Toyota marketing Essay Example for Free

Toyota marketing Essay 3. TOYOTA HAS BUILT HUGE MANUFACTURING COMPANY THAT CAN PRODUCE MILLIONS OF CARS EACH YEAR FOR A WIDE VIRIETY OF CONSUMERS. WHY WAS IT ABLE TO GROW SO MUCH BIGGER THAN OTHER AUTO MANUFACTURERS? SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ANSWER BY PROVIDING CONCRETE MEASURES OR INTERVENTIONS THAT TOYOTA HAS DONE OR HAS BEEN DOING. Toyota was the first company to introduce lean manufacturing and total quality management practices in production of cars. For some time, the company was the only practitioner of these practices and had the lowest manufacturing and production costs worldwide. Toyota currently sells about 70 different models of cars under its namesake brand. Because they are the market car leader, they are in need to produce large number of cars that will be sold worldwide. The Toyota Production System (TPS) is an integrated socio-technical system, developed by Toyota that comprises its management philosophy and practices. The TPS organizes manufacturing and logistics for the automobile manufacturer, including interaction with suppliers and customers. The system is a major precursor of the more generic lean manufacturing. Taiichi Ohno, Shigeo Shingo and Eiji Toyoda developed the system between 1948 and 1975. Originally called just-in-time production, it builds on the approach created by the founder of Toyota, Sakichi Toyoda, his son Kiichiro Toyoda, and the engineer Taiichi Ohno. This system, more than any other aspect of the company, is responsible for having made Toyota the company it is today. Toyota has long been recognized as a leader in the automotive manufacturing, and production industry. The principles underlying the TPS are embodied in The Toyota Way. According to external observers, the Toyota Way has four components: 1. Long-term thinking as a basis for management decisions 2. A process for problem-solving 3. Adding value to the organization by developing its people 4. Recognizing that continuously solving root problems drives organizational learning The underlying principles, called the Toyota Way, it have been outlined by Toyota as follows: 1. Continuous Improvement a) Challenge (We form a long-term vision, meeting challenges with courage and  creativity to realize our dreams.) b) Kaizen (We improve our business operations continuously, always driving for innovation and evolution.) c) Genchi Genbutsu (Go to the source to find the facts to make correct decisions.) d) 2. Respect for People a) Respect (We respect others, make every effort to understand each other, take responsibility and do our best to build mutual trust.) b) Teamwork (We stimulate personal and professional growth, share the opportunities of development and maximize individual and team performance.) 3. Long-term philosophy a) Base your management decisions on a long-term philosophy, even at the expense of short-term financial goals. 4. The right process will produce the right results a) Create continuous process flow to bring problems to the surface. b) Use the pull system to avoid overproduction. c) Level out the workload (heijunka). (Work like the tortoise, not the hare.) d) Build a culture of stopping to fix problems, to get quality right from the first. e) Standardized tasks are the foundation for continuous improvement and employee empowerment. f) Use visual control so no problems are hidden. g) Use only reliable, thoroughly tested technology that serves your people and processes. 5. Add value to the organization by developing your people and partners 1. Grow leaders who thoroughly understand the work, live the philosophy, and teach it to others. 2. Develop exceptional people and teams who follow your companys philosophy. 3. Respect your extended network of partners and suppliers by challenging them and helping them improve. 6. Continuously solving root problems drives organizational learning a) Go and see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation (Genchi Genbutsu) b) Make decisions slowly by consensus, thoroughly considering all options (Nemawashi); implement decisions rapidly; c) Become a learning organization through relentless reflection (Hansei)

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy: Sick Kid or Sick Parent?(4) Essay

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy: Sick Kid or Sick Parent?(4) In relating the details of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP), the initial reaction is usually shock, followed quickly by fascination. The reason for the latter is that the medical community has yet to make up their minds about what exactly MSBP is. The debate: psychiatric disorder v. child abuse. Essentially the arguments for both create a divide between the brain and behavior, though not relating the two. Munchausen Syndrome "is a condition manifest by persons feigning or inducing illness in themselves for no other apparent gain than adopting the sick role and thus exposing themselves to painful and sometimes damaging and disfiguring medical procedures (7)." The name of the syndrome originates from an eighteenth-century Baron, Hiernymous Karl Friedrich von Munchausen, who was a military mercenary widely known for regaling fantastical stories of exploits (6). While the Baron had no psychiatric condition or any further ties with the medical nature of the syndrome, as it is known today, his connection to the syndrome derives from the proven fabrication of all his tales. In 1977, the British journalist Roy Meadow first used the term "Munchausen By Proxy" in an article that named children as the primary victims of the syndrome. At the time, the literature revealed the natural mother of the child to be the perpetrator of induced and at times actual, illness (3). It is important to note that Meadow's intended to apply MSBP to the problem of child abuse and while it is still extensively classified as such in child abuse and medical journals, the boundaries of the syndrome have been stretched with increased prevalence. The popular view of MSBP remains that it is a for... ...l, external experience. Lack of medical data and psychological mapping of the perpetrator causes MSBP to continue and increase in frequency over time. The issue of the proxy further complicates the reality in questioning what is true and what ailments are genuine. Surveillance is the only answer offered right now, but I hope that there will soon be medical aid available for the perpetrators. References This paper reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for a course at Bryn Mawr College. Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" but rather to help others further develop their own explorations. Web links were active as of the time the paper was posted but are not updated. Contribute Thoughts | Search Serendip for Other Papers | Serendip Home Page http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/

Supercontinent

This paper will probe the theory that the continents of the Earth were originally a single supercontinent. It will describe the reasoning behind the theory, review the evidence that supposedly supports it, and present the reasoning for its rejection. It will also present an alternative view. It will explain the use of fossil records to link pieces of history, and why they may be one of the more significant methods used. The paper proposes that the theory of the supercontinent and the study of fossil records lack a confident conclusion to the geological history of the Earth and its present state, meriting the consideration of an alternative view. In 1912, a German meteorologist submitted the idea of the continental drift. His name was Alfred Wegener, and although he was not the first to explore this theory, his pursuit of the idea held more determination than any other did. 1 Wegener believed that the continents originally were attached in a single supercontinent he called Pangaea (â€Å"all land† or â€Å"all earth†). He also believed that the continent, surrounded by one global ocean, then broke apart and drifted to separate places on Earth. He reasoned that the process repeated itself over a period of time. A complete cycle from beginning to end could take approximately 300-600 million years. To support his theory, Wegener provided evidence, such as how the shapes of the continents appear to fit together like the pieces of a puzzle. He is also noted how mountain ranges continued between continents, and appear to link them together. Wegener also submitted evidence that fossils and rock matter found on different continents were very similar to each other. Most interestingly, were the instances in which plant and animal fossils were found on the coastlines of South America and Africa (If looking at a world map, it can be said that Africa‘s west coast and South America‘s east coast seem to fit together). To Wegner, this was the most compelling evidence that the two continents once were one. 2 Although all of Wegner’s evidence seemed to coincide, his theory lacked a crucial point: a valid explanation of what pushed the continents apart. Wegener reasoned that the continents plowed through the ocean floor. His peers immediately rejected this idea. Studies conducted years later aided in the development of the concept of plate tectonics, as well as the subsequent confirmation of continental-drift theory. As previously mentioned, fossil records were among the evidence used to support the continental-drift theory. They provide some evidence of when and how life began, what types of organisms existed and how long they lived. Fossils also tell what the climate was and how it changed, as well as provide clues to the Earth’s tectonic evolvement. With the study of fossil records, it is conceivable that when the continents separated and rejoined, that animals once known to one specific region, now traveled in and about the other continents. 3 The shifting of the continents caused climatic changes that influenced this migration; however, climatic change was not the sole reason. Animal migration is indicative of the fact that animals were adapting to their surroundings (the availability of food, water, etc. in a specific area). Fossils have had great historical influence. Much of what we know about history has come from the study of fossils. The idea of plate tectonics was significantly aided by the notion that fossils now found widely spaced across the globe had to exist on the same original landmass that subsequently split apart. The African fossil record is arguably the most significant source of evolutionary history. Its fragmented components may be scattered throughout the continent, but considerably an integral part of piecing together history. Even with its supporting evidence, there are notable flaws in the idea of the continental drift. The theory states that all continents were once part of a single supercontinent, but does not explain how the supercontinent itself formed. The Creationist view offers an answer. By account of the Bible, the creation of the supercontinent and the subsequent shifting of the continents are explained in Genesis: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth†¦God said, â€Å"Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Thus, God made the firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament from the waters that were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven†¦Then God said, â€Å"Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear†; and it was so†¦. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created†¦4 Genesis also tells us that God caused it to rain on the earth for forty days and nights. This event is recorded as the Great Flood. Arguably, the division of the firmament, in addition to the effects of the flood, caused the shifting of the continents. The Bible also states that during the flood God destroyed both man and cattle from the earth. Those on the ark were the only survivors. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that those human and animal remains would later be discovered fossilized deep within the earth. The continental-drift theory reasons that all continents formed from a single supercontinent. The use of fossil records has been used to support this theory. Initially rejected, other studies reportedly confirm the theory. However, upon closer inspection the theory raises more questions than answers. One is the question of the supercontinent itself. The theory tells us that subcontinents formed by the breaking apart of one supercontinent, but does not elaborate on how the supercontinent formed. Creationist suggests a different view. The idea of biblical creation tells us that God created the earth and then caused it to break and shift apart. Endnotes 1. John Reader, Africa: A biography of the Continent (New York: Vintage Books, 1999), 21. 2. NASA. â€Å"Evidence supporting Continental Drift†, 2003. http://kids. earth. nasa. gov/archive/pangaea/evidence. html. 3. Reader, 39. 4. The Holy Bible: New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc. , 1984), Genesis 1:1, 6-9, 2:4. Bibliography Answers. com. â€Å"Plate tectonics: definition and much more from answers. comâ€Å", 2008. ttp://answers. com/topic/plate-tectonic (accessed 8/4/2008). John Reader, Africa: A biography of the Continent (New York: Vintage Books, 1999). NASA. â€Å"Evidence supporting Continental Drift† Sharron Sample, 2003. http://kids. earth. nasa. gov/archive/pangaea/evidence. html. The Holy Bible: New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc. , 1984). Wikipedia. â€Å"Superc ontinent cycle† 2008. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/supercontinent_cycle Wisegeek. â€Å"What is the supercontinent cycle? † http://www. wisegeek. com/what-is-the-supercontinent-cycle. htm (accessed 8/4/2008)

Intertextuality in Academic Writing

Nothing in this world exists in isolation, and texts are no exception. Any piece of writing exists in context of all the other texts that were written before and will be written after. It may not have immediate connections to most of them, but it may be related to any of them. Some thinkers even support a rather postmodernist idea that all texts that ever were written and will be written are parts of one enormous, constantly growing text bloated with cross-references and allusions. This goes double for academic writing. A piece of fiction can, theoretically, exist separately – it still will be a subject of innumerable influences, it will repeat the motives present in other texts, it will use commonly accepted tropes, either consciously or subconsciously, but these connections are usually implicit (it is far too easy to be accused of plagiarism otherwise). Academic writing, however, can’t get away with it. It’s very nature presupposes that every piece of academic writing should be supported by the findings published in other works by other authors, that it should use methods established in accepted guidelines, that it should list all the sources of information in its bibliography. It is not optional – an academic writer that doesn’t use research done by other people isn’t treated seriously. Thus, any academic paper from the very beginning is created as a part of a much larger whole, and to a very real extent its worth is evaluated judging by how firmly it is attached to the body of existing research. When it comes to teaching and learning academic writing, understanding intertextuality means understanding the so-called discourse communities. That is, when a student learns the peculiarities of academic writing pertaining to a particular discipline, his or her main goal is to learn the discourses of the communities he or she is willing to join. As a result, student will inevitably try to reproduce already existing texts in his or her own works – not because of lack of something to say, but because it is the only way to learn how to produce texts that will be acceptable in the discourse community. As the student’s mastery of discourse grows, he or she will, ideally, become more and more capable of following its principles while using his or her own voice – but connection with pre-existing texts isn’t going anywhere. It simply becomes more subtle – instead of incorporating parts of other people’s works he or she will build upon them. Intertextuality can be even found in the voice of every particular student – as one tries to find one’s own voice, one will borrow from the discourses of community one tries to enter, but there are other discourses, implanted in what one brings with oneself. As a result, any writing workshop becomes an amalgamation of numerous discourses and cultures: some already accepted and normal in the said community, while others brought by the students to be incorporated in the larger whole. As a result, intertextuality as a principle permeates the entirety of academic world – from writing per se to the styles of particular writers.