See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224182656

Analysis of the Toyota Production System and the genesis of Six Sigma programs: An
imperative for understanding failures in technology management culture
transformation in traditio...

Conference Paper · August 2010

Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

9 2,896

3 authors, including:

Cory Hallam William Flannery

University of Texas at San Antonio University of Texas at San Antonio
62 PUBLICATIONS   116 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   46 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cognitive Entrepreneurship View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cory Hallam on 24 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Analysis of the Toyota Production System and the Genesis of Six Sigma Programs:
An Imperative for Understanding Failures in Technology Management Culture
Transformation in Traditional Manufacturing Companies
Cory R. A. Hallam, Justin Muesel, William Flannery
The University of Texas at San Antonio, USA

Abstract--The principles of the Toyota Production System specify value by specific product, identify the value stream
(TPS), or Lean manufacturing, are well known in the auto for each product, make value flow without interruptions, let
manufacturing industry. Many companies, utilizing aspects of the customer pull value from the producer, and pursue
the TPS focus on creating higher quality products and, at the perfection [42].” This definition of “lean” as given here
same time, less waste in ever increasingly competitive global
markets. Since the advent of Six Sigma programs, many
appears to be more descriptive of a culture, rather than a
companies have identified themselves as being a Lean specific set of tools.
manufacturer or a Six Sigma company, and in some cases both. The Six Sigma system, on the other hand, is defined as a
This study explores the root of the TPS and how the Six Sigma “quality level offering an indicator of how often defects are
programs represented today are simply a re-branding of likely to occur in the process considered where sigma levels
Statistical Process Control (SPC), which was incorporated in the and corresponding defect levels are as derived from the
TPS from the work of Shewhart and Deming in the earlier half standard probability curve for an organizational process
of the last century. Furthermore, an exploration of the tools and [21].” Six Sigma “is that of focusing on measuring and
behaviors utilized in the TPS that do not appear in Six Sigma reducing variability in processes and hence reducing the
programs will show the limitations associated with a narrow
improvement program based solely on Six Sigma technology
number of defects [21].” Specifically, a process that is “Six
management practices. Finally, a proposed behavioral Sigma” or 6σ will produce no more than 3.4 parts per million
management model for understanding the layers of tools and parts that are defective.
actions necessary to deploy a comprehensive TPS-style The origins of the Toyota Production System, however,
manufacturing enterprise is presented. began in Japan in the late 1800’s with Sakichi Toyoda’s
extensive study of the operation and maintenance of
I. INTRODUCTION automated loom machines utilized in textile manufacturing
plants [18]. Toyoda defined his first principle of the TPS in
The principles of lean manufacturing and Six Sigma are establishing autonomation – an automated process with
well known in the auto manufacturing industry. Many human intelligence built in. Unlike other industrial age looms
companies, utilizing aspects of each system, focus on creating that could produce defective product when a feeder thread
higher quality products and, at the same time, less waste in an broke, Toyoda’s loom had tension sensors built in that would
ever downsizing market. There are, however, many sense the los of a thread and shut the machine down, thereby
companies that choose to employ one set of principles over never creating a defective product, rework, or scrap.
the other. Although both systems claim to utilize different Ideas for the TPS were further developed with the study
tools for similar applications, Statistical Process Control of the production process and management techniques at the
(SPC) tools common to Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing American Ford Rouge Plant in Detroit, Michigan by Taichi
were founded on principles originated by Walter Shewhart Ohno and Eiji Toyoda from 1929 through the 1940’s [44].
and Edward Deming (heretofore referred to as Shewhart et This visit included studying the stamping process1, the final
al). assembly plant2, the supply chain method3, and the corporate
The purpose of this paper is to briefly examine and culture. This study led them to conclude that the Ford
compare these two popular management “systems” in order methods were inefficient and resulted in the production of
to enhance the understanding of the similarities as well as the poor quality parts. They felt they could do better.
differences that characterize these systems. Such
understanding is essential for those engaged in product and 1
Ohno developed the use of a single-minute exchange of dies after studying
process improvement in order to better select the proper the Ford Rouge Stamping plant. At the Rouge plant, the dies would be set-
approach to production management and quality control. up and run in high number batches (i.e. hours or even days at a time) based
on inventory levels for specific parts. Ohno saw this as very inflexible.
2
Toyoda developed the ideas of minimizing floor space for re-work areas. If
A. Development of Lean Manufacturing as a Quality Control the correct method is conducted the first time, then these large re-work areas
Methodology were unnecessary. In essence, the re-work areas convey a message of
The principles of lean manufacturing, as applied in the acceptable poor quality parts made the first time because they will be fixed
Toyota Production System (TPS), have been in practice by later.
3
Toyoda and Ohno optimized the supply chain with the development of
the Japanese auto industry for nearly 60 years. James
‘Just-In-Time.’ The concept of JIT is that parts are delivered to the assembly
Womack and Daniel Jones argue that the defining objectives line at the exact moment they are needed; very little wasted space due to high
of the TPS can be summarized into five elements: “Precisely inventory.
 While Toyoda and Ohno were busy studying Ford’s dependent upon quality parts in order to keep the line running
purported mass production successes, the ideas of Walter [10, 11]. The initial methods of quality assurance dealt with
Shewhart and Edward Deming were beginning to surface. a 100% quality inspection check of each part using a Go/No-
Walter Shewhart and W. Edwards Deming, two American- Go gauge. Although this quality check method was not
born physicists and engineers, were two of the first people to sufficient enough to maintain good quality by current
make a contribution to the development of the Japanese use standards, its lack of quality controllability was hidden by the
of statistical process control. high product demand and the American tolerance of mediocre
While at Western Electric in 1924, Shewhart developed a quality.
quality control tool that incorporated the use of control charts Although the ideas of Shewhart and Deming failed to
into the inspection activities4 of the inspector [10, 11]. The gain interest in America, their theories immediately gained an
implementation of this tool allowed the inspector to be able to audience with the Japanese Auto Industry. Having visited the
measure sample sizes of a specific product and then record American Auto Industry in the 1930’s, Eiji Toyoda (President
the defective part in a tabular and time-ordered graphic of Toyota at the time) had already been impressed with the
format [10, 11]. The inspector could also calculate the large production volume capabilities of Ford [10]. New
control limits and then plot points on the graph accordingly. technologies such as precision machining equipment,
This not only identified the parts that were inspected and out- conveyors, and metal forging equipment differed greatly from
of-range, but it passed this information to the process the out-dated methods implemented at the Toyota plants.
operators, which prevented these bad parts from being built However, upon a return visit in the 1950’s, Toyoda and his
into the assembly. managers soon realized that there was a presence of waste
The initial development of this industrial quality involved in the American Auto Industry. Toyoda noticed that
improvement soon evolved into an elaborate system: “As the vehicles were not produced on a “pull” system, but a
production lots grew larger and more complex throughout the “push” system were the products were not tailored to the
remainder of the 1920’s and 1930’s, the need for demand of the customer, but were mostly produced in batch
sophisticated quality assurance and control gave birth to large quantities and then forced on the customer. They also
quality control functions. Quality control departments came noticed large quantities of waste in the facilities pertaining to
to include inspectors, chief inspectors, supervisors, engineers inventories and large sums of floor space that were not used
and managers” [10, 11]. This eventually led the American for production, but for storage of completed parts and offline
government to become involved in this quality movement by vehicle repairs [10]. Toyoda concluded that these American
the 1950’s when it demanded statistically based levels of Auto Facilities were large factories which were disorganized
quality from its vendors, and issued the quality standard of and out of control [10]. In essence, Eiji Toyoda saw this as
MIL-STD-105A [10, 11]. an opportunity to catch up.
In the early 1930’s, Shewhart kept his energies focused on With the help of Deming, Toyoda began to build the
developing methodologies for improving industrial quality Toyota Motor Corporation’s TPS. The quality improvement
via the use of statistical process control and general scientific in Japan began in 1945 following the end of World War II.
application. This focus became apparent with the publication Japanese top management summoned professors, like that of
of Shewhart’s book titled, Statistical Method from the MIT professor Homer Sarahnson, to teach US-based
Viewpoint of Quality Control (34). He also published a manufacturing and statistics principles [10, 11].
landmark paper pertaining to the measurement error in Accompanying Sarahnson was Walter Deming later in 1950.
science in Reviews of Modern Physics in 1934 [16]. Upon Noted for pushing the idea that improving quality will reduce
discovery of these articles, Deming became intrigued with expenses while increasing productivity and market share,
Shewhart’s ideas. From here, the two worked to develop Deming gave lecture upon lecture on ways to increase
practices and standards that would spurn the evolution of business, eliminate waste, and raise the level of quality [14]
industry as a whole in what later would become a central the heart of the TPS. With guidance from Deming, the
component of the TPS. Toyota Motor Corporation began to change its reputation to
Shewhart and Deming developed and presented their one that was associated with quality and performance.
findings to the various auto industries in the 1940’s. At the The American interest in quality was renewed in 1980
time, however, the American Auto Industry was still when NBC television broadcasted the segment “If Japan
following the mass production system invented by Henry can…why can’t we? [10, 11].” In 1982, Toyota signed a
Ford. With the Detroit-based auto facilities producing close joint-venture agreement with General Motors to operate a
to 9,000 vehicles per month, the assembly line was now manufacturing facility in Fremont, California. This facility
became New United Motor Manufacturing America, or
4
The inspector would follow quarterly inspection routes, making frequent
NUMMI. This joint-venture agreement accomplished two
checks at designated stations on the production line. The inspector would things: taught the Toyota Way to General Motors and
tabulate the results from the sampling inspections, and then plot the data on a established Toyota’s North American presence [16]. The
control chart to make visual whether or not he process was in control or not. creation of NUMMI, along with opening the Toyota Supplier
This conclusion was reached based on the statistical tools that Shewhart
developed.
Support Center in 1992, were two milestones for the world of develop an independent quality system roughly 25 years later
industry in recognizing exactly what the TPS entails. than that of lean manufacturing that incorporated the same
tools without knowing. Or, it can be inferred that the Six
B. Development of Six Sigma as a Quality Control Sigma creator deliberately copied tools from lean
Methodology manufacturing, among other quality systems, and simply
While parts of the United States of America were focusing “rebranded” these tools as Six Sigma. The answer lies within
on the newly developed union of General Motors and Toyota, the history that follows the quality pioneers of the 20th
along with the publicly displayed instructions of TPS-style century quality movement, including Walter Shewhart, W.
manufacturing, Bill Smith was developing and coining the Edward Deming and Joseph Juran.
“Six Sigma” system at Motorola in the 19080’s. From
Folaron’s article [10], he says that “…under the leadership C. Framework for Comparison of Quality Control
and support of Bob Gavin, the company’s zeal for quality Methodologies
improvement flourished. Stealing the best practices from the In order to compare the quality control methodologies,
best companies (known as the Bandit project), Motorola was several topics will be discussed. First, the management
attempting to turn around the pocket pager business in the philosophies of lean manufacturing and Six Sigma will be
early 1980’s. Building upon these existing Motorola discussed. Next, the principles taught to the Japanese by
practices, Bill Smith and other Motorola executives married Deming and Juran, along with the quality tools, will then be
the concept of process capability and product specifications discussed. Lastly, the Six Sigma principles and the method in
[10]. Accompanied by the tools that Motorola was gathering, which it spread will be discussed.
Bill Smith also modified the design practices at Motorola.
Smith states in article published in 1993 that “the way to II. THE PHILOSOPHIES
achieve the lower defect rates is through robust design, the
primary focus of Motorola’s Six Sigma process. Robust As mentioned in the Introduction, at the end of World
design results in products which function at 100% despite War II, the Japanese sought to learn more about statistics and
variation in the parts used” [36]. Smith’s statement carried production quality control. Japanese Engineers became
some weight because later in the year, Motorola engineers engrossed with the writings of Walter Shewhart and called
were required to create new product designs with tolerances upon the expertise of Deming to teach the methodologies of
that were according to the Six Sigma guidelines. Of course, SPC [8]. Among the principles communicated were those of
this overhaul of Motorola thinking proved to be beneficial in quality, eliminating waste, productivity, statistics, and
1988 when they won the Baldrige Award, a quality award planning. Deming viewed the quality tools that he helped
given by the President of the United States to businesses that develop to be very powerful but recognized that, without
are judged by the National Institute of Standards and correct execution by management, these tools would be
Technology to be outstanding in seven areas: leadership; worthless. To ensure proper execution, management would
strategic planning; customer and market focus; measurement, have to first embrace the methods, fully understand the
analysis, and knowledge management; workforce focus; methods, and then implement the methods from the top
process management; and results [27, 10, 11]. down.
The Six Sigma approach, being a statistical based system, With the help of Ichiro Ishikawa (president of JUSE),
bases many of its ideas and techniques on the work of twenty-one top managers in industry were brought together
Shewhart and Deming, which appear in SPC in the TPS. for Deming’s lectures [8]. Deming lectured on principles of
Both systems manipulate the control charts, fishbone customer importance ─ the customer is the most important
diagrams, and other statistical process control tools, but TPS part of the production line [8]. These principles were
takes things one step further. Instead of monitoring the reinforced with two more visits by Deming in 1951 and 1952,
defect process for several months before fixing, lean along with Juran in 1954 [8]. Deming commented on Juran’s
manufacturing identifies possible problem areas, examines teachings by saying that “His masterful teaching gave to
contributing factors, reviews process flow maps, conducts Japanese management new insight into management’s
root-cause analysis, implements countermeasures rhat responsibility for improvement of quality and productivity”
mistake proof, or poke-yoke, and study the results looking for [8]. By creating a philosophy for the Japanese managers to
more areas to continually improve the process. In essence, embrace, it created a necessary culture that was accompanied
TPS follows the cyclical method of Plan-Do-Check-Act and by powerful tools, not powerful tools accompanied by a
is able to create a culture that all team members of the required culture, a key fact missed by many American
organization embrace and follow. companies even in today’s globally competitive marketplace.
With the origins of both systems seeming to stem from the Fast-forwarding to the year 1985, the beginnings of Six
same people in history, one can’t help but notice that Six Sigma were underway at Motorola. The creation of Six
Sigma uses many tools that are similar to those tools used by Sigma began in 1985 with a memo from then Motorola
lean manufacturing. One can infer that this is just a systemic quality engineer Bill Smith to then Motorola CEO Bob
anomaly, where the creators of Six Sigma happened to Galvin. The memo, written by Smith, statistically proved the
relationship between product field life and how much rework saw that they were doing more with less [44]. First, a
occurred in the manufacturing process [9]. This information comprehensive list of the tools associated with the Toyota
soon became public at a senior management meeting within Production System and Six Sigma system was developed.
Motorola. Following that meeting, a request to create a The American Society of Quality website (www.asq.org),
quality system was sent to Bill Smith. Bob Galvin requested along with books, articles and other published materials on
a quality system that would steal “the best practices from the Six Sigma, were referenced for creating the list of the Six
best companies (known as the Bandit project) was Motorola’s Sigma tools. The TPS list of tools was determined by a study
attempt at turning around the pocket pager business in the of books, articles and other published material and verified
early 1980’s. Building upon existing Motorola practices, Bill by interviews with Toyota employees. The list of tools was
Smith and other Motorola executives married the concept of then compiled, with each tool listed and its
process capability and product specifications. Bill Smith, definition/example of the tool. Next, each list of tools was
acting as the primary creator, was assisted by Mikel Harry, divided into five main categories:
who is noted for creating much of the details for the Six 1. Organizational Management Planning, Mapping, and
Sigma methodology [9]. Harry published The Nature of Six Improvement
Sigma in 1986 and then followed up with The Strategic 2. Determining Project Priority
Vision for Accelerating Six Sigma. By doing so, Harry was 3. Determining Root Cause
later appointed to the head of the Motorola Six Sigma 4. Tracking and Preventing Defects
Research Institute [9]. 5. Simulations and Controlled Experiments
The Six Sigma system was implemented in 1986 at
Motorola and was seen as “a defect reduction tool, not the The tools were then grouped under one of the five
ultimate management philosophy” [9]. This insight was categories. The tools’ sub-category location was determined
profound and ultimately lost by many consultants and by the definition associated with the tool, the example of the
managers from other organizations that attempted and still tool, and/or published statements from notable authors
attempt to sell Six Sigma as the ultimate management discussing the general category in which the tool would best
philosophy. Eckes continues with “because defect reduction fit. Finally, the lists of tools were organized according to
was the goal of Six Sigma at Motorola, the focus was on the their application in TPS (Figure 2), Six Sigma (Figure 3) and
manufacturing floor. Virtually ignored was the waste and SPC (Figure 4).
inefficiency generated by other areas of the business.” The Next, the history of the quality pioneers Walter Shewhart,
Six Sigma system was a statistical tool that was only a tool W. Edward Deming, and Joseph Juran was researched. The
without a culture to help it grow. Even though Bob Galvin’s habits and theories of the three men were studied and
original focus was on a philosophy centered on customer compared. To further understand the principles of Deming,
satisfaction and never-ending improvement, the opinion of the book Out of the Crisis was referenced to thoroughly
Motorola business leader, Ted Zucconi, states “the focus was understand the way of thinking by Deming. Within the book,
so much on growth, numbers, and manufacturing, Six Sigma the methods that Toyota follows are very evident and easy to
never directly dealt with customers or how we designed correlate to their current practices. Along with Deming’s
things [9].” book, other Japanese authors were referenced, mainly Ohno,
The main difference seen between Six Sigma and lean Shingo, and Imai, in order to confirm Deming’s teachings.
manufacturing is the fact that lean manufacturing has the With an understanding of the philosophies and methods of
presence of a “pattern of basic assumptions that a given group the three men, it was documented and then used for the study
has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope of the initial beginnings of the Japanese industry and later the
with its problems of external adaptation and integration, and American quality movement.
that have worked well enough to be considered valid, and,
therefore to be taught to new members as the correct way to IV. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” [17,
18]. From a review of Figure 1 it can be seen that the TPS way
of thinking includes controlling the variation, but more
III. THE TOOLS importantly, a mindset of preventing the variation from ever
occurring. The TPS concentrates its effort on “problem
The comparison of Six Sigma and TPS is undertaken in solving” by attacking the actual source of the problem. TPS
order to determine the relationship between Six Sigma and is centered on two main components, JIT and Jidoka (the
what people commonly refer to today as “Lean”, a term original philosophy of autonomation), which when structured
coined by MIT’s John Krafcik in describing the TPS correctly will yield favorable results in which an operator will
compared to other automotive manufacturers – in essence he be presented with less variation at the process level.
  
PILLARS OF TPS (LEAN)

Jidoka JI T
(Autonomation)

CONTI NUOUS CONTINUOUS

Work-piec e S IGNALI NG TAKT TIME I MPROV EMENT
Mist ake- “Freeing” Det ect FLOW
att ac hment
Proof ing t he Person Abnormalit ies
/ remov al
-MULTIUSE LINE -- KANA BAN CA RD -- PRODUCTION --ERGONOMIC
-Global Body LEV ELING (HEIJ UNKA) EV ALUA TION
-Pok eyoke -Tip clog -Paint Color --SINGLE MINUTE -- ANDON
det ec tion in cartridge mc ns Line gun tip Ex ampl e DIE EXCHANGE --BUILD ONLY
-Sequenc er --CY CLE TIME STUDY
Exam ple Seal er application ref ormer o f T ool s V EHI CLES THAT HAV E
of To ols -L Palle ts on --PREV ENTAT IV E B EEN SOLD -QUA LITY CHECK S
-Detec t mis -s et Bodyweld line MAI NTENANCE
blank in die

Figure 1: TPS Philosophy

To further provide clarity of TPS, the pillars of JIT and

Jidoka have both been detailed one more level to show the
actual applications. Jidoka can be further divided into four
divisions: mistake-proofing, free the person from machine,
work-piece attachment/removal, and detection of
abnormalities.
Likewise JIT can be divided into four divisions:
continuous flow, signaling, TAKT time, and continuous
improvement. Showing actual application of these eight
main areas of TPS, some examples of the tools used on a
daily basis have been provided underneath the divisions of
Jidoka and JIT.
The next step of the comparative analysis involved the
assembly of a list of system tools for TPS and Six Sigma as
shown in Figure 2: TPS Tools and Figure 3: Six Sigma Tools
[1,17,18,28,36,37,42,43,44]. Once the tools were listed, they
were then divided into separate sub-categories to better
organize the information. The five sub-categories were as Figure 2 –TPS Tools
follows:
1. Organization Planning, Mapping, and Improvement
2. Determining Improvement Priority
3. Determining Root Cause
4. Tracking and Preventing Defects
5. Simulations and Controlled Experiments

Having identified that a majority of the Six Sigma tools

were statistics based, another diagram was also constructed
containing the SPC tools as seen in Figure 4: SPC tools.

Figure 3 – Six Sigma Tools

 SPC

Hist ogra ms Proces s Capability (1500)

Frequency Distribution Diagram
Z Chart

Ca use and Effec t Diagram FMEA Worksheet

Fis hbone Diagram
5Y’s
Cause Log
Plack et t-Burman Ex p
Process Map Template

Control Charts Gage R& R w / A nalysis T& F Test

Gage Linearit y and B ias C Ch art
& Simp e
l Linear Regression U Ch art
DPMO Si gma Chart P Chart
Sampling Inspection
WMW Rank Sum Test

Ex perime nt a nd Planning DOE Quincy nx S imulator

Me thod Gantt Chart X -Y Mat rix
QC Circle Process Flow Chart

Sc a tte r D ia gr am s Box & Whis ker Plot

Che ck shee ts Process A udit Map NP Chart

Measurement Check
Process c ont rol board
Pa re to D iagr ams NGT Mult i-voting Tool

Figure 4: SPC tools

As a Venn diagram the combination of Figures 3 and 4 of techniques developed and promoted a half century earlier.
highlights the relative overlap of Six Sigma Tools with the Yet if this were the case and SPC was such an integral part of
Statistical Process Control tools from a half-century earlier. the TPS (and thus Lean), then why has the prevalence of Six
This relationship is shown in Figure 5. While not an Sigma systems not resulted in gains for Six Sigma–focused
exhaustive list, this shows the majority of what is constituted companies the way the TPS has helped Toyota achieve
as part of the Six Sigma toolkit is really the tools used in market success? The answer to that lies in looking at the
Statistical Process Control. This realization is enlightening as Venn diagram of Lean and Six Sigma as shown in Figure 6.
it highlights the fact that Six Sigma is primarily a re-branding

Figure 5 – Comparison of SPC and Six Sigma Tools

 Figure 6 – The Relationship of Lean and Six Sigma via SPC

In the overlapping section of the diagram, tools were autonomation, and work philosophies that center on
located here if they exhibited a similar, or equivalent continually identifying and eliminating waste and improving
definition as tools within TPS (including SPC), and Six customer value extend far beyond the reaches of statistical
Sigma. Tools that are within the overlapping section between calculations and permeate what are truly operational
Six Sigma and TPS were placed there if the two systems behaviors of the organization, otherwise called the
share tools that are defined/explained similarly. With the operational culture of the organization. Seeing this
tools assigned to their correct system, the tools were then relationship visually also highlights the fact that while it may
moved to the appropriate sub-category on the diagram. The be easy to package a set of statistical training tools and
labeled “swim-lanes” are the same categories as seen in the teaching seminars where individuals can solve mathematical
tools list. problems and be “certified” in Six Sigma, the heterogeneous
From Figure 6 it is clear that a majority of the Six Sigma performance of Toyota has resulted from a fundamentally
tools fall within the center SPC category of the diagram, different set of management philosophies and tools, of which
signifying that the tools of Six Sigma are really just tools the Six Sigma tools form only one element as SPC.
from SPC and TPS. This observation supports the notion that To further support this notion, some highlighted events of
the tools of Six Sigma are not original, and are really just the quality movement were constructed in the following
rebranded as Six Sigma. Furthermore, some of the tools figure. Although Sakichi Toyoda was involved with the very
outside of the SPC in Six Sigma are minor modifications to beginnings of the development of TPS, with the added
SPC tools, such as a reclassification of the Plan-Do-Check- creation of Jidoka (autonomation) and the five-why analysis,
Act cycle taught by Deming in SPC into the Define-Measure- the area of focus for this document is the time between 1920
Analyze-Improve-Control cycle taught in Six Sigma. and 2006. Notice from Figure 7: Timeline of the Quality
What is perhaps much more interesting in Figure 7, is the Movement, the creation of TPS started in 1888 with Sakichi
wealth of other tools developed and incorporated into the Toyoda and was heavily influenced with the teachings of
TPS that do not appear in Six Sigma systems. Signaling Shewhart, Deming and Juran.
systems, process flow creation and management,
 1888 1 9 3 0 's 1935 1945 1958 1963 1984 1986
S a k ic h i T o y o d a T o y o t a le a d e rs To y o ta T o y o t a 's 1 s t T P S is J o i n t V e n t u r e w it h To y o ta K Y
s t a rt s J id o k a vi s i t D e t r o i t , M I C o rp o r a t i o n W W II e n d s U S A bound d o c um e n te d a n d G M to te a c h b e g in s
e s t a b lis h e d e x p o rt d e ve l o p e d To y o ta W a y p ro d u c t io n

1924 1981 J o h n K r a fc ik 1987

1950 1954
W a lt e r c o in s t h e " le a n "
S h e w h a rt D e m i n g i n vit e d t o J u r a n l e c t u re s D e m in g b e g in s p h r a s e fo r T P S B i l l S m i t h d e ve l o p s
d e ve l o p s t e a c h s t a t is t ic s t o about S P C c o n s u lt in g F o rd S i x S ig m a
lit t th e Ja p a ne s e
1974
K obayashi
m e n t io n s T Q M
a ft e r w i n n i n g
D e m in g A w a rd

Figure 7: Timeline of the Quality Movement

V. CONCLUSION process variability and implement some form of process

control. While SPC has proven a powerful and necessary tool
Given the information that was presented in this paper, the for high quality manufacturing, it may be that the relative
question as to whether or not the Six Sigma system is an ease with which the Six Sigma tools can be packaged and
original development authored by Bill Smith of Motorola can taught (including readily solvable problems and equations)
be answered with a confident “no.” It was Sakaichi Toyoda has led to its prevalence as a marketed “system” with
who, in 1888, first developed and implemented Jidoka educational institutions and consultants joining the
(autonomation) techniques that acted as the point of departure bandwagon in the process – because it is easy to teach.
for the Toyota Production System. The development of other Conversely, the TPS is not about a tool, but rather culture
quality improvement systems and tools throughout the 20th that uses the right tool at the right time. As such, Lean
and 21st centuries led to the TPS we now know and extends beyond SPC to include a plethora of additional tools
understand, with some of these subsets of statistical tools and techniques that deal with a much broader range of issues
becoming re-branded as Six Sigma. related to operating a high tech manufacturing company. This
As was highlighted previously, it was Sakichi Toyoda does not imply you would not use the Six Sigma tools to
who championed the quest to not only improve the quality of analyze and control a supply chain from a statistical
his products, but simultaneously free the worker from perspective, however it does imply that you should not only
essentially “serving” the machine and, in the process, use Six Sigma tools to analyze and control a supply chain.
establish a system that seeks to eliminate mistakes in his Signaling, process flow, mistake proofing, autonomation,
product line. Despite Toyoda’s unprecedented achievements, long-term supplier agreements and other TPS tools will play
however, few were aware of his principles outside of Japan. a major role in this management process and thus elevate the
In the 1980’s, Bill Smith of Motorola developed the TPS to a much broader influence on the operating company.
system, Six Sigma, and introduced it to the world. This This is also perhaps why Lean has had more difficulty in
quickly caught the attention of several American companies branding itself – it includes so many TPS tools and
including General Electric and a host of those involved in the techniques that it cannot be easily packaged into an
US auto industry. Although in its beginning stage, the Six consulting course or higher education course with discrete
Sigma system appeared to be wholly unique; however, deterministic problems (i.e. we have a machine, establish a
unbeknownst to many of its users, it consisted of a majority control chart, use to manage.) Furthermore, this is probably a
of the same tools as SPC in the TPS. One has to then major reason why amidst all of the literature on the subject,
wonder: why does Six Sigma remain so popular? few companies have been able to fully mimic or adopt Lean
A main posit of this study, as demonstrated through the tools in the way Toyota has – it is a cultural model a century
visual mapping of tools, is that the public image of Six Sigma in the works, and successfully changing organizational
branded by Motorola provided a guise for the original work culture, especially in large established companies, is one of
of Shewhart and Deming in establishing SPC for Japanese the hardest management tasks to achieve.
manufacturers and simply provided a new “brand” image for A proposed method for looking at this relationship
SPC. The Six Sigma toolset is essentially akin to the SPC between the tools (at a high level) and the operational goals is
toolset and represents a well contained packaged set of tools provided in Figure 8. It highlights that the main boundary
that can be used to measure and analyze manufacturing between the tools and the goals are behaviors.
 Figure 8 – Relating Lean Tools to Operational Goals

This understanding that behaviors form the basis for

implementing Lean successfully in a company further
stresses the difference between the Six Sigma system as a set
of tools, and Lean as an operating philosophy, and thus
provides additional support about why Six Sigma has become
so pervasive from a supply push perspective – it can be easily
packaged, taught, and “sold” versus a Lean enterprise
transformation that may require a set of 15 major Tools,
including Six Sigma, and major cultural realignment of the
organization to achieve to true Lean operating behaviors and
outcomes.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS / FURTHER STUDY

The Six Sigma system has witnessed a spike in popularity

since its creation in the 1980’s. As seen in Figure 9: Figure 9: Increasing Popularity in Six Sigma
Increasing Popularity in Six Sigma Black Belts, there is an Black Belts
upward trend in interest in Six Sigma certifications.
According to the American Society for Quality, this demand An employee rarely stops looking for an opportunity to
for Six Sigma Black Belt certification has steadily increased increase his/her profits. In this vein, Six Sigma’s popularity
since 20025. may be fueled by an employee who believes that improving
his/her qualifications will achieve a better profit margin. The
American Society for Quality reported that from 2002 to
2006, engineers who obtained a Six Sigma Black Belt
certification earned close to $2,838 more than their
counterparts who did not have this certification ((ASQ)
2006). However, this does not demonstrate causality, but
may be due to that fact that engineers who are good at match
5
As of 2007, the number of respondents certified in Six Sigma was just are good engineers and earn more than their colleagues.
under 7% shown in Graph 1. This represents the total number of full-time Still, however, one can argue that its popularity is rooted
and part-time employees in Canada and United States of America, as shown
in Graph 2. Also, Six Sigma is merely one of fourteen other certifications
at the corporate level as well; if employees develop stronger
that the American Society for Quality offers, including the popular overall skills, the company’s quality and profit levels will
certifications of Certified Quality Engineer and also Certified Quality also rise. Ever since Six Sigma was implemented at
Auditor.
Motorola by Bill Smith, the company has reported savings of [9] Eckes, G. (2005). Six Sigma execution: How the world's largest
companies live and breath Six Sigma. New York, McGraw Hill.
close to US$17 billion as of 2006 [25]. As Motorola began [10] Folaron, J. (2003). "The Evolution of Six Sigma." ASQ Forum
displaying signs of success, other major companies took Magazine.
notice. Two companies who implemented the Six Sigma [11] Folaron, J. (2003). "The Evolution of Six Sigma." ASQ Forum
system early were General Electric and Honeywell, and by Magazine(August).
[12] Hirotaka, T. (June 2008). "The Contradictions that drive Toyota."
the late 90’s, nearly two thirds of the Fortune 500 companies Harvard Business Review(June).
claimed to have adopted these principles. All were interested [13] Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The ley to Japans' Competitve Success. New
in reducing costs and improving quality [7]. The success of York, Random House Inc.
the adoptions, however, remains largely unmeasured. In [14] Johnston, A. B. (2008). "Disentangling causal relationships of a
manufacturing process using genetic algorithms and six-sigma
essence a corporate perfromance measure is needed across techniques." International Journal of Production Research(46).
several categories to demonstrate heterogrenous results for [15] Leavengood, S. (2002). "Statistical process Control." Oregon State
the adopting companies compared to a control group, which University(January).
may be best suited as their industry average. These measdures [16] Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota Way. New York, McGraw Hill.
[17] Liker, J. K. (2008). Toyota Culture: The Heart and Soul of the Toyota
could be taken as a balanced scorecard approach that includes Way. New York, McGraw Hill.
financial performance, customer satisfaction, and employee [18] Liker, J. K. (2008). "The Toyota Way in Services: The Case of Lean
satsifaction. Product Development." Academy of management Perspectives(May).
The success of Six Sigma is unmistakable, but it is [19] Mahesh, M. (2004). "A six-sigma approach for benchmarking of
RP&M processes." International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
nevertheless surprising. Although its basic quality principles Technology(31).
were developed by Shewhart and Deming and adopted and [20] Maleyeff, J. (2004). "Goal Setting with Six Sigma mean Shift
improved by Toyota, the Six Sigma system never advertises Determination." Aircraft Engineering and Aeorspace Technology(76).
this, yet still maintains a large following. Only time will [21] McAdam, R. (2004). "A multilevel case study critique of six sigma:
statistical control or strategic change?" International Journal of
determine if this system will remain a strong brand valid and, Operations & Production Management(24).
to a certain degree, more popular than its predecessors. [22] Mehr, D. (2006). "The darker side of lean: An insider's perspective on
Given that the TPS system does not offer certifications, it the realities of the Toyota Production System." Academy of
remains difficult to determine which industries have adopted Management Perspectives(26).
[23] Mortiemer, A. (2006). "Six Sigma: A vital improvement approach
these principles as opposed to Six Sigma methods. Although when applied to the right problems, in the right Environment."
certain colleges and universities discuss elements of TPS Assembly Automation(26).
through their “lean manufacturing” courses, and offer some [24] Mortiemer, A. (2006). "Six Sigma: Effective Handling of Deep Rooted
lean certificates, the content and commonality of these Quality Problems." Assembly Automation(26).
[25] Motorola (2006). About Motorola University.
certificates and degrees is not standardized between [26] New, S. J. (2007). "Celebrating the Enigma: the continuing puzzle of
organizations. A more thorough evaluation of the number the Toyota Production System." International Journal of Production
schools and business institutions who teach TPS applications Research(45).
is necessary to understand its true reach. It can be argued, [27] NIST. (2003, 11/25/2008). "What is the Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award?" Retrieved 04/11/2009, 2009, from
however, that since TPS is not merely a system of statistics http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/baldfaqs.htm.
like Six Sigma, rather a philosophy, a true number of users [28] Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale
may never materialize. Production. Portland, Productivity Press.
[29] Pardi, T. (2007). "Redesigning the Toyota Production System: The
European side of the story." New Technology Work and
REFERENCES Employment(March).
[30] Paton, S. M. (2002). "Juran: A Lifetime of Quality." Quality
[1] (ASQ), A. S. o. Q. E. (2006). "Salary survey." Retrieved 04/24/2009, Digest(August 2002): 19-23.
from http://www.asq.org/quality-progress/2007/12/career- [31] Raisinghani, M. S. (2005). "Six Sigma: Concepts, Tools, and
development/part-i-section-4-salary-by-asq-and-rabqsa-certification- Applications." Industrual management & Data Systems(105).
regular-employees.pdf. [32] Schonberger, R. J. (2007). "Japanese production management: An
[2] Abraham, B. (2001). "Six Sigma black Belts: What do they need to evolution - with mixed success." Journal of Operations
know?" Journal of Quality Technology(October). Management(March).
[3] Anonymous (1993). "Lean production: A Japanese import." The [33] Schutta, J. T. (2005). Business Performance through Lean Six Sigma.
Worklife Report(9). New York, American Society for Quality.
[4] Antony, J. (2007). Pros and Cons of Six Sigma: An academic [34] Shewhart, W. (1986). Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality
perspective. Improvement and Innovation. Control. Toronto, General Publishing Company.
[5] Bradly, J. E. (2006). "Six Sigma literature: A Review ad Agenda for [35] Shingo, S. (1989). A Study of the Toyota Production System from an
future research." Quality and Reliability Engineering industrial Engineering Viewpoint. Portland, Productivity Press.
International(April ). [36] Smith, B. (1993). "Six Sigma Quality: A must not a myth." Machine
[6] Carmichael, R. (January 2002). "Design for Six Sigma: 15 lessons Design: 63.
learned - Leading corporations find out how to avoid pitfalls." Quality [37] Stamatis, D. H. (2004). Six Sigma Fundamentals: A Complete Guide to
Progress. the System, Methods and Tools. New York, Productivity Press.
[7] De Feo, J. (2005). Juran institute's Six Sigma breakthrough and beyond [38] Swamidass, P. (2007). "The Effect of TPS on US Manufacturing during
- Quality Performance Breakthrough Methods. New York, Tat 1981-1998: Inventory Increased or Decreased as a Function of Plant
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. Performance." International Jouranl of Production Research(45).
[8] Deming, W. E. (1982). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, Massachusetts [39] Tennant, G. (2001). Six Sigma: SPC and TQM in Manufacturing and
Institute of Technology. Services. Burlington, Gower Publishing Limited.
[40] Towill, D. R. (2007). "Exploiting the DNA of the Toyota Production [43] Womack, J. J., Daniel: Roos, Daniel (1990). The Machine that
System." international Journal of Production Engineering(August). Changed the World. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Free Press.
[41] Walter, L. (2005). "Six Sigma, Is it really different." Quality and [44] Womack, J. J., Daniel: Roos, Daniel (2007). The Machine that
Reliability Engineering International(April). Changed the World. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Free Press.
[42] Womack, J. J., Daniel (2003). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create
Wealth in Your Corporation. New York, Simon and Schuster.

View publication stats