Until I get the right answer, I am going to keep asking WHY.
What is the difference between the following excerpts from the 2009 article and the 2023 LinkedIn post comment:
2009 ARTICLE
“Here’s another real-world example of how a little break in a supply line can have a big impact.
(The pandemic-related concern about supply chains, of course, is that high absenteeism during a pandemic might cause companies to fall behind in their production, failing to deliver the parts or ingredients which customers need. In turn, this might cause ripple effects downstream.)
The July 20, 2007, Wall Street Journal published an article titled, “A Key Strategy of Japan’s Car Makers Backfires,” which begins: For want of a piston ring costing $1.50, nearly 70 percent of Japan’s auto production has been temporarily paralyzed this week. Blame it on kanban, the just-in-time philosophy of keeping as little inventory on hand as possible.”
2023 POST COMMENT
“Was at an EV manufacturer just today, and some very inexpensive O-rings were preventing them from delivering dozens of $250K vehicles. The missing part is real and even worse is not having visibility to a missed PO that was the root cause and failing OTIF.”
Here we are, 16 years later, from when a missing $1.50 part “paralyzed” 70% of Toyota’s production and the stalled delivery of $250K EV vehicles due to an O-ring.
Explain to me why this is happening? Are we not now in the digital AI era of advanced analytics that power real-time communication and collaboration with our suppliers.
JUST SPITBALLING HERE
$250K being held up by O-rings – solving this problem is not as challenging or complex as many of the other problems I have seen over the past four decades.
There is no reason why this should still be a lingering issue.
What did this latest O-ring example cost the company in the following three areas:
– financial hit
– damaged reputation
– avoidable and unnecessary FTE expenditure
Am I missing anything?
What are the next steps we need to take to finally deal with this “for want of a nail” scenario?
“For want of a nail” is a proverb, having numerous variations over several centuries, reminding that seemingly unimportant acts or omissions can have grave and unforeseen consequences.
30
Procurement Insights 
Inexpensive O-rings Prevent An EV Manufacturer From Delivering Dozens of $250K Vehicles – WHY?
Posted on November 17, 2023
0
Until I get the right answer, I am going to keep asking WHY.
What is the difference between the following excerpts from the 2009 article and the 2023 LinkedIn post comment:
2009 ARTICLE
“Here’s another real-world example of how a little break in a supply line can have a big impact.
(The pandemic-related concern about supply chains, of course, is that high absenteeism during a pandemic might cause companies to fall behind in their production, failing to deliver the parts or ingredients which customers need. In turn, this might cause ripple effects downstream.)
The July 20, 2007, Wall Street Journal published an article titled, “A Key Strategy of Japan’s Car Makers Backfires,” which begins: For want of a piston ring costing $1.50, nearly 70 percent of Japan’s auto production has been temporarily paralyzed this week. Blame it on kanban, the just-in-time philosophy of keeping as little inventory on hand as possible.”
2023 POST COMMENT
“Was at an EV manufacturer just today, and some very inexpensive O-rings were preventing them from delivering dozens of $250K vehicles. The missing part is real and even worse is not having visibility to a missed PO that was the root cause and failing OTIF.”
Here we are, 16 years later, from when a missing $1.50 part “paralyzed” 70% of Toyota’s production and the stalled delivery of $250K EV vehicles due to an O-ring.
Explain to me why this is happening? Are we not now in the digital AI era of advanced analytics that power real-time communication and collaboration with our suppliers.
JUST SPITBALLING HERE
$250K being held up by O-rings – solving this problem is not as challenging or complex as many of the other problems I have seen over the past four decades.
There is no reason why this should still be a lingering issue.
What did this latest O-ring example cost the company in the following three areas:
– financial hit
– damaged reputation
– avoidable and unnecessary FTE expenditure
Am I missing anything?
What are the next steps we need to take to finally deal with this “for want of a nail” scenario?
“For want of a nail” is a proverb, having numerous variations over several centuries, reminding that seemingly unimportant acts or omissions can have grave and unforeseen consequences.
30
Share this:
Related