3 ms·

Toyota embraced Deming/Kaizen, it wasn't their idea. Beyond that Tesla is a more extreme version of those ideas. Toyota doesn't need to, but it's likely they al

Toyota embraced Deming/Kaizen, it wasn't their idea. Beyond that Tesla is a more extreme version of those ideas. Toyota doesn't need to, but it's likely they also wouldn't, build an entirely new line to meet a goal. That would be out of the focal range of their 'softer' implementation of continual improvements. Musk on the other hand is not averse to continual improvements that are on the extreme end of the spectrum. This is very evident in how they've built the car. For example when Consumer Reports identified a braking issue with the Model 3 Tesla had an OTA software fix in days. What other manufacture would do that, let alone could?

jcranmer 8y ago
> For example when Consumer Reports identified a braking issue with the Model 3 Tesla had an OTA software fix in days. What other manufacture would do that, let alone could? Why should that be a good thing? Consider what this means: * Safety-critical systems are not air-gapped. (Granted, Tesla is far from the only offender here). * The fact that the fix was turned around in such a short time would seem to suggest that it was relatively quick to diagnose and debug. Why wasn't it caught before release? * On another note, it also calls into question how rigorous their update fix testing is. I've seen plenty of "this must go out fixes" that broke a lot of stuff by collateral when people felt it was too important to get out quickly to do the full testing.
- mijamo 8y ago
  - As you said, not the only offender here, I would even say air gapped would be the exception - This is wrong, the fact that is was quick to fix does not mean it was easy to find, or even easy to fix. Many softwares have suffered critical problems for ages without being detected, and yet when they are detected they are fixed in a day? - Sure, you can wonder, but this is purely speculative as we have no evidence of any problem of the sort here.
  - planteen 8y ago
    > the fact that is was quick to fix does not mean it was easy to find The issue was easy to find. The root cause may not have been. Vehicle stopping distance is a standard metric. Simple black box system level testing at Tesla should have caught this. Why was nothing done then or why was it a test escape?
wpietri 8y ago
Toyota did embrace Deming, but there's a reason we call it the Toyota Production System. I think you understate their willingness to approach radical changes through continuous improvement; note that they were pioneers in hybrid vehicles, starting on the Prius at time when Musk wasn't even out of college. I also think you miss the real value of patient continuous improvement in production lines. Extreme changes work against the drive to reduce variance and waste. The OTA software fix is indeed impressive, and last I heard Toyota software process lagged well behind their manufacturing process. But from Tesla's continuous failure to meet goals, it looks like the opposite is true. And Tesla's at a point where software, no matter how good, won't save them.
- windexh8er 8y ago
  They call it that because: marketing. In fact I don't understate it at all. It's impressive Toyota considered and accepted it comparative to their NAM counterparts who laughed it off and ended up eating QA because of it. Musk being out of college at release if the Prius is irrelevant. The battery technology in early Prius was very bad. The delivery of the product was good, but if your inplication that the Prius fueled full EV you're off base by a significant margin. Also look at the growth of Prius from day 1. It wasn't an overnight success and many naysayers existed then about the viability, efficacy, reliability, etc. They were all proven wrong and the minimal gamble of Prius compared to a full EV including the Supercharger network pales in comparison with regard to market resistance (both consumer and competitor). I don't think you understand continuous improvement if you equate it to being "slow". Speed has no bearing, the meat is in the process itself. Continuous failure? Please elaborate. Failure in the product? No different than existing manufacturera and impressive track record given their time in the market. Failure to meet shareholder expectations? Sure. That's every company, and it's too bad Musk had to go public when he did. But if Tesla is a failure I'd like to see your success. Your argument devolved into pure subjective opinion rather quick.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    I believe you are incorrect. It's hardly just Toyota's marketing department that credits Toyota with significant intellectual work. See, e.g., professors Liker and Rother at the University of Michigan. My point about Toyota working on the Prius well in advance of others, Musk included, is to demonstrate that their continuous improvement approach doesn't prevent them from making big changes. I don't know where you get me equating continuous improvement to slowness. Despite your quote marks, I did not use that word. As to Musk's failure to meet goals, you need look no further than the article up top, which says, "The company has failed to meet any of its production and delivery targets for the Model 3 since its splashy event in July 2017". That isn't a matter of opinion. Musk's ongoing failure to hit his own self-declared goals is a sign of a severe process problem.

jcranmer 8y ago

> For example when Consumer Reports identified a braking issue with the Model 3 Tesla had an OTA software fix in days. What other manufacture would do that, let alone could? Why should that be a good thing? Consider what this means: * Safety-critical systems are not air-gapped. (Granted, Tesla is far from the only offender here). * The fact that the fix was turned around in such a short time would seem to suggest that it was relatively quick to diagnose and debug. Why wasn't it caught before release? * On another note, it also calls into question how rigorous their update fix testing is. I've seen plenty of "this must go out fixes" that broke a lot of stuff by collateral when people felt it was too important to get out quickly to do the full testing.

mijamo 8y ago
- As you said, not the only offender here, I would even say air gapped would be the exception - This is wrong, the fact that is was quick to fix does not mean it was easy to find, or even easy to fix. Many softwares have suffered critical problems for ages without being detected, and yet when they are detected they are fixed in a day? - Sure, you can wonder, but this is purely speculative as we have no evidence of any problem of the sort here.
- planteen 8y ago
  > the fact that is was quick to fix does not mean it was easy to find The issue was easy to find. The root cause may not have been. Vehicle stopping distance is a standard metric. Simple black box system level testing at Tesla should have caught this. Why was nothing done then or why was it a test escape?

wpietri 8y ago

Toyota did embrace Deming, but there's a reason we call it the Toyota Production System. I think you understate their willingness to approach radical changes through continuous improvement; note that they were pioneers in hybrid vehicles, starting on the Prius at time when Musk wasn't even out of college. I also think you miss the real value of patient continuous improvement in production lines. Extreme changes work against the drive to reduce variance and waste. The OTA software fix is indeed impressive, and last I heard Toyota software process lagged well behind their manufacturing process. But from Tesla's continuous failure to meet goals, it looks like the opposite is true. And Tesla's at a point where software, no matter how good, won't save them.

windexh8er 8y ago
They call it that because: marketing. In fact I don't understate it at all. It's impressive Toyota considered and accepted it comparative to their NAM counterparts who laughed it off and ended up eating QA because of it. Musk being out of college at release if the Prius is irrelevant. The battery technology in early Prius was very bad. The delivery of the product was good, but if your inplication that the Prius fueled full EV you're off base by a significant margin. Also look at the growth of Prius from day 1. It wasn't an overnight success and many naysayers existed then about the viability, efficacy, reliability, etc. They were all proven wrong and the minimal gamble of Prius compared to a full EV including the Supercharger network pales in comparison with regard to market resistance (both consumer and competitor). I don't think you understand continuous improvement if you equate it to being "slow". Speed has no bearing, the meat is in the process itself. Continuous failure? Please elaborate. Failure in the product? No different than existing manufacturera and impressive track record given their time in the market. Failure to meet shareholder expectations? Sure. That's every company, and it's too bad Musk had to go public when he did. But if Tesla is a failure I'd like to see your success. Your argument devolved into pure subjective opinion rather quick.
- wpietri 8y ago
  I believe you are incorrect. It's hardly just Toyota's marketing department that credits Toyota with significant intellectual work. See, e.g., professors Liker and Rother at the University of Michigan. My point about Toyota working on the Prius well in advance of others, Musk included, is to demonstrate that their continuous improvement approach doesn't prevent them from making big changes. I don't know where you get me equating continuous improvement to slowness. Despite your quote marks, I did not use that word. As to Musk's failure to meet goals, you need look no further than the article up top, which says, "The company has failed to meet any of its production and delivery targets for the Model 3 since its splashy event in July 2017". That isn't a matter of opinion. Musk's ongoing failure to hit his own self-declared goals is a sign of a severe process problem.