Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Lean and reflective production: the dynamic nature of production models

2007; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 45; Issue: 16 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/00207540701223659

1366-588X

Frits K. Pil, Takahiro Fujimoto,

Product Development and Customization

Abstract Toyota and Volvo have traditionally been viewed as anchoring two extremes of production models that companies in the automotive and other manufacturing sectors draw upon. The "Toyota (Lean) Production System" drove superior organizational learning, innovation, and control with positive implications for customer-oriented outcomes. Volvo's "reflective production" model aimed to leverage and develop workers' unique abilities, leading to adaptability, motivation, satisfaction, and innovation at the individual and group levels, with positive benefits for employees. Through a longitudinal case study, we show that environmental pressures, in the form of increased international product market competition and labour market constraints, drove convergence across the two production systems as enacted at Volvo and Toyota, in organizational structure, work design, and to a lesser extent, technology. The result is an integration of the adaptability, motivation, and development of workers at the individual and group levels, with enhanced organizational capacity for responsiveness, variability reduction, and innovation at the organizational level. Understanding how production models evolve provides insight into their operation, their limitations, and the challenges that are associated with their study, imitation, implementation, and use. Keywords: ToyotaLabour market constraintsProduction model Acknowledgments This research was supported by the MIT International Motor Vehicle Program and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (grant #B2001-49). Notes †Uddevalla reopened in January 1995 under a joint venture between Volvo and Tom Walkenshaw Racing. By spring of 1997 the plant was back in operation with 660 employees. In week 47 when we first visited after the re-opening, it produced 125 cars per week. The layout was similar to what it had been at closure, but teams no longer built up the whole vehicle. These were built up in two main phases, with a third stage for processes that were automated. Volvo eventually dropped TWR as a partner, and eliminated dock vehicle build in favour of an assembly line in 2002. Currently the plant is owned by a joint venture between Pininfarina and Volvo. †Some suggest that stationary build permits plants to handle greater variety than a traditional assembly line (Jonsson et al. Citation2004). This may be technically true, but variety places tremendous demands on worker skill development that may be hard to meet in stationary build. For example, when Uddevalla was building two different products in the late 1990s, we found that 20% of stations were only able to handle one product because of insufficient worker skill. Given the six months required for worker skill development, coupled with shorter product life cycles, this is a significant issue. †The Toyota Kyushu Miyata plant adopted this shift pattern from its inception. †It is not clear whether Toyota consciously imitated key aspects of Volvo's reflective production model. According to some executives we have spoken with, that has not been the case. Volvo, on the other hand, has been learning from TPS, even if sometimes indirectly through participation in industry benchmarking activities, and via its joint venture car manufacturing operation with Mitsubishi in the Netherlands. This experience dispelled many of its prejudices about the negative aspects of lean production.