The internal dependency relationship in “Japanized” organizations. Experiences of a UK automotive component company
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425459810228351 |
| Date | 01 June 1998 |
| Pages | 303-318 |
| Published date | 01 June 1998 |
| Author | Máire Kerrin |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
The dependency
relationship in
“Japanized”
organizations
303
The internal dependency
relationship in “Japanized”
organizations
Experiences of a UK automotive
component company
Máire Kerrin
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Introduction
Interest in the “Japanization” debate has focused on the effect that these new
manufacturing initiatives will have on the design of jobs (Jackson et al., 1993;
Wall and Jackson, 1995; Womack et al., 1990). One of the key questions in the
“Japanization” debate has been to what extent will the introduction of new
production practices such as just-in-time (JIT) lead to work intensification and
de-skilling (Delbridge et al., 1992; Parker and Slaughter, 1988; Turnbull, 1988),
or alternatively provide opportunities for skill development (Abernathy et al.,
1981). In addition, articles carried in this journal have questioned the extent to
which these production practices are accompanied by a specific set of model HR
practices (Winfield, 1994). This article, rather than focusing on these wider
issues, provides a descriptive account of the impact of new production methods
on a major automotive component supplier and the consequences for the
internal dependency relationship (Oliver and Wilkinson, 1992). The case study
examples illustrate the nature of the internal dependency relationship under the
new production methods and attempts to assess how this internal dependency
relationship interacts with increasing levels of devolved responsibility; problem
solving and continuous improvement (CI) at source, and the use of increased
information at shop floor level. Implications for future management of these
dependencies are examined.
Just-in-time (JIT), devolving responsibility and increased information
The new production methods incorporating just-in-time (JIT) production are
widely agreed to have originated from the Toyota production system (Harrison,
1994; Monden, 1983; Toyoda, 1987). As Harrison (1994) points out, JIT is not
simply about delivering materials to the production line “just-in-time”:
In fact, JIT plays a much wider role in New Wave Manufacturing strategies. Many companies
prefer to use alternatives like “world class manufacturing” or “Lean production” methods
(p. 175).
The Toyota principles embodied in the generic form of JIT are argued to have
been widely diffused in Japan and throughout the industrialized world (Oliver Employee Relations,
Vol. 20 No. 3, 1998, pp. 303-318,
© MCBUniversity Press, 0142-5455
Employee
Relations
20,3
304
and Wilkinson, 1992; Schonberger, 1986; Voss and Robinson, 1987; Womack et
al., 1990), although there is considerable debate to the extent and limits of
emulation (Ackroyd et al., 1988; Delbridge et al., 1992; Kenney and Florida, 1993;
Procter, 1995; Turnbull, 1986, 1988).
JIT involves the removal of buffer stocks both between work units within the
organization and between suppliers, reducing the need for large capital
investments in machinery and identifying underlying problems leading to a
heightened need for daily problem solving and improvement activities. Small
product quantities move between work stations without inventory buffers and
under this system, workers are able to stop the line when quality problems are
encountered (Schonberger, 1986). All work stations under a JIT system will face
a demanding set of internal “clients”, namely the downstream work stations,
building on the message that “the next process is the customer” (Ishikawa, 1985,
p. 107). These stations require an uninterrupted supply of high quality parts
arriving “just-in-time”. The effect of meeting these internal “client” needs is the
production of high quality products that meet the expectations of the external
customers. As these systems rely on slack resources, mechanisms which
address problems immediately, and at source, before they have a chance to go
further through the system, are vital. This prevents waste and scrap levels from
becoming unmanageable and is necessary for just-in-time (JIT) systems which
carry no buffer stocks. The “internal customer” aims to highlight problems
immediately, so that improvement activities can be carried out.
There would appear to be many implications for employees with the
introduction of JIT and the internal customer system. First, employees must act
immediately on problems when they see them before they get too far into the
system. Devolving responsibility for problem solving and inspecting quality at
source is one way in which organizations have aimed to combine the
involvement of employees in problem solving and quality control, supposedly
utilizing the untapped potential of many of the workers. Accountability derived
from the internal customer process and devolved responsibility can give control
to those most likely to cause the problem, and to those in the best position to
solve it. However, there is a debate surrounding the extent to which the
devolved responsibility in a JIT system actually provides more control over
work for workers and responsible autonomy (Friedman, 1977), or rather
provides a further management tool for work intensification and surveillance
(Delbridge et al., 1992; Garrahan and Stewart, 1992).
Devolved responsibility and problem solving activity is aided by the
distribution and use of increased information about production process targets
which help identify where the variation and problems are occurring (Conti and
Warner, 1992; Womack et al., 1990). Again, while some have seen this use of
information as increased surveillance, and contributing to management-by-
stress (Parker and Slaughter, 1988), others have suggested that this information
is the key to success (Womack et al., 1990). It is also argued that operators are
only given additional responsibilities within the context of tight production
controls and constant monitoring of targets. Sayer (1986) argues that it is not a
To continue reading
Request your trial