david@techonomics.se
A small ad on techonomics.se
The development of the industry (especially automotive) indicates that more and more companies try to imitate the Japanese model of production. Common names tend to be lean production, or in Swedish lean production. The basic idea is to eliminate waste through a variety of tools to reduce the inconvenience caused. Some of the principles is continuous improvement, reduce inventory, WIP and setup times, involve everyone, and design for manufacturing.
I am a member of a candidate group that has chosen to look at this phenomenon. The fact is that lean production often may not be the best model for manufacturing. Changes to lean production is unfortunately in some cases because everyone else does, and not to the production model may be most appropriate and results in higher productivity. Other reasons, as argued in eg Volvo's case, the multinational investor would have the same type of management system in all its factories.
The major cause of misunderstanding is perhaps the belief that lean production is only a changed way of performing their production, rather than an approach to working with the entire operation. It is rather that there is a unique all encompassing strategic approach (sometimes called lean enterprise) that has made Japanese companies so successful and not how they specifically put up their production.
Sweden had the 80's lead when it came to innovative new production models. The so-called Swedish model, was to organize work in parallel instead of the traditional series-driven pipeline. The influences were drawn from PG Gyllenhammar's book, "I believe in Sweden", in which he argues that the production model must change to Sweden to compete. In Sweden there is a knowledge within the industry that can and should be exploited. Autonomy and increased work content were factors that were emphasized. During the 80th century and later developed factories in Gyllenhammar spirit. The most advanced in the development was the factory in Uddevalla , where complete cars manufactured by the fitter types of dolls. The car moved only once in the dock and the cycle time was about. 90 minutes per car (8-10 fitters worked simultaneously with the car with rotating duties). Mr Gyllenhammar writes in an opinion piece for the DN ("Worse Swedish work environment threaten its future," http://www.dn.se/ ... , 2006-01-29)
Now switch Swedish industries about. Previously offered comprehensive work. Today rule monotony. In the auto plants, the short operations that are repeated over and over again. Work contents of the assembly workshops are back at 1960's level. If we want to give the Swedish industrial production and hope for the future requires that we think about and create jobs that suit today's people.
Research has shown that the Swedish model of production is more efficient than the traditional assembly line (the same band also used by the Japanese in lean production and thus is an example). Firstly,
Volvo's assembly line in Torslanda
productivity is higher (only 21% compared with 42% losses for the pipeline). Secondly, the greater flexibility of the system (the possibility for change in the product). Third, the individual is better able to control their work and vary the pace with today's natural rhythm, the number of defects in quality are also usually cut in half. For effiktivitet (number of cars per person per day), this dimension is comparable.
The above reusltat have been produced since, among other Torslanda and Uddevalla at any one time produced comparable models. Today, it is very difficult to conduct studies like the ones I recently read about, because the Swedish model has been abandoned. The subject is nevertheless very interesting and in many ways peculiar. Thus, there are opportunities for good questions and answers!
Loading ...
Good written, David.
It seems extremely difficult to do a comparison. The comparison limp to be such have different personnel in different production environments. To equate productivity with the maximum losses (balancing losses, system losses ...) I think neither is given, but I know that the efficiency, after all, has been shown to be higher (but then compared the other figures, not losses).
Then have the best of my reading never optimized non-traditional production systems, roofs have always been at what similar line assembly is able to mount and after it has been allowed to go home and not been able to demonstrate the full potential.
The conclusion one can draw from that I think is very interesting ... Sweden is not better than any other country in the production system, we will not be able to compete with China, Poland, Taiwan and other countries with lower wages! There will no longer exist manufacturing in Sweden. To win, you dare!
And that Sweden would only compete in the knowledge is not realistic. The majority (yes, even the lion's share) of the Swedish population do not know what China, India and the Russian president called. Frederick Härén has held a presentation on Knowledge Day, VERY worth seeing. (Although a little outside the post's original area):
PART 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0jDJ-wsMYI
PART 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohHNONAbheE
To begin with, I comment on your comment. You're probably quite right. Was today on defense where they told me that there are 60 cars per hour at Volvo, the 70-80 century, the figure was 70 per day. There has thus been an incredible rationalization from the days when the "Swedish model" was hot. So it is very hard to justify it somehow eat better on a line-production. Especially when you consider the other theory of the subject and places in the automotive industry in product-process matrix.
Indeed, perhaps the clips were slightly off this topic (apart from that they deal with the importance of Sweden do not try to imitate others, otherwise we will surely lose to China and India), but they were still terribly worth seeing.
I do not know about Sweden and I, as a prospective engineer has no direct property that justifies to 10-100 times higher salaries compared with the same skills overseas. If it is so today, it is perhaps likely that it will go in another direction. Big issues ...
Not to forget the "Swedish model". Flexibility is claimed were higher, much higher. Running-in period and learning curve shorter. You can quickly switch to new products, they say. One obstacle in the 70 80s to move to working with long cycle times and great responsibility was material supply. It was solved by intelligent systems such as palletizing / carriers / AGVs.
Continued development in such automotive industry with a high degree of automation and require costly and large tools, I think makes it difficult to go from the assembly line assembly of non-traditional system design. This allows me to have a dubious approach to flexibility that I still see as the main advantage of non-traditional systems.
Yes, there are many interesting aspects to look at the comparisons between the Swedish model and other production systems. It is as you say that flexibility is probably better for the Swedish model, but the thing is that in today's system does not know. Consequently, there is much to learn and many interesting questions to ask in a candidate's work. You just have to find issues with the appropriate scope that we can solve with the resources we have.
Reflections of this eludes the moment my mind.
There is a big reason why the alternative installation no longer exists, for lack of knowledge.