3 - Jacobs University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Million Units 80 60 40 Worldwide Automotive Production 15,8 14,1 16,4 18,3 17,9 19,6 21,5 25,1 27,3 30,2 34,2 35,3 35,8 46,5 20 0 100% 39,2 39,4 39,8 40,0 38,4 39,4 39,2 39,4 39,2 39,1 39,1 35,4 25,9 31,1 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 75% 29% 26% 29% 31% 32% 33% 35% 39% 41% 44% 47% 50% 58% 60% 50% 25% 0% 71% 74% 71% 69% 68% 67% 65% 61% 59% 56% 53% Rest of the world 50% 42% 40% USA + Western Europe + Japan Figure 4: Shift of the automotive production capacity from the Triad (USA, Western Europe, and Japan) to other more cost competitive production locations. (Data Source: OICA, 1997 – 2010) alleviated strict governmental trade policies in their attempts to attract Foreign Direct Investments (FDI), (Veloso & Kumar, 2002). At the same time, the fall of communist regimes in the early 1990s opened Eastern European markets and granted Western companies access to new customers also in this region. In recent years developing countries have been the motor of growth of global sales with regions such as China, South East Asia, Eastern Europe, South America, and India seeing the major growth. In the 1990s almost 80% of the automotive sales were still generated in North America, Europe and Japan (Veloso & Kumar, 2002). In the last decade, however, markets in Asia and South America soared and their growth was the major driving factor for an overall increase of global sales with about 55% to surpass 70 million vehicles (Veloso & Kumar, 2002). About half of the global sales now take place outside the Triad. The more favorable conditions on the newly opened markets prompted major automotive players to invest in these new regions and to relocate significant part of their production close to their new customers. In 1997 a mere 29% of all vehicles worldwide were produced outside the Triad (see Figure 4). In less than 15 years this share more than doubled, and 60% of the global automotive production output in 2010 came from the 18
developing markets (Figure 4). Due to the extreme geographic dispersion of final customers nowadays it is very important for the automotive producers to run global operations. Usually an automotive OEM would run a number of production facilities strategically located within or close to its most important markets, with the majority of its key suppliers situated in close proximity. This not only reduces the uncertainty of deliveries to OEMs’ final customers, but also significantly reduces transportation costs (transportation of voluminous products such as automobiles on long distances is quite expensive). Therefore, carmakers’ decisions on where to position their production facilities are governed by the development of global markets. Million Units 20 15 10 5 0 Growth of Automotive Production in Developing Countries USA China Eastern and Central Europe South America South Korea India 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Figure 5: Growth of the automotive production in the developing countries (Data Source: OICA, 1997 – 2010). All these recent changes made today’s automotive business environment much more complex as compared to the one just a few decades ago. To defend their market positions major players need to adjust their strategies to the new market environment. On the one hand, market leaders need to defend their strong positions on the developed western markets and fend off new business rivals. Here competition does not come only from producers from other developed regions. Automotive players with recently gained momentum, such as the Korean Hyundai-Kia, currently the fourth largest automotive manufacturer worldwide, also strive to set strong foot on Western markets. Meanwhile, stagnant customer demand and limited sales in these markets exacerbate the price competition. On the other hand, automotive OEMs need to keep up with the headlong growth of developing markets and capture as large a market share as possible on these markets. Doing business in the newly opened regions in many cases can be particularly challenging due to specific governmental regulations which favor local producers. Thus for example in China foreign automotive manufacturers may only produce through local joint ventures with their participation limited to no more than 50 percent (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2011). Moreover, to develop key competences such as the production of smaller and cheaper cars, which correspond to the lower 19
Page 1: Second-Party Quality Auditing in th
Page 4 and 5: Abstract Today automotive producers
Page 6 and 7: Acknowledgements I hereby want to e
Page 8 and 9: organization will therefore shrink
Page 10 and 11: industry and especially its strateg
Page 12 and 13: Quality standards build upon the To
Page 14 and 15: generally accepted benchmarks. Qual
Page 16 and 17: sampling frequency is not high enou
Page 18 and 19: Two fundamental factors influence t
Page 20 and 21: they put the quality of the final p
Page 22 and 23: of Stroescu-Dabu (2008) and uses a
Page 26 and 27: udget levels in these regions, play
Page 28 and 29: wide product range. The number of m
Page 30 and 31: of 2010 there was a major recall ca
Page 32 and 33: comprehensive overview of the the s
Page 34 and 35: The concentration of a large portio
Page 36 and 37: audits are properly managed and are
Page 38 and 39: Average Time Period Since the Last
Page 40 and 41: The audit stages include audit plan
Page 42 and 43: prepare for an audit and rely on th
Page 44 and 45: from different control tests and pa
Page 46 and 47: Audit planning • incorporate qual
Page 48 and 49: tive Task Force) its supplier evalu
Page 50 and 51: Table 1: Evaluation points for a si
Page 52 and 53: quality management tool (if carried
Page 54 and 55: supplier to achieve an A rating (fr
Page 56 and 57: There are a total of four quality p
Page 58 and 59: Currently, Volkswagen works on a ne
Page 60 and 61: products (electrical, metal, and ch
Page 62 and 63: In addition to the data processing
Page 64 and 65: than the KRIAS number for managing
Page 66 and 67: 9% 8% 1,1% 1,3% 0,9% 1,3% 83% Recor
Page 68 and 69: 1,1% 1,4% 0,9% 1,3% 0,4% 0,3% 0,2%
Page 70 and 71: Region 1 60,00% Missing Material Gr
Page 72 and 73: Region 5 30,00% Missing Material Gr
Page 74 and 75:
Region 8 10,00% Missing Material Gr
Page 76 and 77:
7.2 Possible Sources of Data Bias G
Page 78 and 79:
evaluation scores of suppliers oper
Page 80 and 81:
● Normal Q−Q Plot for TOTAL_Ele
Page 82 and 83:
The performed normality test gives
Page 84 and 85:
In the case of chemical-part suppli
Page 86 and 87:
Distribution of TOTAL_Elektrik_FQF3
Page 88 and 89:
Chemical‐part Suppliers KS test p
Page 90 and 91:
chemical-part as well as metal-part
Page 92 and 93:
processes. 7.2.3 The Factor ”Huma
Page 94 and 95:
large enough for statistical analys
Page 96 and 97:
Distribution of A_M_WSGR_0058_Plant
Page 98 and 99:
Plant: B WSGR: 0068 Plant: G WSGR:
Page 100 and 101:
Things are a bit different, however
Page 102 and 103:
At this point it is necessary to me
Page 104 and 105:
The second set of empirical data an
Page 106 and 107:
Distribution of Ez no ppms Distribu
Page 108 and 109:
7.4 Relation Between Number of Defe
Page 110 and 111:
the supplier produces a functional
Page 112 and 113:
E[ppm|ppm>0][log] 1e+00 1e+02 1e+04
Page 114 and 115:
Distribution of Records w/o ppm (MG
Page 116 and 117:
the logarithm of the respective del
Page 118 and 119:
● Cummulative Delivery Quantity v
Page 120 and 121:
Slope (β_1) -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5
Page 122 and 123:
● Cummulative Delivery Quantity v
Page 124 and 125:
Table 5: Summary of the performed l
Page 126 and 127:
These findings are particularly imp
Page 128 and 129:
1. Introduction 2. Research Questio
Page 130 and 131:
the factors mentioned above. Specia
Page 132 and 133:
data regarding the complexity of th
Page 134 and 135:
Volkswagen production facilities. M
Page 136 and 137:
problems arising in a point of time
Page 138 and 139:
Frequency of auditing is affected b
Page 140 and 141:
Distribution of Team_B_Chemie_FQF4
Page 142 and 143:
Team_D_Chemie_FQF5 Team_D_Chemie_FQ
Page 144 and 145:
Distribution of Team_F_Chemie_FQF4
Page 146 and 147:
Team_H_Chemie_FQF5 Team_H_Chemie_FQ
Page 148 and 149:
Team_C_Elektrik_FQF5 Team_C_Elektri
Page 150 and 151:
Distribution of Team_F_Elektrik_FQF
Page 152 and 153:
Distribution of Team_B_Metal_FQF4 D
Page 154 and 155:
Team_D_Metal_FQF5 Team_D_Metal_FQF6
Page 156 and 157:
Distribution of Team_F_Metal_FQF4 D
Page 158 and 159:
Team_H_Metal_FQF5 Team_H_Metal_FQF6
Page 160 and 161:
Team_J_Metal_FQF5 Team_J_Metal_FQF6
Page 162 and 163:
Distribution of H_I_WSGR_0058_Plant
Page 164 and 165:
Distribution of B_K_WSGR_0068_Plant
Page 166 and 167:
Distribution of N_O_WSGR_0068_Plant
Page 168 and 169:
References Abele, E., Meyer, T., N
Page 170:
Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one nu
show all

3 - Jacobs University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?