*
The Ford-Firestone Case
Quality Assurance, Management, and Control
*
Case Overview
we need to assess whether the problem is critical enough and warrants a recall
*
Very old business connections
*
Questions for
Quality Analysis and Improvement
How serious is the situation? (recognize)
At what point in time?
How did it happen? (identify)
Fishbone diagram
What is a defect? (define)
Tire design, vehicle design, in process, in use?
Who/what is responsible? (evaluate)
Analysis: Pareto chart
Other tires also fail?
Could it have been prevented? (organize)
Cost of quality
Steps in future to prevent? (control)
Organizing, systems, ..
*
This are the typical steps towards quality analysis and improvement.
*
1999
Explorer fatalities 1 in 100 mil. miles
Other SUVs 1.3/100 mil. miles fatalities
Explorer: fewer rollovers relative to vehicle population
2 % of the market, 0.6% of rollovers in that market
“NHTSA received 46 complaints about Firestone tires. Over the same period, the agency logged 970 complaints about Goodyear tires and 725 gripes about Michelins.”
(“Firestone had a smaller market share but the complaints are still out of proportion.”)
Based on overall performance, the recall was unexpected.
*
The message is that the recall was unexpected based on overall performance
*
What are the risks?
Fatality rates
Air (1970) .3 / 100 million miles
Air (1997) .06 / 100 million miles
Passenger cars 1.6 / 100 mil. mi.
All compact SUV’s 1.3 / 100 mil mi
Ford Explorer 1.0 / 100 mil mi
100 deaths for 3.5 million Explorers on the road from 1990 to 2000
Roll-over fatalities (1995-1998)
Explorer 26 / 1 million vehicles
Jimmy 34 / “
Chevy 45 / “
Jeep 23 / “
This doesn’t look so bad. So what are the problems?
*
These are the original brochures for the AT tire in 1996 as given to the tire dealers. Notice the designed values at lower left corner
Firestone: Models Recalled
*
These were all recalled – went as OE on these trucks
*
Magnitude of Crisis 2000
6.5 million tires at $50 ($325 mil) + legal +liability +lost profits
= $800 million to $1 billion
Later data shows that these numbers were exceeded
*
Was it a crisis? Was it over reaction? You will get many answers. The question really is when did it become a crisis? When should the managers of either company have reacted?
*
What would you have done?
NHTSA opens formal investigation
(0.00286% deaths, 0.06% complaints = 2.86/100,000, 61/100,000)
When should they have reacted?: Ethics, Economics
Tread separation in Firestone tires on Explorers
Assignable cause
*
This time line is shown and students are asked when would they have reacted and why? One type of answer is when is the liability greater than the cost. The other type of answer is when there is a problem. These two viewpoints need to be sharpened as the case discussion proceeds. But before proceeding ask students HOW to detect such a problem? Will final inspection do? What should be the sample size? They can use a p*(1-p)/n type of estimate for variance and see how big n has to be.
*
What is a defect??
Tire Parameters:
Miles (types of miles)
Load
Temperature
Average speed at which car is driven
Tire pressure
Which manufacturer?
Design Quality, Production Quality and Quality in Use
*
This is another major debate. When do you say a tire a defective? Main idea here is that there is design quality, quality in production, and quality in use. You could also briefly mention that Ford is responsible for the tire even though Firestone made it. This is the liability rule that was established in a famous case many years ago (80?) in a case when a tire burst and the vehicle hit a pedestrian. The judge ruled that that the vehicle maker and the tire maker were liable if the defect were found due to them and could have been prevented.
*
Data: Ford and Firestone
*
The Firestone argument is weak because the relative population of rangers is much smaller. Moreover their use may be different. Ford’s argument controls for the vehicle as a cause of defect
*
Isolating Causes by Controlling for other variables.
*
Once again the lower right picture is key to showing that tires are probably a major cause. Lesson: control for other variables to isolate cause of defect
*
What contributes the most to it?
Analysis performed by Ford in early August 2000
Age is not controlled. (Not a valid Pareto Chart.)
*
Most of the problems are cause by a handful of causes. Not all these are valid Pareto charts (the last one is not because of age not being controlled). You may also refer to Fig 6 in case.
*
Tread Separation: Industry Wide Problem
What was the additional pressure on Firestone to recall?
Causes for defects: Random vs Assignable (Attributable)
Manufacturer | Recalled Tires | Fatalities | Injuries | Complaints |
Firestone | 6,500,000 | 150 | 500 | 3000 |
Goodyear | No Recall | 15 | 125 | —– |
Continental – General | 160,000 | 0 | 0 | —— |
Management is responsible
Reason to believe that there is a process problem
*
Thus, we ask okay there is a problem but all tire makers have problems. So why bother?
The main idea here is random versus assignable cause. Mother nature versus Ford or Firestone management attributable defect. Thus partly answers the question when the recall should be made – when there is a sufficiently strong reason to believe that there is a process problem. More on detection techniques later …
*
Customer Focus: What would customers say about the problem ? Is the product too risky?
UK Road (0.6/100 mil)
Air Traffic (0.29/100 mil in 1970’s now 0.06)
Severity + Frequency of Occurrence + Detection = Risk
*
Here we try to give a measure of risk that combines all the ideas so far. The importance of doing so in the world economy with enormous volumes and even ppm being insufficient to avoid injury and death should be made. Thus set the stage for later discussion of six sigma – it is not just the process but the customer needs and impact on customers – how to make the two meet? These are the two faces of quality – process and use.
Acceptable risk levels:
Mother NatureAssignable problem
Random-cause known
Customers willing to take risk-get caught
Variation inherent in processNow Mgrs. are responsible
They didn’t do anything when they found the problems!
*
Information on Goodyear
“Goodyear quietly holds 'silent recall’ ” : (July 01) http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20001107/BU_001.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/US/GMA030519Tire_investigation_hunter.html
*
Thus, we ask okay there is a problem but all tire makers have problems. So why bother?
The main idea here is random versus assignable cause. Mother nature versus Ford or Firestone management attributable defect. Thus partly answers the question when the recall should be made – when there is a sufficiently strong reason to believe that there is a process problem. More on detection techniques later …
*
Another Way to Identify Causes Using Data: Fishbone or Cause-Effect Diagrams
Using data, find the frequency of occurrence of each of these causes.
Delayed Flight
Equipment
Other
Material
Procedure
Manpower
Mechanical Failure
Late Push-back tug
Weather
Traffic
Late Food service
Late Baggage
Late Fuel
Poor Announcements
Delayed Check-in
Confused Seat Selection
Oversize Baggage
Gate Agents Cannot Process Passengers Fast
Too few agents
Under-motivated
Why does tread separation happen?
Cause-Effect Diagram or Fishbone Diagram
*
Another useful technique is to do the cause-effect diagram. From the case this can be constructed. Then one may put numbers against each cause and isolate the most frequent cause. Lesson 2: Focus on causes. Use measurements to determine the important cause
*
Quality Problems due to new combination and applications of existing products
Higher center point of gravity
Higher propensity to roll over
*
The main point is the last one. Despite every manufacturer having access to same technologies how does Dell manage to put out a superior product? Maybe leave it as a question?
*
Ford-Firestone Interaction
*
KHOU-TV
*
Testimony of Bridgestone/Firestone Inc.
(: Sep 2000)
*
Testimony of Bridgestone/Firestone Inc.
(: Sep 2000)
*
Testimony of Bridgestone/Firestone Inc.
(: Sep 2000)
*
Testimony of Bridgestone/Firestone Inc.
(: Sep 2000)
*
Quality in Automobile Industry Today
“Car makers say …increase…doesn’t mean quality standards have fallen
proof of indutry’s greater commitment to safety
Advanced computer systems …spot problems sooner
76% of recalls in 2003 were voluntary; manufacturers initiated them without any involvement by NHTSA…
Internet has made it easier to report defects, and cars are more complex than they once were
Critics contend…that manufacturers are cutting corners to lower costs and speed development
*
Quality in Automobile Industry Today
… tougher safety laws in response to a rash of rollover deaths in Ford Explorers…with…Firestone tires.
… domestic auto makers …disproportionate share of the vehicles recalled.
Ford-Firestone …led to sweeping auto-safety law …criminal penalties of …15 years in jail …executives who knowingly hide information about product defects.
…new rules…car makers…submit…claims and warranty data
These rules were instrumental … Firestone … last week… voluntarily recall 300,000 tires…Ford Excursion…”
END OF FIRESTONE CASE DISCUSSION
*
How do we define Quality?
What does quality mean?
How do you define it?
In a restaurant? For an airline? At Donner?
Some defects are obvious, can be touched or seen
Others more difficult to define.
How do they measure quality?
*
Issues/Concepts
Profit = Revenue – cost of production – cost of quality
How do we eliminate fear? Accept blame?
SUBJECTIVE, HARD TO MEASURE and DIFFICULT TO TEST FOR
then the quality of the two products should be OVER-DESIGNED for both
Product combination, design, process, testing, fitness for use
Pareto analysis.
Issues/Concepts
*
driving under-inflated tires
(Important service quality dimension. Fail-safing. What sort of failsafing?)
(Example: Water filter)
Product liability.
(The issue is feedback delay.)
Issues/Concepts
*
Quality- What’s next?
creating defects
creating too many defects
out of control
Just experiencing normal random variation
Inspecting
Calculating yields of the process
Determining where to inspect
Statistical Process Control
Acceptable risk levels:
Mother Nature
Assignable problem
Random
–
cause known
Customers willing to take risk
–
get caught
Variation inherent in process
Now Mgrs. are responsible
They didn’t do anything
when they found the problems!