All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >   Read the following discussion/passage and pr... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.
Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.
In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.
One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.
It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.
Q. What can be best defended as the asset which Toyota model of production leverages to give the vast range of models in a defect-free fashion?
  • a)
    Large scale complex manufacturing systems
  • b)
    Intellectual capital of the company's management
  • c)
    Loans taken by the company from banks and financial institutions
  • d)
    Ability of the workers to evolve solutions to problems
  • e)
    Skill and charisma of the top leadership
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answ...
According to the passage, despite the rule bound rigidity, Toyota retains the character of a learning organization. It is characterized as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the ‘operating procedure’ jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action. The higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization. So it is the ability of workers to come up with solutions to problems they face on the shop floor which is the main strength of Toyota model of production. Hence option D the right answer.
Attention CAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedur e) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on deman d) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What could be the best defence of the “different work norms in contiguous assembly lines”?

Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedur e) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on deman d) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. Which of the following can be best defended as a pre-condition for the Toyota type of production system to work?

Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedur e) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on deman d) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. Based on the above passage, which of the following statements is best justified?

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

Each question given below has five statements. The statements need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph. Choose the most appropriate option.1. But we can free ourselves from both of these limitations without altering the nature of our specification of position.2. On the basis of this illustration, we are able to see the manner in which a refinement of the conception of position has been developed.3. If, for instance, a cloud is hovering over Times Square, then we can determine its position relative to the surface of the earth by erecting a pole perpendicularly on the Square, so that it reaches the cloud4. This primitive method of place specification deals only with places on the surface of rigid bodies, and is dependent on the existence of points on this surface which are distinguishable from each other.5. The length of the pole measured with the standard measuring-rod, combined with the specification of the position of the foot of the pole, supplies us with a complete place specification.

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What can be best defended as the asset which Toyota model of production leverages to give the vast range of models in a defect-free fashion?a)Large scale complex manufacturing systemsb)Intellectual capital of the company's managementc)Loans taken by the company from banks and financial institutionsd)Ability of the workers to evolve solutions to problemse)Skill and charisma of the top leadershipCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What can be best defended as the asset which Toyota model of production leverages to give the vast range of models in a defect-free fashion?a)Large scale complex manufacturing systemsb)Intellectual capital of the company's managementc)Loans taken by the company from banks and financial institutionsd)Ability of the workers to evolve solutions to problemse)Skill and charisma of the top leadershipCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What can be best defended as the asset which Toyota model of production leverages to give the vast range of models in a defect-free fashion?a)Large scale complex manufacturing systemsb)Intellectual capital of the company's managementc)Loans taken by the company from banks and financial institutionsd)Ability of the workers to evolve solutions to problemse)Skill and charisma of the top leadershipCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What can be best defended as the asset which Toyota model of production leverages to give the vast range of models in a defect-free fashion?a)Large scale complex manufacturing systemsb)Intellectual capital of the company's managementc)Loans taken by the company from banks and financial institutionsd)Ability of the workers to evolve solutions to problemse)Skill and charisma of the top leadershipCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What can be best defended as the asset which Toyota model of production leverages to give the vast range of models in a defect-free fashion?a)Large scale complex manufacturing systemsb)Intellectual capital of the company's managementc)Loans taken by the company from banks and financial institutionsd)Ability of the workers to evolve solutions to problemse)Skill and charisma of the top leadershipCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What can be best defended as the asset which Toyota model of production leverages to give the vast range of models in a defect-free fashion?a)Large scale complex manufacturing systemsb)Intellectual capital of the company's managementc)Loans taken by the company from banks and financial institutionsd)Ability of the workers to evolve solutions to problemse)Skill and charisma of the top leadershipCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What can be best defended as the asset which Toyota model of production leverages to give the vast range of models in a defect-free fashion?a)Large scale complex manufacturing systemsb)Intellectual capital of the company's managementc)Loans taken by the company from banks and financial institutionsd)Ability of the workers to evolve solutions to problemse)Skill and charisma of the top leadershipCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What can be best defended as the asset which Toyota model of production leverages to give the vast range of models in a defect-free fashion?a)Large scale complex manufacturing systemsb)Intellectual capital of the company's managementc)Loans taken by the company from banks and financial institutionsd)Ability of the workers to evolve solutions to problemse)Skill and charisma of the top leadershipCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What can be best defended as the asset which Toyota model of production leverages to give the vast range of models in a defect-free fashion?a)Large scale complex manufacturing systemsb)Intellectual capital of the company's managementc)Loans taken by the company from banks and financial institutionsd)Ability of the workers to evolve solutions to problemse)Skill and charisma of the top leadershipCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What can be best defended as the asset which Toyota model of production leverages to give the vast range of models in a defect-free fashion?a)Large scale complex manufacturing systemsb)Intellectual capital of the company's managementc)Loans taken by the company from banks and financial institutionsd)Ability of the workers to evolve solutions to problemse)Skill and charisma of the top leadershipCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup