Mitsubishi 2002 Annual Report Download - page 24

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 24 of the 2002 Mitsubishi annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 70

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70

22
QUALITY
Compliance with international quality assurance
standards
All MMC manufacturing plants in Japan had acquired
ISO 9002 certification by the end of 1998, demonstrat-
ing their compliance with internationally accepted stan-
dards of quality assurance. The ISO standards repre-
sent global quality norms across a variety of fields. Cer-
tification involves the objective evaluation and written
approval of the manufacturer’s quality assurance sys-
tems by an approved, independent third party, covering
19 distinct areas in the case of the ISO 9002 protocol.
Introduction of the Quality Gate system
MMC introduced the Quality Gate system developed by
DC to improve the quality of MMC’s internal QA proce-
dures, and of the products that it supplies to markets around
the world. As a management tool, the system is used to
supervise and control the entire process from the earliest
design and development stages of a new vehicle to the
point where it is finally put into commercial production. It is
a continuous, integrated process that features six sepa-
rate gates” through which all products must pass before
they can be released on the market.
The five core concepts of the Quality Gate system
are as follows:
1. Total process management
The process consists of six separate stages (F-A). The
process begins with the business plan and then moves
on to target setting, decision on the final specifications,
the establishment of development objectives, followed
by the final specifications. Once all the quality specifica-
tions of the final product have been approved, the pro-
cess is complete, and the product can finally be put on
the market.
MMC aims to make high-quality vehicles that will gain the trust and affection of customers all around the
world. The introduction of the Quality Gate system originally developed at DC has helped to set even
stricter product quality standards.
2. Concurrent, cross-functional operation
All the different departments and sections (design,
styling, accounting, development, and so on) work-
ing on the development of the vehicle keep in close
contact while the Quality Gate system is in opera-
tion. The development-related tasks being conducted
by multiple departments all run in parallel within a
common time frame.
3. Front-loading
The first three gates (F-D) constitute the concept de-
velopment stages, while the final three gates (C-A)
comprise the execution stages. All the specifications
for the new vehicle are determined during the first
half. The second half of the process involves proto-
type testing, the completion of the development pro-
cess and the final quality checks. The front-loading
concept expresses the determination to finish the
first-half stages earlier so that there is ample time
left before mass production begins. This allows more
time for quality controls based on the finalized vehicle
specifications.
4. Customer-oriented approach
The Quality Gate system specifies clearly who must
do what by when. Based on this agreed process
setup, each successive set of internal teams respon-
sible for passing the current gate becomes the sup-
plier, with those responsible for the next stage be-
coming the customer. Under this approach, the fun-
damental rule is that it is the customer’s duty to evalu-
ate the work of the supplier.
22