Japanese Manufacturing Techniques and Personnel and Industrial Relations Practice in Britain: Evidence and Implications
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1989.tb00209.x |
| Author | Nick Oliver,Barry Wilkinson |
| Date | 01 March 1989 |
| Published date | 01 March 1989 |
British
Journal
of
Industrial
Relations
27:
1
March
1989
0007-1080
$3.00
Japanese Manufacturing Techniques
and Personnel and Industrial Relations
Practice
in
Britain:
Evidence
and
Implications
Nick Oliver
and
Barry
Wilkinson
*
INTRODUCTION
In the face
of
increasing international competitiveness many companies in
the
UK
have been reported as implementing ‘Japanese’ manufacturing and
working practices. The most publicised examples come from the motor
industry, for instance at Jaguar (Beasley, 1984, Egan, 1985, Isaac, 1984),
Lucas (Turnbull, 1986, Vliet, 1986), and Rover (Smith, 1988). The Ford
Motor Company went
so
far as to label its competitiveness programme of
the early 1980s the ‘After Japan’ campaign. The Japanese-style practices
which companies are adopting include approaches
to
manufacturing such as
total quality control and related techniques such as just-in-time (JIT)
production, quality circles and statistical process control (Schonberger,
1982, 1986), and working practices such as team-based organisation
of
production and flexible labour deployment. Although generally associated
with the major Japanese corporations, many of these practices are also used
by the so-called ‘excellent’ American companies. Described in works such as
Peters and Waterman’s (1982)
In Search
of
Excellence,
the practices
of
the
‘excellent’ companies are also serving as a model for many companies
striving to improve their competitive position. This paper explores the use of
these methods by two groups of manufacturing companies; Japanese-owned
companies operating in Britain, and Western manufacturing companies
listed in
The Times
1,000
index.
First, however, we shall briefly describe the
key practices involved in total quality control and just-in-time (JIT)
production.
The philosophy behind total quality control contains a number
of
elements. One central element concerns a conception
of
quality which
*Lecturers, Cardiff Business
School,
University
of
Wales
College
of
Cardiff.
74
places fitness for the customer’s purpose as the prime criterion for quality
(Feigenbaum,
1983).
A second element is the idea that quality is not
something which one can ‘inspect’ into a product but is rather something
which must be built-in in the first place, implying that sources of variation
must be eliminated at source via stringent in-process controls. Statistical
process control is one technique for realising this. Finally, quality control is
seen as a central management activity and therefore the responsibility
of
everyone
-
not just a specialist quality control department.
The goal of JIT production has been defined as ‘to produce instanteously,
with perfect quality and minimum waste’ (Bicheno,
1987).
This is typically
achieved by organising production in such a way
so
as to minimise
inventories and stocks and to encourage a sense of product ‘ownership’. In
line with the principles
of
total quality control, this usually involves vesting
responsibility and authority for activities such as inspection and routine
maintenance at the level
of
the work team. Flexible working practices and
multi-skilling are also usually found in JIT systems as important supports to
keeping responsiveness high and costs low. The JIT concept can also extend
to bought-in supplies; Monden
(1981)
reports how many of Toyota’s
suppliers make several deliveries per day to the company, often delivering
directly to work stations on the production lines.
The advantages
of
just-in-time production with regard to minimisation
of
costs and lead times and quality have been well documented (Parnaby,
1987,
Monden,
1983).
However, as has been argued elsewhere (Ramsey,
1985,
Oliver and Wilkinson,
1987; 1988),
such systems demand competence and
commitment
on
the part
of
key agents (such as employees, suppliers and
so
on)
and are inherently vulnerable to disruption, accidental
or
otherwise. In
Japan itself stable industrial relations and personnel practices which
encourage employee commitment and flexibility (such as single status, the
provision
of
staff-type benefits at all levels, high job security and enterprise
unionism) provide obvious supports to such a system. Dore
(1973)
and
Kendall
(1984)
argue that these and other practices function
to
create a
‘community
of
interests’ within the major corporations, arguably necessary
to support the manufacturing techniques. But what happens when Japanese
manufacturing methods such as JIT are introduced in Britain? Are
appropriate personnel and industrial relations systems introduced in
tandem?
It was with these questions in mind that two survey questionnaires were
constructed. The aims
of
the surveys were:
British
Journal
of
Industrial Relations
to explore the
status
of
a variety
of
Japanese-style practices among
manufacturing companies operating in Britain;
to identify
when
such practices were introduced;
to seek companies’
evaluation
of
their success with these practices;
(4)
to investigate whether manufacturing methods and personnel practices
were being introduced piecemeal
or
as a coherent package
of
business
strategies, and;
To continue reading
Request your trial