| Talking POM: Creating A Dialogue Between Three Different Approaches to Production and Operations Management |
| | Blackmon, Kathryn Lee | London Business School | kblackmon@lbs.ac.uk | +44-171-262-5050 |
| | Drejer, Anders | Aalborg U. | i9and@iprod.auc.dk | +45-9635-8080 |
| | Voss, Chris | London Business School | cvoss@lbs.ac.uk | +44-171-262-5050 |
| | The paper begins by highlighting the limited focus in studies of
production and operations management as a discipline, which have tended to
focus on researchers, journals, and institutions located in North America,
and thus to overlook the long-standing streams of research conducted
elsewhere. As examples of other approaches to production and operations
management, two research streams—in Scandinavia and in the United Kingdom —
are described. In analysing each of these streams and positioning them
versus North American research, the paper uses Chase’s (1980) three
dimensions along which POM research can be positioned: research strategy
(qualitative/quantitative), research orientation (integrative/reductionist),
and research emphasis (people/technology oriented). Scandinavian research
is characterised by its emphasis on managerial relevance and the use of
qualitative research strategies, a broad view of operations and a
contingency view, and an emphasis on human/organisational aspects of
operations. British research is characterised by field-based research
and international comparisons, the plant as the unit of analysis, and an
equal emphasis on human and technical aspects of operations. A synthesis
is offered that locates each on the "three-horned dilemma" for research.
Scandinavian research focuses primarily around realism, British research
around generalisability, and North American research around precision.
In concluding, opportunities for researchers in each tradition to learn
from the others are described, including mobility of researchers and
research networks. |
| | Keywords: Theory; Paradigms; Scandinavia |
| The Dynamic and Evolutionary Character of Organizational Models -- An Analysis of the Reflective and Toyota Production Systems as implemented at Volvo and Toyota |
| | Pil, Frits Kristiaan | U. of Pittsburgh | fritspil+@pitt.edu | 412 648 1612 |
| | Fujimoto, Takahiro | U. of Tokyo | fujimoto@e.u-tokyo.ac.jp | 81 3 3818 7082 |
| | Companies and other organizations are often used by researchers and practitioners as prototypes and exemplars of innovative production systems, organizational models, or "best practice." However, these organizations and the models they exemplify are inherently dynamic in nature and are subject to environmental and institutional influences, as well as more subtle evolutionary pressures.
We explore in-depth the nature of change in organizational models at prototype organizations through an analysis of the production practices and policies at Toyota and Volvo. These two companies have traditionally represented diametric opposites in discussions of manufacturing strategies. Toyota's structured approach to labor force organization, encompassed under the rubric of "lean production," has often been contrasted with Volvo's humanistic approach to work-force management, also known as "reflective production." The proponents of "lean production" have highlighted Toyota's superior productivity and quality, while the advocates of reflective production focus on its ability to attract, develop, and retain skilled workers capable of handling complex and varied production tasks. We examine the dynamic and sometimes overlapping nature of these two production systems, and in particular, the tendency of their vanguard companies to continuously adjust and adapt their practices and policies.
The developments at these companies are resulting in convergence in practices between these two historically distinct corporations. Understanding how the models evolve and change provides greater insight into how they operate, their limits, and the challenges that are associated with their imitation, implementation, and use.
|
| | Keywords: Organization Models; Template Organizations; Evolution |
| Plant Roles in the Management of Multinational Manufacturing Firms |
| | Brush, Thomas H. | Purdue U., West Lafayette | brusht@mgmt.purdue.edu | (765)-494-4441 |
| | Maritan, Catherine | State U. of New York, Buffalo | maritan@mgmt.purdue.edu | (765)-494-2188 |
| | Karnani, Aneel | U. of Michigan | AKarnani@aol.com | (313)-764-0276 |
| | The paper examines whether plants in a multinational manufacturing firm with different roles have different degrees of autonomy concerning production, planning and control decisions. The paper first tests whether there are differences in these decisions among the plant roles derived by Ferdows (1989). Extending Ferdows (1989), it empirically examines the proposition that the degree of managerial autonomy varies according to strategic role of the plant. We ask whether different plant roles require different management systems and different levels of responsibility for decisions? The findings are generally consistent with the suggestions of Ferdows (1989) with the exception that Lead plants have lower levels of autonomy over many planning related decisions. Further, it identifies whether the autonomy over decisions needs to be differentiated if plants with different roles were to be combined in the same network of plants. |
| | Keywords: plant roles; manufacturing strategy |