Bottom up direction on Kaizen:

Production Innovation activity for shop floor engagement and development

Kamal S. K, Hiroshi Nakanishi

Malaysia Japan International Institute of Technology
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
(E-mail: kamalsk76@gmail.com, h.nakanishi@utm.my)

Abstract It is very important to analyze Lean production direction of Kaizen activity named Junshi. Presently,
there are many variations in understanding how Toyota develops its’ shop floor staff to support daily Kaizen,
especially when Toyota staffs have different layers of understanding of Toyota Production System (TPS) and
skills essential in applying TPS. This paper aims to clarify the Toyota’s Junshi process in the context of
strengthening Just In Time (JIT) and analyze both the technique and management aspects of lean small group
activity by adopting the eight step of Toyota Business Practices (TBP) problem solving. Through this research, it
was made clear that most attempts to imitate Toyota fail because techniques are adopted in pieces with little
understanding of why they exist or what kind of organizational culture is needed to keep them alive. Junshi serves
as an example of a technique which is successful only when embedded within the right organizational culture.

Keywords Shop floor development, Continuous improvement, Just In Time, Toyota Business Practice

Introduction
Toyota’s business success is largely and directly attributed to their unique approach to manufacturing. The Toyota
production system (TPS) or more generically, “lean manufacturing” has been widely studied in the early of 1970s
with quite a numbers of successful imitators. Thus, operational management researchers continue attempting to
understand how TPS works. What makes Toyota’s approach to manufacturing difficult to grasp is often the
implicit or perspective of the analyst, not necessarily TPS itself. That is, TPS is too often examined analytically
and as if it were static – despite notable examples of a contrary view 1. For one main reason, at any given point
what is called TPS is actually the state of a dynamic system that has evolved to a point and will continue to evolve.
Commentators have described Toyota’s approach as a set of contradictions 2. As Fujimoto sees it, the mystery is
that Toyota’s production system has evolved emergent qualities that cannot all be known in advance. He sees TPS
problem solving as an “evolving learning capability” that is both “intentional” and “opportunistic” in that the
company uses established routines to generate possible new production improvements and at the same time is able
to seize emergent “unintended” or surprise improvements and then skillfully institutionalize them as well 3 and
that is Toyota Business Practice (TBP).
The scope of this work is to analyze how Toyota applies Junshi to develop shop floor worker ability to
solve problems in daily activities and to support problem solving skills by management team. Correspondently,
Toyota must establish an organizational culture where workers feel comfortable asking for help and learning TPS.
This paper will evaluate what makes Junshi successful. One case study that illustrate some prominent
characteristics of Junshi inside Toyota are included. Lastly, Junshi are discussed as they might exist “outside”
Toyota. The goal of this paper, however, is not to enable copycat imitation of Quality Circle, but to offer a point
of view that may be helpful for those interested in understanding TPS as a system.

2 Literature Review
2.1 Quality Control Circles
Shortly after World War II, the Japanese government encouraged the formation of several industry organizations
to help Japan recover from the war. The most noteworthy of these governing bodies has been the Union of
Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE). The union brought together leaders and experts from all of Japan’s
major industries so that they could share best practices. This was exercised in the hope of revitalizing Japan’s
economy. Its main directive was to revitalize Japan’s economy and eliminating waste by improving quality. It
wasn’t until 1949 that JUSE began to host statistical quality control seminars. In 1950 JUSE invited Dr. W.
Edwards Deming4, a U.S. government statistical advisor to lecture to them on use of statistical quality control.
Although JUSE offered Dr. Deming the royalties for his lectures, he refused. JUSE, inspired by Dr. Deming’s
kindness, began the Deming Prize in 1951 from those same royalties. The prize, which is a bronze medal bearing
a likeness of Dr. Deming is awarded to those who have contributed to field of quality control. The Deming Prize
was originally awarded in two categories. It is awarded to individuals who make a significant contribution to the
theory and application of quality control and also to firms that obtain outstanding results in the application of
quality control.
 Another quality guru that also contributed to the culture and credence of JUSE was Joseph Juran5. He
like, W. Edwards Deming, was also invited to give lectures to the still burgeoning JUSE and did so in 1954 and
1960. His lectures focused more on a managing quality and how to make quality a business strategy. His ideas
greatly supported JUSE’s tenet beliefs in continuous improvement and quality circles. The most influential figures
in the history of JUSE have been its founder Ichiro Ishikawa and his son Kaoru Ishikawa. In 1946 Ichiro Ishikawa 6
organized JUSE and helped many of then top Japanese executives to meet and pay attention to W. Edwards
Deming. However, it was his son Kaoru that headed JUSE during its flourishing and led the Japanese to internalize
the teachings of Deming and Juran. As a professor of engineering at Tokyo University, he developed the concept
of quality circles. A Quality circle is an approach to Total Quality Management that encourages workers to form
teams to present process changes to management for implementation. This reinforces Deming’s 14th point for
management, “Quality is everybody’ responsibility” Kaoru Ishikawa spearheaded the Japanese Quality Revolution
that has given JUSE the prestige it enjoys today. Ishikawa left behind him a focus in JUSE of training others how
to use Total Quality Management tools especially quality circles.
The quality circle concept has become so popular that there are now over 426,000 registered quality control circles
in Japan. These groups, some small while others quite large, permeate all of Japan’s industries and play a major
role in Japan’s culture. These quality control circles have helped Japan’s industries thrive and often define the
work and social context of many Japanese.
2.2 Toyota Business Practice (TBP)
The eight-step process aims to break down large problems into small problems and test various countermeasures
for each small problem. The eight-step method is an agreed to use procedure for developing countermeasures that
keep problems from returning. The eight-step is effective because, it links methods to results by running trials to
determine countermeasures. Examples of its use and detailed descriptions of its steps can be found elsewhere 11
12
.
1. Clarify the problem
o Identify problems at worksite.
o Search for problems that are related to work processes, wastage, productivity, quality, cost etc.
o Brainstorm, Genchi Genbutsu, past records.
2. Breakdown the problem
o Refer to problem statement on what data to collect (Object).
o Check past data(if any) / Collect fresh data.
o Analyse flowcharts(if any)/ Create flowcharts on current process (if unavailable).
o Examine the situation over a period of time.
3. Set the target to be achieved
o State where the improvement is to take place and visualize in chart or graph.
o Make it clear what is to be done and what the objective is.
o Express topic in terms of attacking something bad rather than improving something good.
o Use SMART technique (Specific, Measureable, Achieveable, Realistic and Time bound).
4. Think through to the true cause
o Indicate your problem statement.
o Use Fishbone/Ishikawa/Cause & Effect Diagram.
o Brainstorm of possible causes.
o Do the ‘5 Whys’.
o Identifying the causes of the problem.
o Narrow the long lists of causes down to the most important ones.
o Use facts, data, past history and personal opinions to focus on the most important cause.
o Verify the cause whether it is true or false. Evaluate the degree of influence of each causes
identified.
o Collect data on the most important cause and present it on graph.
5. Develop countermeasures
o Suggest the countermeasures / corrective action based on the cause analysis,
- Think of creative solutions.
- Use 5W 2H to describe countermeasure.
o come-out with several alternatives solution, consider the advantages and disadvantages of each
countermeasures in term of its effect, cost and practicality.
6. Follow through on the countermeasures
o To execute countermeasures and monitor the implementation
o Confirm the tangible and intangible results.
o Analyze result based on quality, cost, time and other benefits.
7. Evaluate the result and the process
o To confirm and monitor the results of countermeasures against the target.
 o Compare result with target set, evaluate and study why target did not achieve.
o Confirm your achievement by checking your data.
o Evaluate success and failure.
8. Make sure the results take hold
o Monitor the trends of result obtained to confirm the effectiveness of countermeasure for long
term.
o Where results are successful, standardize the countermeasures and establish as SOP (Standard
Operating Procedure).
o Create a system in which can confirm that SOPs are followed and continue to have the desired
effect (Training, Audit, Result Monitoring and etc).
o To standardize the countermeasures that are effective in eliminating root causes of problem for
permanent and long term effect.
o Review the project.
- what went well.
- what did not go well.
o Record the remaining problems that were not solved and select new theme for next project.
o Review the benefits that the team has received in being part of the project.
2.3 Junshi
If lean is a discipline that develops over time, then it requires commitment and consistent leadership engagement
and participation. One element in the current TPS approach that is of interest as a focus and can also make this
picture of lean clear is Junshi. There have been various attempts to explain small group activities such as Jishuken
7
; however, these attempts have described only Quality Circles as a rapid shop floor activity similar to the kaizen
blitz model 8,9 with connections to supplier quality development for those situations needing urgent solutions.
What is more misleading is that none of the current work discusses how lean problem solving is applied or how
this activity can actually weaken shop floor worker involvement if applied incorrectly. There is also little
understanding of how managers can initiate, support or lead problem-solving activities when they themselves
need help in developing their understanding of TPS problem solving.
These descriptions of Junshi mislead by creating the impression of a static impression, that shop floor
within Toyota have a complete understanding of TPS, one which they somehow attained instantly without needing
to develop it over time 10. Seen more clearly, Junshi’s, like many other TPS activities, have both a learning
development goal and a productivity goal: as they harness shop floor teams for problem solving needed by the
production process, Junshi help managers continue to improve their ability to coach and teach TPS problem-
solving to others, specifically production staffs.
What is important about this procedure is that the Junhsi team will pass much time studying and
examining the current scheme to discover the smallest possible root causes for each countermeasure. This
procedure can consume time and cannot be rushed, which is why Junshi can take weeks or months to complete,
when performed right. Although Junshi may vary in time depending on the nature of the problem, the Junshi team
may meet as needed to complete the problem-solving process. Junshi could meet continuously over a short period
or spend a few hours a week over the span of several months. The form of time spent depends on the nature of the
problem and what is involved in completing the problem-figuring out countermeasures. The only reliable way to
know if a countermeasure was successful is by monitoring and monitoring through the current arrangement. This
process can sometimes take weeks or months to complete and depending on the nature of the problem can be
difficult to track. The research methodology used are based on PDCA cycle introduced by Dr. Deming which later
it was developed further by Taichi Ohno. It is known as Toyota Business Practice (TBP) until today as the eight
steps problem solving process.

3 Research Result
3.1 Research Method
Mixed methods studies the relationships of management understanding, support and execution towards Junshi
implementation.
3.1.1 Qualitative method: A qualitative research Case study/Phenomenology design was carried out on one
purposively-selected Malaysian manufacturing company that has implemented lean manufacturing system
deploying the Kaizen practices. Exploratory longitudinal fieldwork of research diary and field notes with key
informants over a period of time using descriptive, analysis and interpretation through unstructured interviews,
meetings, document and observation to develop’s an insiders point of view. Using the practical approach consists
of the empirical study of small group activity of hands on approach. It involves first hand research through
observations, data collection and discussion groups.
1. Data collection was conducted internally within the company through observation and interview
techniques with these respondents.
 2. Interview was conducted with the managers in the manufacturing company so as to understand the
manufacturing operations and to gather accurate information on their current kaizen system used in the
facility.
3. This was followed by on-site visit to the premise. Two managers were purposively selected as
respondents for the study and interviews were conducted at the respective offices. Interviews were
conducted (lasting between 1.5 and 2.5 hours) using unstructured question based upon the four research
propositions. In total, 2 different managers and team leader were interviewed. The four exploratory
propositions;
a. Junshi as an outcome will improve business performance.
b. Junshi implementation for production's development trajectory is unique.
c. Junshi activity is dependent upon the context of the firm.
d. Junshi maximises general innovative activity.
The interviews were 5 hours of interview, notes into a series of observations and quotes.
3.1.2 Quantitative method: This type of research methods requires quantifiable data involving numerical and
statistical explanations. Quantitative Research is used to quantify the problem by way of generating numerical
data or data that can be transformed into usable statistics. It is used to quantify attitudes, opinions, behaviors, and
other defined variables and generalize results from a larger sample population. Quantitative Research uses
measurable data to formulate facts and uncover patterns in research.

3.1.3 Case Study: Junshi Project for the Inventory Reduction

The implementation of the small group activity activity namely Junshi has been executed upon several
breakthrough cases in the automotive industry. Previously, there was a workers small group activity on complexity
planning for automotive components using this approach. In this study, a project that explores new approach from
small group activity known as ‘Inventory Reduction’ is presented. In the automotive industry, inventory plays a
critical role in controlling and keeping optimum stock that bring high impact to manufacturing competitiveness
in terms of cost effectiveness.
It aims to create an opportunity to develop own style, alongside cost reduction on the benchmarked systems. The
case project in adopting using Junshi activity was conducted in an automotive OEM. The focus area was selected
because of their incapability in controlling a full cycle production process. The cost improvement results were
recorded after the case implementation was completed.
Process flow for performing Junshi
The general process flow for performing Junshi is explain in the follows the eight-step problem-solving process
are as follows:

Evaluate Monitor both

Clarify the
countermeasure results and
problem
through processes

Sharing (yokoten)
Break down the Develop
successful
problem countermeasures
processes

Root cause
Target setting
analysis

Figure 2 Process flow of Junshi Activities

The clarification and target of stock reduction activity

Inventory plays a significant role in a manufacturing environment, one most widely use term is Just In Time (JIT)
concept, as it derive as a pillar by Taichi Ohno, creator of Toyota’s production system. The Just-in-Time approach
attempts to reduce costs and improve workflow by carefully scheduling material to arrive where needed at the
right amount and at the right time. Consequently, costs of inventories can be substantially reduced and the use of
space can be maximized. In this case, this approach is targeted to lower the cost of the product. Due to space
limitations, inventory is high thus the problem is surfaced.
Break down the problem example using 5W2H
What; To optimize stock reduction activities.
Where; To which focuses on Finish Good (FG), Local parts and Completely Knock Down (CKD) parts
inventories.
Who; A team that specialized in the automotive material management and inventory was established and explored
the stock reduction on manufacturing system.
Why; The research target of this study is to reduce the holding cost and towards having the right parts at the right
quantity at a right time.
When; The duration of the case study was around 3 months to be completed at the conceptual level, and further 6
to 12 months to actually implement the concept into the production systems.
How; Junshi approach was used to explore this situation and to demonstrate how results can be achieved.
How much; The cost improvement results were recorded after the case implementation was completed.
Root cause analysis and development of countermeasure
Root cause Action taken
1 Customer order not stable Bi-monthly SAP safety stock level adjustment based on requirements and
daily production control
To revise Monthly Kanban formula (eg. Safety stock level , lot size change) to reflect
customer order

2 Transport not optimise Revise production lot size for low volume model, especially models to match lorry loading

3 Line process not match Monthly manpower meeting to determine manpower distribution at Production to
to daily requirement suit the production order

4 No proper Handover from Proper handover process from Vendor Development to Purchasing for new
Vendor Dev. to Purchasing & carry-over parts

5 Delayed firm info from To update Kanban using forecast figures for n+1 mth (complete on weekk 3 of n mth) for
customer early kanban adjustment

6 Improper arrangement Include standard packaging revision and order quantity for local vendors
during phase in/out

7 Delivery frequency and quantity Delivery frequency revision and safety stock to match production daily reqmt
not revised/updated (inclusive of Milk Run, DTS-related parts, Stamping material/ coil )

8 Part pakaging size > Production Lot Standard packaging review for CKD parts (concentrate on high volume model)

9 CKD Delivery frequency not Customer production plan improvement to match with CKD incoming plan
revised to match production
Revise delivery frequency/timing for incoming CKD parts
Figure 3 Summary of identified root causes and countermeasures taken

Root cause analysis looks at all three types of causes below. It involves investigating the causes of negative effects,
finding hidden flaws in the system, and discovering specific actions that contributed to the problem. This often
means that root cause analysis reveals more than one root cause. ou'll usually find three basic types of causes:
1. Physical – Tangible, material items failed in some way.
2. People – workers did something wrong, or did not do something that was needed. people causes typically
lead to physical causes.
3. Organization – A system, process, or policy that people use to make decisions or do their work is faulty.

3.2 Result
Intangible and tangible results;
a) Increased safety for workers working at robot station.
b) Eliminate near miss accident during robot operation.
c) Safe working environment.
d) Prevent loss time (ie; worker injuries manpower planning)
e) Improved shop floor worker engagement.
f) Inventory cost reduction activity achieved.
g) Increase worker morale and support.
h) Improve material management and workflow.
 Day(s)
D ay(s )
4 FG
3.1
83% Achievement

2.5
2.6
Did not achieve target due
Target 2.5
2 to Ramadhan stock keeping in
anticipation for low
attendance and productivity.

Before After
A c tual
2009
Ideal
After

Day(s)
14 Local
150% Achievement
12
10
10

8
5.5 Target 7.0
6

0
Actual Ideal
Target
Actual 2010
Before After
2009

Day(s) CKD
14
130% Achievement
12
11
10

8
6 Target 5.0
3.2
4

0
Actual Actual
Target2010

Before After
2009

Figure 4 Summary of tangible results before and after at focus area

Observation
1. Using a longitudinal exploratory approach better help in identifying a relationship between shopfloor
engagement or contribution and problem solving skills development towards Junshi activity.
2. Observation that was carried out at a just one point in time, known as cross-sectional that provide a
snapshot of what is happening in that particular process kaizen group at that particular time. Qualitative
analysis brings problems out into the open;
a. By definition of propositions, directions and perceptions vary across individuals.
b. Configurations of propositions, directtions, and perceptions are not static and stable but
potentially subject to reflective transformation.
c. Individual proposition may be modified to better fit lived experience and/or cope with a given
situation.
3. The pre-eminence of the lean production paradigm reflects the academic and practitioner effort that has
been directed towards establishing and transferring ``best practice'' in operations.
4. This study has offered a theoretical critique of this generic approach and the empirical evidence presented
adds further support, suggesting that contingency and complexity are the dominant characteristics of any
successful implementation process.
5. In all circumstances, the umstructured interview took place as an informal conversation, with the
researcher asking follow-up questions in response to statements made by the interviewees. This type of
interview resulted in some irrelevant information, but also allowed evidence related to the variables of
interest to emerge naturally.
 6. Sometimes structured interviews may be biased by the emotional involvement of the interviewee with
the topic. Observations, however, can also be biased. Data collected during observations may be limited
by the researcher’s judgment of what is important enough to record.
However, the direct and indirect relationships between these factors describe the situation far more accurately
than the individual factor taken into isolation
An important difference between Quality Circle and Junshi activity.
A significant different between Quality circle and Junshi activity is the team members are coming from bottom
up with support and commitment from management. Therefore, the engagement of shop floor workers in problem
solving activity is being recognized and highlighted by the management. Junshi can be misunderstand as “single
purpose”: as only a plant improvement activity 10,13–15. In fact, Junshi has two main purposes: to solve problems
in the workplace that need management attention and to correct, enrich and deepen understanding of TPS by
management through first-hand on the job application of the problem-solving principles using hands-on activity
and coaching. It differs from problem-solving activity conducted by management (“Quality Circle” in Toyota’s
language) because Junshi involves only shop floor workers to identify the problems and implement the
countermeasures.

Figure 1 Scope, structure and direction of Junshi Activities

Significant roles and support function of management

Since in addition to their other roles, managers perform an important function in TPS as coaches and teachers for
team members doing problem solving, Junshi is both a technical problem-solving activity and a management
development process that helps managers learn how to be better teachers 16,17. Junshi continually develop
management’s interpersonal skills so that they understand the right way to coach and support kaizen 18. A third
organizational culture function of Junshi is to communicate, maintain and reinforce the company’s values, beliefs
and behaviors (known as the Toyota Way) (The Toyota Business Practice (Toyota Motor Corporation, 2005)).
Participation in Junshi gives management a common language and a common approach to problem solving
standard across the company.

4 Conclusion
In conclusion, establishing a culture among front line managers that values identifying and solving problems
among themselves and in the production workers they teach and guide is an essential step toward establishing that
culture on the shop floor. Establishing this kaizen culture means shopfloor workers demonstrates their abilities in
identifying and solving problems are valued by making those abilities part of their work, rather than a potentially
causing of troublemaking that needs to be hidden (Fujio, 2006).
1. This paper expands the theoretical foundation of kaizen activity principles by studying and analysing a
practical application of the concept.
2. As a result, the case study is opportune for presenting a relevant overview of the relevance and
applicability of the research methodology. This single case study is particularly appropriate for
completely new and explorative investigations.
 3. However, the study has some weaknesses. The main one is the fact that the methodology is based on
experts’ judgments. To overcome this weakness, it will be necessary to widen the panel of experts and
diversify them as much as possible.
4. Moreover, the research can be based on a wider database, including other courses of the same model
factory or to test it into other companies.
In the larger sense, Junhsi can also be usefully seen as demonstrating that Toyota Production System or Lean
Manufacturing, though it can be seen as a collection of tools and activities, is better approached as a dynamic
evolving system within which those “tools” have multiple mutually reinforcing purposes in developing workers
creativity whilst, eliminating the number eight muda. It could be generalize as a tool to engage and develop
workers and also as amanagement recognition of such improvent activity done by shop floor as the process owner.
Since this initiatives starts from workers being proactive in solving the problem at workplace, is the key to
sustainable lean practices sucess. Celebrating the success and standardize the activity plus recognition from the
management has brought Junshi to a significant level in Lean innovation and sustainability.

References
[1] Bhasin S, Burcher P. Lean viewed as a philosophy. J Manuf Technol Manag. 2006;17(1):56-72.
doi:10.1108/17410380610639506.
[2] Osono E, Shimizu N, Takeuchi H. That Drive Toyota ’ s Success. Harv Bus Rev. 2008;(June 2008):98-
104. https://hbr.org/2008/06/the-contradictions-that-drive-toyotas-success.
[3] Fujimoto T. The Evolution of Production Systems : Exploring the Sources of Toyota’s Competitiveness.
Ann Bus Adm Sci. 1999;11:25-44. doi:10.7880/abas.11.25.
[4] Deming WE. W. Edwards Deming. Library (Lond). 2009:1-14. doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.015289.
[5] Juran JM. Quality Control Handbook.; 1988. doi:10.1177/004057368303900411.
[6] Hung RYY, Lien BYH, Yang B, Wu CM, Kuo YM. Impact of TQM and organizational learning on
innovation performance in the high-tech industry. Int Bus Rev. 2011;20(2):213-225.
doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.07.001.
[7] Marksberry P. The Toyota Way – a quantitative approach. Int J Lean Six Sigma. 2011;2(2):132-150.
doi:10.1108/20401461111135028.
[8] Rodriguez MA, Lopez LF. Kaizen and ergonomics: the perfect marriage. Work. 2012;41 Suppl 1:964-
967. doi:10.3233/WOR-2012-0271-964.
[9] Suárez-Barraza MF. Changing quality of life through the Personal Kaizen approach: a qualitative study.
Int J Qual Serv Sci. 2013;5:191-207. doi:10.1108/IJQSS-03-2013-0015.
[10] Lee B-H, Jo H-J. The mutation of the Toyota Production System: adapting the TPS at Hyundai Motor
Company. Int J Prod Res. 2007;45(16):3665-3679. doi:10.1080/00207540701223493.
[11] Ohno T. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production.; 1988. doi:10.1108/eb054703.
[12] Liker JK, Hoseus M. Human Resource development in Toyota culture. Int J Hum Resour Dev Manag.
2010;10(1):34-50. doi:10.1504/IJHRDM.2010.029445.
[13] Lee W, Rhee SK, Oh J. The relationships between manufacturing strategy process, manufacturing-
marketing integration, and plant performance: an empirical study of Korean manufacturers. Oper Manag
Res. 2014;7(3-4):117-133. doi:10.1007/s12063-014-0089-6.
[14] Lee W, Rhee S-K, Oh J. The relationships between manufacturing strategy process, manufacturing-
marketing integration, and plant performance: an empirical study of Korean manufacturers. Oper Manag
Res. 2014;7(3-4):117-133. doi:10.1007/s12063-014-0089-6.
[15] Susilawati A, Tan J, Bell D, Sarwar M. Develop a Framework of Performance Measurement and
Improvement System for Lean Manufacturing Activity. Int J Lean Think. 2013;4(1):51-64.
[16] Liker JK, Morgan JM. The Toyota Way in Services: The Case of Lean Product Development. Acad
Manag Perspect. 2006;20(2):5-20. doi:10.5465/AMP.2006.20591002.
[17] Saruta M. Toyota Production Systems: The “Toyota Way” and Labour–Management Relations. Asian
Bus Manag. 2006;5:487-506. doi:10.1057/palgrave.abm.9200198.
[18] Morgan J, Liker J. The Toyota Production Development System. Product Press. 2006;22(4):51-52.
http://www.ame.orgwww.ame.org/sites/default/files/target_articles/06-22-4-
BR_Toyota_Prod_Dev_Sys.pdf.