Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] How did the Detroit Three come to this point?

Expand Messages
  • Orhan Kalayci
    Hi Bruce, How are you? I do not think I am performing a CAR and consequently do not violate the principles of TQM which I am promoting. What I am doing is
    Message 1 of 17 , Jan 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Bruce, How are you?

      I do not think I am performing a CAR and consequently do not violate
      the principles of TQM which I am promoting.

      What I am doing is somehow similar to suggesting a sick person to see
      a doctor. Here the sick person represents any one of Detroit three
      and the doctor is representing the TQM (Deming's) principles. (You
      will see at the end of message why these sick persons actually do not
      have any motivation to get well)

      The point most people in the forum missing is TQM is a management
      model. TQM is promising organization to produce better products
      faster and cheaper. Who can compete with such an organization?
      Obviously no one, examples include Detroit Three against Japanese
      Three (Toyota, Honda, Nissan)

      Bruce, in your explanation it looks like you are ignoring the term
      "faster". Organizations who installed TQM as a management model
      should not only produce better (high quality) products - Detroit Three
      can be good at this - but they also should produce quality products
      FASTER and CHEAPER. FASTER here implies agility - Lean - as well. If
      an organization can not change its production lines in less than five
      years, can we say this organization is an agile -lean- and fast
      organization. Pat was talking about inventories that they are full of
      autos. It is a shame for a lean organization :)

      In TQM, processes are not limited to production or engineering only.
      Any activity in the organization - including marketing - is a process
      and it can be improved.

      Some was saying - Detroit three is in bad shape because people do not
      buy, that is not completely true.

      GM sales in 2007: 9,370,000 vehicles
      Toyota sales in 2007: 9,366,418 vehicles

      GM profit/loss in 2007: -$38,730,000,000 (-$4,055 per car)
      Toyota profit in 2007: +$17,146,000,000 (+$1,874 per car)

      http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/12/2007-profitloss-gm-vs-toyota-same-cars.html


      So tell me who is producing better products faster and cheaper.

      Some were saying this topic is not an interesting topic for this
      group. Is this group only limited to process technicians? Is there
      anybody interested in strategic issues of process improvement?

      Finally, I remember people want to be fly on the wall while I will be
      talking to CEO of GM. I would like be much more happy if they want to
      assist me in the meeting, instead. However, I now understand
      automotive industry is not an attractive (or strategic) industry for
      US anymore - I searched on Gartner DB and found that there is no
      analysis made about the automotive industry for the past 10 years. I
      guess today is just a bad time to let them bankrupt otherwise there is
      no reason to save them, in fact it is almost impossible to save them
      for long, I believe government is just trying to delay the inevitable
      end. The bankruptcy will not be because they have huge obligations
      for retired employees but in fact installing TQM in an organization
      requires a huge cultural change and it takes decades. Furthermore,
      profit margin is so low, they used to make money not by the auto
      itself but financing of it. That is why they did not care about the
      waste (muda) (internal loss) they made for years.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_(Japanese_term)

      Peace,
      Orhan
      Toronto
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SPIRITofCMMI/


      --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Epstein"
      <bepstein@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Orhan,
      >
      > Do you realize that you are violating the very principles you claim
      > to espouse? You are performing a CAR without involving the relevant
      > stakeholders - you see an undesirable result (large numbers of unsold
      > vehicles) and have extrapolated a "cause" that doesn't exist (lack of
      > TQM).
      >
      > As it happens, like several others in this forum, I actually did work
      > in the automobile industry for several years, and we actually did
      > apply "Deming's principles" (as you like to call them).
      >
      > Today's situation is not at all (at least as far as I can tell) a
      > result of lack of attention to quality, to process, or to customer
      > satisfaction.
      >
      > To understand it, let's start by recalling that the strategic product
      > lifecycle in the automobile business is very long, much longer than
      > in IT. For illustration, let's take a 5 year cycle.
      >
      > So, imagine now that we are in a corporate boardroom, it's the fall
      > of 2003, and we're running our strategic DAR to choose the types of
      > products we should be selling in 2008. Remember, here's the situation:
      > - the US is starting to recover from the recession brought on by the
      > double whammy of the end of the "Internet bubble" and the 9/11 attacks
      > - the Fed has lowered interest rates to historically low levels; as a
      > result, many families are either refinancing their homes or buying
      > new ones, farther out in the suburbs. These families are also able to
      > replace their aging vehicles, and demand for large cars and SUVs is
      > skyrocketing
      > - oil is trading slightly above its historical average of $20 per
      > barrel due to the conflict in Iraq, but all signs point to a rapid
      > resolution
      > - Toyota is selling a few thousand of its novelty Prius, and rumors
      > have it that they lose money on each one
      > - "global warming" is a subject only for the late night science
      > programs on PBS
      > - given the low cost of credit, the board of directors is pushing
      > for "leveraging" internal assets as much as possible
      >
      > It's easy for us today in 2008 to see the flaws in these assumptions,
      > and those automakers who *did* choose different assumptions
      > (consciously or not) are in less dire straits today.
      >
      > Happy holidays,
      > Bruce
      >
      > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, "Orhan KALAYCI"
      > <orhan.kalayci@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi,
      > >
      > > I am not talking about best practices listed in CMMI-DEV. I keep
      > repeating
      > > that I am very upset for CMMI-DEV is reduced to a list of best
      > practices.
      > > The foundation of the CMMI-DEV is coming from Crosby's maturity
      > grid which
      > > is independent of industry and Deming's success in Japan which is
      > also
      > > independent of industry. In short, CMMI-DEV is application of TQM
      > > principles to engineering which is independent of industry - if you
      > are
      > > Designing/Engineering something (whatever the something is) CMMI-
      > DEV is
      > > supposed to be applicable.
      > >
      > > As a process expert, if we are not able to describe Deming's
      > principles and
      > > how they can be applied to any industry then we are not really a
      > process
      > > expert, it means that we are just a process technician who is able
      > to list
      > > the best practices listed as CMMI-DEV. In fact, they are just some
      > examples
      > > for best practices that is why the concept of alternative practices
      > exist.
      > > I remember there was a gentleman in SEPG 2006 in Amsterdam, he can
      > tell you
      > > the SPX.Y by heart for all SPs listed in CMMI-DEV and he was proud
      > of it and
      > > people were appreciating this skill. Of course the list of SPs
      > (even if
      > > they are told by heart :) will not help Automakers, I agree with
      > that :)
      > >
      > > Since most people in this group do not have a solid understanding of
      > > Deming's principles (I guess I am the only one :))) [OK, one of the
      > very
      > > few, though, I do not know who the others are :)))))] it is not
      > very much
      > > suprising they (experts) are not able to associate the failure of
      > Detroit
      > > Three with their process capabilities or TQM abilities. For
      > them, "process"
      > > is limited to engineering department only, in reality it is a new
      > management
      > > style - TQM. This makes me think that it is unfortunate that
      > Detroit Three
      > > may not be overcoming this crisis, in other words, they may not be
      > able to
      > > get OUT OF CRISIS (as Deming explaing decades ago).
      > >
      > > When Ford hired Deming in early 1980s to Ford's surprise, Deming
      > talked not
      > > about quality but about management. He told Ford that management
      > actions
      > > were responsible for 85% of all problems in developing better cars.
      > In 1986
      > > Ford came out with a profitable line of cars, the Taurus-Sable line.
      > >
      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming#Later_work_in_the_U.S.
      > >
      > > It is not true that Toyota too is having hard times just like the
      > Detroit
      > > Three, nowadays. See:
      > >
      > http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/12/22/toyota.losses/index.html --
      > It is
      > > unfair comparing today's Toyota with Detroit Three, it is like
      > comparing a
      > > human being with a monkey because they are at different stages of
      > > evaluation. TQM is the next step in the evaluation of corporate
      > > management.
      > >
      > > This would be Toyota's first operating loss since 1950, Toyota
      > spokesman
      > > Steve Curtis said. Despite the likely operating loss, Toyota
      > expects to post
      > > a $557 million net profit for the fiscal year.
      > >
      > > Some may say it is the lean manufacturing what they need. It is
      > interesting
      > > that the lean manufacturing goes back to 1850 and Ford is earlier
      > than
      > > Toyota in the implementation of the principles when we go back to
      > Henry
      > > Ford. See:
      > http://www.strategosinc.com/lean_manufacturing_history.htm
      > >
      > > TQM is much more than lean manufacturing although it is a process
      > centric
      > > approach. It is true that TQM is much more than process. - For
      > example,
      > > without respect to people no process will make any difference. See:
      > > http://edgehopper.com/what-toyota-knows-that-gm-doesnt/
      > >
      > > In one of the CMMI training I was delivering in Turkey, there was a
      > > manager from Toyota. In fact, I asked him their implementations for
      > > TQM and quality several times during the training, we have learned
      > > from him that the number one priority in Toyota is "Respect".
      > > Respect to everything: People, environment, work, etc. Keeping a
      > > light on when it is unnecessary considered as being disrespectful to
      > > the energy/environment. Wasting a resource during a work is
      > > considered as being disrespectful.
      > >
      > > Being respectful is a core part of TQM movement.
      > >
      > > By looking at the evolution of the quality I can see the
      > > similarities between biological evolutions. QC is where the "power"
      > > is the king (Quality should be expensive), QA is
      > > where "intelligence" is the king (Quality is not necessarily
      > > expensive, we can now fix the defects in early phases), TQM is
      > > where "spirit" is the king (Quality, speed, cost are all friends, we
      > > are one (no duality), production is flexible â€" there is no
      > > difference between producing truck and sedan or software :) they
      > are the
      > > same and
      > > one (no duality)) Secret is the "respect" In the history, human
      > beings
      > > created organizations who have power then created organizations who
      > have
      > > intelligence, now we start creating organizations who have spirit -
      > TQM.
      > >
      > > Being respectful (TQM) includes everything, e.g., suppliers:
      > > http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/06/study-suppliers-like-toyota-
      > honda-best.html
      > >
      > > May be the solution for the three amigos of Detroit is to hire a
      > group of
      > > retired Toyota executives as Porsche did:
      > > http://forums.subdriven.com/zerothread?id=4160618
      > >
      > > May the peace be upon you,
      > > Orhan
      > > Toronto
      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SPIRITofCMMI/
      > >
      > >
      > > 2008/12/21 Murali Chemuturi <murali_chemuturi@>
      > >
      > > > Orhan
      > > >
      > > > Calling ourselves "process experts" is stretching it a bit.
      > Perhaps the
      > > > term "Certified Process Appraisers" is more appropriate - that
      > too, in
      > > > software process based on SEI's CMMI model.
      > > >
      > > > Software process and manufacturing process are vastly different.
      > Possessing
      > > > software process appraising skills does not make us experts on
      > manufacturing
      > > > processes and diagnosing their ills.
      > > >
      > > > The costs of US automakers and Japanese automakers are vastly
      > different. US
      > > > automakers bear US costs and compete with Japanese and Other
      > automakers who
      > > > have far lower costs. US automakers have only US market and
      > Japanese
      > > > automakers have the world as market.
      > > >
      > > > Toyota methods were studied in the mid 80's and books were
      > published. I
      > > > read a few and I am sure that people at GM and others too,
      > studied them.
      > > > There are cultural issues (such as making voluntary compliance
      > compulsory,
      > > > and labor mobility) which made it possible for techniques like
      > Quality
      > > > Circles and Lean Manufacturing a success in Japanese industry and
      > not in any
      > > > other country.
      > > >
      > > > It is the whole gamut that is to be considered - not just the
      > process.
      > > >
      > > > What I mean to say is that we are not qualified enough to discuss
      > the
      > > > difficulties of US automakers in a knowledgeable manner.
      > > >
      > > > Best wishes for your success
      > > >
      > > > Murali Chemuturi
      > > > www.chemuturi.com
      > > > 91-40-2722 0771
      > > > 98850-19461
      > > > USA - 347-394-3138
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > *From:* Orhan Kalayci <orhan.kalayci@>
      > > > *To:* cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com
      > > > *Sent:* Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:50 PM
      > > > *Subject:* [CMMi Process Improvement] How did the Detroit Three
      > come to
      > > > this point?
      > > >
      > > > Hi,
      > > >
      > > > I would like to hear your opinions about how Detroit Three came to
      > > > this point?
      > > >
      > > > Why Ford is in a better position compared to the other two?
      > > >
      > > > Will they be able to recover soon? Do they need to improve their
      > > > processes and which processes and how? I guess it is clear that
      > they
      > > > need real process improvement! Certificates or nice looking audit
      > > > reports will not help them.
      > > >
      > > > I believe we as process experts have a lot to say, even better we
      > > > should have to help them if they really want to survive. I guess
      > > > Deming had already provided Ford with some help, that is why she
      > is in
      > > > a relatively better shape.
      > > >
      > > > Finally I believe they need to use
      > > > Agile or Lean prenciples for their process improvement projects,
      > they
      > > > do not have 5 or 10 years to improve or fail to improve, they
      > should
      > > > be iteratively improving their processes. They should ask help
      > from
      > > > Toyota to learn how to reduce waste.
      > > >
      > > > May the peace be upon all of us,
      > > > Orhan
      > > > Toronto
      > > > Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpiritofCMMI
      > > >
      > > > Sent from my iPhone
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Orhan Kalayci
      Correction: My query for the search in the Gartner database was something like why GM failed? . It did not return anything. Today I saw several reports on
      Message 2 of 17 , Jan 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Correction:
        My query for the search in the Gartner database was something like "why GM failed? ". It did not return anything. Today I saw several reports on automotive industry in Gartner. FYI. Still their number is very few relative to other topics. 

        Peace,
        Orhan
        Toronto


        Sent from my iPhone

        On 2-Jan-09, at 13:03, "Orhan Kalayci" <orhan.kalayci@...> wrote:

        Hi Bruce, How are you?

        I do not think I am performing a CAR and consequently do not violate
        the principles of TQM which I am promoting.

        What I am doing is somehow similar to suggesting a sick person to see
        a doctor. Here the sick person represents any one of Detroit three
        and the doctor is representing the TQM (Deming's) principles. (You
        will see at the end of message why these sick persons actually do not
        have any motivation to get well)

        The point most people in the forum missing is TQM is a management
        model. TQM is promising organization to produce better products
        faster and cheaper. Who can compete with such an organization?
        Obviously no one, examples include Detroit Three against Japanese
        Three (Toyota, Honda, Nissan)

        Bruce, in your explanation it looks like you are ignoring the term
        "faster". Organizations who installed TQM as a management model
        should not only produce better (high quality) products - Detroit Three
        can be good at this - but they also should produce quality products
        FASTER and CHEAPER. FASTER here implies agility - Lean - as well. If
        an organization can not change its production lines in less than five
        years, can we say this organization is an agile -lean- and fast
        organization. Pat was talking about inventories that they are full of
        autos. It is a shame for a lean organization :)

        In TQM, processes are not limited to production or engineering only.
        Any activity in the organization - including marketing - is a process
        and it can be improved.

        Some was saying - Detroit three is in bad shape because people do not
        buy, that is not completely true.

        GM sales in 2007: 9,370,000 vehicles
        Toyota sales in 2007: 9,366,418 vehicles

        GM profit/loss in 2007: -$38,730,000, 000 (-$4,055 per car)
        Toyota profit in 2007: +$17,146,000, 000 (+$1,874 per car)

        http://mjperry. blogspot. com/2008/ 12/2007-profitlo ss-gm-vs- toyota-same- cars.html

        So tell me who is producing better products faster and cheaper.

        Some were saying this topic is not an interesting topic for this
        group. Is this group only limited to process technicians? Is there
        anybody interested in strategic issues of process improvement?

        Finally, I remember people want to be fly on the wall while I will be
        talking to CEO of GM. I would like be much more happy if they want to
        assist me in the meeting, instead. However, I now understand
        automotive industry is not an attractive (or strategic) industry for
        US anymore - I searched on Gartner DB and found that there is no
        analysis made about the automotive industry for the past 10 years. I
        guess today is just a bad time to let them bankrupt otherwise there is
        no reason to save them, in fact it is almost impossible to save them
        for long, I believe government is just trying to delay the inevitable
        end. The bankruptcy will not be because they have huge obligations
        for retired employees but in fact installing TQM in an organization
        requires a huge cultural change and it takes decades. Furthermore,
        profit margin is so low, they used to make money not by the auto
        itself but financing of it. That is why they did not care about the
        waste (muda) (internal loss) they made for years.
        http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Muda_(Japanese_term)

        Peace,
        Orhan
        Toronto
        http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/SPIRITofCM MI/

        --- In cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com, "Bruce Epstein"
        <bepstein@.. .> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Orhan,
        >
        > Do you realize that you are violating the very principles you claim
        > to espouse? You are performing a CAR without involving the relevant
        > stakeholders - you see an undesirable result (large numbers of unsold
        > vehicles) and have extrapolated a "cause" that doesn't exist (lack of
        > TQM).
        >
        > As it happens, like several others in this forum, I actually did work
        > in the automobile industry for several years, and we actually did
        > apply "Deming's principles" (as you like to call them).
        >
        > Today's situation is not at all (at least as far as I can tell) a
        > result of lack of attention to quality, to process, or to customer
        > satisfaction.
        >
        > To understand it, let's start by recalling that the strategic product
        > lifecycle in the automobile business is very long, much longer than
        > in IT. For illustration, let's take a 5 year cycle.
        >
        > So, imagine now that we are in a corporate boardroom, it's the fall
        > of 2003, and we're running our strategic DAR to choose the types of
        > products we should be selling in 2008. Remember, here's the situation:
        > - the US is starting to recover from the recession brought on by the
        > double whammy of the end of the "Internet bubble" and the 9/11 attacks
        > - the Fed has lowered interest rates to historically low levels; as a
        > result, many families are either refinancing their homes or buying
        > new ones, farther out in the suburbs. These families are also able to
        > replace their aging vehicles, and demand for large cars and SUVs is
        > skyrocketing
        > - oil is trading slightly above its historical average of $20 per
        > barrel due to the conflict in Iraq, but all signs point to a rapid
        > resolution
        > - Toyota is selling a few thousand of its novelty Prius, and rumors
        > have it that they lose money on each one
        > - "global warming" is a subject only for the late night science
        > programs on PBS
        > - given the low cost of credit, the board of directors is pushing
        > for "leveraging" internal assets as much as possible
        >
        > It's easy for us today in 2008 to see the flaws in these assumptions,
        > and those automakers who *did* choose different assumptions
        > (consciously or not) are in less dire straits today.
        >
        > Happy holidays,
        > Bruce
        >
        > --- In cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com, "Orhan KALAYCI"
        > <orhan.kalayci@ > wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi,
        > >
        > > I am not talking about best practices listed in CMMI-DEV. I keep
        > repeating
        > > that I am very upset for CMMI-DEV is reduced to a list of best
        > practices.
        > > The foundation of the CMMI-DEV is coming from Crosby's maturity
        > grid which
        > > is independent of industry and Deming's success in Japan which is
        > also
        > > independent of industry. In short, CMMI-DEV is application of TQM
        > > principles to engineering which is independent of industry - if you
        > are
        > > Designing/Engineeri ng something (whatever the something is) CMMI-
        > DEV is
        > > supposed to be applicable.
        > >
        > > As a process expert, if we are not able to describe Deming's
        > principles and
        > > how they can be applied to any industry then we are not really a
        > process
        > > expert, it means that we are just a process technician who is able
        > to list
        > > the best practices listed as CMMI-DEV. In fact, they are just some
        > examples
        > > for best practices that is why the concept of alternative practices
        > exist.
        > > I remember there was a gentleman in SEPG 2006 in Amsterdam, he can
        > tell you
        > > the SPX.Y by heart for all SPs listed in CMMI-DEV and he was proud
        > of it and
        > > people were appreciating this skill. Of course the list of SPs
        > (even if
        > > they are told by heart :) will not help Automakers, I agree with
        > that :)
        > >
        > > Since most people in this group do not have a solid understanding of
        > > Deming's principles (I guess I am the only one :))) [OK, one of the
        > very
        > > few, though, I do not know who the others are :)))))] it is not
        > very much
        > > suprising they (experts) are not able to associate the failure of
        > Detroit
        > > Three with their process capabilities or TQM abilities. For
        > them, "process"
        > > is limited to engineering department only, in reality it is a new
        > management
        > > style - TQM. This makes me think that it is unfortunate that
        > Detroit Three
        > > may not be overcoming this crisis, in other words, they may not be
        > able to
        > > get OUT OF CRISIS (as Deming explaing decades ago).
        > >
        > > When Ford hired Deming in early 1980s to Ford's surprise, Deming
        > talked not
        > > about quality but about management. He told Ford that management
        > actions
        > > were responsible for 85% of all problems in developing better cars.
        > In 1986
        > > Ford came out with a profitable line of cars, the Taurus-Sable line.
        > >
        > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ W._Edwards_ Deming#Later_ work_in_the_ U.S.
        > >
        > > It is not true that Toyota too is having hard times just like the
        > Detroit
        > > Three, nowadays. See:
        > >
        > http://edition. cnn.com/2008/ BUSINESS/ 12/22/toyota. losses/index. html --
        > It is
        > > unfair comparing today's Toyota with Detroit Three, it is like
        > comparing a
        > > human being with a monkey because they are at different stages of
        > > evaluation. TQM is the next step in the evaluation of corporate
        > > management.
        > >
        > > This would be Toyota's first operating loss since 1950, Toyota
        > spokesman
        > > Steve Curtis said. Despite the likely operating loss, Toyota
        > expects to post
        > > a $557 million net profit for the fiscal year.
        > >
        > > Some may say it is the lean manufacturing what they need. It is
        > interesting
        > > that the lean manufacturing goes back to 1850 and Ford is earlier
        > than
        > > Toyota in the implementation of the principles when we go back to
        > Henry
        > > Ford. See:
        > http://www.stratego sinc.com/ lean_manufacturi ng_history. htm
        > >
        > > TQM is much more than lean manufacturing although it is a process
        > centric
        > > approach. It is true that TQM is much more than process. - For
        > example,
        > > without respect to people no process will make any difference. See:
        > > http://edgehopper. com/what- toyota-knows- that-gm-doesnt/
        > >
        > > In one of the CMMI training I was delivering in Turkey, there was a
        > > manager from Toyota. In fact, I asked him their implementations for
        > > TQM and quality several times during the training, we have learned
        > > from him that the number one priority in Toyota is "Respect".
        > > Respect to everything: People, environment, work, etc. Keeping a
        > > light on when it is unnecessary considered as being disrespectful to
        > > the energy/environment. Wasting a resource during a work is
        > > considered as being disrespectful.
        > >
        > > Being respectful is a core part of TQM movement.
        > >
        > > By looking at the evolution of the quality I can see the
        > > similarities between biological evolutions. QC is where the "power"
        > > is the king (Quality should be expensive), QA is
        > > where "intelligence" is the king (Quality is not necessarily
        > > expensive, we can now fix the defects in early phases), TQM is
        > > where "spirit" is the king (Quality, speed, cost are all friends, we
        > > are one (no duality), production is flexible â€" there is no
        > > difference between producing truck and sedan or software :) they
        > are the
        > > same and
        > > one (no duality)) Secret is the "respect" In the history, human
        > beings
        > > created organizations who have power then created organizations who
        > have
        > > intelligence, now we start creating organizations who have spirit -
        > TQM.
        > >
        > > Being respectful (TQM) includes everything, e.g., suppliers:
        > > http://www.autoobse rver.com/ 2007/06/study- suppliers- like-toyota-
        > honda-best.html
        > >
        > > May be the solution for the three amigos of Detroit is to hire a
        > group of
        > > retired Toyota executives as Porsche did:
        > > http://forums. subdriven. com/zerothread? id=4160618
        > >
        > > May the peace be upon you,
        > > Orhan
        > > Toronto
        > > http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/SPIRITofCM MI/
        > >
        > >
        > > 2008/12/21 Murali Chemuturi <murali_chemuturi@ >
        > >
        > > > Orhan
        > > >
        > > > Calling ourselves "process experts" is stretching it a bit.
        > Perhaps the
        > > > term "Certified Process Appraisers" is more appropriate - that
        > too, in
        > > > software process based on SEI's CMMI model.
        > > >
        > > > Software process and manufacturing process are vastly different.
        > Possessing
        > > > software process appraising skills does not make us experts on
        > manufacturing
        > > > processes and diagnosing their ills.
        > > >
        > > > The costs of US automakers and Japanese automakers are vastly
        > different. US
        > > > automakers bear US costs



        Orhan
        Toronto


        Sent from my iPhone
      • jrd200x
        Here s an interesting read for those that think that they know what ails GM and the big three in general.
        Message 3 of 17 , Jan 3, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Here's an interesting read for those that think that they know what
          ails GM and the big three in general.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/opinion/03holstein.html?ref=opinion

          It's interesting that those who see it as a "simple" problem of not
          understanding quality principles have never even set foot within these
          companies.

          Yes, I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear people make this
          suggestion to Rick Wagoner - mostly for it's comic value.

          Cheers,

          Jeff



          --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, Orhan Kalayci
          <orhan.kalayci@...> wrote:
          >
          > Correction:
          > My query for the search in the Gartner database was something like
          > "why GM failed? ". It did not return anything. Today I saw several
          > reports on automotive industry in Gartner. FYI. Still their number
          is
          > very few relative to other topics.
          >
          > Peace,
          > Orhan
          > Toronto
          > Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpiritofCMMI
          >
          >
          > Sent from my iPhone
          >
          > On 2-Jan-09, at 13:03, "Orhan Kalayci" <orhan.kalayci@...> wrote:
          >
          > > Hi Bruce, How are you?
          > >
          > > I do not think I am performing a CAR and consequently do not
          violate
          > > the principles of TQM which I am promoting.
          > >
          > > What I am doing is somehow similar to suggesting a sick person to
          see
          > > a doctor. Here the sick person represents any one of Detroit three
          > > and the doctor is representing the TQM (Deming's) principles. (You
          > > will see at the end of message why these sick persons actually do
          not
          > > have any motivation to get well)
          > >
          > > The point most people in the forum missing is TQM is a management
          > > model. TQM is promising organization to produce better products
          > > faster and cheaper. Who can compete with such an organization?
          > > Obviously no one, examples include Detroit Three against Japanese
          > > Three (Toyota, Honda, Nissan)
          > >
          > > Bruce, in your explanation it looks like you are ignoring the term
          > > "faster". Organizations who installed TQM as a management model
          > > should not only produce better (high quality) products - Detroit
          Three
          > > can be good at this - but they also should produce quality
          products
          > > FASTER and CHEAPER. FASTER here implies agility - Lean - as well.
          If
          > > an organization can not change its production lines in less than
          five
          > > years, can we say this organization is an agile -lean- and fast
          > > organization. Pat was talking about inventories that they are full
          of
          > > autos. It is a shame for a lean organization :)
          > >
          > > In TQM, processes are not limited to production or engineering
          only.
          > > Any activity in the organization - including marketing - is a
          process
          > > and it can be improved.
          > >
          > > Some was saying - Detroit three is in bad shape because people do
          not
          > > buy, that is not completely true.
          > >
          > > GM sales in 2007: 9,370,000 vehicles
          > > Toyota sales in 2007: 9,366,418 vehicles
          > >
          > > GM profit/loss in 2007: -$38,730,000,000 (-$4,055 per car)
          > > Toyota profit in 2007: +$17,146,000,000 (+$1,874 per car)
          > >
          > > http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/12/2007-profitloss-gm-vs-toyota-
          same-cars.html
          > >
          > > So tell me who is producing better products faster and cheaper.
          > >
          > > Some were saying this topic is not an interesting topic for this
          > > group. Is this group only limited to process technicians? Is there
          > > anybody interested in strategic issues of process improvement?
          > >
          > > Finally, I remember people want to be fly on the wall while I will
          be
          > > talking to CEO of GM. I would like be much more happy if they want
          to
          > > assist me in the meeting, instead. However, I now understand
          > > automotive industry is not an attractive (or strategic) industry
          for
          > > US anymore - I searched on Gartner DB and found that there is no
          > > analysis made about the automotive industry for the past 10 years.
          I
          > > guess today is just a bad time to let them bankrupt otherwise
          there is
          > > no reason to save them, in fact it is almost impossible to save
          them
          > > for long, I believe government is just trying to delay the
          inevitable
          > > end. The bankruptcy will not be because they have huge obligations
          > > for retired employees but in fact installing TQM in an
          organization
          > > requires a huge cultural change and it takes decades. Furthermore,
          > > profit margin is so low, they used to make money not by the auto
          > > itself but financing of it. That is why they did not care about
          the
          > > waste (muda) (internal loss) they made for years.
          > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_(Japanese_term)
          > >
          > > Peace,
          > > Orhan
          > > Toronto
          > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SPIRITofCMMI/
          > >
          > > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Epstein"
          > > <bepstein@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Hi Orhan,
          > > >
          > > > Do you realize that you are violating the very principles you
          claim
          > > > to espouse? You are performing a CAR without involving the
          relevant
          > > > stakeholders - you see an undesirable result (large numbers of
          > > unsold
          > > > vehicles) and have extrapolated a "cause" that doesn't exist
          (lack
          > > of
          > > > TQM).
          > > >
          > > > As it happens, like several others in this forum, I actually did
          > > work
          > > > in the automobile industry for several years, and we actually
          did
          > > > apply "Deming's principles" (as you like to call them).
          > > >
          > > > Today's situation is not at all (at least as far as I can tell)
          a
          > > > result of lack of attention to quality, to process, or to
          customer
          > > > satisfaction.
          > > >
          > > > To understand it, let's start by recalling that the strategic
          > > product
          > > > lifecycle in the automobile business is very long, much longer
          than
          > > > in IT. For illustration, let's take a 5 year cycle.
          > > >
          > > > So, imagine now that we are in a corporate boardroom, it's the
          fall
          > > > of 2003, and we're running our strategic DAR to choose the types
          of
          > > > products we should be selling in 2008. Remember, here's the
          > > situation:
          > > > - the US is starting to recover from the recession brought on by
          the
          > > > double whammy of the end of the "Internet bubble" and the 9/11
          > > attacks
          > > > - the Fed has lowered interest rates to historically low levels;
          > > as a
          > > > result, many families are either refinancing their homes or
          buying
          > > > new ones, farther out in the suburbs. These families are also
          able
          > > to
          > > > replace their aging vehicles, and demand for large cars and SUVs
          is
          > > > skyrocketing
          > > > - oil is trading slightly above its historical average of $20
          per
          > > > barrel due to the conflict in Iraq, but all signs point to a
          rapid
          > > > resolution
          > > > - Toyota is selling a few thousand of its novelty Prius, and
          rumors
          > > > have it that they lose money on each one
          > > > - "global warming" is a subject only for the late night science
          > > > programs on PBS
          > > > - given the low cost of credit, the board of directors is
          pushing
          > > > for "leveraging" internal assets as much as possible
          > > >
          > > > It's easy for us today in 2008 to see the flaws in these
          > > assumptions,
          > > > and those automakers who *did* choose different assumptions
          > > > (consciously or not) are in less dire straits today.
          > > >
          > > > Happy holidays,
          > > > Bruce
          > > >
          > > > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, "Orhan KALAYCI"
          > > > <orhan.kalayci@> wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > Hi,
          > > > >
          > > > > I am not talking about best practices listed in CMMI-DEV. I
          keep
          > > > repeating
          > > > > that I am very upset for CMMI-DEV is reduced to a list of best
          > > > practices.
          > > > > The foundation of the CMMI-DEV is coming from Crosby's
          maturity
          > > > grid which
          > > > > is independent of industry and Deming's success in Japan which
          is
          > > > also
          > > > > independent of industry. In short, CMMI-DEV is application of
          TQM
          > > > > principles to engineering which is independent of industry -
          if
          > > you
          > > > are
          > > > > Designing/Engineering something (whatever the something is)
          CMMI-
          > > > DEV is
          > > > > supposed to be applicable.
          > > > >
          > > > > As a process expert, if we are not able to describe Deming's
          > > > principles and
          > > > > how they can be applied to any industry then we are not really
          a
          > > > process
          > > > > expert, it means that we are just a process technician who is
          able
          > > > to list
          > > > > the best practices listed as CMMI-DEV. In fact, they are just
          some
          > > > examples
          > > > > for best practices that is why the concept of alternative
          > > practices
          > > > exist.
          > > > > I remember there was a gentleman in SEPG 2006 in Amsterdam, he
          can
          > > > tell you
          > > > > the SPX.Y by heart for all SPs listed in CMMI-DEV and he was
          proud
          > > > of it and
          > > > > people were appreciating this skill. Of course the list of SPs
          > > > (even if
          > > > > they are told by heart :) will not help Automakers, I agree
          with
          > > > that :)
          > > > >
          > > > > Since most people in this group do not have a solid
          > > understanding of
          > > > > Deming's principles (I guess I am the only one :))) [OK, one
          of
          > > the
          > > > very
          > > > > few, though, I do not know who the others are :)))))] it is
          not
          > > > very much
          > > > > suprising they (experts) are not able to associate the failure
          of
          > > > Detroit
          > > > > Three with their process capabilities or TQM abilities. For
          > > > them, "process"
          > > > > is limited to engineering department only, in reality it is a
          new
          > > > management
          > > > > style - TQM. This makes me think that it is unfortunate that
          > > > Detroit Three
          > > > > may not be overcoming this crisis, in other words, they may
          not be
          > > > able to
          > > > > get OUT OF CRISIS (as Deming explaing decades ago).
          > > > >
          > > > > When Ford hired Deming in early 1980s to Ford's surprise,
          Deming
          > > > talked not
          > > > > about quality but about management. He told Ford that
          management
          > > > actions
          > > > > were responsible for 85% of all problems in developing better
          > > cars.
          > > > In 1986
          > > > > Ford came out with a profitable line of cars, the Taurus-Sable
          > > line.
          > > > >
          > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
          > > W._Edwards_Deming#Later_work_in_the_U.S.
          > > > >
          > > > > It is not true that Toyota too is having hard times just like
          the
          > > > Detroit
          > > > > Three, nowadays. See:
          > > > >
          > > > http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/12/22/toyota.losses/
          > > index.html --
          > > > It is
          > > > > unfair comparing today's Toyota with Detroit Three, it is like
          > > > comparing a
          > > > > human being with a monkey because they are at different stages
          of
          > > > > evaluation. TQM is the next step in the evaluation of
          corporate
          > > > > management.
          > > > >
          > > > > This would be Toyota's first operating loss since 1950, Toyota
          > > > spokesman
          > > > > Steve Curtis said. Despite the likely operating loss, Toyota
          > > > expects to post
          > > > > a $557 million net profit for the fiscal year.
          > > > >
          > > > > Some may say it is the lean manufacturing what they need. It
          is
          > > > interesting
          > > > > that the lean manufacturing goes back to 1850 and Ford is
          earlier
          > > > than
          > > > > Toyota in the implementation of the principles when we go back
          to
          > > > Henry
          > > > > Ford. See:
          > > > http://www.strategosinc.com/lean_manufacturing_history.htm
          > > > >
          > > > > TQM is much more than lean manufacturing although it is a
          process
          > > > centric
          > > > > approach. It is true that TQM is much more than process. - For
          > > > example,
          > > > > without respect to people no process will make any difference.
          > > See:
          > > > > http://edgehopper.com/what-toyota-knows-that-gm-doesnt/
          > > > >
          > > > > In one of the CMMI training I was delivering in Turkey, there
          > > was a
          > > > > manager from Toyota. In fact, I asked him their
          implementations
          > > for
          > > > > TQM and quality several times during the training, we have
          learned
          > > > > from him that the number one priority in Toyota is "Respect".
          > > > > Respect to everything: People, environment, work, etc. Keeping
          a
          > > > > light on when it is unnecessary considered as being
          > > disrespectful to
          > > > > the energy/environment. Wasting a resource during a work is
          > > > > considered as being disrespectful.
          > > > >
          > > > > Being respectful is a core part of TQM movement.
          > > > >
          > > > > By looking at the evolution of the quality I can see the
          > > > > similarities between biological evolutions. QC is where the
          > > "power"
          > > > > is the king (Quality should be expensive), QA is
          > > > > where "intelligence" is the king (Quality is not necessarily
          > > > > expensive, we can now fix the defects in early phases), TQM is
          > > > > where "spirit" is the king (Quality, speed, cost are all
          > > friends, we
          > > > > are one (no duality), production is flexible â€" there is
          no
          > > > > difference between producing truck and sedan or software :)
          they
          > > > are the
          > > > > same and
          > > > > one (no duality)) Secret is the "respect" In the history,
          human
          > > > beings
          > > > > created organizations who have power then created
          organizations
          > > who
          > > > have
          > > > > intelligence, now we start creating organizations who have
          > > spirit -
          > > > TQM.
          > > > >
          > > > > Being respectful (TQM) includes everything, e.g., suppliers:
          > > > > http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/06/study-suppliers-like-
          toyota-
          > > > honda-best.html
          > > > >
          > > > > May be the solution for the three amigos of Detroit is to hire
          a
          > > > group of
          > > > > retired Toyota executives as Porsche did:
          > > > > http://forums.subdriven.com/zerothread?id=4160618
          > > > >
          > > > > May the peace be upon you,
          > > > > Orhan
          > > > > Toronto
          > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SPIRITofCMMI/
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > 2008/12/21 Murali Chemuturi <murali_chemuturi@>
          > > > >
          > > > > > Orhan
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Calling ourselves "process experts" is stretching it a bit.
          > > > Perhaps the
          > > > > > term "Certified Process Appraisers" is more appropriate -
          that
          > > > too, in
          > > > > > software process based on SEI's CMMI model.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Software process and manufacturing process are vastly
          different.
          > > > Possessing
          > > > > > software process appraising skills does not make us experts
          on
          > > > manufacturing
          > > > > > processes and diagnosing their ills.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > The costs of US automakers and Japanese automakers are
          vastly
          > > > different. US
          > > > > > automakers bear US costs
          > >
          >
          >
          > Orhan
          > Toronto
          > Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpiritofCMMI
          >
          >
          > Sent from my iPhone
          >
        • three_d_dave
          It may be too late. After disappointing buyers for two or three decades, a personal visit to each one by Mr. Wagoner might not be enough to clinch a deal. All
          Message 4 of 17 , Jan 4, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            It may be too late. After disappointing buyers for two or three
            decades, a personal visit to each one by Mr. Wagoner might not be
            enough to clinch a deal.

            All those 5 to 10 year old GM vehicles with door rust and frosted
            headlights are not a good advertisement. Unless Toyota screws up, GM
            will have about 10 to 30 years for the bad taste to leave enough for
            buyers to look.

            A few days ago I found that BMW bought 5-speed automatic
            transmissions from GM. After a few years reverse gear failed. Neither
            GM nor BMW would make the failed part available (so the BMW guys have
            said) instead wanting from $3k to $7k for installation of a rebuilt
            transmission. This was the late 90s.

            Time will tell.

            Dave S.

            --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, "jrd200x" <jeff@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Here's an interesting read for those that think that they know what
            > ails GM and the big three in general.
            >
            > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/opinion/03holstein.html?
            ref=opinion
            >
            > It's interesting that those who see it as a "simple" problem of not
            > understanding quality principles have never even set foot within
            these
            > companies.
            >
            > Yes, I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear people make this
            > suggestion to Rick Wagoner - mostly for it's comic value.
            >
            > Cheers,
            >
            > Jeff
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, Orhan Kalayci
            > <orhan.kalayci@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Correction:
            > > My query for the search in the Gartner database was something
            like
            > > "why GM failed? ". It did not return anything. Today I saw
            several
            > > reports on automotive industry in Gartner. FYI. Still their
            number
            > is
            > > very few relative to other topics.
            > >
            > > Peace,
            > > Orhan
            > > Toronto
            > > Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpiritofCMMI
            > >
            ...
          • Orhan Kalayci
            Jeff, ... New Year. Hope you had a wonderful holiday season. Most people in the process improvement business do not know how important what they do for their
            Message 5 of 17 , Jan 6, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Jeff,

              :)) you made me laugh, thank you. It is fun reading your emails. Happy
              New Year. Hope you had a wonderful holiday season.

              Most people in the process improvement business do not know how
              important what they do for their organization and consultants do not
              know how important what they are selling. Most organization buy it not
              because they believe their value but their clients force them to do
              so. That is why TSP and PSP can not be sold enough although they can
              deliver more value (with or without CMMI). In this sense, there are
              considerable similarities between SEI and GM. SEI failed to deliver
              value that is why they invented the concept of HMLA and strongly
              auditing the SCAMPI As for High Maturity orgs, because HM orgs
              (similar SUVs of GM) can not deliver value where most ML2 and ML3 orgs
              (economic cars) deliver.

              You say how a "simple" quality model (Deming's TQM) can help GM to get
              OUT OF CRISIS. This approach makes me think that like you are selling
              diamond but you are not aware of its value and saying how a simple
              stone can help someone to get out of debt :)))) It is not a big deal,
              even the SEI is not able to sell some diamonds (TPS, PSP) when people
              (org) are not forced to buy them unlike some special diamonds (CMMI).

              Remember my analogy that Toyota Looks like a human being and GM Looks
              like a monkey. TQM is the next step in the science and the art of
              management (Organizational Learning, Innovation, respect to
              individual, etc). They are at the different stages of evolution. We
              now are realizing both of them have diamond :) Yes you are right it
              will have a comic value to try to explain the value of diamond to a
              monkey especially when he has one already. Alright you better keep
              being a fly on the wall, I will have already difficult time with the
              monkey.

              Peace,
              Orhan
              Toronto
              Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpiritofCMMI

              --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, "jrd200x" <jeff@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > Here's an interesting read for those that think that they know what
              > ails GM and the big three in general.
              >
              > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/opinion/03holstein.html?ref=opinion
              >
              > It's interesting that those who see it as a "simple" problem of not
              > understanding quality principles have never even set foot within these
              > companies.
              >
              > Yes, I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear people make this
              > suggestion to Rick Wagoner - mostly for it's comic value.
              >
              > Cheers,
              >
              > Jeff
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, Orhan Kalayci
              > <orhan.kalayci@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Correction:
              > > My query for the search in the Gartner database was something like
              > > "why GM failed? ". It did not return anything. Today I saw several
              > > reports on automotive industry in Gartner. FYI. Still their number
              > is
              > > very few relative to other topics.
              > >
              > > Peace,
              > > Orhan
              > > Toronto
              > > Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpiritofCMMI
              > >
              > >
              > > Sent from my iPhone
              > >
              > > On 2-Jan-09, at 13:03, "Orhan Kalayci" <orhan.kalayci@> wrote:
              > >
              > > > Hi Bruce, How are you?
              > > >
              > > > I do not think I am performing a CAR and consequently do not
              > violate
              > > > the principles of TQM which I am promoting.
              > > >
              > > > What I am doing is somehow similar to suggesting a sick person to
              > see
              > > > a doctor. Here the sick person represents any one of Detroit three
              > > > and the doctor is representing the TQM (Deming's) principles. (You
              > > > will see at the end of message why these sick persons actually do
              > not
              > > > have any motivation to get well)
              > > >
              > > > The point most people in the forum missing is TQM is a management
              > > > model. TQM is promising organization to produce better products
              > > > faster and cheaper. Who can compete with such an organization?
              > > > Obviously no one, examples include Detroit Three against Japanese
              > > > Three (Toyota, Honda, Nissan)
              > > >
              > > > Bruce, in your explanation it looks like you are ignoring the term
              > > > "faster". Organizations who installed TQM as a management model
              > > > should not only produce better (high quality) products - Detroit
              > Three
              > > > can be good at this - but they also should produce quality
              > products
              > > > FASTER and CHEAPER. FASTER here implies agility - Lean - as well.
              > If
              > > > an organization can not change its production lines in less than
              > five
              > > > years, can we say this organization is an agile -lean- and fast
              > > > organization. Pat was talking about inventories that they are full
              > of
              > > > autos. It is a shame for a lean organization :)
              > > >
              > > > In TQM, processes are not limited to production or engineering
              > only.
              > > > Any activity in the organization - including marketing - is a
              > process
              > > > and it can be improved.
              > > >
              > > > Some was saying - Detroit three is in bad shape because people do
              > not
              > > > buy, that is not completely true.
              > > >
              > > > GM sales in 2007: 9,370,000 vehicles
              > > > Toyota sales in 2007: 9,366,418 vehicles
              > > >
              > > > GM profit/loss in 2007: -$38,730,000,000 (-$4,055 per car)
              > > > Toyota profit in 2007: +$17,146,000,000 (+$1,874 per car)
              > > >
              > > > http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/12/2007-profitloss-gm-vs-toyota-
              > same-cars.html
              > > >
              > > > So tell me who is producing better products faster and cheaper.
              > > >
              > > > Some were saying this topic is not an interesting topic for this
              > > > group. Is this group only limited to process technicians? Is there
              > > > anybody interested in strategic issues of process improvement?
              > > >
              > > > Finally, I remember people want to be fly on the wall while I will
              > be
              > > > talking to CEO of GM. I would like be much more happy if they want
              > to
              > > > assist me in the meeting, instead. However, I now understand
              > > > automotive industry is not an attractive (or strategic) industry
              > for
              > > > US anymore - I searched on Gartner DB and found that there is no
              > > > analysis made about the automotive industry for the past 10 years.
              > I
              > > > guess today is just a bad time to let them bankrupt otherwise
              > there is
              > > > no reason to save them, in fact it is almost impossible to save
              > them
              > > > for long, I believe government is just trying to delay the
              > inevitable
              > > > end. The bankruptcy will not be because they have huge obligations
              > > > for retired employees but in fact installing TQM in an
              > organization
              > > > requires a huge cultural change and it takes decades. Furthermore,
              > > > profit margin is so low, they used to make money not by the auto
              > > > itself but financing of it. That is why they did not care about
              > the
              > > > waste (muda) (internal loss) they made for years.
              > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_(Japanese_term)
              > > >
              > > > Peace,
              > > > Orhan
              > > > Toronto
              > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SPIRITofCMMI/
              > > >
              > > > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Epstein"
              > > > <bepstein@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > Hi Orhan,
              > > > >
              > > > > Do you realize that you are violating the very principles you
              > claim
              > > > > to espouse? You are performing a CAR without involving the
              > relevant
              > > > > stakeholders - you see an undesirable result (large numbers of
              > > > unsold
              > > > > vehicles) and have extrapolated a "cause" that doesn't exist
              > (lack
              > > > of
              > > > > TQM).
              > > > >
              > > > > As it happens, like several others in this forum, I actually did
              > > > work
              > > > > in the automobile industry for several years, and we actually
              > did
              > > > > apply "Deming's principles" (as you like to call them).
              > > > >
              > > > > Today's situation is not at all (at least as far as I can tell)
              > a
              > > > > result of lack of attention to quality, to process, or to
              > customer
              > > > > satisfaction.
              > > > >
              > > > > To understand it, let's start by recalling that the strategic
              > > > product
              > > > > lifecycle in the automobile business is very long, much longer
              > than
              > > > > in IT. For illustration, let's take a 5 year cycle.
              > > > >
              > > > > So, imagine now that we are in a corporate boardroom, it's the
              > fall
              > > > > of 2003, and we're running our strategic DAR to choose the types
              > of
              > > > > products we should be selling in 2008. Remember, here's the
              > > > situation:
              > > > > - the US is starting to recover from the recession brought on by
              > the
              > > > > double whammy of the end of the "Internet bubble" and the 9/11
              > > > attacks
              > > > > - the Fed has lowered interest rates to historically low levels;
              > > > as a
              > > > > result, many families are either refinancing their homes or
              > buying
              > > > > new ones, farther out in the suburbs. These families are also
              > able
              > > > to
              > > > > replace their aging vehicles, and demand for large cars and SUVs
              > is
              > > > > skyrocketing
              > > > > - oil is trading slightly above its historical average of $20
              > per
              > > > > barrel due to the conflict in Iraq, but all signs point to a
              > rapid
              > > > > resolution
              > > > > - Toyota is selling a few thousand of its novelty Prius, and
              > rumors
              > > > > have it that they lose money on each one
              > > > > - "global warming" is a subject only for the late night science
              > > > > programs on PBS
              > > > > - given the low cost of credit, the board of directors is
              > pushing
              > > > > for "leveraging" internal assets as much as possible
              > > > >
              > > > > It's easy for us today in 2008 to see the flaws in these
              > > > assumptions,
              > > > > and those automakers who *did* choose different assumptions
              > > > > (consciously or not) are in less dire straits today.
              > > > >
              > > > > Happy holidays,
              > > > > Bruce
              > > > >
              > > > > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, "Orhan KALAYCI"
              > > > > <orhan.kalayci@> wrote:
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Hi,
              > > > > >
              > > > > > I am not talking about best practices listed in CMMI-DEV. I
              > keep
              > > > > repeating
              > > > > > that I am very upset for CMMI-DEV is reduced to a list of best
              > > > > practices.
              > > > > > The foundation of the CMMI-DEV is coming from Crosby's
              > maturity
              > > > > grid which
              > > > > > is independent of industry and Deming's success in Japan which
              > is
              > > > > also
              > > > > > independent of industry. In short, CMMI-DEV is application of
              > TQM
              > > > > > principles to engineering which is independent of industry -
              > if
              > > > you
              > > > > are
              > > > > > Designing/Engineering something (whatever the something is)
              > CMMI-
              > > > > DEV is
              > > > > > supposed to be applicable.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > As a process expert, if we are not able to describe Deming's
              > > > > principles and
              > > > > > how they can be applied to any industry then we are not really
              > a
              > > > > process
              > > > > > expert, it means that we are just a process technician who is
              > able
              > > > > to list
              > > > > > the best practices listed as CMMI-DEV. In fact, they are just
              > some
              > > > > examples
              > > > > > for best practices that is why the concept of alternative
              > > > practices
              > > > > exist.
              > > > > > I remember there was a gentleman in SEPG 2006 in Amsterdam, he
              > can
              > > > > tell you
              > > > > > the SPX.Y by heart for all SPs listed in CMMI-DEV and he was
              > proud
              > > > > of it and
              > > > > > people were appreciating this skill. Of course the list of SPs
              > > > > (even if
              > > > > > they are told by heart :) will not help Automakers, I agree
              > with
              > > > > that :)
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Since most people in this group do not have a solid
              > > > understanding of
              > > > > > Deming's principles (I guess I am the only one :))) [OK, one
              > of
              > > > the
              > > > > very
              > > > > > few, though, I do not know who the others are :)))))] it is
              > not
              > > > > very much
              > > > > > suprising they (experts) are not able to associate the failure
              > of
              > > > > Detroit
              > > > > > Three with their process capabilities or TQM abilities. For
              > > > > them, "process"
              > > > > > is limited to engineering department only, in reality it is a
              > new
              > > > > management
              > > > > > style - TQM. This makes me think that it is unfortunate that
              > > > > Detroit Three
              > > > > > may not be overcoming this crisis, in other words, they may
              > not be
              > > > > able to
              > > > > > get OUT OF CRISIS (as Deming explaing decades ago).
              > > > > >
              > > > > > When Ford hired Deming in early 1980s to Ford's surprise,
              > Deming
              > > > > talked not
              > > > > > about quality but about management. He told Ford that
              > management
              > > > > actions
              > > > > > were responsible for 85% of all problems in developing better
              > > > cars.
              > > > > In 1986
              > > > > > Ford came out with a profitable line of cars, the Taurus-Sable
              > > > line.
              > > > > >
              > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
              > > > W._Edwards_Deming#Later_work_in_the_U.S.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > It is not true that Toyota too is having hard times just like
              > the
              > > > > Detroit
              > > > > > Three, nowadays. See:
              > > > > >
              > > > > http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/12/22/toyota.losses/
              > > > index.html --
              > > > > It is
              > > > > > unfair comparing today's Toyota with Detroit Three, it is like
              > > > > comparing a
              > > > > > human being with a monkey because they are at different stages
              > of
              > > > > > evaluation. TQM is the next step in the evaluation of
              > corporate
              > > > > > management.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > This would be Toyota's first operating loss since 1950, Toyota
              > > > > spokesman
              > > > > > Steve Curtis said. Despite the likely operating loss, Toyota
              > > > > expects to post
              > > > > > a $557 million net profit for the fiscal year.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Some may say it is the lean manufacturing what they need. It
              > is
              > > > > interesting
              > > > > > that the lean manufacturing goes back to 1850 and Ford is
              > earlier
              > > > > than
              > > > > > Toyota in the implementation of the principles when we go back
              > to
              > > > > Henry
              > > > > > Ford. See:
              > > > > http://www.strategosinc.com/lean_manufacturing_history.htm
              > > > > >
              > > > > > TQM is much more than lean manufacturing although it is a
              > process
              > > > > centric
              > > > > > approach. It is true that TQM is much more than process. - For
              > > > > example,
              > > > > > without respect to people no process will make any difference.
              > > > See:
              > > > > > http://edgehopper.com/what-toyota-knows-that-gm-doesnt/
              > > > > >
              > > > > > In one of the CMMI training I was delivering in Turkey, there
              > > > was a
              > > > > > manager from Toyota. In fact, I asked him their
              > implementations
              > > > for
              > > > > > TQM and quality several times during the training, we have
              > learned
              > > > > > from him that the number one priority in Toyota is "Respect".
              > > > > > Respect to everything: People, environment, work, etc. Keeping
              > a
              > > > > > light on when it is unnecessary considered as being
              > > > disrespectful to
              > > > > > the energy/environment. Wasting a resource during a work is
              > > > > > considered as being disrespectful.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Being respectful is a core part of TQM movement.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > By looking at the evolution of the quality I can see the
              > > > > > similarities between biological evolutions. QC is where the
              > > > "power"
              > > > > > is the king (Quality should be expensive), QA is
              > > > > > where "intelligence" is the king (Quality is not necessarily
              > > > > > expensive, we can now fix the defects in early phases), TQM is
              > > > > > where "spirit" is the king (Quality, speed, cost are all
              > > > friends, we
              > > > > > are one (no duality), production is flexible â€" there is
              > no
              > > > > > difference between producing truck and sedan or software :)
              > they
              > > > > are the
              > > > > > same and
              > > > > > one (no duality)) Secret is the "respect" In the history,
              > human
              > > > > beings
              > > > > > created organizations who have power then created
              > organizations
              > > > who
              > > > > have
              > > > > > intelligence, now we start creating organizations who have
              > > > spirit -
              > > > > TQM.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Being respectful (TQM) includes everything, e.g., suppliers:
              > > > > > http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/06/study-suppliers-like-
              > toyota-
              > > > > honda-best.html
              > > > > >
              > > > > > May be the solution for the three amigos of Detroit is to hire
              > a
              > > > > group of
              > > > > > retired Toyota executives as Porsche did:
              > > > > > http://forums.subdriven.com/zerothread?id=4160618
              > > > > >
              > > > > > May the peace be upon you,
              > > > > > Orhan
              > > > > > Toronto
              > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SPIRITofCMMI/
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > > 2008/12/21 Murali Chemuturi <murali_chemuturi@>
              > > > > >
              > > > > > > Orhan
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Calling ourselves "process experts" is stretching it a bit.
              > > > > Perhaps the
              > > > > > > term "Certified Process Appraisers" is more appropriate -
              > that
              > > > > too, in
              > > > > > > software process based on SEI's CMMI model.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Software process and manufacturing process are vastly
              > different.
              > > > > Possessing
              > > > > > > software process appraising skills does not make us experts
              > on
              > > > > manufacturing
              > > > > > > processes and diagnosing their ills.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > The costs of US automakers and Japanese automakers are
              > vastly
              > > > > different. US
              > > > > > > automakers bear US costs
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Orhan
              > > Toronto
              > > Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpiritofCMMI
              > >
              > >
              > > Sent from my iPhone
              > >
              >
            • Jeffrey Dalton
              Orhan, I think you may have misunderstood my post. I didn t say a simple quality model (Deming s TQM) can help GM to get OUT OF CRISIS. You made that
              Message 6 of 17 , Jan 6, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Orhan,

                I think you may have misunderstood my post. I didn't say "a 'simple' quality model (Deming's TQM) can help GM to get OUT OF CRISIS." You made that claim in an earlier post. What I said was:"those who see it as a "simple" problem of not understanding quality principles..." I'm sure this was a translation issue.

                That makes the rest of your rant unnecessary I guess, which is good because I didn't really understand the whole "monkey" thing you were using to describe GM.

                I must have had a different experience than you, because most of my clients adopt CMMI for the right reasons, not because they are being made to do so. Sure, there are always some that do it for the wrong reasons, but contrary to your apparent experience, most here in the US that I work with are doing it to improve themselves. So I don't get the whole "diamonds" thing either.

                Peace,

                Jeff

                --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Orhan Kalayci <orhan.kalayci@...> wrote:

                > From: Orhan Kalayci <orhan.kalayci@...>
                > Subject: Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] How did the Detroit Three come to this point?
                > To: cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 12:19 PM
                > Jeff,
                >
                > :)) you made me laugh, thank you. It is fun reading your
                > emails. Happy
                > New Year. Hope you had a wonderful holiday season.
                >
                > Most people in the process improvement business do not know
                > how
                > important what they do for their organization and
                > consultants do not
                > know how important what they are selling. Most organization
                > buy it not
                > because they believe their value but their clients force
                > them to do
                > so. That is why TSP and PSP can not be sold enough although
                > they can
                > deliver more value (with or without CMMI). In this sense,
                > there are
                > considerable similarities between SEI and GM. SEI failed
                > to deliver
                > value that is why they invented the concept of HMLA and
                > strongly
                > auditing the SCAMPI As for High Maturity orgs, because HM
                > orgs
                > (similar SUVs of GM) can not deliver value where most ML2
                > and ML3 orgs
                > (economic cars) deliver.
                >
                > You say how a "simple" quality model
                > (Deming's TQM) can help GM to get
                > OUT OF CRISIS. This approach makes me think that like you
                > are selling
                > diamond but you are not aware of its value and saying how a
                > simple
                > stone can help someone to get out of debt :)))) It is not
                > a big deal,
                > even the SEI is not able to sell some diamonds (TPS, PSP)
                > when people
                > (org) are not forced to buy them unlike some special
                > diamonds (CMMI).
                >
                > Remember my analogy that Toyota Looks like a human being
                > and GM Looks
                > like a monkey. TQM is the next step in the science and the
                > art of
                > management (Organizational Learning, Innovation, respect to
                > individual, etc). They are at the different stages of
                > evolution. We
                > now are realizing both of them have diamond :) Yes you are
                > right it
                > will have a comic value to try to explain the value of
                > diamond to a
                > monkey especially when he has one already. Alright you
                > better keep
                > being a fly on the wall, I will have already difficult time
                > with the
                > monkey.
                >
                > Peace,
                > Orhan
                > Toronto
                > Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpiritofCMMI
                >
                > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com,
                > "jrd200x" <jeff@...>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > Here's an interesting read for those that think
                > that they know what
                > > ails GM and the big three in general.
                > >
                > >
                > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/opinion/03holstein.html?ref=opinion
                > >
                > > It's interesting that those who see it as a
                > "simple" problem of not
                > > understanding quality principles have never even set
                > foot within these
                > > companies.
                > >
                > > Yes, I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear
                > people make this
                > > suggestion to Rick Wagoner - mostly for it's comic
                > value.
                > >
                > > Cheers,
                > >
                > > Jeff
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, Orhan
                > Kalayci
                > > <orhan.kalayci@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Correction:
                > > > My query for the search in the Gartner database
                > was something like
                > > > "why GM failed? ". It did not return
                > anything. Today I saw several
                > > > reports on automotive industry in Gartner. FYI.
                > Still their number
                > > is
                > > > very few relative to other topics.
                > > >
                > > > Peace,
                > > > Orhan
                > > > Toronto
                > > > Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpiritofCMMI
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Sent from my iPhone
                > > >
                > > > On 2-Jan-09, at 13:03, "Orhan Kalayci"
                > <orhan.kalayci@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > > Hi Bruce, How are you?
                > > > >
                > > > > I do not think I am performing a CAR and
                > consequently do not
                > > violate
                > > > > the principles of TQM which I am promoting.
                > > > >
                > > > > What I am doing is somehow similar to
                > suggesting a sick person to
                > > see
                > > > > a doctor. Here the sick person represents
                > any one of Detroit three
                > > > > and the doctor is representing the TQM
                > (Deming's) principles. (You
                > > > > will see at the end of message why these
                > sick persons actually do
                > > not
                > > > > have any motivation to get well)
                > > > >
                > > > > The point most people in the forum missing
                > is TQM is a management
                > > > > model. TQM is promising organization to
                > produce better products
                > > > > faster and cheaper. Who can compete with
                > such an organization?
                > > > > Obviously no one, examples include Detroit
                > Three against Japanese
                > > > > Three (Toyota, Honda, Nissan)
                > > > >
                > > > > Bruce, in your explanation it looks like you
                > are ignoring the term
                > > > > "faster". Organizations who
                > installed TQM as a management model
                > > > > should not only produce better (high
                > quality) products - Detroit
                > > Three
                > > > > can be good at this - but they also should
                > produce quality
                > > products
                > > > > FASTER and CHEAPER. FASTER here implies
                > agility - Lean - as well.
                > > If
                > > > > an organization can not change its
                > production lines in less than
                > > five
                > > > > years, can we say this organization is an
                > agile -lean- and fast
                > > > > organization. Pat was talking about
                > inventories that they are full
                > > of
                > > > > autos. It is a shame for a lean organization
                > :)
                > > > >
                > > > > In TQM, processes are not limited to
                > production or engineering
                > > only.
                > > > > Any activity in the organization - including
                > marketing - is a
                > > process
                > > > > and it can be improved.
                > > > >
                > > > > Some was saying - Detroit three is in bad
                > shape because people do
                > > not
                > > > > buy, that is not completely true.
                > > > >
                > > > > GM sales in 2007: 9,370,000 vehicles
                > > > > Toyota sales in 2007: 9,366,418 vehicles
                > > > >
                > > > > GM profit/loss in 2007: -$38,730,000,000
                > (-$4,055 per car)
                > > > > Toyota profit in 2007: +$17,146,000,000
                > (+$1,874 per car)
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/12/2007-profitloss-gm-vs-toyota-
                > > same-cars.html
                > > > >
                > > > > So tell me who is producing better products
                > faster and cheaper.
                > > > >
                > > > > Some were saying this topic is not an
                > interesting topic for this
                > > > > group. Is this group only limited to process
                > technicians? Is there
                > > > > anybody interested in strategic issues of
                > process improvement?
                > > > >
                > > > > Finally, I remember people want to be fly on
                > the wall while I will
                > > be
                > > > > talking to CEO of GM. I would like be much
                > more happy if they want
                > > to
                > > > > assist me in the meeting, instead. However,
                > I now understand
                > > > > automotive industry is not an attractive (or
                > strategic) industry
                > > for
                > > > > US anymore - I searched on Gartner DB and
                > found that there is no
                > > > > analysis made about the automotive industry
                > for the past 10 years.
                > > I
                > > > > guess today is just a bad time to let them
                > bankrupt otherwise
                > > there is
                > > > > no reason to save them, in fact it is almost
                > impossible to save
                > > them
                > > > > for long, I believe government is just
                > trying to delay the
                > > inevitable
                > > > > end. The bankruptcy will not be because they
                > have huge obligations
                > > > > for retired employees but in fact installing
                > TQM in an
                > > organization
                > > > > requires a huge cultural change and it takes
                > decades. Furthermore,
                > > > > profit margin is so low, they used to make
                > money not by the auto
                > > > > itself but financing of it. That is why they
                > did not care about
                > > the
                > > > > waste (muda) (internal loss) they made for
                > years.
                > > > >
                > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_(Japanese_term)
                > > > >
                > > > > Peace,
                > > > > Orhan
                > > > > Toronto
                > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SPIRITofCMMI/
                > > > >
                > > > > --- In
                > cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce
                > Epstein"
                > > > > <bepstein@> wrote:
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Hi Orhan,
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Do you realize that you are violating
                > the very principles you
                > > claim
                > > > > > to espouse? You are performing a CAR
                > without involving the
                > > relevant
                > > > > > stakeholders - you see an undesirable
                > result (large numbers of
                > > > > unsold
                > > > > > vehicles) and have extrapolated a
                > "cause" that doesn't exist
                > > (lack
                > > > > of
                > > > > > TQM).
                > > > > >
                > > > > > As it happens, like several others in
                > this forum, I actually did
                > > > > work
                > > > > > in the automobile industry for several
                > years, and we actually
                > > did
                > > > > > apply "Deming's
                > principles" (as you like to call them).
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Today's situation is not at all (at
                > least as far as I can tell)
                > > a
                > > > > > result of lack of attention to quality,
                > to process, or to
                > > customer
                > > > > > satisfaction.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > To understand it, let's start by
                > recalling that the strategic
                > > > > product
                > > > > > lifecycle in the automobile business is
                > very long, much longer
                > > than
                > > > > > in IT. For illustration, let's take
                > a 5 year cycle.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > So, imagine now that we are in a
                > corporate boardroom, it's the
                > > fall
                > > > > > of 2003, and we're running our
                > strategic DAR to choose the types
                > > of
                > > > > > products we should be selling in 2008.
                > Remember, here's the
                > > > > situation:
                > > > > > - the US is starting to recover from
                > the recession brought on by
                > > the
                > > > > > double whammy of the end of the
                > "Internet bubble" and the 9/11
                > > > > attacks
                > > > > > - the Fed has lowered interest rates to
                > historically low levels;
                > > > > as a
                > > > > > result, many families are either
                > refinancing their homes or
                > > buying
                > > > > > new ones, farther out in the suburbs.
                > These families are also
                > > able
                > > > > to
                > > > > > replace their aging vehicles, and
                > demand for large cars and SUVs
                > > is
                > > > > > skyrocketing
                > > > > > - oil is trading slightly above its
                > historical average of $20
                > > per
                > > > > > barrel due to the conflict in Iraq, but
                > all signs point to a
                > > rapid
                > > > > > resolution
                > > > > > - Toyota is selling a few thousand of
                > its novelty Prius, and
                > > rumors
                > > > > > have it that they lose money on each
                > one
                > > > > > - "global warming" is a
                > subject only for the late night science
                > > > > > programs on PBS
                > > > > > - given the low cost of credit, the
                > board of directors is
                > > pushing
                > > > > > for "leveraging" internal
                > assets as much as possible
                > > > > >
                > > > > > It's easy for us today in 2008 to
                > see the flaws in these
                > > > > assumptions,
                > > > > > and those automakers who *did* choose
                > different assumptions
                > > > > > (consciously or not) are in less dire
                > straits today.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Happy holidays,
                > > > > > Bruce
                > > > > >
                > > > > > --- In
                > cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, "Orhan
                > KALAYCI"
                > > > > > <orhan.kalayci@> wrote:
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Hi,
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > I am not talking about best
                > practices listed in CMMI-DEV. I
                > > keep
                > > > > > repeating
                > > > > > > that I am very upset for CMMI-DEV
                > is reduced to a list of best
                > > > > > practices.
                > > > > > > The foundation of the CMMI-DEV is
                > coming from Crosby's
                > > maturity
                > > > > > grid which
                > > > > > > is independent of industry and
                > Deming's success in Japan which
                > > is
                > > > > > also
                > > > > > > independent of industry. In short,
                > CMMI-DEV is application of
                > > TQM
                > > > > > > principles to engineering which is
                > independent of industry -
                > > if
                > > > > you
                > > > > > are
                > > > > > > Designing/Engineering something
                > (whatever the something is)
                > > CMMI-
                > > > > > DEV is
                > > > > > > supposed to be applicable.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > As a process expert, if we are not
                > able to describe Deming's
                > > > > > principles and
                > > > > > > how they can be applied to any
                > industry then we are not really
                > > a
                > > > > > process
                > > > > > > expert, it means that we are just
                > a process technician who is
                > > able
                > > > > > to list
                > > > > > > the best practices listed as
                > CMMI-DEV. In fact, they are just
                > > some
                > > > > > examples
                > > > > > > for best practices that is why the
                > concept of alternative
                > > > > practices
                > > > > > exist.
                > > > > > > I remember there was a gentleman
                > in SEPG 2006 in Amsterdam, he
                > > can
                > > > > > tell you
                > > > > > > the SPX.Y by heart for all SPs
                > listed in CMMI-DEV and he was
                > > proud
                > > > > > of it and
                > > > > > > people were appreciating this
                > skill. Of course the list of SPs
                > > > > > (even if
                > > > > > > they are told by heart :) will not
                > help Automakers, I agree
                > > with
                > > > > > that :)
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Since most people in this group do
                > not have a solid
                > > > > understanding of
                > > > > > > Deming's principles (I guess I
                > am the only one :))) [OK, one
                > > of
                > > > > the
                > > > > > very
                > > > > > > few, though, I do not know who the
                > others are :)))))] it is
                > > not
                > > > > > very much
                > > > > > > suprising they (experts) are not
                > able to associate the failure
                > > of
                > > > > > Detroit
                > > > > > > Three with their process
                > capabilities or TQM abilities. For
                > > > > > them, "process"
                > > > > > > is limited to engineering
                > department only, in reality it is a
                > > new
                > > > > > management
                > > > > > > style - TQM. This makes me think
                > that it is unfortunate that
                > > > > > Detroit Three
                > > > > > > may not be overcoming this crisis,
                > in other words, they may
                > > not be
                > > > > > able to
                > > > > > > get OUT OF CRISIS (as Deming
                > explaing decades ago).
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > When Ford hired Deming in early
                > 1980s to Ford's surprise,
                > > Deming
                > > > > > talked not
                > > > > > > about quality but about
                > management. He told Ford that
                > > management
                > > > > > actions
                > > > > > > were responsible for 85% of all
                > problems in developing better
                > > > > cars.
                > > > > > In 1986
                > > > > > > Ford came out with a profitable
                > line of cars, the Taurus-Sable
                > > > > line.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
                > > > > W._Edwards_Deming#Later_work_in_the_U.S.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > It is not true that Toyota too is
                > having hard times just like
                > > the
                > > > > > Detroit
                > > > > > > Three, nowadays. See:
                > > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/12/22/toyota.losses/
                > > > > index.html --
                > > > > > It is
                > > > > > > unfair comparing today's
                > Toyota with Detroit Three, it is like
                > > > > > comparing a
                > > > > > > human being with a monkey because
                > they are at different stages
                > > of
                > > > > > > evaluation. TQM is the next step
                > in the evaluation of
                > > corporate
                > > > > > > management.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > This would be Toyota's first
                > operating loss since 1950, Toyota
                > > > > > spokesman
                > > > > > > Steve Curtis said. Despite the
                > likely operating loss, Toyota
                > > > > > expects to post
                > > > > > > a $557 million net profit for the
                > fiscal year.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Some may say it is the lean
                > manufacturing what they need. It
                > > is
                > > > > > interesting
                > > > > > > that the lean manufacturing goes
                > back to 1850 and Ford is
                > > earlier
                > > > > > than
                > > > > > > Toyota in the implementation of
                > the principles when we go back
                > > to
                > > > > > Henry
                > > > > > > Ford. See:
                > > > > >
                > http://www.strategosinc.com/lean_manufacturing_history.htm
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > TQM is much more than lean
                > manufacturing although it is a
                > > process
                > > > > > centric
                > > > > > > approach. It is true that TQM is
                > much more than process. - For
                > > > > > example,
                > > > > > > without respect to people no
                > process will make any difference.
                > > > > See:
                > > > > > >
                > http://edgehopper.com/what-toyota-knows-that-gm-doesnt/
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > In one of the CMMI training I was
                > delivering in Turkey, there
                > > > > was a
                > > > > > > manager from Toyota. In fact, I
                > asked him their
                > > implementations
                > > > > for
                > > > > > > TQM and quality several times
                > during the training, we have
                > > learned
                > > > > > > from him that the number one
                > priority in Toyota is "Respect".
                > > > > > > Respect to everything: People,
                > environment, work, etc. Keeping
                > > a
                > > > > > > light on when it is unnecessary
                > considered as being
                > > > > disrespectful to
                > > > > > > the energy/environment. Wasting a
                > resource during a work is
                > > > > > > considered as being disrespectful.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Being respectful is a core part of
                > TQM movement.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > By looking at the evolution of the
                > quality I can see the
                > > > > > > similarities between biological
                > evolutions. QC is where the
                > > > > "power"
                > > > > > > is the king (Quality should be
                > expensive), QA is
                > > > > > > where "intelligence" is
                > the king (Quality is not necessarily
                > > > > > > expensive, we can now fix the
                > defects in early phases), TQM is
                > > > > > > where "spirit" is the
                > king (Quality, speed, cost are all
                > > > > friends, we
                > > > > > > are one (no duality), production
                > is flexible â€" there is
                > > no
                > > > > > > difference between producing truck
                > and sedan or software :)
                > > they
                > > > > > are the
                > > > > > > same and
                > > > > > > one (no duality)) Secret is the
                > "respect" In the history,
                > > human
                > > > > > beings
                > > > > > > created organizations who have
                > power then created
                > > organizations
                > > > > who
                > > > > > have
                > > > > > > intelligence, now we start
                > creating organizations who have
                > > > > spirit -
                > > > > > TQM.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Being respectful (TQM) includes
                > everything, e.g., suppliers:
                > > > > > >
                > http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/06/study-suppliers-like-
                > > toyota-
                > > > > > honda-best.html
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > May be the solution for the three
                > amigos of Detroit is to hire
                > > a
                > > > > > group of
                > > > > > > retired Toyota executives as
                > Porsche did:
                > > > > > >
                > http://forums.subdriven.com/zerothread?id=4160618
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > May the peace be upon you,
                > > > > > > Orhan
                > > > > > > Toronto
                > > > > > >
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SPIRITofCMMI/
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > 2008/12/21 Murali Chemuturi
                > <murali_chemuturi@>
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > Orhan
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > Calling ourselves
                > "process experts" is stretching it a bit.
                > > > > > Perhaps the
                > > > > > > > term "Certified Process
                > Appraisers" is more appropriate -
                > > that
                > > > > > too, in
                > > > > > > > software process based on
                > SEI's CMMI model.
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > Software process and
                > manufacturing process are vastly
                > > different.
                > > > > > Possessing
                > > > > > > > software process appraising
                > skills does not make us experts
                > > on
                > > > > > manufacturing
                > > > > > > > processes and diagnosing
                > their ills.
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > The costs of US automakers
                > and Japanese automakers are
                > > vastly
                > > > > > different. US
                > > > > > > > automakers bear US costs
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Orhan
                > > > Toronto
                > > > Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpiritofCMMI
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Sent from my iPhone
                > > >
                > >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.