Lean and reflective production: the dynamic nature of production models

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.

[1]  Christian Berggren The Volvo Experience: Alternatives to Lean Production in the Swedish Auto Industry , 1993 .

[2]  Y. Sugimori,et al.  Toyota production system and Kanban system Materialization of just-in-time and respect-for-human system , 1977 .

[3]  Jeffrey K. Liker,et al.  The Toyota way : 14 management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer , 2004 .

[4]  P. Adler,et al.  Ergonomics, Employee Involvement, and the Toyota Production System: A Case Study of Nummi'S 1993 Model Introduction , 1997 .

[5]  Peter T. Ward,et al.  Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance , 2003 .

[6]  Thomas Malsch,et al.  NEW PRODUCTION CONCEPTS IN WEST GERMAN CAR PLANTS , 1984 .

[7]  藤本 隆宏,et al.  The evolution of a manufacturing system at Toyota , 1999 .

[8]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES, WHAT ARE THEY? , 2000 .

[9]  Paul S. Adler,et al.  Designed for Learning: A Tale of Two Auto Plants , 2007 .

[10]  Takahiro Fujimoto,et al.  Transforming Automobile Assembly , 1997 .

[11]  Matthias Holweg,et al.  Linking Product Variety to Order-Fulfillment Strategies , 2004, Interfaces.

[12]  J. Antonakis,et al.  Could lean production job design be intrinsically motivating? Contextual, configurational, and levels-of-analysis issues , 2006 .

[13]  James D. Westphal,et al.  Customization or Conformity? An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption , 1997 .

[14]  John Paul MacDuffie,et al.  From Fixed to Flexible: Automation and Work Organization Trends from the International Assembly Plant Study , 1997 .

[15]  Matthias Holweg,et al.  The Second Century: Reconnecting Customer and Value Chain through Build-to-Order Moving beyond Mass and Lean Production in the Auto Industry , 2005 .

[16]  Donald A. Dinero Training Within Industry , 2005 .

[17]  K. Ellegård The Development of a Reflective Production System Layout at Volvo’s Uddevalla Car Assembly Plant , 1997 .

[18]  W. E. Franklin Working with the Japanese , 1996 .

[19]  Anders Eriksson,et al.  Corporate ergonomics programme at Volvo Car Corporation. , 2003, Applied ergonomics.

[20]  John Paul MacDuffie,et al.  What makes transplants thrive: managing the transfer of “best practice” at Japanese auto plants in North America , 1999 .

[21]  Lars Medbo,et al.  Assembly work execution and materials kit functionality in parallel flow assembly systems , 2003 .

[22]  A. Niimi,et al.  Development of a new Vehicle Assembly Line at Toyota: Worker-oriented, Autonomous,new Assembly System , 1997 .

[23]  J. Barney,et al.  IS THE RESOURCE-BASED " VIEW " A USEFUL PERSPECTIVE FOR STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH ? , 2001 .

[24]  Christian Berggren,et al.  The Volvo Experience , 1992 .

[25]  S. Spear Learning to lead at Toyota. , 2004, Harvard business review.

[26]  B Sangster,et al.  Training within industry. , 1971, Occupational Health.

[27]  S. Spear,et al.  Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System , 1999 .

[28]  P. Adler,et al.  Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive , 1996 .

[29]  Tomas Engström,et al.  Some considerations relating to the reintroduction of assembly lines in the Swedish automotive industry , 2004 .

[30]  Joseph T. Mahoney,et al.  The Evolution of a Manufacturing System at Toyota , 1999 .

[31]  Jan W. Rivkin Imitation of Complex Strategies , 2000 .

[32]  Computer Staff,et al.  The Machine That Changed the World , 1992 .

[33]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[34]  James Rinehart,et al.  Just Another Car Factory , 1997 .

[35]  Geert Van Hootegem,et al.  The sustainability of teamwork under changing circumstances: The case of Volvo‐Ghent , 2004 .