Operational autonomy explains the value of group work in both lean and reflective production
Tóm tắt
Describes and compares two designs of work group: those which are based on the use of standard operating procedures, as found in lean production, and those based on decentralized in‐group solving of problems, as found in reflective production. Uses a Euro‐Japanese example of the former and a Swedish example of the latter. Concludes that both approaches result in an operational process that runs autonomously. The approaches should be used in different situations.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
1.Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D., The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson Associates, New York, NY, 1990.
2.Adler, P.S. and Cole, R.E., “Designed for learning: a tale of two autoplants”, Sloan Management Review, Spring 1993, pp. 85‐94.
3.Ellegård, K., Engström, T., Johansson, B., Johansson, M., Jonsson, D. and Medbo, L., “Reflective production in the final assembly of motor vehicles ‐ an emerging Swedish challenge”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 12 No. 7/8, 1992.
4.Berggren, C., “Nummi vs. Uddevalla”, Sloan Management Review, Winter 1994..
5.Benders, J. and de Leede, J., “Kaizen in The Netherlands; evidence from a case study”, paper presented at the 2nd International Euroma Conference on Management and New Production Systems, University of Twente, Enschede, 1995.
6.Yin, R.K., Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1984.
7.Trist, E.L. and Bamforth, K.W., “Some social and psychological consequences of the Longwall method of coal getting”, Human Relations, Vol. 3, 1951, p. 38.
8.Herbst, P.G., Autonomous Groups Functioning: An Exploration and Behaviour Theory and Measurement, Tavistock, London, 1962.
9.Cherns, A., “Principles of sociotechnical design revisited”, Human Relations, Vol. 40 No. 3, 1987.
10.de Sitter, L.U.et al., Het flexible bedrijf, Kluwer, Deventer, 1986.
11.Kuipers, H., “Zelforganisatie als ontwerpprincipe, sociotechnisch organisatieontwerp in vijftien stellingen”, Gedrag en Organisatie, Vol. 2 No. 4/5, 1989 (in Dutch).
12.Kuipers, H. and van Amelsvoort, P., Slagvaardig Organiseren, Inleiding in de sociotechniek als Integrale Ontwerpleer, Kluwer, Deventer, 1990 (in Dutch).
13.Morgan, G., Images of Organization, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1986.
14.Emery, F.E., “The next thirty years: concepts, methods and anticipation”, Human Relations, No. 20, 1967.
15.Ashby, W.R., Design for a Brain, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1952.
16.Herbst, P.G., Sociotechnical Design, Tavistock, London, 1974.
17.Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A., Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison‐Wesley, Reading, MA, 1978.
18.van Eijnatten, F.M., “The paradigm that changed the workplace”, Social Science for Social Action: Toward Organizational Renewal, ol. 4, The Swedish Center for Working life, Stockholm, 1993.
19.Janis, I.L., Victims of Groupthink, Houghton‐Mifflin, Boston, MA, 1972.
20.Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T., “From lean production to the lean enterprise”, Harvard Business Review, March‐April 1994, pp. 93‐103.
21.Galbraith, J., Designing Complex Organisations, Addison‐Wesley, Reading, MA, 1973.