world are making more fuel efficient cars and alternative fuels to reduce the burden on fossil fuels. GM has realized this a little late and now their full attention is towards environmental innovation. This is because fancy designs and add-ons are not sufficient to compete in the environment-conscious market. Auto makers are under pressure to produce more efficient cars that use less fuel and thus pollute less, in part because petrol prices have soared in recent years in the US, but also because they will soon be required to do so by law. In December 2007, US President George W Bush signed an energy bill that will force the industry to cut average emissions from all vehicles. By 2020, the average must have been slashed by 40% to 35 miles per gallon, and the industry is convinced they will be able to deliver – though it will not come cheaply (Madslien, 2008).
Today, a fuel called biodiesel, which is derived from vegetable oil, is used throughout Europe. While it has been used in the United States in fleet vehicles for decades, only recently has it become more widely available to the general public.
With the world’s oil supply declining and the increasing effect of greenhouse gases on global warming, the push for alternative-fuel vehicles will only continue to grow. In addition to increased production of the types of vehicles discussed here, the next step in alternative-fuel vehicles is fuel cells. A fuel cell vehicle is essentially a hybrid vehicle that is powered by an electric motor, which gets its power from a fuel cell stack rather than an internal combustion engine. There are only a handful of fuel cell vehicles in use today because the technology is still being developed. In addition, there are relatively few fueling stations with hydrogen, the fuel used to power the fuel cell stack.
The U.S. Department of Energy, the agency that oversees a federally funded program to pursue fuel cell development, will decide by 2015 whether fuel cell technology is viable. Even if the decision is made to move forward, hybrid vehicles and gasoline-powered vehicles—as well as those powered by diesel and ethanol—will most likely remain in use for many years (JDPower, 2008).
2.2 Critical Success Factors
Critical success factors are those product features that are particularly valued by a group of customers and, therefore, where the organization must excel to outperform competition (Johnson et al., 2006). A firm needs to have the threshold capabilities and core competencies to meet the critical success factors. Threshold capabilities are the bare minimum required for an organization to be able to compete in a market without which, an organization cannot survive. The threshold levels rise over time as critical success factors change and as new competitors enter the market. So a company has to keep on reviewing and improving its threshold capabilities just to stay in the market. But this is not sufficient to create competitive advantage. That can only be achieved by unique resources and core competencies which the competitors cannot imitate. Whereas unique resources are those resources that critically underpin competitive advantage and core competencies are the activities and processes through which resources are deployed to achieve competitive advantage. So, even if a company has unique resources, without having the requisite core competencies, it cannot achieve competitive advantage.
Lynch (2003) refers to CSFs as KFS or Key Factors for Success. Lynch states that KFS are those resources, skills and attributes of the organisations in the industry that are essential to deliver success in the market place. There are endless issues that can be explored by an organization, but due to limited time and resources, it is better to narrow them down to KFSs and focus the resources on the most important matters. KFS are common to all organizations in an industry but they do vary from industry to industry. They are dependent on customers’ expectations, quality of competition and corporation’s own resources and skills. The author agrees with Lynch’s view of the need to concentrate the organization’s resources to KSFs. But the author also feels that they are not easy to pin-point and measure. Moreover, an organization should also create new CSFs through innovation and invention. For example, the creation of digital cameras completely changed the CSFs in that industry.
Another point of view is provided by Sousa et al. (1989), who call it shared experience view. The shared experiences school maintains that the area of business strategies is amenable to research aimed at finding nomological statements. It is believed to be possible to find out how different strategy types are linked to business success under various conditions. This school can be called the shared experience school, because it builds on the expectation that, if experience on business strategies is shared, it becomes possible to build up general, empirically based theoretical knowledge, which then can guide the selection of business strategy. For this school, business success is governed by causal relationships, which exist as an objective truth, and which gradually can be uncovered by research.
2.2.1 Strategic Drift and Scenario Planning.
Johnson et al. (2006) describes strategic drift as the stage where strategies progressively fail to address the strategic position of the organisation and performance deteriorates (see figure 2 below). For example, GM find themselves far behind in the environment innovation sector. Therefore, the organization needs to understand and address the contemporary issues that are challenging them. The figure shows environmental change and strategic change. An organization has to keep pace with the changing environment via incremental changes and when required, transformational changes. If it fails to do so, the organization is at the risk of completely failing.
Johnson et al. (2006) provides a possible solution to prevent these risks through scenario planning. Scenarios are detailed and plausible views of how the business environment of an organization might develop in the future based on groupings of key environmental influences and drivers of change about which there is a high level of uncertainty. While it is not possible to correctly predict the future, but it is valuable to have different views of possible futures. Managers should form multiple, equally plausible futures and develop contingency plans for each scenario. They have to do so by limiting the number of assumptions and uncertainties to minimum by focussing on factors that are uncertain but can have a high impact. Such scenario planning will no doubt consume some resources currently, but it can prevent huge losses in the future by limiting the number of shocks and surprises and help create a pro-active organization which moves with the changing environment.
2.3 Other Factors
2.3.1 National competitive advantage: Porter’s Diamond
It is argued that some nations provide better environment to foster innovation than others. Porter (1990) devised a diamond to explain the four main factors helping a country build and maintain competitive advantage These are:
Porter’s Single diamond framework
1. Factor conditions: These include the human resources; physical resources such as land, water mineral deposits, infrastructure etc; nation’s stock of knowledge resources such as scientific, technical and market knowledge which can affect the quantity and quality of goods and services and finally, the cost of capital and availability. Although Japan was low on natural resources, they more than made that up with their excellent human resources. Morita (1992; cited by Trott 2005) argues that ‘you will notice that almost every major manufacturer in Japan is run by an engineer or technologist. However in the UK, some manufacturing companies are run by CEOs who do not understand the technology that goes into their own products. Indeed, many UK corporations are headed by chartered accountants whose major concern is statistics and figures of past performance. How can an accountant reach out and grab the future if he or she is always looking at last quarter’s results? Therefore, it is important for an innovative firm to have the right leadership at the top who can guide the firm into the future.
2. Demand conditions: These include the composition of demand in the home market, size and growth rate of home demand, ways through which domestic demand is internationalized and pulls a nation’s products and services abroad. The demand for cars in Japan was low, so Toyota ventured into US shores to feed their ever-growing ambitions.
3. Related and supporting industries: These include the presence of internationally competitive supplier industries which can create advantage through speed and efficiency. Also related industries which are internationally competitive can create value when competing or by complementary products. Toyota was competing in Japan with the likes of Honda and Nissan who themselves, were very effective in their production methods. Moreover, Toyota’s JIT was successful due to efficiency of their suppliers and their ability to keep up to Toyota’s high standards.
4. Firm strategy, structure and rivalry: This includes the way in which firms are managed and choose to compete; company’s goals and their employees’ motivation and the amount of domestic rivalry and the creation of value in the respective industry.
Apart from the above four main factors, two other variable play an important role.
1. The role of chance: Some unexpected, odd events can sometimes nullify the advantage of competitors and change the entire competitive position of a market. These could be new inventions, political decisions, wars, drastic changes in economy, oil price surges and major technological breakthroughs. Toyota’s innovations like JIT, lean manufacturing, TPS and hybrids were all responsible for its meteoric rise among soaring oil prices and environmental concerns in the USA.
2. The role of government: Government can influence all four of the major determinants through actions like subsidies, policies, regulation of market, product regulations, tax laws and antitrust regulations. While some countries like Japan, provided extensive support and subsidies to promote industrial innovation, others such as United States, have aimed to create positive effects in the economy by letting the market achieve the most efficient allocation of resources with minimal possible intervention. The so-called Chicago school paradigm for promoting competitiveness and innovation, which created a belief in the free market to maximise innovation and productivity has, for more than two decades, been the dominant perspective in the United States (Rosenthal, 1993).
Critique of Porter’s Diamond
Although Porter’ diamond provides us a useful tool to study national factors in competitive advantage, it has some shortcomings according to Rugman et al. (2003). First, it was constructed on the basis of aggregated data on export shares for ten countries: Denmark, Italy, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA and West Germany. And it took only case studies from four industries. Therefore, it cannot be applied in every case without modification. Second, it fails to accept the notion that sometimes government’s action can end up protecting a domestic industry excessively and in turn, make it less competitive internationally. Third, it considers chance as an important factor but it fails to acknowledge that it very hard to predict any such events and therefore not possible to include in an organization’s strategy. Although a solution to this problem is scenario planning. (See page 14)
2.3.2 Lean and Multiple-project approach
Michael Porter, could encapsulate the lean manufacturing strategy as being one which comprised (amongst other things) “a wide line of models offering multiple features”, based on “standard products” with a “wide range of options” (Porter et al., 2000).
There is no doubt that lean thinking has significantly improved project performance. During the 1980s, for example, many Japanese automakers used heavyweight project managers, overlapping phases, & other techniques when they replaced & expanded their product lines nearly twice as often as U.S and European companies (Womack et al., 1990).
But it has its drawbacks. For example, in Toyota, heavyweight project managers were so keen to develop their own projects; they were unknowingly, duplicating many steps in concurrent projects leading to wastage of resources. In pursuing lean principle for heir individual project, they are actually wasting overall resources for the company which could be avoided by using multi-project approach.
Cusumano (1998) opines that a critical decision for automobile companies building complex products with many components or subsystems is whether or not to organise groups around functional activities or around projects that bring together people from different functions or component areas. Most auto makers have moved towards a mixture of functional groups & projects (or clusters of projects, which we refer to as “development centres”).
Tightly organised cross functional teams are usually nimble & fast, especially if they overlap phases & give lots of authority to project managers and creative engineers. Multi-project thinking usually fits reality much better than focusing on single projects, which lean practises product development emphasize.
It was important to project managers & engineers at different points in time to create distinctive new products with new platforms and other innovative technologies. A good engineering organization should be able to share technologies and co-ordinate different projects when efficiency of this sort becomes important. In 1992, Toyota divided all of its new product development projects into three development centres. The centres grouping focuses on the similarity in platform design. Centre 1 is responsible for rear-wheel-drive platforms and vehicles, Centre 2 for front wheel drive and Centre 3 for utility vehicle/vans. Also, in 1993, Toyota created Centre 4 to develop components and systems for all vehicle projects. Toyota says it can now develop a new model in 18 months, compared to the three years it takes GM.
Technology alone cannot deliver victory; technology, however, coupled with a market opportunity and the necessary organizational skills to deliver the product to the market will help significantly. According to David Teece and Gary Pisano (1994) the choices available to the firm in terms of future direction are dependant on its own capabilities, that is, the firm’s level of technology, skills developed, intellectual property, managerial processes and its routines. The dynamic competence based theory of the firm sees both the external and internal environments as dynamic: The external environment is constantly changing as different players manoeuvre themselves and the company’s internal environment is also evolving.
2.3.3 Supplier relationships
Another key part of the new production is the relationship with parts suppliers, who typically provide 85% of the parts that make up a car. Ensuring good-quality parts, delivered on time, is one of the keys to both reliability and efficiency. Missing a key component can bring the assembly line to a halt. Toyota pioneered the "just-in-time" manufacturing system, in which suppliers send parts daily – or several times a day – and are notified electronically when the assembly line is running out. Toyota aims to build long-term relationships with its suppliers, many of whom it has taken a stake in, and says it now produces 80% of its parts within North America.
On the other hand, GM has had a more difficult recent history with its suppliers, having spun off its parts subsidiary, Delphi, several years ago. GM says its supplier relationships are critical and it needs to bring them into its global manufacturing system. But it also admits that, with the company losing billions, it is squeezing the suppliers to lower their prices.
According to Fane et al. (2003) “Over the years evidence has accumulated that the most effective way to expand a firm’s “productivity frontier” is through systematic investment in human capital, as well as in those tangible fixed assets that directly foster productivity improvements. Toyota’s 360 first-tier supplier network, coupled with precise scheduling and precision coordination, has made it feasible for the firm to respond promptly to short-notice orders. The supplier network, which at the core of TPS, is the key to this success and this is precisely why Toyota will do everything to enhance and protect this corporate “jewel” from encroachment by rival foreign firms” (see appendix 2).
The first chapter provided broad aims and objectives which formed the foundation of this dissertation. But in order to measure the factors more accurately, there is a need to refine the research questions. After reviewing the literature, author has refined the research questions in the form of five propositions (or hypotheses) as follows:
H1. Toyota’s cars are of better quality than General Motor’s.
H2. Toyota’s production systems are more effective and low-cost than that of GM’s.
H3. Toyota is more innovative company than GM.
H4. Toyota manages innovation better than GM.
H5. Toyota is more environment friendly than GM.
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the research methodology used to achieve the objectives set earlier in chapter one. It demonstrated the research philosophy, approach, strategy and research method that underpinned this study. Based on the objective of research, it presented an analysis of what data was required and where they may exist, review and evaluate the fundamental research methodologies. It justified the research approaches that were used in this research. Methods for data collection and data analysis were also reviewed, evaluated and justified. Finally, it outlined the validity and reliability of the methods actually adopted for data collection and analysis. Based on research onion by Sunders et al. (2003), this section explored the various stages of research design (see Appendix 3).
3.1 Research philosophy
In any research, one is developing new knowledge in a particular field and the research philosophy is all about the development and nature of knowledge. Research philosophy can significantly affect the way of doing research as the research philosophy one adapts contains important assumptions about the way one sees the world. These assumptions are important as they reflect on a particular research strategy chosen and methods applied. Three major ways of thinking about research philosophy are: epistemology, ontology and axiology (Saunders et al., 2007).
Epistemology or theory of knowledge is a branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. The term was introduced into English by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808-1864) (Wikipedia, 2008). Epistemology concerns what constitutes acceptable knowledge in a field of study. Ontology, on the other hand, is a study of conceptions of reality. The last one, axiology studies judgements about value. Although this may include values we posses in the fields of aesthetics and ethics, it is the process of social enquiry with which we are concerned here. The author chose epistemology as the way of thinking about research philosophy because in this approach, the author chooses the data which is significant to this research and decides what is relevant in the context. This will be further clarified with the author’s choice of positivism philosophy.
The research philosophy adopted in this research is that of positivism because it stresses the objective nature of a business research. According to Remenyi et al. (1998), if your research philosophy reflects the principles of positivism then you will probably adopt the philosophical stance of a natural scientist. You will prefer working with a sociable reality and the end product of such research can be law-like generalizations similar to those produced by the physical and natural scientist. The author has used existing theory to develop hypotheses as is prevalent in positivism philosophy. Another predominant factor for choosing this research philosophy is that the researcher is external to the data collection procedure; i.e. the researcher cannot manipulate the data or its interpretation. This is because all the data is secondary data which does not involve observing anyone or interpreting something, everything is factual and there is no scope of misinterpretation or modification by the researcher during data collection.
On the other hand, interpretivism takes an opposing view to positivism; it is an inductive and subjective approach and qualitative in nature. The role of the interpretivist is to seek to understand the subjective reality of those that they study in order to be able to make sense of and understand their motives, actions and intensions an a way that is meaningful for those research participants (Saunders et al., 2003). This philosophy, it is argued, believes that the social world is too complex to be limited by generalized laws and rich insights are lost without them. But the author disagrees to this philosophy because there are certain facts which when clubbed together inevitably result in generalizations as we saw from the propositions formed at the end of chapter two. And this research could only be carried out on the basis of those propositions. If the author was to study the motivating factors in Toyota’s workforce, then interpretivism philosophy would have been more appropriate as it would be hard to generalize the motivating factors in such a complicated environment. But this research is based on secondary data and the vast literature already available and looking to explain Toyota’s success from an innovation & CSF point of view. Therefore it was essential to generalize the propositions and test them against the factual data gathered.
The third research philosophy realism is based on the belief that a reality exists that is independent of human thoughts and beliefs (Saunders et al., 2003). This suggests two general aspects; one is about existence and the other concerns about independence. For example, moon exists in the world and the moon is spherical and yellow, the fact that the moon exists and is spherical is independent of anything anyone happens to say or think about the matter (Miller, 2005).
Although those three views are different, research is often a mixture between positivist and interpretivist, that means research approach and methods can be adopted in a more flexible way. Numerous studies use both or either of these methodologies as they see fit. This study was conducted by positivism, as it mainly relied on a quantitative approach which is discussed later. The positivism emphasise on a highly structured methodology to facilitate replication and on quantifiable observations that lend themselves to statistical analysis (Gill and Johnson, 1997).
Guba and Lincoln (1994; citied by Saunders et al., 2007) argue that questions of research methods are of secondary importance to questions of which paradigm is applicable to your research. A paradigm is a way of analysing social phenomena from which particular understandings of these phenomena can be gained and explanations attempted. There are four different types of research paradigms: functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist and radical structuralist.
3.3 Research approach
The research design depends on several factors, such as research philosophy, research objectives, constraints that the researcher will inevitably have (for example access to data, time, location and money, ethical issues) and so on. Fundamental research approaches, i.e. deductive and inductive, were reviewed and evaluated here and an appropriate approach was chosen for this study.
This is a dominant research approach in the natural science where ‘laws provide the basis of explanation, permit the anticipation of phenomena, predict their occurrence and therefore allow them to be controlled’ (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). It is based on the theory and propositions are developed to anticipate relationship between variables and tested by collecting quantitative data. According to Saunders et al. (2007), deductive approach owes more to positivism, which is consistent with the author’s research philosophy.
Deductive approach has several important characteristics according to Saunders, et al. (2003). First, a proposition is developed about the relationship between two or more variables from theory; so the author cab study the relationship between innovation and success using deductive approach. Another characteristic is the collection of quantitative data. A further important characteristic is application of controls to ensure validity of data. These controls help to ensure which data are valid to test proposition. An additional important characteristic of deduction is that concepts need to be operationalized in a way that enables facts to be measured quantitatively. So the author can define what exactly constitutes quality and innovation which were mentioned in the propositions in chapter two and then, measure them in the context of GM and Toyota. This will provide a level field for both the companies and a very rational approach to compare them without any prejudice. Because, as is case with positivism, deduction also requires the researcher to be independent of what is being observed in order to pursue the principle of scientific rigour. The final characteristic of the deductive approach is generalisation. It is necessary to select samples of reasonable and workable size in order to generalise conclusions.
Robson (2002) listed five sequential stages through which deductive research progresses. First is deducing a hypothesis from the theory. Then one has to express the hypothesis in operational terms (i.e. indicating exactly how the concepts or variables are to be measured), which propose a relationship between two specific concepts or variables. The third task is to test the operational hypothesis using one of the research strategies. Then we examine the outcome of the inquiry to confirm the hypothesis or modify it. And the fifth and final stage involves any modification in the theory as required after the findings.
Inductive approach is opposite to deductive approach which is concerned with qualitative data analysis. Qualitative data is collected by interview or observation, a theory is formed by analysing those data. Inductive approach allows a more flexible structure to permit changes of research emphasis as the research progresses. It is less concern with the need to generalise. In this approach, data is collected first and then theory is formed based on the analysis of the data. Its strength is that it develops an understanding of the way in which humans interpreted their social world before establishing a cause-effect relationship between particular variables.
In reality, the author found that the two approaches deductive and inductive are not mutually exclusive and it is possible to blend them both in your research. The author found some excerpts from interviews of the top bosses of GM & Toyota which are stated in chapter four. So, there were instances of inductive approach despite of the fact that the author chose deductive approach. The author preferred deductive approach over inductive because the inductive approach entails direct interviews etc which were not possible due to time and access constraints. The author could not personally interview top managers in Toyota and GM and collect information and then form theories based on them as required in the inductive approach. Instead, the author used existing theories to build hypothesis and collected data to test those hypothesis.
3.4 Research strategy
Robson (2002) defines case study as ‘a strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple source of evidence’. It is best used when a research wants to gain a rich understanding about the chosen topic. It adopts questionnaires, interviews, observation and documentary analysis to construct answers to questions such as why, what, how. But the case study lacks the scientific feel according to Saunders at el. (2003). With this in mind, case studies do prove if well constructed a good background to problem and a chance to suggest new hypotheses.
Morris and Wood (1991) opine that the case study strategy will be of particular interest to you if you wish to gain a rich understanding of the context of the research and the processes being enacted. Case study strategy is often used in explanatory and exploratory research. An exploratory study is a valuable means of finding out ‘what is happening; to seek new insights; to ask questions and to assess phenomena in new light’ (Robson, 2002:59). It is helpful in clarifying the understanding of a problem and can be done with the help of literature search. Explanatory studies establish causal relationship between variables. It can be done by collecting data to explain some phenomena as was done in this dissertation.
Yin (2003) distinguishes between four case study strategies based upon two discrete dimensions. These are single case versus multiple case and holistic case versus embedded case. A single case is often used where it represents a critical or extreme case. It can also be selected because it provides an opportunity to observe and analyse a phenomenon that few have considered before. The rationale for using multiple cases focuses upon the need to establish whether the findings of the first case occur in other cases and, as a consequence, the need to generalise from these findings. For this reason Yin (2003) argues that multiple case studies may be preferable to a single case study. For theses reasons, the author has chosen a multiple case study strategy because the phenomenon was occurring in other firm and the author needed to generalise that in order to compare Toyota and General Motors.
Yin’s second dimension, holistic versus embedded refers to the unit of analysis. If a researcher is only concerned with the organization as a whole, then it is a holistic case study. And if the researcher wishes to examine the logical sub-units within the organization (like in this dissertation the production department, the R & D department and the higher management), then it is called an embedded case study which is the one chosen by the author.
Although case study may feel like non-rational, Saunders et al. (2007), argues that it can be a worthwhile way of exploring existing theory. It can also enable a researcher to challenge an existing theory and provide a new source of research questions.
3.5 Methods for data collection
Quantitative Data Research Method
The data used was predominantly quantitative, but as mentioned in research approach (section 3.3, pg 24), there was an element of inductive approach in the form of some qualitative data from secondary sources.
Saunders et al, (2003) opined that virtually all research will involve some numerical data or contain data that could usefully be qualified to help answer the research questions and to meet the objectives Through the literature review it had been intended to identify the type of data required to address the research objectives and to gather it from as many sources as possible and then, compare them, contrast them and cross them. Many sources of numerical data relevant to the research have been found out. These include annual reports from Toyota and General Motors, financial institutions and research papers.
3.6 Secondary Data
Secondary data is data collected previously by someone else which is possibly for some other purpose. Secondary data can provide a useful source to answer research questions or meet objectives. But on the other hand, it has the limitations of bias, validity and relevance which are discussed in detail later.
Secondary data is classified into three types according to Saunders et al. (2003): Documentary data, survey-based data and multiple sources. Documentary data can be collected from books, journal, magazine articles, newspapers, video recordings, film and television programmes and digital DVDs. Survey-based data refers to data collected by questionnaires that have been analysed for their original purpose (Hakim, 1982). It can be collected from different kinds of surveys. Multiple-source secondary data is based on documentary or survey data or can be combination of the two.
For many research questions and objectives the main advantage of using secondary data is the enormous saving in resources, in particular time and money (Ghauri and Gronhaugh, 2002). While the main disadvantage is secondary data will have been collected for a specific purpose that differs from your research questions or objectives.
In this study, secondary data is an essential source and plays an important role throughout the whole project. As propositions about innovation, innovation management, quality, environment-friendliness and critical success factors were all built based on theory by other authors from secondary data. They are mainly used in the literature review and obtained from books, journals, relative articles and reports from website. Another main reason behind using secondary data is to be able to look at and take into account of the work of others in this field.
Secondary data has provided a significant source to test the propositions H1 to H5 in terms of statistical data, trends in innovation, technical details and prevailing theories. It has, also, given a broad range of information necessary to fully understand the international automobile market and how it works, as well as the basis for core concepts of low cost production.
When reviewed, secondary data was the foundation for building primary research. It highlighted the data to focus on answering some specific questions, and most importantly, it provided methodologies and theories that could be discussed and criticised.
3.7 Methodological review
The importance of the choice of research approach made by the author is emphasised by Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) via three reasons. First, it enables us to take more informed decisions about our research design. Second, it will help you to think about those research strategies and choices that will work or you. Third, the knowledge of the different research traditions enables you to adapt your research design to cater for constraints.
For certain types of research project, such as those requiring national or international comparisons, secondary data will probably provide the main source to answer your research question and to address your objectives (Saunders et al., 2007). In order to reduce the possibility of getting the answer wrong, validity and reliability of the methods actually adopted for data collection and analysis are both emphasized in this study.
According to Golafshani (2003), validity is concerned with whether the research truly measures that which it was intended to measure or how truthful the research results are. Reliability is concerned with the extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under study. Thus, Validity and reliability must be achieved to ensure the accuracy of research finds.
According to Kervin (1999), secondary data that fails to provide the information that researchers need to answer research questions or meet objectives will result in invalid answers. So secondary data used in this study was collected from large and well known organizations such as Emerald, EBSCO, BBC and company websites as articles from these sources are more likely to be reliable and trustworthy. Some of secondary data was collected from books and printed publications, as data from those sources are authoritative, consistent and accuracy. Internet is another tool used in this study. However, secondary data obtained from internet was difficult to judge the validity and reliability, so when searching data via internet, the author looked for a copyright statement and the existence of published documents relating to the data to help validation.
Research Design Quality
Whether quantitative or qualitative, good research design requires external validity, reliability, construct validity, and internal validity. Each is discussed below as it relates to the case study research method.
First, external validity is an issue that must be addressed during the design of the research. External validity reflects how accurately the results represent the phenomenon studied, establishing generalizability of results. Lack of generalizability has been the major criticism of case studies, which is best addressed by replicating case studies and verifying patterns.
The second issue in research design quality is reliability. In a case study context, there are two keys to reliability: use of a case study protocol, and development of a case study data base. A case study protocol includes the interview guide, as well as the procedures to be followed in using the test instrument. It is always good practice to have a case study protocol. In multiple case methodologies, it is even more important to ensure reliability.
Construct validity, the third issue in research design quality, addresses establishment of the proper operational measures for the concepts being studied. Thus, it is part of the data collection phase, and is closely tied to reliability. Three elements are associated with the establishment of construct validity: using multiple sources of evidence, establishing a chain of events, and having key informants review the case study research. Each is summarized below.
The fourth and final issue in research design quality, internal validity, is only a concern in explanatory case studies, where the researcher is trying to demonstrate that some outcome was caused by an independent variable. It is irrelevant for those case studies that are solely exploratory or descriptive in nature. Internal validity in case study research relates to making proper inferences from the data, considering alternative explanations, use of convergent data, and related tactics (Ellram, 1996).
Chapter 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS/ DISCUSSION
The details of the data collected and their implications in the context of this research are discussed in this chapter.
Toyota’s overall success can be gauged by these figures. In what’s expected to be the best-ever profit results of any Japanese company in history, Toyota is anticipated to announce operating profits of about $18.4 billion for its fiscal year that ended in March 2007. That’s up 17% from a year earlier, while net earnings could rise 13% to $12.9 billion. Sales, meanwhile, are expected to grow 10% to $193 billon. These figures are Toyota projections, and the company does have a history of ultra-conservative forecasting followed by surprises on the upside. Even so, Toyota’s projections suggest an operating profit margin of 9.5%, compared to 8.9% last year. That of course is the kind of earnings strength for which executives at GM, Ford, and Chrysler would die. Yet you wouldn’t sense trouble in Toyota’s sales numbers. The company’s U.S. sales increased 6.7% through April, compared to falls of 6.5% at GM, 13.6% at Ford, and 2.9% at Chrysler (Rowley, 2007).
The author has identified the CSFs in the automobile industry and scored GM and Toyota to compare them. Also, weighting is given to various CSFs according to current environment (adapted from Considine, 2008).
Note: Scores are out of 10 where 10 = excellent and 1 = poor.
Product quality & service
Low cost production
Here is the justification of the respective scores of Toyota and GM by the author.
It is very important factor while choosing a car as it reflects customer’s trust. The author feels that GM is a touch higher at the moment because of its 70 years of domination at the top in world automobile industry, but Toyota is fast catching up with its superior quality and value for money.
Product Quality & after-sales service
Again like branding, this is also very essential factor in retaining the customers as well as getting positive word-of-mouth publicity. And Toyota is way ahead of GM in this front.
Low cost production
With all the product, process and management innovations focussed on this aspect, Toyota not only leads the industry, but also sets a benchmark for others who are still far behind Toyota.
This is the latest change in CSFs as a result of global warming and increased environmental concerns worldwide. The regulations to restrict emissions are getting tougher round the world. Sales of ‘green’ cars are rising worldwide and form an increasingly important part of manufacturers’ plans. They include hybrids like Toyota’s Prius. Toyota has sold more than 500,000 hybrids and plans to introduce new models. GM has plans for a green car called the Chevrolet Volt. Intended to be the first mass produced car powered solely by an electric motor, it would plug in to recharge. It could also feature hydrogen fuel cells and an ethanol-based petrol engine. But the Volt is years, if not decades, away from commercial production (BBC, 2007).
4.2 Evaluation of hypothesis 1: Toyota’s cars are of better quality than General Motor’s.
Quality is one of the most important factors when buying a car when the customer has endless choices. Toyota’s production lines have the process of pulling the cord (See section 2.1.3, page 7), which they call "andan", and is part of Toyota’s "lean" production system, which means that it has been able to produce cars much more cheaply, and to a higher quality, than its US rivals. In 1998, it took Ford and GM 50% more hours to make a car than Toyota – and the difference was so great that GM did not make a profit on any of its cars (see appendix 1 and 4). Now GM is attempting to emulate Toyota by introducing a global manufacturing system of its own and has been closing the productivity gap. GM’s new manufacturing system is vital to its survival, says the man in charge of implementing it worldwide, Gary Cowger. GM aims, like Toyota, to produce the same car by the same method in any of its production plants around the world.
"Looking at the new plants, you wouldn’t know if you were in Lansing, Michigan, Russelheim, Germany or Shanghai," says Mr Cowger, GM’s global vice-president for manufacturing and labor. GM is also eliminating national boundaries in its development process. Instead, it is planning to design plants flexibly around a single type of vehicle, such as a small car, medium car or truck (SUV). And it is also integrating the design of the car and the manufacturing process to gain efficiencies. GM’s global design centres will be dotted around the world: Korea (Daewoo) for small cars; Germany (Opel) for mid-size cars; Australia (Holden) for full-size cars, and Michigan for full size trucks and SUVs. Each plant can quickly change the specifications of the models it produces to adapt to local conditions, although it shares a common platform, including engines and transmissions, across the range (Schiffers, 2007).
4.3 Evaluation of hypothesis 2: Toyota’s production systems are more effective and low-cost than that of GM’s.
Long established as the industry’s leading manufacturer, Toyota continues to find ways to make its production more efficient. At its Takaoka plant, it has installed a simplified assembly process, known as the Global Body Line, which maximizes the use of common tools and reduces the number of production steps. Besides being incredibly flexible–Toyota can easily shift production among eight different car types–the system costs 50% less to install, changes over to new models for 70% less, and ramps up to full production in three weeks, compared with three months for the old system. It has also been installed in Kentucky and is being rolled out to Toyota plants around the world (Taylor, 2003).
Toyota does not stop after achieving something, instead they believe in continuous improvement (Kaizen). According to their annual report (2007), Toyota plans to improve returns and enhance operating efficiencies by continuing to pursue aggressive cost reduction programs, including:
• improving product development and production efficiencies through the re-integration and improvement of vehicle platforms and power trains and through the development of electronic platforms which organise electronic devices of vehicles as a package and standardize electronic structure and infrastructure,
• applying advanced information technologies to improve efficiency throughout the product development and production processes,
• streamlining production systems and
• improving the efficiency of domestic and international distribution.
The Toyota Production System (TPS)
Toyota first ventured overseas when it formed a joint venture with GM in the 1980s. Toyota took over a truck plant in Fremont, California, that had been closed by GM. The Japanese automaker introduced TPS. When the factory reopened, it surpassed all of GM’s American plants in quality and productivity. Noteworthy was that Toyota achieved this with almost the same unionized work force GM had employed. Toyota succeeded in building bonds of trust with employees. Even when the plant was running far below capacity, no workers were laid off.
Toyota pioneered the internationally recognized production system known as the “Toyota Production System”. The Toyota Production System is based on Toyota’s own concepts of efficient production and has the following two principal elements: “Just-in-Time”, and “Jidoka”. Just-in-Time is a production method through which necessary parts and components are manufactured and delivered in just the right quantity in a timely manner just as they are needed. This allows Toyota to maintain low levels of inventory while maintaining operating efficiency.
Toyota believes that the Toyota Production System allows it to achieve mass-production efficiencies even for small production volumes. This system gives Toyota the flexibility to respond to changing consumer demand without significantly increasing production costs. While the Toyota Production System remains the basis of Toyota’s automobile production, the system has been expanded for use in Toyota’s parts production, logistics and customer service activities.
In addition to the two principal elements described above, the Toyota Production System seeks to increase manufacturing efficiency and product quality internally through on-site identification and analysis of problems, improving transparency throughout the production process, and resolving problems at the source. As one means of realizing these goals, Toyota has introduced the use of sophisticated information technologies to improve each step of its vehicle development process, from product planning to commencement of mass-production. These technologies are intended to enhance flexibility, simplicity, quality, cost competitiveness, and speed. Specifically, detailed computer simulation of the assembly and test-run of a new vehicle or new vehicle production equipment or system is conducted before a prototype is made. An actual prototype is made only after defects and related issues have been identified and resolved by computer simulation, thereby minimizing the time required for rebuilding prototypes and significantly shortening the time required for production. Moreover, this system is used to prepare virtual factories and other visual aids in order to facilitate training and communication at overseas plants and enable the efficient transfer of necessary technology and skills.
Toyota has developed a corporate culture in which employees learn better and faster and receive a more comprehensive education than their competitors. It is a truly learning organization that continuously improves not only its work but also its management processes. GM has introduced its own Toyota-like production system with all the tools and methods, but failed to foster a culture rooted in a capacity to learn and improve. Back in the ’80s GM lost a golden opportunity in the Golden State, where Toyota had carried out a virtual case study in TPS implementation and how to nurture such a culture.
This is an excerpt from an interview by Toyota’s CEO. He says,”Toyota Way is more than just a Japanese Way. It’s about constant improvement. With the Toyota Way one of the key elements is kaizen: continuous improvement. There’s no end to it. It’s a never-ending journey. Respect for people is another important element: employees, customers & suppliers. When it comes to consumers, they demand changes from time to time. We have to always keep watching what the consumer wants. If we base our business on what the customer wants, there’s no end to the improvement we can achieve.
I remember a story related to me by a supplier company: They entered into a contract to supply axles for pickup trucks. It was the first contract his company had with Toyota. He said he was awarded the contract with no discussion of price. It was all based on whether his company’s processes and quality were acceptable to Toyota. He was flabbergasted. Is that a common way Toyota does business” (Kiley, 2007).
A study reveals huge differences between Detroit-based and Japanese producers in the number of man hours per vehicle needed to build cars and trucks. It provided clear-cut evidence why GM, Ford and Chrysler were struggling to compete with their Asian rivals. As recently as 1998, there were as many as 17 hours per vehicle separating the best and worst performers in the study. That gap has narrowed markedly in recent years. It is only about 7 hours per vehicle in the 2006 study. "Toyota launched the Camry in 16 days. Honda has had similar numbers with the Civic. Nissan has had similar numbers with some of its vehicles." Detroit auto makers can’t come close to matching that. Plant flexibility is the key, and it shows up in capacity utilization, a key factor in auto maker profitability. GM’s plant capacity utilization ranges from 143% to 23%. In other words, it has some plants running on massive overtime schedules while others are running at less than a quarter of their rated straight-time capacity. Ideally, an auto maker should be able to shift production from overtaxed plants to those with extra room available on their assembly lines. That’s what Toyota is able to do. Its capacity utilization ranges from a high of 109% to a low of 97%, according to the study. (Drew, 2006)
Toyota continues to focus on reducing costs and improving efficiencies through various measures. One of these measures is the reduction in the number of platforms used in vehicle production. Platforms are the essential structures that form the base of different vehicle models. As discussed in multi-project approach (section 2.3.2) and QFD (section 2.1.4), by using a common platform for the production of a greater number of models, Toyota is able to decrease the substantial expenditures required to design and develop multiple platforms. In addition, Toyota believes that it will be able to achieve the scale benefits of producing larger volumes per platform, thereby reducing manufacturing cost per vehicle.
In addition to platform reduction, Toyota continues to focus on other methods of increasing the commonality of parts and components used in different models. These steps include reducing model variations and the number of parts used in each model. Toyota is seeking to increase the efficiency of procurement from outside suppliers by making use of a common global database to enable plants in different areas of the world to purchase parts and materials from the most competitive sources. In addition, Toyota is engaged in the “Value Innovation” (VI) activity which is focused on systems-based cost innovation, going one step beyond item-based innovation. Adopting a new approach to designing, Toyota aims to achieve comprehensive cost reductions by treating associated parts as integrated systems.
Toyota’s ability to achieve these cost reductions is subject to a number of factors, some of which are not in Toyota’s control. These factors include the successful implementation of the manufacturing processes described above, as well as the business and financial conditions of Toyota’s suppliers and the general economic and political conditions in the markets in which these suppliers operate (Toyota, 2007).
4.4 Evaluation of hypothesis 3: Toyota is more innovative company than GM.
This can be stressed by the fact that Toyota was ranked third amongst the 50 most innovative companies in the world by BusinessWeek this year. GM stood at rank 18 and that too, because of its single most innovative product, Chevrolet Volt which has not reached production stage yet (BusinessWeek, 2008).
Known for its plodding ways, this conservative company possesses a surprising knack for innovation. Toyota offers an option in Japan, called "intelligent parking assist," that takes the fear out of parallel parking. The driver pulls his car into position, and then touches a computer screen. A sensor identifies the empty space, and the car does the rest: It turns the steering wheel and drives in reverse while a recorded voice delivers a play-by-play. No hands are required, though the driver must keep his foot on the brake to control the car’s speed.
Parking assist isn’t coming to the U.S. anytime soon because American customers won’t pay $2,000 for it. But their resistance hasn’t slaked Toyota’s American-like appetite for risk taking. The company aggressively creates new market segments where first movers get a huge, if temporary, advantage. It pioneered the now fast-growing market for sport-utility crossover vehicles by introducing the compact RAV4 in 1996, then followed it with the Lexus RX 300 crossover and the midsized Highlander. More recently Toyota became the first automaker to develop a brand specifically for younger buyers. Launched in California in January, Scion is making its way east with two models, which are selling faster than expected. Toyota expects to add a sports coupe to the Scion line and build volume to 100,000 cars a year, which would represent about 5% of its North American sales (Taylor, 2003).
Toyota plans to spend $100 million during the next four years on advanced research activity in North America and will utilize existing facility space at the Toyota Technical Center Ann Arbor campus. Toyota has been pursuing Sustainable Mobility, which addresses four key priorities: advanced technologies, urban environment, energy, and partnerships with government and academia. Based on these priorities, Toyota will accelerate advanced research on energy and environment, safety, and mobility infrastructure (Arbor, 2008).
Toyota spent EUR 5.8 billion on research and development last year, nearly EUR 660,000 per hour. Katsuaki Watanabe, president of Toyota Motor Corporationannounced details of the firm’s R&D spend as it launched the latest innovation in the motoring world, a three-plus one microcar called the IQ, due to go on sale early next year. The car was launched at this month’s Geneva motor show. Mr Watanabe confirmed Toyota was investigating all future forms of power sources for motoring, from more efficient engines to fuel cell technology. For example, it is currently testing a plug-in hybrid vehicle (McAleer, 2008). All these steps take Toyota way ahead in the environmental innovation sector.
The author found that GM (2008) is also aggressively pursuing environmental innovations (see section 2.1.6) like hybrid cars. But while they are in the concept stage, Toyota has been selling them for ten years now. This was the green agenda the author found in GM’s website:
More hybrid models for 2008
In 2008, GM has more than 22 vehicle lines globally with FlexFuel capability and 12 models in North America. GM is increasing production by 25 percent to more than 400,000 units annually and supplementing more than 2.4 million GM-built FlexFuel vehicles already on the road in all 50 states.
To compare both companies’ innovation score in reality, the author gathered this data from US Patents site (2008). Toyota has 17080 patents issued in the USA upto 29/04/08. And for the same period, GM has 13375 patents. This is despite GM being decades older than Toyota in the US. Add to this the fact that Toyota’s global R & D expenditure in 2007 was £3485 millionn, 3.9 % of its sales compared to GM’s £3372 million, 3.2% of total sales (Dept of innovation, 2007).
4.5 Evaluation of hypothesis 4: Toyota manages innovation better than GM.
From the literature review, the author found that being innovative alone is not enough to succeed. A company should be able to manage the innovation and should be able to convert its innovations into market-share and profits. Toyota was the pioneer of hybrid cars, whose engines switch between petrol and electricity. The eco-friendly cars have been particularly popular in the U.S. at a time of soaring oil costs. Toyota has not stopped its progress after being able to successfully capture its hybrid innovation. They are now exploring new opportunities into the future as the critical success factors are tilting towards green. Work is moving ahead to build a next-generation eco-friendly car running on fuel cells but it will take years to make it commercially viable, Toyota Motor Corp. president Katsuaki Watanabe said. Japanese companies have been working to create a viable car running on fuel cells, which would produce electricity through a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, leaving water as the only by-product. Toyota last year reported success in a test of a fuel-cell car. The FCHV vehicle was driven about 350 miles on a single filling and finished with 30% of the hydrogen still in the tank. But besides the hefty price of the FCHV, Watanabe noted that motorists would need an infrastructure of hydrogen filling stations if they are to take fuel-cell cars on the road. "It will probably be a long way ahead until we can start mass production, considering problems linked to difficulties in how to stock hydrogen and where to draw hydrogen from. It’ll take long time to solve these problems, but we will definitely commercialize it as I believe it is a promising power source," he said. Watanabe said he hoped to go further and "make a car that can actually clean the air, so that the longer it runs the cleaner the air becomes." He also said work was progressing with Panasonic maker Matsushita on loading cars with lithium-ion batteries of the type used in computers. That would open the way for so-called "plug-in hybrids" that can be recharged from standard electrical outlets. "By 2010 we hope the achievement will see customers," Watanabe said (Hasegawa, 2008). This is again a step towards environment innovation where Toyota is looking into the future to gain early competitive advantage.
Why has it taken America’s automobile manufacturers so long to narrow their efficiency gap with Toyota? In large part, because it took Detroit more than 20 years to ferret out the radical management principle at the heart of Toyota’s capacity for relentless improvement. Unlike its Western rivals, Toyota has long believed that first-line employees can be more than cogs in a soulless manufacturing machine; they can be problem solvers, innovators, and change agents. While American companies relied on staff experts to come up with process improvements, Toyota gave every employee the skills, the tools, and the permission to solve problems as they arose and to head off new problems before they occurred. The result: year after year, Toyota has been able to get more out of its people than its competitors have been able to get out of theirs. Such is the power of management orthodoxy that it was only after American carmakers had exhausted every other explanation for Toyota’s success — an undervalued yen, a docile workforce, Japanese culture, superior automation — that they were finally able to admit that Toyota’s real advantage was its ability to harness the intellect of "ordinary" employees. Management orthodoxies are often so deeply ingrained in executive thinking that they are nearly invisible and are so devoutly held that they are practically unassailable. The more unconventional the principle underlying a management innovation, the longer it will take competitors to respond. In some cases, the head-scratching can go on for decades (Hamel, 2006).
GM is also innovating but not where it matters the most. They introduced a remote-control key fob in April 2007 that allows drivers to not only determine the pressure in each tire, but also check the odometer reading, see if there’s enough fuel in the tank to make it to work in the morning, change the radio station settings and see if they remembered to lock the car doors (Woodyard, 2006). Such incremental innovations may look fancy, but they need to do radical innovations in production and product quality in order to compete with Toyota.
The author further found the evidence for Toyota’s better innovation management. In an interview with BusinessWeek (2007), Toyota’s CEO said, “We always talk about the right vehicle at the right location and the right timing. An easy to understand example may relate to Brazil, a country with extensive bio-fuel availability. We have decided to introduce a Corolla that can accommodate 100% ethanol. We also think about diesel engines and compressed natural gas.
4.6 Evaluation of hypothesis 5: Toyota is more environment friendly than GM.
An example of Toyota’s leadership in environmental technologies was the introduction of the Prius to the Japanese market in December 1997. The Prius is the world’s first mass-produced hybrid car that runs on a combination of gasoline and electric power. Toyota introduced a fully remodeled version of the Prius in September 2003 featuring Toyota’s new-generation hybrid system, which combines decreased environmental impact with increased power and performance. Since the first generation of the Prius was introduced, Toyota has sold over 1 million hybrid vehicles as of May 2007 (Toyota, 2008), far more than Honda, the only other company making hybrids. Environmentally minded U.S. drivers, including a smattering of Hollywood celebrities, have bought more than 56,000 Priuses. Toyota’s early move into hybrids has left American manufacturers in its dust. Ford has delayed plans to market a hybrid-powered vehicle until August 2004; GM won’t sell a full-power hybrid SUV until 2007 (Taylor, 2003).
Toyota has hybrid versions of most of its range of cars. In 2006, Toyota started to provide Hybrid Systems to Nissan. In addition, in December 2002 Toyota began limited sales of fuel cell hybrid vehicles that use fuel cells to generate the electricity that drives the motor, in Japan and the United States. After having certified the partially improved fuel cell hybrid vehicles in June 2005, leases were commenced in July 2005. Toyota also promotes the development of advanced technologies through alliances with other major manufacturers. For instance, Toyota is broadening its research and development efforts through an alliance with Exxon Mobil Corporation for the development of fuel compatible with future power sources. Toyota has also formed a collaborative relationship with Volkswagen in areas such as recycling and navigation technologies. In addition, Toyota has entered into an alliance with PSA Peugeot Citroën for the development and production of low-cost, fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles (Toyota, 2008).
The author found General Motors lagging behind in reality despite making big promises in their Annual Report (2007):
We have pledged publicly to double our production of E85-capable vehicles by 2010, and we are prepared to make fully half of our annual vehicle production biofuel-capable by 2012, provided there is ample availability and distribution of E85, as part of an overall national energy strategy. Later this year, we will debut our pioneering two-mode hybrid system on our full-size SUVs. This sophisticated hybrid powertrain is based on the system we use in our transit buses that currently are saving hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel a year on the streets of 51 cities in the United States and Canada. Our commitment to energy diversity also means that we will significantly expand and accelerate the development of electrically driven vehicles – vehicles in which an electric motor turns the wheels. In 2006, we showed the first drivable version of our Sequel fuel cell vehicle, and announced plans to deploy a test fleet of 100 fuel cell Chevy Equinox crossovers in three states this year. In 2007, we will continue our development of fuel cell technology, which is a major part of our effort to displace petroleum fuels and, in the process, drastically reduce carbon emissions. In 2006, we also announced plans to produce a plug-in hybrid version of the next-generation Saturn Vue Green Line, which has the potential to achieve double the fuel efficiency of any current SUV. And at this year’s North American International Auto Show in Detroit, we unveiled the highly acclaimed Chevrolet Volt. GM will begin placing more than 100 Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles with customers in the fall of 2007, as part of “Project Driveway.” This will constitute the most comprehensive market test of fuel cell vehicles anywhere. A variety of drivers will operate these vehicles and refuel with hydrogen in three geographic areas: California, the New York metropolitan area and Washington, D.C. The lessons learned from Project Driveway will directly influence future fuel cell vehicle generations and ultimate market acceptance.
Then, the author compared it with Toyota’s green plan. In a keynote speech delivered at the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) in Detroit, Toyota President Katsuaki Watanabe announced several environmental initiatives focused on new product releases:
• Toyota will supply plug-in hybrids to commercial customers by 2010. President Watanabe said, "As part of this plan, we will deliver a significant fleet of PHEVs powered by lithium-ion batteries to a wide variety of global commercial customers, with many coming to the U.S."
• Toyota will offer a new clean-diesel V8 engine in both the Tundra truck and Sequoia SUV in the near future.
• At next year’s NAIAS, Toyota and Lexus will expand their conventional hybrid lineups by staging premieres of an all-new dedicated hybrid vehicle for each of their product lines.
Toyota has released its 2007 North America Environmental Report, describing progress toward achieving goals set forth in Toyota’s 2007-2011 Environmental Action Plan (EAP). Some of the EAP’s goals are to promote the development of technologies to achieve best-in-class fuel efficiency performance; introduce vehicle technologies that support diversification of energy and fuel resources; promote the development of clean-energy vehicles and ensure wide acceptance; promote initiatives to reduce traffic congestion; reduce CO2 emitted from North American operations; and reduce the company’s production of waste and water consumption (Toyota, 2007).
According to a survey by JDPower (2008), Last year was a great one for hybrid vehicle sales in the U.S. According to the tally at hybridcars.com, hybrid sales bucked the overall market downturn and increased by 38 percent compared to 2006 (jumping from 250,000 to 350,000). But those numbers are due to big sales jumps by only a couple models. Toyota Motor Sales is the clear leader in the U.S. hybrid market. Its Toyota Prius, Camry and Highlander, along with the Lexus RX 400h, GS 450h and LS 600h L, account for almost four out of five hybrids sold in this country. Honda takes a little more than 10 percent of the market, mainly with its Civic Hybrid (and a few Accord Hybrids) and Ford about 7 percent (with the Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner). The remainder of the market is split between Nissan (with its Altima) and GM (with the Saturn Vue and Aura), again according to hybridcars.com numbers based on R.L. Polk vehicle registration data.
With more models coming on the market during 2008 (GM alone plans to introduce a new hybrid model every quarter this year), hybrid sales will undoubtedly increase again. All of the above data is coherent with author’s view on environmental innovation (see section 2.1.6, pg 10).
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS.
In this chapter, the author will draw conclusions from all the propositions mentioned in literature review and subsequently tested by secondary data. In chapter two, the author had finalised five propositions which were tested by the data collected as per the methodology discussed in chapter 3 and chapter 4.
The author concluded that the following factors have been responsible for Toyota’s success over GM in the US automobile market.
The proposition one stated that Toyota’s cars are of higher quality than that of GM’s. After the findings discussed in chapter four, it is evident that Toyota’s cars are of better quality and offer more value for money than GM’s. This has been reiterated by surveys like JDPower (2008). There are fewer problems reported and they are easier to maintain than GM’s cars. This is also one of the reasons that Toyota has been able to maintain high loyalty among its customers. Toyota retains their customers for years and this result in higher sales and customer satisfaction for Toyota. Although GM claims to shorten this gap rapidly, but they are still far behind Toyota.
In the second proposition, it was stated that Toyota’s production systems are more effective and low cost than that of GM’s. Throughout this research and especially in the findings, we have seen that most of Toyota’s innovations have been in the production system and they have managed it better to get the best results and maximum profits. Examples like Toyota Production System (TPS), Total Quality Management (TQM), lean, JIT and long term better relations with their suppliers have given Toyota this undisputed competitive advantage which its competitors (like GM) are struggling to replicate. The author noticed this during the research that these processes and continuous improvement have been an integral part of Toyota’s work culture. Toyota Production System (TPS) and ‘Toyota Way’ have become a benchmark for organizations even outside this industry and the inspiration for several books and researches. Toyota’s employees are more like sculptors who take pride and personal responsibility in their work which is absent in the GM factories.
The third proposition states that Toyota is more innovative than GM. This has been substantiated with the figures like R & D expenditure, number of patents etc. which are an important indicator of a firm’s innovation score as per Trott (2005). Toyota has developed many product, process, production environment and management innovations as seen earlier. They are able to build cars quicker than their competitors and exactly as per the customer’s requirements thereby cutting the waste of stock using their innovative methods. Through their various innovations, Toyota has been able to serve the US customers better and have responded to changing critical success factors better than GM. In today’s fiercely competitive automobile market which is under pressure from the customers’ demand and Government’s green legislations and rising fuel prices, only a company which innovates as per the needs of the changing environment can succeed. Toyota has proven this by beating the mighty giants like Ford and GM who relied on mass production for so long, that they couldn’t adapt to the changing demands of the industry and suffered huge losses.
In the author’s opinion, an organization should be innovative enough to act pro-actively to the changing CSFs and even create new ones to be ahead of the competition. According to Rowe et al. (1994), an organization’s top bosses should identify the critical success factors, refine them into goals and objectives and then, identify measures of performance to keep track of their organization’s progress.
The fourth proposition emphasised that Toyota has managed innovation better than GM. No doubt GM has also been innovating. But it was more reactive to the innovations of Toyota rather than being pro-active. They are new entrants in the hybrid market as seen in chapter four. Toyota, on the other hand, has been manufacturing its hybrid car Prius since 1997 and has sold more than one million vehicles already. Therefore, Toyota identified this changing CSF quickly, used its innovations to devise the solution and materialised them into market potential and profits. Some companies even after doing an innovation are not able to cash it in the market. This is what makes innovation management so important and explains Toyota’s success.
The fifth proposition stated that Toyota is more environmental friendly than GM. The author believes this is one of the most significant factors separating GM and Toyota. As evident from the recent legislations for environmental safety, carbon emissions and fuel efficiency, it has become very crucial for car manufacturers to produce small, fuel efficient cars with the option of using alternative energy to reduce pollution. Toyota, as pointed earlier has been the pioneer in this area years of experience in selling and also having dedicated resources to explore further practically feasible and profitable technologies to meet these requirements.
General Motors have not been able to keep pace with the changing critical success factors such as the need for alternative fuel-powered vehicles and has not been innovative enough to create the opportunities for success like Toyota. In terms of the crucial environmental innovation, the author found GM lagging far behind Toyota.
Economist (2005) concurs that the winners in the US automobile market, notably Japan’s big three (Toyota, Nissan and Honda) do not have magic answers. They focus on patient execution of sensible, but ambitious, plans to expand their sales. They develop a steady stream of new models and make them with remarkable efficiency: there are no takeovers, no dramas or miracle cures, just relentless, grinding professionalism with, increasingly, an enticing dash of design flair to boot. And when they hit one target, they immediately set another. In the case of Toyota, there is one extra ingredient that is somewhat mystical, if not exactly magical. There is such a strong corporate culture that every employee knows the "Toyota way" of doing things. Put it down on paper and it sounds as flaky as a typical mission statement. But Toyota preaches to the converted and it works.
Finally the author concludes that it is not a single factor, but a combination of all the above factors (mentioned in the propositions) which led to Toyota’s meteoric rise in the recent years bringing to an end, nearly seven decades of reign at the top for General Motors. GM can turn around their fortunes, if they do not copy Toyota’s methods blindly, but if they understand their own customer base, the changing critical success factors (especially the environment) and innovate accordingly. Toyota knows how to achieve success and maintain it. It has managed, so far, to avoid what Watanabe and others have called the "big-company disease"—and by that what they really mean is the GM disease. "The scariest symptom," Watanabe said in an interview with BusinessWeek in 2007, "is that complacency will breed in the company. To be satisfied with becoming the top runner, and to become arrogant, is the path we must be most fearful of" (Bremner, 2007).
Reflection on learning
It was a great learning experience for the author to complete this dissertation. There were phases of very low productivity, sudden gushes, continuous planning and high output. The author thoroughly enjoyed the experience and gained a lot of knowledge in the automobile industry and in general. The author felt after this dissertation, that Toyota’s way can be applied to our lives, following the ritual of Kaizen (continuous improvement), taking responsibility of your actions and striving for perfect quality in whatever you do.
The author adapted the Kolb’s learning cycle to reflect on the learning process during this research. It is a very useful concept in learning. Kolb’s cycle reinstated the fact that there is no end to learning and it is a continuous cycle. Reflection of what has been learned is an important aspect of the learning process as it enables a person to improve on the past mistakes and explore new frontiers. The first stage in Kolb’s cycle is the concrete experience which means the actual process of doing the dissertation. This started with the author’s interest in the automobile industry and getting a timely guidance by the supervisor about the path to be followed. And with the right guidance, support, motivation and hard work, the author was able to achieve the desired objective in time.
The second stage is reflective observation which is actually the beginning of the internalisation process. This was during the final stage before submission when the author realised how far he has reached from the start. The author began reflecting on all the steps in between and what could have been done better.
The third stage is the abstract conceptualisation stage which is the advance reflection stage. At this juncture, the author summarized the whole experience and concluded the learning outcomes gained from this dissertation. The author found that the way he maintained his discipline, dedication and concentration on this project, he could progress a lot in his career and life by building upon this knowledge base and mental strength.
The fourth and final stage in Kolb’s cycle is active experimentation stage. This is more of an implementation of the knowledge gained during the research process. As mentioned earlier, the author plans to implement the Toyota way to improve his personal and professional life. The author also plans to make this dissertation as a launching pad for his career in the automobile industry. This research has given a more than useful insight into the operations and strategies of two of the biggest automobile manufacturers of the world namely Toyota and General Motors.
The author feels really grateful to this university and his dissertation supervisor who provided him the opportunity to have such an enjoyable and insightful experience of a lifetime.
The author feels that if he was to start it all over again, he would plan the time scale better and build the momentum very early to give more consistent, quality time on the project. Moreover, the author would limit the topic in such a way to gain even deeper understanding of the organization and get some qualitative data (like interviews) to make it more complete.
Albernathy, W.J. (1978) ‘Patterns of industrial innovation’ in Tushman, M.L. and Moore, W.L. Readings in the Management of Innovation, 97-108, HarperCollins, New York.
Arbor, A. (2008) Toyota (online), Michigan: https://www.toyota.com/about/news/manufacturing/2008/04/01-1-tema.html (accessed 6 March 2008).
BBC (2007) Globalisation: The Car Industry (online), https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457029/html/nn4page1.stm (accessed 8 April 2008).
Bremner, B. (2007) ‘A Carmaker Wired to Win’, BusinessWeek (online): https://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2007/gb20070424_480904.htm (accessed on 27th Feb 2008).
BusinessWeek (2008) (online), https://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/innovative_companies (accessed 13 April 2008).
BusinessWeek (2008) Talking with Toyota’s Top Man (online): https://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_10/b4024074.htm (accessed 26th April 2008).
Christensen, C.M. (2003) The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, 3rd edn, HBS Press, Cambridge, MA.
Considine, P.J. (2008) Critical Success Factors, Strategic Management, Staffordshire University.
Cusumano, M. and Nobeoka, K. (1998) Thinking beyond Lean, New York: The Free Press.
Dept for Innovation, universities & skills, UK Govt. (2007) R & D scoreboard, (online): https://www.innovation.gov.uk/rd_scoreboard/?p=41 (accessed on 20th March 2008).
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1997) Management Research: An Introduction, London: Sage.
Economist (2005) The quick and the dead. Vol. 374, Issue 8411.
Ellram, L.M. (1996) ‘The Use Of The Case Study Method In Logistics Research’, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 17(2).
Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C. and Nelson, R. (eds) (2006) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.
Fane, G.R., Vaghefi, M.R., Deusen, C.V. and Woods, L.A. (2003) ‘Competitive advantage the Toyota Way’, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 14 (4).
Feigenbaum, A.V. (1986) Total Quality Control, McGraw-Hill, New York.
General Motors (2008) ‘From Hybrids to Six-Speeds, Direct Injection and More, GM’S 2008 Global Powertrain Lineup Provides More Miles with Less Fuel'(online):
https://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=https://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=38&docid=38737 (accessed 21st April 2008).
Ghauri, P. and Gronhaugh, K. (2002) Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical Guide, Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Giaever, H. (1998) Does Total Quality Management Restrain Innovation? DNV report no.
Gill, A and Johnson, P. (1997) Research Methods for Managers, London: Paul Chapman.
Golafshani, N. (2003) ‘Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative research, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 8 (4).
Greenwald, J. and McWhirter, W. A. (1996), ‘Toyota road USA’ Vol. 148, Issue 17.
Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1994) ‘Competeing paradigms in qualitative research’ in Denzin, N.K and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds), Handbook of qualitative Research, London; Sage.
Hamel, G. (2006) ‘The Why, What, And How Of Management Innovation’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84(2).
Hasegawa, K. (2008) Toyota Says Fuel-cell Cars Still Far from Showroom (online), https://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=15980&SectionID=34 (accessed 26 April 2008).
Hussey, J and Hussey, R. (1997) Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students, Basingstoke; Macmillan Business.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. (2006) Exploring Corporate Strategy, 7th edn, Harlow: FT Prentice Hall
JDPower (2008) Hybrid Sales (online): https:// www.jdpower.com (accessed on 26th Feb 2008).
Kervin, J.B. (1999) Methods for Business Research, New York: HarperCollins.
Kiley, D. (2007) The Toyota Way to No. 1, BusinessWeek: https://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=9&sid=cf21d30d-2623-4500-af17-dc9844aad39f%40sessionmgr3 (accessed on 18th March 2008).
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning experience as a source of learning and development, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Liker, J.F., Meier, D. (2006), The Toyota Fieldbook: A Practical Guide for Implementing Toyota’s 4Ps, McGraw-Hill, London
Lynch, R. (2003) Corporate Strategy, Essex: Pearson.
Macdonald, J. (1998) ‘The quality revolution – in retrospect’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 10 (5), 321-333.
Madslien, J. (2008) Green Future May be Distant US Dream (online), BBC, Detroit
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7196931.stm (accessed on 28th Feb 2008).
McAleer, M. (2008) ‘Toyota R&D spend EUR 660,000 per hour’, The Irish Times, Geneva, pg 7.
Mello, T. (2008) Alternative-Fuel Cars, JDPower.
Miller, A. (2005) Realism (Online) Stanford: Stanford University: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism (accessed 30th March 2008).
Morita, A. (1992) ‘”S” does not equal “T” and “T” does not equal “I” , paper presented at the Royal Society, February 1992.
Morris, T. and Wood, S. (1991)’Testing the survey method: continuity and change in British industrial relations’. Work Employment and Society Vol. 5(2).
Myers, S. and Marquis, D.G. (1969) ‘Successful industrial innovation: a study of factors underlying innovation in selected firms’, National Science Foundation, NSF 69-17, Washington, DC.
Perrow, C. (1970) Organisational Analysis: a Sociological View, Tavistock, London.
Peters, T. (1997) The Circle of Innovation, Hodder & Stoughton, London.
Porter, M.E. (1990), Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, New York.
Porter, M.E. (1996), "What is strategy?", Harvard Business Review, pp.61-78.
Porter, M.E., Takeuchi, H., Sakakibara, M. (2000), Can Japan Compete?, Macmillan Press Ltd, London
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) ‘The core competence of the corporation’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, No. 3, 79-91.
Remenyi, D., Williams, B.m Money, A. and Swartz, E. (1998) Doing research in business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method, London, Sage.
Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research, Oxford: Blackwell.
Rosenthal, D.E. (1993) ‘Reevaluating the Chicago School paradiGM for promoting innovation and competitiveness’, Canada-United States Law Journal, Vol. 19, 97-104.
Rowe, A.J., Mason, R.O., Dickel, K.E. Mann, R.B. and Mockler, R.J. (1994) Strategic Management: A Methodological Approach, USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, Inc.
Rowley, I. (2007) ‘Toyota: A Turbocharged Profit Machine’ BusinessWeek (online): https://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2007/gb20070508_119681.htm (accessed on 27 Feb 2008).
Rugman, A.M. and Hodgetts, R.M. (2003) International Business, Essex: Pearson.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill. A. (2003, 3rd edn) Research Methods for Business Students, London: Prentice Hall.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill. A. (2007, 4th edn) Research Methods for Business Students, London: Prentice Hall.
Schifferes, S. (2007) The triumph of lean production (online), Kentucky, BBC: https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6346315.stm (accessed 21 April 2008).
Slack, N., Chambers, S., Harland, C., Harrison, A. and Johnson, R. (2004) Operations Management, 4th edn, Pitman, London.
Sousa D.V., Sá, J. A. & Hambrick, D. C. (1989). ‘Key success factors: Test of a general theory in the mature industrial product sector’, Strategic Management Journal, 10, 367-382.
Stewart, D.W and Kamins, M.A (1993) secondary Research: Information Sources and Methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strategic Direction (2007) ‘Driving ahead, The great Toyota PR machine’, Volume: 23 Issue: 10.
Taylor III, Alex. The Americanization of Toyota. Fortune, 12/8/2003, Vol. 148 Issue 12, p165-170,
Toyota (2007) Annual report (online): https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1094517/000119312507141459/d20f.htm#rom32719_9 (accessed on 12 Feb 2008).
Toyota (2008) (online) https://www.toyota.com (accessed on 12th Feb 2008).
Trott, P. (2005) Innovation Management an New Product Development, Gosport: Prntice Hall.
Upton, D.M. (1998) Designing, Managing and Improving Operations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
US Patents and trademark Office (2008) (online): https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nphParser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearchbool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Toyota&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT (accessed on 20th March 2008).
Wikipedia (2008) Epistemology (online): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/epistemology (accessed on 20th March 2008).
Winter, D. (2006) ‘Critical Differences’, Ward’s Auto World, Vol. 42 (6).
Womack, J., D Jones, and D Roos (1990). ‘The Machine That Changed the World’, Rawan Associates, New York.
Woodyard, C. (2006) ‘GM’s new key fob can check fuel level, tire pressures’, USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2006-11-15-remote-usat_x.htm (accessed 26th April 2008).
Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research Design and Methods, California: Sage.
Studydriver writers will make clear, mistake-free work for you!Get help with your assigment
Please check your inbox