[vina]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

...
and the mentioned examples most certainly are not. Today's economics don't allow one to handcraft a volume product.
...

As you pointed out earlier, the reports need independent confirmation of the facts. That is also needed for the degree to which the stated facts are true, not just the statements of the fact.



However in general it isn't a golden rule that machines are cheaper. Believe it or not, several production tasks that are automated almost everywhere else in the world (e.g. tasks in PCB assembly) are done by hand in China. In fact in some chinese factories only the tasks that a human can't do well enough are done by machines.

Whether a task turns out cheaper to do by machines or by humans depends on a lot of factors. Usually volumes play a big part in deciding which method is cheaper - higher the volumes cheaper the machines are.

However in the above argument volumes are not necessarily model-volumes, but can be variant-volumes as well. Every Rolls Royce car is unique in its own, hence the effective volume for most of the parts is almost exactly one. So all the upholstery is hand sewed, even though computerised machines will be cheaper and better even in volumes of high hundreds.

In areas where volumes truly exist (engines etc.) they do use machines heavily, except where humans perform better and cheaper.


Even for high-volume manufacture where machines have significant but not back-breaking cost advantage, humans may still be preferable simple because the equivalent of "re-tooling" can be done in a matter of hours if not minutes at close to zero costs in most cases if humans are working the assembly line. With machines the process is complicated (requires software change, testing ...), expensive and time consuming. In electronics for example PCBs and assemblies for consumer electronics is very highly automated, while that for industrial electronics is much more flexible with a lot more human content.



Coming specifically to Toyota, apart from the above (the article mentions loss of flexibility) there may be non-economic reasons as well. Japanese companies are loath to lay people off in general, and if that is the case then getting work done from a human (rather than investing in a machine) is much cheaper on an incremental basis - you would have had to pay the salaries anyway.

Another problem may have to do with Toyota's problems with quality - while machines are usually better than humans in doing simple routine tasks, those very machines usually have no capability of observation and certainly none of "critical thinking". Japanese companies in particular that in the past have relied on all employees looking at any potential problems lose the critical feedback every time a human is replaced with a machine. Overall cost may actually increase rather than decrease.

[Sutripta]

Hi guys,
Using humans for final QC, machines for populating boards, but humans for assembling them in a chassis/ enclosure etc are industry standards. We can go on and on as to why it is so, but discussing the wisdom, or otherwise, of industry standards per se was not my intention. I was trying to find out where Toyota differs from the industry norm, and to understand why. Relevant only in that respect.

The thing about not firing people is (was) a Japanese trait. Not just Toyota.
It is the Japanese who started the massive automation drive in factories.

Regards
Sutripta

[VeyronSuperSprt]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

where Toyota differs from the industry norm

1. Conscious decision to have less technology in its new engines than its existing engines.
2. Lower technology in its assembly lines.

Originally Posted by Sutripta

understand why.

1. Bottom Line.

Originally Posted by DerAlte

Only PCB manufacture (not done by Toyota, incidentally)

Toyota now manufactures the ECU, power steering controllers and power modules at its plant in Hirose. (earlier suppliers include Denso and Aisin Seiki)

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by VeyronSuperSprt

1. Conscious decision to have less technology in its new engines than its existing engines.
2. Lower technology in its assembly lines.

What exactly does it mean? Examples?
Verifiable sources pls.

1. Bottom Line.

Would think that applies to all companies. (Don't know of any charitable auto companies. Remember GMs laying off a pretty large workforce a couple of days before Christmas.) And similar problems -> similar solutions. Toyota is breaking from that mould.
So
A) Toyota has seen the light, and most other automakers are barking up the wrong tree,
B) Toyota has got it massively wrong, (and will have to course correct)
C) It really does not matter. Both are equally valid ways of working.
D) A peculiar set of local (ie Toyota specific) circumstances is forcing Toyota to adopt the 'more men, less automation' paradigm (and it is a paradigm shift) and Toyota is making the best of its circumstances and constraints.
Wonder which.

Regards
Sutripta

[VeyronSuperSprt]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

What exactly does it mean? Examples?
Verifiable sources pls.

There are several sites giving information on old technology in new engines but you dont need to go that far - it's also mentioned in the article indicated by you at the beginning of this thread.

Originally Posted by Sutripta

Would think that applies to all companies. (Don't know of any charitable auto companies. Remember GMs laying off a pretty large workforce a couple of days before Christmas.) And similar problems -> similar solutions. Toyota is breaking from that mould.
So
A) Toyota has seen the light, and most other automakers are barking up the wrong tree,
B) Toyota has got it massively wrong, (and will have to course correct)
C) It really does not matter. Both are equally valid ways of working.
D) A peculiar set of local (ie Toyota specific) circumstances is forcing Toyota to adopt the 'more men, less automation' paradigm (and it is a paradigm shift) and Toyota is making the best of its circumstances and constraints.
Wonder which.

Dont get the point you're trying to make here so I think I'll pass this one. Cheers

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by VeyronSuperSprt

There are several sites giving information on old technology in new engines but you dont need to go that far - it's also mentioned in the article indicated by you at the beginning of this thread.

Actual examples would have been nice, esp. for

1. Conscious decision to have less technology in its new engines than its existing engines.

Dont get the point you're trying to make here so I think I'll pass this one. Cheers

My bad luck.

Regards
Sutripta