3 ms·

I heard the same thing in the 80-90s. Toyota has over automated and is spending more on robots, than it would have, had they used manual labour.

by z92 9y ago

csours 9y ago
The funny thing about that is that GM (and others) assumed Toyota had more automation than GM in the 80s, but Toyota had LESS automation! Toyota simply used their people more effectively.
- jmalicki 9y ago
  In other words, they did have more automation! Of managers and MBAs, not of line workers.
- curun1r 9y ago
  One of the things I remember from the plant tour at the facility in Toyota City was being impressed with the logistics they had to enable a heterogenous assembly line. One car rolled off every minute, but they were different models with different options. Most of the assembly steps were performed by humans, but all the parts needed for each step, which differed based on model/options, always arrived at the right station at the right time. There was a massive computer-controlled overhead distribution system that shuttled parts (including large/heavy parts like engines) around the factory that was damn impressive. With as many steps as were needed to assemble a car, that system was at least as impressive as the robotic welding arms and other fully-mechanized assembly steps. Automation isn't necessarily just about replacing people. It can also be used to make the people you have a lot more productive.
sjm-lbm 9y ago
I thought it was generally accepted that one of the problems with GM in the 1980s is that they spent too much on automation, whereas Toyota and other competitors spent more on just building better cars. For instance: http://www.autonews.com/article/20080914/OEM02/309149956/a-shopping-spree-in-the-80s http://www.autonews.com/article/20080914/OEM02/309149956/a-s... "GM number crunchers had pegged the investments in EDS, Hughes and Fanuc at $40 million in the long run. Instead, they cost $66 billion. In the end, GM's plants were no more efficient, and sales plummeted as money was spent on conglomeration rather than developing products Americans wanted to buy."
natch 9y ago
And now Toyota cars have a fantastic reputation for reliability. Surprise, surprise.

I heard the same thing in the 80-90s. Toyota has over automated and is spending more on robots, than it would have, had they used manual labour.

by z92 9y ago

I heard the same thing in the 80-90s. Toyota has over automated and is spending more on robots, than it would have, had they used manual labour.

csours 9y ago

The funny thing about that is that GM (and others) assumed Toyota had more automation than GM in the 80s, but Toyota had LESS automation! Toyota simply used their people more effectively.

jmalicki 9y ago
In other words, they did have more automation! Of managers and MBAs, not of line workers.
curun1r 9y ago
One of the things I remember from the plant tour at the facility in Toyota City was being impressed with the logistics they had to enable a heterogenous assembly line. One car rolled off every minute, but they were different models with different options. Most of the assembly steps were performed by humans, but all the parts needed for each step, which differed based on model/options, always arrived at the right station at the right time. There was a massive computer-controlled overhead distribution system that shuttled parts (including large/heavy parts like engines) around the factory that was damn impressive. With as many steps as were needed to assemble a car, that system was at least as impressive as the robotic welding arms and other fully-mechanized assembly steps. Automation isn't necessarily just about replacing people. It can also be used to make the people you have a lot more productive.

sjm-lbm 9y ago

I thought it was generally accepted that one of the problems with GM in the 1980s is that they spent too much on automation, whereas Toyota and other competitors spent more on just building better cars. For instance: http://www.autonews.com/article/20080914/OEM02/309149956/a-shopping-spree-in-the-80s http://www.autonews.com/article/20080914/OEM02/309149956/a-s... "GM number crunchers had pegged the investments in EDS, Hughes and Fanuc at $40 million in the long run. Instead, they cost $66 billion. In the end, GM's plants were no more efficient, and sales plummeted as money was spent on conglomeration rather than developing products Americans wanted to buy."

natch 9y ago

And now Toyota cars have a fantastic reputation for reliability. Surprise, surprise.