Chapter 10
Stanisław Borkowski1, Manuela Ingaldi2, Krzysztof Knop3
FACTORS IMPORTANCE OF 7
THPRINCIPLE OF TOYOTA MANAGEMENT IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF MACHINERY
PARTS
Abstract: In the chapter the results of research on importance of the factors determining the 7th principle of Toyota management in the machinery industry company was present- ed. The research was conducted with use of the BOST survey. The structure of respond- ents participating in the research according their personal features was shown. The ana- lyse and evaluation of the structure of the research factors was made. The importance ranks of factors based on radar charts were constructed. Analysis of basic statistical pa- rameters was made with use of the box-and-whisker plots, which revealed a large diversi- ty of ratings for each factor. The characteristic importance rank of factors of factors char- acteristic of the seventh principle of the management of Toyota in the study are as follows 7th principle of Toyota management in the research company was following:
CS > UP > ME > EP > TI > GW.
Key words: machinery industry, 7th principle of Toyota management, importance ranks, statistical analysis
10.1. Characteristic of respondents participating in the BOST survey
The survey BOST - Toyota management principles in questions (BORKOWSKI S. 2012a, BORKOWSKI S. 2012b, BORKOWSKI S. 2012c) was conducted in the company involved in the production of heavy and super heavy machines, both conventional and numerically controlled. The
1 Prof. n. techn. i n. ekonom. dr hab. inż., Czestochowa University of Technology, Faculty of Management, Institute of Production Engineering, e – mail: bork@zim.pcz.pl
2 Dr inż., Czestochowa University of Technology, Faculty of Management, Institute of Production Engineering, e – mail: manuela@gazeta.pl
3 Mgr inż., Czestochowa University of Technology, Faculty of Management, Institute of Production Engineering, e – mail: kknop@poczta.fm
factory has more than 200-year tradition of industrial engineering. The company employs about 150 people, including about 90 production workers and 60 white-collar.
In the BOST survey 30 production workers of the research company took part. The employees were supposed to answer the question: “What is the most important factor in the visual control?”. The employees were asked to answer this question, prioritising six factors of visual control on the basis of importance using a scale 1-6, where 1 means the least im- portant factor, 6 – the most important factor). The elements of the visual control, which were to be evaluated were following: cleanliness (CS), flow (EP), information boards (TI), participation in production places (UP), monitoring (ME) and graphical presentation of results (GW) (BORKOWSKI S. 2009).
At the beginning characteristic of respondents due to the chosen fea- ture, shown in Table 10.1, was made.
Table 10.1. Features of respondents. Characteristic
Symbol Features' marking and their characteristic
MK WE WI SC MR TR
1 Men High school < 30 < 5 1 Regular
2 Women Professional 31 - 40 6 to 10 2 Transfer
3 Secondary 41 - 50 11 to 15 3 Finance
4 Higher 51 - 55 16 to 20 4
5 56 - 60 21 to 25 5
6 61 - 65 26 to 30 6
7 > 66 31 to 35
8 > 36
Source: own study
Characteristics of respondents participating in the research is shown in Figure 10.1 in quantitative way (radar charts) and in percentage (pie charts).
22
8
0 20 40 1
a
20 3
12 15
0 15 30 1
2
3 4
c
2 2
9 4
6 4
3 0 5 10 1
2
3
4 5
6 7
e
3 3 3
3 2 2 4
3
0 8 1
2
3
4
5 6 7
8
g
1; 73
2; 27
b
1; 0 2; 10
3; 40 4; 50
d
1; 7
2; 7
3; 30 4; 13
5; 20 6; 13
7; 10
f
1; 13
2; 13 3; 13
4; 13 5; 9
6; 9
7; 17
8; 13
h
Fig. 10.1. Numerical (radar charts) and structural (pie charts) characteristic of respondents including: a), b) gender, c), d) education, e), f) age,
g), h) job seniority, i, j) mobility, k), l) mode of the employment.
Source: own study
As shown in Figure 10.1a the BOST survey was filled by 22 men and 8 women (including 30 employees). To put it in percentage (Figure 10.1b) 73% of the respondents were male and 27% female. Analysing the education, it was found that among the respondents there were employees with different levels of education. From figure 10.1c it is concluded that 12 respondents had secondary education and 3 people professional, which together make up 50% of the respondents (Figure 10.1d). Other respond- ents declared higher education.
The age was next research feature of respondents. The employees in age 36-45 years presented the largest group of respondents. They rep- resent 30% of respondents. There were 6 employees in age 51-55 years,
12
6
4 2 2 4
0 5 10 15 1
2
3
4 5
6
i
22
6 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 1
2 3
k
1; 40 2; 20
3; 13 4; 7 5; 7
6; 13
j
1; 73
2; 7
3; 20
l
representing 20% of the respondents (Figure 10.1f). People aged over 65 years accounted for 10% of respondents.
Job seniority was divided in 8 periods and from Figure 10.1g and 10.1h it results that among the respondents there were people with low and high job seniority. The respondents with 36-40 years of experience, it means 17%, constitute the largest group. While respondents with 26-30 years and 31-35 years of experience are the smallest group of respondents - 9% of respondents.
Susceptibility to job change (staff mobility) is an interesting feature of human resources. The largest group consists of employees for which the current job is the first place of work (40%). This shows that most of the staff is quite strongly associated with the company where they work. Only 4 people declared that the present place of employment is further than sixth (13% of respondents).
Data in Figure 10.1k and 10.1l show that the vast majority of re- spondents, or 22 people (73%), are people employed in the normal way (contract of employment).
In conclusion, it can be said that a typical respondent who took part in the study is the man holding a secondary or higher education at the age of 36-45 years with different length of job seniority, not showing a high degree of mobility and readiness to change their employment.
10.2. Evaluation structure
The numerical and percentage statement of the evaluations of 7th principle of Toyota management factor was made (BORKOWSKI S., ROSAK-SZYROCKA J. 2011). The results are shown in Table 10.2 and 10.3.
Table 10.2. 7th principle. Numerical combination of the factors’ importance
Evaluate Factors’ denotation
CS EP TI UP ME GW
1 0 1 3 2 5 19
2 4 4 7 2 5 8
3 5 5 11 6 3 0
4 4 14 3 4 4 1
5 6 5 6 10 3 0
6 11 1 0 6 10 2
Source: own study
Table 10.3. 7th principle Evaluation structure [%] of the factors’ importance
Evaluate Factors’ denotation
CS EP TI UP ME GW
1 0.0 3.3 10.0 6.7 16.7 63.3
2 13.3 13.3 23.3 6.7 16.7 26.7
3 16.7 16.7 36.7 20.0 10.0 0.0
4 13.3 46.7 10.0 13.3 13.3 3.3
5 20.0 16.7 20.0 33.3 10.0 0.0
6 36.7 3.3 0.0 20.0 33.3 6.7
Source: own study
In Figure 10.2 it was shown the distribution of responses about the research factors, in a three-dimensional way, i.e., using conical and cylin- drical charts.
Fig. 10.2. 7th principle. 3D presentation of the evaluate number research
results a) evaluate number, b) evaluation structure.
Source: own study
In Figure 10.2a and 10.2b the responses that occurred most frequently in the individual factors were indicated. In case of factor GW it was eval- uation “1”, in case of ME – “6”, for UP – “5”, for TI – “3”, EP – “4”, CS – “6”.
1 2
3 4
5 6
01020 CS EP TI UP ME GW
19 11
14 10
11 10
Evaluate number
Factors’ denotation
a)
1 2
3 4
5 6
0204060 CS EP TI UP ME GW
63,3 36,7
46,7
33,3
36,7 33,3
Evaluation structure [%]
Factors’ denotation
b)
10.3. Construction of factors importance ranks
The radar charts were used to build the importance ranks of the fac- tors describing the 7th principle of Toyota management (BORKOWSKI S., KNOP K.,RUTKOWSKI T.2011) (Figure 10.3).
0,0 13,3
16,7 13,3
20,0 36,7
0 20 40
a
3,3 13,3
16,7
46,7 16,7
3,3 0 20 40
b
10,0 23,3
36,7 10,0
20,0 0,0 0 20 40
c
6,7 6,7
20,0 13,3
33,3 20,0
0 20 40
d
16,7 16,7
10,0 13,3 0,1 33,3
0 20 40
e
63,3
26,7
3,3 0,0 0,0 6,7
0 20 40 60 1
2
3
4 5
6
f
CS
EP
TI
UP ME
GW
CS CS
EP
TI
UP ME
GW
EP
TI
UP ME
GW
1
2
3
4 5
6
1
2
3
4 5
6
Fig. 10.3. 7th principle. Radar graphs of the importance of the factor from E7 area: CS, b) EP,
c) TI, d) UP, e) ME, f) GW, g) average.
Source: own study
From Figure 10.3 it was resulted that for the evaluation "1" the factor GW had the largest percentage, then the factor designated as ME (16.7%). In conclusion it can be pointed the following importance rank for evaluation "1":
GW > ME > TI > UP > EP > CS (10.1) Analysing the importance structure of factors for evaluation "2", it can be found that the factor GW had the largest percentage (26.7%), while factor UP the smallest. The complete importance ranks of factors is following:
GW > TI > ME > (CS; EP) > UP (10.2) 4An analysis of the structure of the importance evaluation of the factors for the evaluation "3", it can be concluded that the factor identified as TI took the first place (36.7%). Factors identified as UP was in second place with 20%. Summarizing the importance rank of factors is following:
TI > UP > (CS; EP) > ME > GW (10.3) For the evaluation “4” the factor EP had the highest percentage (46.7%), while the factor, which handled first place for the evaluation of "1" and
"2", came here in last place. Factors identified as CS, UP and ME had the same voting percentage, i.e. 13.3%. In this case the importance rank of factors is following:
EP > (CS; UP; ME) > TI > GW (10.4) Factors identified as UP had the highest level for the evaluation "5"
(38.3% of the vote). While factors identified as CS and TI received 20%
of votes. The importance rank for evaluation “5” is following:
UP > (CS; TI)> EP > ME > GW (10.5)
21,4 17,6
14,6
20,0 18,2
8,2 0 20 40
CS
EP
TI
UP ME
GW
g
In case of evaluation “6” factor designated as ME had the highest per- centage (38.7%), while factor CS was in the second place (36.7%). The importance rank for evaluation “6” is following:
ME > CS > UP > GW > EP > TI (10.6) On the basis of the average values summarizing importance rank (BORKOWSKI S., KNOP K.,POŹNIAK A. 2011) was constructed which is as follows:
CS > UP > ME > EP > TI > GW (10.7)
10.4. Statistical analysis of the research results
The statistical analysis of the responses of the 7th principle of Toyota management was conducted. The basic statistical parameters, i.e., medi- an, quartile and range were calculated, the box-and-whisker plots was used to graphical presentation of the correlation between these parameters (OSTASIEWICZ S., RUSNAK Z., SIEDLECKA U. 1999). The box-and- whisker plots was presented in Figure 10.4.
Fig. 10.4. 7th principle.
Box-and-whisker plots.
Source: own study
As shown in Figure 10.4, the most consistent evaluations were noticed in case of factor GW, while the most diverse - factor identified as ME.
1 2 3 4 5 6
CS EP TI UP ME GW
Evaluations' parameters
Factors' denotation
In the case of the factor identified as CS the negative asymmetry was observed, while for factor EP half responses ranged from 3 to 4, while median was 4. For factor TI responses distributed in a symmetrical man- ner, with the median 3. For factor identified as UP distribution of answers is negative-asymmetric. In case of factor identified as ME half of re- sponses ranged from 2 to 6. Response to the factor identified as GW are extremely asymmetrical, with positive asymmetry.
10.5. Summary
In the chapter the results of BOST survey for importance evaluation of factors of the 7th principle of Toyota management, requiring use of the visual control so that no problem is not in hiding, were presented. The research was conducted in the machinery industry company involved in the production of heavy and super heavy machines, both conventional and numerically controlled.
On the basis of the results of research, the importance rank of the fac- tors in the research company was following: CS > UP > ME > EP > TI >
GW. Cleanliness (CS) was the most important factor of the visual control in the company, while graphical presentation of results (GW) the least important. The factor GW was evaluated as the weakest, which does not indicate that such tools do not exist, they are, but do not constitute a significant contribution to the process of solving problems in the re- search company. The first three places were taken by factors that mutual- ly reinforce and complement each other. Analysis of the distribution of basic statistical parameters with use of the box-and-whisker plots showed a wide variation of responses to individual factors, only in case of factor graphical presentation of results (GW) greater coherence of the im- portance evaluation was observed.
Bibliography
1. BORKOWSKI S. 2009. Chapter 1. Visual control as the basis for the seventh rule of Toyota management. In: Toyotarity. Visual Control. Ed. and scien-
tific elaboration Borkowski S., Tsoy E.B. Publisher Yurii V. Makovetsky.
Dnipropetrovsk.
2. BORKOWSKI S. 2012a. Dokumenty zawierające wymyślony termin (TOYOTARYZM) oraz zawierające nazwę i strukturę opracowanej metody (BOST). Potwierdzenie daty. „AAK” Kancelaria Patentowa s.c. Częstocho- wa.
3. BORKOWSKI S. 2012b.Zasady zarządzania Toyoty w pytaniach. Wyniki ba- dań BOST.Wydawnictwo Menedżerskie PTM. Warszawa.
4. BORKOWSKI S. 2012c.Toyotaryzm. Wyniki badań BOST.Wydawnictwo Me- nedżerskie PTM. Warszawa.
5. BORKOWSKI S.,ROSAK-SZYROCKA J.2011.Visual Control in Fabric Quality Improvement. Chapter 5. In: Quality. Technological Improvement. Monogra- phy. Editing and Scientific Elaboration Borkowski S., Lipiński T. Publish.
TRIPSOFT. Trnava.
6. BORKOWSKI S.,KNOP K., RUTKOWSKI T.2011. Meaning of Visual Control Types in Production Improvement. Chapter 9. In: Production Improvement.
Monography. Editing and Scientific Elaboration Stanisław Borkowski, Ma- nuela Konstanciak. Publish. TRIPSOFT. Trnava.
7. BORKOWSKI S.,KNOP K.,POŹNIAK A. 2011. The meaning of control in the processes. Chapter 3. In: Toyotarity. Control in organizations, Editing and Scientific Elaboration Borkowski S., Czajkowska A., Yurii V. Makovetsky.
Dnipropetrovsk.
8. LIKER J.K. 2005. Droga Toyoty. 14 zasad zarządzania wiodącej firmy pro- dukcyjnej świata. MT Biznes. Warszawa.
9. OSTASIEWICZ S.,RUSNAK Z.,SIEDLECKA U. 1999. Statystyka. Elementy teorii i zadania. Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej we Wrocławiu. Wrocław.
