Toyota’s
Stretch Goals
|
No one at Toyota was shocked when
company president Katsuaki Watanabe announced to Wall Street and the rest of
the world in the latter part of 2005 that he had ordered his research chief,
Masatami Takimoto, to find a way to cut in half the price difference between
Toyota’s hybrid cars and similar gasoline models without compromising any of
the current quality standards, features, or performance. Watanabe’s comment:
“I assume Mr. Takimoto must be racking his brains about how to do that.”
Toyota has for decades
strategically set ambitious objectives in just this way — deliberately
pitting seemingly incompatible goals against each other. Why? Because these
competing targets cannot all be met without innovative thinking. The artful
setting of opposing “stretch goals” builds a creative tension that fuels
innovation by requiring a harmonious resolution.
For example, when Lexus Chief
Engineer Ichiro Suzuki announced in 1987 that the secret vehicle under development
for the U.S. luxury market must best, not match, the iconic BMW 735i in every
rated performance category — speed, weight, styling, acceleration, noise,
handling, comfort, and fuel efficiency — the army of more than 5,000
designers, engineers, and technicians reacted unanimously: impossible!
Greater speed and acceleration conflicted directly with fuel efficiency,
noise, and weight, because higher speed and acceleration required a more
powerful engine, which in turn is bigger and heavier, thus making more noise
and consuming more fuel. A smooth, quiet ride (associated with heavier
weight) conflicted directly with better handling at high speed. And at the
time, luxury styling didn’t have today’s streamlined look, so refinement and
high-speed stability conflicted directly with aerodynamic drag. In short, the
targets were thought to be individually attainable, but collectively
unachievable.
Yet when the Lexus LS400 made its
debut in 1989, it was five decibels quieter, 120 pounds lighter, and 17 miles
per hour faster (according to Car and Driver) than its designated
rival. It also got four-plus more miles to the gallon, and had better
handling, acceleration, and comfort, while retailing for $30,000 less.
Suzuki’s willingness to maintain tension among various competing targets,
combined with his refusal to compromise, had made a difference.
Similarly, when Toyota began to
develop a futuristic gas–electric hybrid vehicle in the early 1990s, senior
leaders employed a new and unique internal design strategy: Pit Toyota’s
various design centers against one another in a competition for the best
design. The winner, as judged by a panel, would be awarded the project. That
winner, the Prius, eventually made its production debut at the 1997 Kyoto
conference on global warming.
The strategy proved so successful
in generating an innovative product that today Toyota’s three major design
facilities — located in Tokyo; Newport Beach, Calif. (near Los Angeles); and
Brussels — compete to design every new model. Kevin Hunter, who currently
heads the Newport Beach–based design studio, a subsidiary called Calty Design
Research Inc., confirms the value of the competition: “It sets up a
competitive edge. There’s much more of an intense focus and awareness when
you know that nothing is being handed to you, that you have to win the
business. You have to do your most excellent work. You have no choice: You
have to deliver a perfect proposal.”
This stretch goal approach
contains its own inherent challenges. In 2005, Toyota recalled more vehicles
than the 2+ million it sold in the U.S., a factor attributed to its product
development strategy. Because Toyota’s component subsystems are used across
many models, when a glitch occurs, it affects multiple products at once. The
rush to beat other design centers has apparently led to some of these
glitches. Toyota is now developing ways to balance its stretch goal system
with its own deliberate and distinctive quality consciousness.
|
Monday, July 1, 2013
MANAGEMENT SPECIAL...... Toyota’s Stretch Goals
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment