ing capability for North America has been an ongoing process for over 15 years
and will continue for the next 15 years.
Now the question: Can Toyota simply pick up shop and transfer parts supply
to a low-wage country and leave behind this investment? It is not the sunk cost
that is the issue. It is that Toyota’s product development process is so “leaned
out” and fast that it needs suppliers who can work in lockstep and provide the
critical contributions it needs every day. Losing that would mean losing a core
part of Toyota’s competitive advantage.
Now your turn: Is your company actively working on reducing product
development lead time? Are you working to use simultaneous engineering to
get the design right up front? Are you interested in the highest quality parts that
work together seamlessly? If the answers to these questions are yes, it’s worth
taking your supplier’s technical capabilities seriously. And it is the fit between
your “culture of engineering” and your suppliers that is at stake. Parts are not
parts, and engineering is not engineering.
Information Sharing
In the early stages of American companies learning to partner with suppliers, the
approach seemed to be more information sharing with suppliers is better: “If we
inundate suppliers with information, they will be informed enough to be equal
partners.” Toyota also believes strongly in information sharing, but of a more tar-
geted variety. There is a high degree of structure with a specific time and place for
meetings, very clear agendas, and clear formats for information and data sharing.
At the TTC in Michigan there is a “design-in” room, where competing sup-
pliers work in the same room on the same project for Toyota. Design-in requires
the most intensive level of supplier involvement. The idea is that suppliers
design their components into Toyota’s vehicle. It has separate rooms for the
suppliers to keep themselves secure as well. However, separable body func-
tional parts like sunroofs, mirrors, and locks are designed fundamentally by the
suppliers in their own buildings. They are referred to as RDDP (Request for
Design and Development Process) parts. Headliners and floor consoles might
also be considered RDDP. For instance, since the Toyota management deems
that suppliers garner expert knowledge of the mechanism of the locks, they ask
them to work on the design and give them only basic specs. These RDDP parts
can stand alone and be plugged in. Yet Toyota engineers are still deeply
involved with the interface and have to work with body sheet-metal area and
trim to define the boundaries of those parts. For design-in parts, suppliers must
be present at TTC. But for RDDP parts, it’s more hands off, and the suppliers
don’t have to be present. Design-in is always done on Toyota’s CAD system and
communication is intense, whereas RDDP can be done on the supplier’s system
with less intense communication.
Chapter 12. Develop Suppliers and Partners 285