Ford and Toyota Case Study Essay

1. Which enlightens of management conception are illustrated in this case? When Ford was founded in 1903, Henry Ford followed the classical management thought process to a T (no pun intended) They made integrity railway elevator car in one color. The classical management thought believes there is one best elan to do things to accomplish a goal. Ford wanted to produce cars promptly to wreak with demands, so at that time the classical management thought made perfect sense. Another part of the classical management thought is that managers constantly look for ways to repair the process of doing things.Ford and so moved onto both quantitative and systems school of management though. They wanted to improve the ways they were using to design cars. Ford began using computers to help them much effectively achieve their goals of designing cars that would please their customers. Also, Ford wanted to meet and exceed any demands their customers may have thrown at them. This illustrates the systems school of management thought.Toyota demo the contingency school of management thought. By perusal Fords process and recognizing the need for and capability of improvement, they are existence creative, learning from the past, and accepting diverse opinions and methods for doing things.Finally, both Toyota and Ford clearly demonstrated the quality school of management thought. Both companies focus a mint of efforts on quality as it is perceived by customers. In place to keep their customers happy, the companies harkenen to what said customers want.2. Customers perception of quality includes performance, reliability, durability, serviceability, and aesthetics. What else do car customers want? Add to the perception of quality and create a list of the most-desired quality characteristics in a carAdding to what the book says is the perception of quality, car customers seem to want or are interested in accordant safety features, fuel economy, comfort, price, handling, e nvironmental impact, and possible maintenance costs.