Lean Production and Beyond: the System, Its Critics and the Future

• Published date: 01 June 1993
• Date: 01 June 1993
• Author: Peter D. Wickens
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.1993.tb00324.x

LEAN PRODUCTION AND BEYOND

THE SYSTEM,

ITS

CRITICS

AND

THE FUTURE

Peter

D.

Wickens,

Nissan Motor Mnnufacturing

(UK)

Lfd

INTRODUCTION

In

1990

Womack, Jones and

Roos

published

The

Machine that Changed the World,

which

introduced the term lean production’ to

an

unprepared world

of

American and European

mass production automobile manufacturers.

As

with

all

such phenomena,

it

has been

criticised, particularly by those who argue that it ignores the adverse impact

of

lean

production on the workforce, and that lean production is really ‘mean’ production. Such

antagonists often believe that any capitalist organisation can only succeed by exploiting the

workforce. The purpose of this article

is,

therefore, to

put lean production into a historical context

describe some aspects of the system

examine some of the criticisms, mainly those by trade unionists

consider some of the problems of lean production in practice, and resulting changes that

are taking place in Japan

develop a constructive criticism of the concept and practice

begin to point the way forward

THE

HISTORICAL

CONTEXT

Wormack et al.

(1990:12-24)

place lean production as a further development

along

the path

which had

so

far come from

craft

production to mass production. They

see

craft

production,

in the early days of the automobile, as requiring a highly

skilled

workforce using simple but

flexible tools to produce highly variable products in low volume. Production

costs

were high

and did not drop with volume. Consistency and reliability were elusive.

It was Taylor who provided the foundation. His starting point was the waste

of

resources

involved. We can

see

and feel the waste of material things’ but

‘our

larger wastes of human

effort (resulting from the) awkward, inefficient and

ill

directed movements of men (are) less

visible, less tangible

...

and, but vaguely appreciated’ (Taylor,

1911).

His

principles of

scientific management separated planning from execution and

by

minutely analysing tasks

sought to identify the ‘one best method‘ which,

if

precisely followed, would achieve the

maximum quality and productivity. Taylor‘s first principle was

...

the deliberate gathering

in

on the part

of

those on the management‘s side

of

all

the

great

mass

of

traditional knowledge, which in the past

has

been

in

the heads

of

the workmen,

(which when) applied to the everyday work

of

all

the workmen

of

the establishment,

...

invariably result first

in

producing a very much larger output

per

man,

as well as an output

of

a better and higher quality;

and

second

in

enabling the company

to

pay much higher

wages to their workmen.

Many doubt if Henry Ford ever read Taylor.

His

great contributions were the complete and

consistent interchangeability of parts, the simplicity of attaching them to eackother and, in

1913

at Highland Park, Detroit, the introduction of the moving assembly line which brought

HUMAN

REWURCE

MANAGEMENT

JOURNAL

VOL

3

NO

4

75

PETER

D.

WICKENS

the car to the worker rather than have the worker move to the stationary vehicle. Labour was

finely divided

so

that the process was designed by the engineers, and other indirect functions

organised the material flow, cleaning, repair and quality control. The assemblers were not

paid to

think

or contribute, simply to undertake the repetitive task. Foremen became progress

chasers and disciplinarians.

Such an approach is not ancient history. In the

1970s

Benyon was able to quote a Ford

Halewood worker as saying,

It's

strange this place.

It's

got

no

good

points.

It's

just

convenient.

It's

got no interest. You

couldn't

take

the job home. There's nothing

to

take.

I

don't want promotion at

all,

I've not

got

that

approach

tothejob.I'mlikealotof people here.They'reallworking

here

butthey're

just

really

hanging

around waiting for

aomething

to

tum

up.

It's

different for them

in

the

office.They'reprtofFord's.

We'renot,we'rejustworkinghere.

We'renwnbem.

(1973:121)

Such an attitude is a

natural

result when a personnel officer could say, 'Anyone who puts an

intelligent man on the sort of job we've got here

is

asking for trouble'

(197390).

It

is

not

surprising that such a system led to an alienated workforce which indulged in confrontation

industrial relations. It

is

somewhat ironic, therefore, that some

of

the latter-day critics of lean

production hark back to the 'good old days' when 'at least we knew where we stood' and any

management communication with theworkforcehad tobethroughtheshopstewards. There

surely had to be a better way!

In

an attempt

to

find a better way, Taiichi

Ohno,

Toyota's chief production engineer,

together with Shigeo Shingo developed what came to

be

called the Toyota Production

System'.

This

is the basis

of

Womack et al.'s lean production.

Ohno

realised that labour was

just as much a fixed cost as capital and, indeed, could be an appreciating asset. He viewed

Detroit's mass production systems

as

generators of

mu&

(waste); waste of effort, material,

time and people. None of the

specialists

beyond the assembly worker actually added value

to the product and, what

is

more, a properly trained and motivated assembler knew more

about

his

job than anyone else.

The subsequent contributions of

Ohno

and Shingo

are

the very

stuff

of

contemporary

manufacturing:

the development of teams, with a team leader rather than a disaplinarian foreman; the

team having responsibility not only for production but

also

for housekeeping, tool

repair, maintenance and quality control

the setting aside of time to allow the team to suggest ways

of

improving the process, a

system which came

to

be

called quality circles

the introduction of kaizen (continuous improvement) whereby the team or individuals

seek continuous, small, incremental improvements in productivity and quality

the opportunities for workers to stop the process

if

a

problem could not be fixed

the development of problem solving methodologies, 'the five why's', whereby produc-

tion workers were required to trace errors back

to

their ultimate cause, then

fix

them

Inspired by the example of American supermarkets, which refilled the shelves after the

customer had selected the goods,

Ohno

developed a 'production pull' as opposed to 'supply

push' system of material supply. Just in time

@T)

is

not, however, simply about reducing

inventories; it

is

about the elimination of waste throughout the production process.

By

reducing virtually all stock and work in progress at every stage of the process,

Ohno

stretched

76

HUMAN

RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT JOURNAL VOL

3

NO

4