Business Development: Impact of Quality on Companies Report

This report analyzes the significant impact of quality on business performance, focusing on the rise and fall of companies like GM, Chrysler, and Ford. It highlights how poor quality management, including issues in production, product reliability, and environmental compliance, led to significant challenges for these companies. The report contrasts these failures with the success of companies like Toyota, which implemented effective quality assurance. It details the mistakes made by the aforementioned companies, such as automation problems, poor product quality, and emission issues, and then outlines the quality approaches they adopted to recover, including Six Sigma, total quality management, and adherence to ISO standards. The report also emphasizes the importance of adapting to changing consumer demands and environmental regulations. The document is available on Desklib, a platform providing study tools for students.

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Impact of quality on the rise and fall of companies.....................................................................1
Mistakes made.............................................................................................................................1
Quality approach for the rebound................................................................................................1
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................2

Impact of quality on the rise and fall of companies
GM- This Company reached the levels of bankruptcy due to the problems such as inappropriate
production practices to reduce the high costs associated with it. Moreover, the quality was falling
due to the poor strategy of the operational activities for the overall business.
Chrysler- It had received criticism due to the unpleasant quality aspects in context to the
products that were termed as below average predicted reliability.
Ford- This has compromised the quality aspect by underpinning the pollution levels, which led
to recalling of their cars and affected the market reputation.
In order to minimize the production costs and enhance the sales volumes, the given
companies compromised the quality management by substituting it with the incessant profits
(Xia & Li-Ping Tang, 2011). With advent of Japanese companies like Toyota’s performance
through systematic quality assurance paved the path of rise for GM, Ford and Chrysler via
innovation to maintain the quality standards using different cost effective approaches.
Mistakes made
 GM- The automation process in the production led to unregulated checking and
mishandling of the operations.
 Chrysler- The dependability and the performance quality with perceived quality made the
customers highly dissatisfied with the products. Alongside, its rate of warranty was
decreased by 30%.
 Ford- The unregulated carbon emissions were miscalculated and measured by using
equipment that led to recalling of its few models.
1

Quality approach for the rebound
 GM- They implemented the six sigma management structure and the total quality
management to facilitate the cost efficiency.
 Chrysler- The technical team executed a “count, measure and track” approach to optimise
resources and ensure quality standards
 Ford- It implemented ISO/TS 16949:2009 (2009), which is the current specification
required and outlined by the International Automotive Task Force (Ostadi,
Aghdasi&Kazemzadeh, 2010). Additionally, shifted towards the manufacturing of
electric vehicles to fulfil both quality and environmental friendly approach.
2

REFERENCES
Ostadi, B., Aghdasi, M., & Kazemzadeh, R. B. (2010). The impact of ISO/TS 16949 on
automotive industries and created organizational capabilities from its implementation.
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 3(3), 494-511.
Xia, Y., & Li-Ping Tang, T. (2011). Sustainability in supply chain management: suggestions for
the auto industry. Management Decision, 49(4), 495-512.
1