Strategic human resource management of Japanese ...
|Strategic human resource management of Japanese multinationals - A case study of Japanese multinational companies in the UK |
|Dipak R. Basu, Victoria Miroshnik. The Journal of Management Development. Bradford: 1999. Vol. 18, Iss. 9; pg. 714 |
| » |
|Jump to full text [pic] |
| |
[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic]
|Subjects: |[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic]Studies, Human resource management, Management development, Multinational corporations |
|Classification Codes |9130 Experimental/theoretical, 6200 Training & development, 9175 Western Europe, 9179 Asia & the Pacific, 9510 Multinational corporations |
|Locations: |United Kingdom, UK, Japan |
|Author(s): |Dipak R. Basu, Victoria Miroshnik |
|Article types: |Feature |
|Publication title: |The Journal of Management Development. Bradford: 1999. Vol. 18, Iss. 9; pg. 714 |
|Source Type: |Periodical |
|ISSN/ISBN: |02621711 |
|ProQuest document ID: |116353684 |
|Text Word Count |5737 |
|Article URL: |
| |clntid=31317 |
[pic]
| More Like This »Show Options for finding similar articles |
[pic]
|Abstract (Article Summary) |
|This study analyses the human resources management system in Japanese automobile companies, Toyota and Nissan, in their overseas |
|production plants in the UK and analyses differences between their original human resources management system in Japan and in their |
|foreign operations. It found that these companies, as far as their internal operations are concerned, have tried to implement their |
|original practices in spite of cultural differences. However, in the case of production management system they are not completely |
|successful because of organisational differences in their foreign locations. The paper analyzes the effects of these novel practices |
|on the industrial scene in the UK in general. |
[pic]
|Full Text (5737 words) |
|Copyright MCB UP Limited (MCB) 1999 |
| |
|Dipak R. Basu: Nagasaki University, Japan |
|Victoria Miroshnik: Nagasaki University, Japan |
|Japanese manufacturing organisations have made a lot of inroads in overseas production bases. The successes of their enterprises have|
|raised interests on the system of production and organisation peculiar to the Japanese business firms (Wickens, 1987; Suzaki, 1987). |
|Particularly that is true about the automobile production sector where non-Japanese firms are adopting Japanese methods of management|
|in a number of countries in order to compete effectively against Japanese firms (Womack et al., 1990; Monden, 1983; Hayes, 1981; |
|Imai, 1986). Spread of this enthusiasm is basically due to the foreign production bases of some leading Japanese automobile |
|companies. In order to understand the strategic management issues regarding Japanese overseas affiliates we discuss here the |
|essential characteristics of the Japanese system of management (Hayes, 1981; Shingo, 1981, 1985). |
|Japanese system of management is a complete philosophy of organisation which can affect every part of the enterprise. There are three|
|basic ingredients: lean production system, total quality management and human resources managements (Ohno, 1978; Nohara, 1985). These|
|three ingredients are interlinked in order to produce total effect on the management of Japanese enterprises. Because Japanese |
|overseas affiliates are part of the family of the parent company, their strategic managements are part of the management strategy of |
|the parent company (Shimada, 1993; Abo, 1994; Morita, 1992). |
|The basic idea of the lean production system is described in Table I. The fundamental principles are described at the bottom of Table|
|I. At all levels the fundamental idea is "humanware" (Shimada, 1993) which is described in Figure 1. "Humanware" is defined as the |
|integration and interdependence of machinery and human relations and a concept to differentiate between different types of production|
|systems. |
|The purpose of this paper is to analyse management styles in Japanese automobile companies in their foreign locations and to examine |
|how far they maintain their original management styles in foreign locations. A number of studies have indicated that management |
|styles depend on the types of organisations and their strategic ambitions (Blyton and Turnbull, 1994; Purcell, 1987; Edwards, 1995; |
|Purcell and Ahlstrand, 1994; Goffee and Scase, 1995). In the existing studies of Japanese multinational companies no clear pictures |
|emerge. In a number of cases, particularly in USA cultural factors dominate over the global organisational plans (Florida and Kenney,|
|1991). Similar experiences are observed in the case of operations of American overseas companies (Kujawa,1979; Hofstede,1985; |
|Negandhi et al., 1985; Hofstede, 1993). We have analysed two Japanese multinational companies, Nissan and Toyota, in their British |
|operations with particular reference to their human resources management styles. |
|The method of analysis is basically interviews with the workers and managers of these two companies, Nissan and Toyota, in both |
|Britain and Japan. We have described in detail questionnaires we have used and the answers we have received. We have visited the |
|Sunderland plant of Nissan and the Barnaston plant of Toyota. In Japan we have visited the Sizuoka plant of Nissan and the Nagoya |
|plant of Toyota. We have interviewed 250 workers chosen randomly in each plant. For questions regarding management strategies, we |
|have interviewed vice-presidents, plant managers and directors of these companies in the UK. |
|Japanese management system: an overview |
|We discuss below some of the important features of the Japanese management system. |
|Continuous improvement |
|The constant strive for perfection (Kaizen in Japanese) is the overriding concept behind good management, in which the production |
|system is being constantly improved; perfection is the only goal. Involving everyone in the work of improvement is often accomplished|
|through quality circles. These are activities where operators gather in groups to come up with suggestions on possible improvements. |
|There are schemes for implementing suggestions, rewarding employees and feeding back information on the status of the suggestions. |
|Zero defects |
|In order to attain high productivity it is essential that all parts and products are fault-free from the very beginning. The goal is |
|to work with products that are fault-free through the continuous improvements of the manufacturing system. Thus zero defects denote |
|how a lean company works in order to attain quality. In a lean production system it is important to move towards a higher degree of |
|process control. Each process is controlled through knowledge gathered about the parameters of the process. Thus instead of |
|controlling the parts produced the process is kept under control. The idea is to prevent defects from occurring, through discovering |
|errors that can lead to defects. Lean production system uses "autonomous defect control" which is an inexpensive means of conducting |
|inspection of all units to ensure zero defects. Quality assurance is the responsibility of everyone. Identification of defective |
|parts is the responsibility of workers, who are allowed to stop the production line in the event that defective parts are found. |
|Responsibility for adjusting the defective parts is delegated to workers. As a consequence the number of personnel working in the |
|quality control department can be reduced; the size of the adjustment and repair areas can be reduced too. |
|Manufacturing tasks are organised into teams. This makes the workers more aware of the need to manufacture only fault-free parts. An |
|important reason for the improved awareness was that the physical contact between manufacturing stages allowed for better |
|communication. Largely through the use of teams, workers found it beneficial to have the responsibility for correction resting with |
|that part of the process where the error has been committed. Through the use of statistical process control, with tests after each |
|process, the company can get better control over their production processes. |
|Just-in-time |
|Accomplishing fault-free parts is a prerequisite to achieving just-in-time deliveries. The principle of just-in-time means each |
|process should be provided with the right part, in the right quantity at exactly the right point of time. The ultimate goal is that |
|every process should be provided with one part at a time, exactly when that part is needed. It is possible to have different levels |
|of just-in-time. First, there is the case when parts are moved between different processes in lots. Second, parts are differentiated |
|according to product variants. Third, there is sequential just-in-time. Here parts arrive with reference to the individual products |
|on the line. For example, car seats may arrive at the assembly line in the exact order in which they are needed. In general, the |
|higher the level of just-in-time a company can master the better. However, sequential just-in-time is not always needed. It will vary|
|depending on the nature of the products. When the products are standardized and relatively inexpensive it may not be too important to|
|achieve the highest level of just-in-time. |
|Pull instead of push |
|Scheduling of materials is closely related to the principle of just-in-time. It is useful to look at the relationship between forward|
|scheduling and backward request. Before starting to implement lean production in a company final assembly is made to customer order. |
|In all other stages of the manufacturing process productions are according to a forecast. Gradually the number of manufacturing |
|stages producing according to customer order has to be extended. Thus somewhere in the material flow is a point where pull meets |
|push. Behind this point, backward requests are used. Ahead of the point there is forward scheduling. This may create difficulties in |
|stock-outs or too large stocks at this pull-push point. This can be due to the difficulties in making correct forecasts (Karlsson and|
|Ahlstrom, 1996). |
|Multifunctional teams |
|The most important feature of the organisational set-up of the lean production system is the extensive use of multifunctional teams, |
|which are groups of workers able to perform many different works. The teams are organised along a cell-based production flow system. |
|Owing to the rotation of the tasks in a team, the increased flexibility reduces the vulnerability of the production system. The |
|number of job-classifications also declines. Workers have received training to perform a number of different tasks, such as |
|statistical process control, quality instruments, computers, set-up performances, maintenance etc. They also have to be trained in a |
|number of functional areas such as materials management, purchasing, maintenance and quality controls. The company has to rotate the |
|workers among tasks frequently. |
|Decentralised responsibilities |
|In the lean production system responsibilities are decentralised. There is no supervisory level in the hierarchy. The multifunctional|
|team is expected to perform supervisory tasks. This is done through the rotations of team leadership among workers. As a result the |
|number of hierarchical levels in the organisation can be reduced. The number of functional areas that are the responsibility of the |
|teams increases. People who are not required as a result of the reductions of requirements for indirect controls normally move to |
|other areas because in the Japanese system the company has no lay-off policy (Kumazawa and Yamada, 1989). |
|Vertical information system |
|In a multifunctional set-up it is vital to provide information in time and continuously in the production flow. Information can be of|
|two types: |
|(1) Strategic information about the overall performances and plans of the company. |
|(2) Operational information about performances of the teams, quality productivity, lead times and other factors in the production |
|process. |
|Operational information is more frequent than strategic information about market plans, production plans, process development plans |
|and financial performances. |
|Limits to lean |
|However, lean production system is not the only alternative to the traditional production system. There are: |
|(1) German style quality production model based on a highly skilled work consensus; |
|(2) systemic rationality model, which are common in the information technology firms; and |
|(3) the Swedish model of Volvo motor company, reflective production system, in which production teams have direct contact with the |
|customers (Cusumano, 1994; Redher, 1994; Sasaki, 1994; Sandberg, 1995; Nomura, 1993; Altmann, 1995; Jonsson, 1995). |
|Strategic managements of Japanese multinational companies overseas |
|Strategic management of a multinational company involves evaluations of its own domestic competitiveness and utilises these |
|experiences in a global setting. At the same time the company has to decide the configurations of its operations across the world, |
|i.e. where to locate which facility. Some detail analysis of two Japanese multinationals, Nissan and Toyota, and examinations of |
|basic characteristics of their operations and their style of management are presented below. |
|Nissan |
|Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd was established in 1984 as a part of the Nissan Japan's global investment strategies. The |
|production started in 1986. Nissan announced, in that year, plans to accelerate the UK manufacturing programme by increasing local |
|content to 60 per cent by 1988 and 80 per cent by 1991 with a plan to produce 100,000 units. By 1994 Nissan from its UK production |
|base has exported cars to 34 different world markets. By 1995 Nissan's total investment reached Pounds 1.25 billion in the UK and the|
|plant in the UK has produced one million cars and one million engines (Company Report, Nissan, 1998). |
|Employment in the UK plant has gone up from 470 in 1986 to 4,038 in 1995. Total production in 1995 reached 215,346. Out of that |
|161,215 were for export to other countries. Thus Nissan has successfully used the UK as its export base. At the same time it has |
|created a network of suppliers throughout Europe. |
|The philosophy of the company in the UK and the management system |
|According to the company profile "Nissan's Sunderland (UK) plant aims to build profitably the highest quality car sold in Europe to |
|achieve the maximum possible customer satisfaction and thus ensure the prosperity of the company and its staff". Company's management|
|style reflects that. |
|Organisational layout of production management system |
|Nissan plant in Sunderland, UK includes a car and component manufacturing facility, an engine machining and assembly plant, a |
|foundry, a plastics injection and blow-moulding plant and a service parts operation all on one site. Environmental considerations are|
|high in the list of priorities in the production system. The use of water based paints, increased volume of recycling activities and |
|the provision of a good operator environment are some of the elements. "Just-in-time" production systems are applied throughout |
|internally. Nissan does not build a large buffer stock of doors, bonnets, and boot lids, the total amount of stock in process time in|
|the body assembly plant is less than one hour. Production flow chart (Figure 2) reflects the optimum design set-up according to the |
|internal "kanban" system. In the "kanban" system each department of the production process should be located in a logical style so as|
|to provide a continuous flow of materials as demanded by the production process. The idea is not to have any inventory in each |
|department but to demand when required. The production management system and plant design must ensure that these demands can be met |
|immediately. Lay-out design of the plant is crucially important as most processes are automated , run by robotics. Optimum lay-out of|
|plants ensures that no robotic system would stay idle or run into each other. Each department puts up a notice outside if they need |
|some parts or components. This "notice" is then photographed by overhead cameras and the information gets transmitted to the central |
|material management centre who transmits this to the suppliers and to the parts manufacturers. In Japan, parts manufacturers are |
|located within a radius of five miles from the main plant, thus external "kanban" is feasible. In the UK, external "kanban" is not |
|possible, because parts manufacturers are located in different parts of the UK and far from the main plant. |
|Quality management |
|Total quality is a philosophy that runs through every aspect of the business, the way in which the plant is run and the way in which |
|the cars it produces are built. Quality is not something left to quality control staff. It is the responsibility of every single |
|person in the organisation. Everyone is made fully aware that they have a valuable and significant role to fulfil. Quality at |
|standards and targets are set in all areas and the plant's performance monitored against these. Results are regularly reviewed and |
|fed back to help improve individual processes. Parts quality is also constantly monitored using special test rigs backed by extensive|
|chemical and metallurgy laboratory facilities. The plant's own quality check process is supplemented at random by Nissan's world |
|auditors. |
|Human resources management system |
|The aim of the personnel management system in Nissan plant is to create "mutual trust and cooperation between all people within the |
|plant". It involves teamworking where the management encourages and values the contribution of individuals who are working together |
|towards a common objective and who continuously seek to improve every aspect of the business. It aims for flexibility in the sense of|
|expanding the role of all staff to the maximum extent possible and puts quality consciousness as the key responsibility above all. |
|The production system builds in quality rather than inspects and rectifies. These strict targets are assisted by the fact that the |
|company gives common terms and conditions of employment to all the staff. For example everyone is salaried; there are no time clocks;|
|the sickness benefit scheme, private medical insurance, performance appraisal system and canteen are the same for all. The company |
|believes that "high calibre", well-trained and motivated people are the key to success. Table II regarding the training shows the |
|importance the company attaches to both on-the-job and off-the-job training. |
|This emphasis on training has resulted in a sharp increase in productivity; the productivity level of the British workers which at |
|the beginning of the operation was very low is now comparable to the productivity level of Nissan in Japan. |
|Impact of Nissan on British industrial management |
|Although it is very strange that just one foreign company can significantly influence the way the host country will run their |
|industries, something of that nature has taken place in the UK due to Nissan and other Japanese manufacturing companies. |
|There are three main elements in the improved techniques introduced into UK manufacturing in the past ten years from 1986 to 1996: |
|(1) a commitment to "Kaizen" or continuous improvement; |
|(2) cooperative relationships between workers, managers and suppliers; |
|(3) emphasis on measuring all aspects of business, from serious faults to misplaced labels to identify precisely what needs |
|improvements. |
|Before the establishment of Japanese manufacturing bases in the UK, UK managers were reluctant to utilise these concepts because of |
|their fear that it may lead to serious industrial disturbances; also it is not in their psychology to put so much emphasis on |
|non-technical aspects. With the arrival of Japanese car-manufacturing companies like Nissan, Toyota and Honda it has become a |
|compulsion to introduce the Japanese style of management in the UK so as to increase the level of productivity to the Japanese level.|
|The Japanese effect was introduced through the suppliers of components to Nissan and other Japanese companies. Leading engineering |
|firms like GKN or small companies like Frederick Woolley of Birmingham got to accept the standard of quality of these products and |
|maintenance of supply line as part of their business deal with Nissan. Even UK competitors like Ford Motor Company were forced to |
|change in order to be competitive with the Japanese car manufacturers. |
|Ford has introduced a Japanese system of production-inventory system in collaboration with Mazda, another Japanese car market, in |
|their plants in the UK. The most significant change took place in Rover car plants which were in collaboration with Honda of Japan. |
|Honda has introduced both the Japanese management system and automated production system in Rover. |
|However, what is true about the big rival UK car manufacturers is not true about the smaller supplier of components. The UK has |
|achieved significant improvements in productivity and quality standard, but the networks of supply chains to the large manufacturers |
|are yet to accept the Japanese system fully. Nissan estimates that the number of suppliers meeting its top standard of 10 faults per |
|million parts delivered has risen from 16 out of 200 to about 50 in the past four years up to 1996. However, the same figure for |
|Japan is about 150. |
|The Japanese effect weakens with distance from source. Nissan has influenced small component suppliers such as Frederick Woolley who |
|supplies to Lucas who in turn supplies to Nissan. Lucas has influenced its own suppliers. However, Frederick Woolley has fewer than |
|100 faults per million parts; its own suppliers score 3,500 or more. The smaller companies further down the supply chain have little |
|direct contact with Japanese inspired method. |
|Some of the larger companies in the UK are having difficulties in accepting Japanese standards. Under Nissan's QCDDMI supplier |
|evaluation system, suppliers are rated for quality, cost, delivery, development of new products and management. Most suppliers accept|
|the first four, but dislike being rated on management. |
|Nissan's influence is not limited to the motor industry. Managers from all over the UK come to the Nissan plant. Government has |
|sponsored teams of experts to learn from Nissan, Toyota and Honda. |
|The significant effect of Japanese investment on UK industrial managements are in the drive for quality and a better relationship |
|between the managers and workforce. |
|Toyota |
|Toyota was established in Japan in 1937 and its first overseas production began in 1959 in Brazil. Expansion continued throughout the|
|1950s and 1970s with the spending of several overseas plants in Africa, South America, South East Asia and Australia. In 1985, a |
|joint venture company was established in the USA and its own vehicle plants were established in the USA and Canada (in 1988). Toyota |
|(UK) was established in 1989. Production in the UK plant started in 1992; current production is 100,000 units of vehicle with an |
|investment of Pounds 700 million. The engine plant has investment of Pounds 140 million or with the current production of 100,000 |
|units of engine. The target production capacity was recently raised to 200,000 units of vehicle with a further investment of Pounds |
|200 million. It is a relatively new plant. |
|Production and operation system |
|Toyota UK's aim is to satisfy the customer by providing the highest quality at lowest possible cost in a timely manner with the |
|shortest possible lead times. It has a complete manufacturing operation including press and weld, paint, plastics, assembly and |
|engine plus a comprehensive environmental control facility. Quality is built in at every stage and confirmed throughout the process. |
|In the "press and welding" section coils of steel are pressed out into "blanks", flat sheet shaped into the basic part in a pattern |
|which minimises waste steel. Operating to just-in-time production, blanks are cut as required by the press lines. When the press |
|lines require parts to be sent forward, order-details are entered on computers to ensure timely transfer by automatic guidance |
|vehicle (ABV) to the press machines, the largest of which is capable of exerting a pressure of 4,000 tonnes. The presses give each |
|part its third dimension using dies. Dies can be changed very quickly so stocks are kept to a minimum according to the Toyota |
|production system, saving time, money and space. We have to remember that the so-called Japanese style production-inventory systems, |
|which include just-in-time production, kanban system, total quality management, cell-based layout designs, were all invented in |
|Toyota plants in Japan during the early 1950s. |
|The completed body panels are welded together (90 per cent done by robots) into larger main sub-assemblies. These sub-assemblies are |
|then brought together by robot to form a complete body shell. Throughout the process, team members and technology work together to |
|build a high quality vehicle. |
|At each stage, the team members check the quality of the work before passing the vehicle on while a number of automated intelligent |
|systems interact to instruct and control the car building system. The car then needs to go through painting, plastic moulding of |
|instrument panels and engine assembly. Despite around 2,500 parts having to be fitted to each car, there are only two temporary parts|
|storage areas where a maximum of eight hours' stock is held. A manifest (printed document) is fitted to the car, containing details |
|of its specifications and providing visual control throughout the assembly process. The car then travels down the assembly line. |
|Throughout the process, each member is responsible for the quality of work they produce and pass on, so an audio cord adjacent to the|
|line enables each member to stop the production line if they have a concern. The cord is pulled once to call support from the team |
|leader; in many cases the problem is addressed quickly, the cord is pulled again by the team leader and the line continues never |
|having stopped. If the problem is a little more serious, the team leader will allow the line to stop until the concern is resolved. |
|Although quality is built in at every stage a complete functional and visual inspection is carried out before line-off to ensure |
|complete customer satisfaction. |
|Comparative management styles in Nissan and Toyota |
|In order to examine the characteristics of the supervisory style in Nissan we have taken the opinions of several people in the plant |
|at both shopfloor workers and higher management levels. The opinion expressed on the management style can be summarised as follows: |
|Appendix A describes the management style in Nissan (see Appendix 1 for Toyota's management style) which is very Japanese in nature; |
|it drives out class distinctions that exist in other industries in the UK, where the managerial staff and ordinary workers live |
|separate lives, with separate facilities. The equal opportunity for every employee is also a new feature in the UK's industrial |
|management policies. Table III shows that objectives of partner selection for Nissan (we could not get any response from Toyota for |
|this questionnaire) are on similarities of technologies and management practice and on the market entry. Political connection is |
|important as for a new and a foreign company it helps to establish smooth relationships in supply chains and distributions. In Table |
|IV we can see the causes of conflict for Nissan (we could not get any reply from Toyota for this questionnaire) with the suppliers |
|are due to different management practices. We have noticed that in Nissan although there is successful implementation of the internal|
|"just-in-time" production inventory management system, it is not so successful regarding the external suppliers of components and |
|distributors which are not yet used to the Japanese system. However, "personnel conflict" is not an important factor in the conflict.|
|In TableV (Appendix 2 for Toyota) we can see that traditional argument of the economist regarding foreign investment flows are not |
|valid. Exchange control or closeness of raw materials are not important, but developments of new market, geographical |
|diversifications and future protection of existing markets are important factors along with the government regional policies. Their |
|observations are against the accepted Western ideas on foreign investment which demand open foreign trade and no regional policies of|
|the host government. |
|For Toyota at every level there are Japanese managers shadowing their local counterparts. This is different from that in Nissan these|
|local people are all in command, Japanese managers are very few. There are no local partners for Toyota, unlike Nissan; there are |
|internal "just-in-time" production and inventory systems, but an external "kanban" system with the supplier is not yet developed (see|
|Table VI). This is due to the fact that suppliers in Europe have not yet integrated their production and management system to that of|
|Toyota. In the "case of internal management" the style is very similar to that of Nissan, with unified facilities and same job status|
|for all. |
|Toyota, just like Nissan in the UK, strives to achieve an organisation in which all employees can develop to their full potential. |
|Teamwork is an essential element of both companies' spending philosophy believing that a well coordinated group can accomplish far |
|more than the sum of individual effort. On the average about 100,000 man-days are spent on training prior to production start-up for |
|a particular model in both of these companies (Company Report, Toyota, 1998). Training is held in all locations throughout the world.|
|UK workers can go for training in Japan, the USA and Canada and the workers from Nissan and Toyota's foreign and Japanese |
|establishments can come to the UK for training. Before the start of production process for a particular model, on average a further |
|20,000 man-days have been spent on specific training courses off-the-job in both of these establishments (Company Report, Toyota, |
|1998). The costs and time spent on continuous on-the-job training are almost immeasurable. |
|Changes in Japanese system |
|Japanese companies no longer depend exclusively on the concept of lean production system. Owing to changes in the external economic |
|environments, collapse of the "bubble" economy of the late 1980s, rise in the exchange value of the yen which makes Japanese exports |
|too expensive, rising costs of labour in Japan have provoked changes in the management system of the Japanese companies (Katayama and|
|Bennett, 1996; Miyai, 1995; CJAWU, 1993). The main competitive pressure has been to expand market shares. The principal means of |
|achieving this has been through price competition. This in turn has reduced profits, thereby inviting cost reductions and increased |
|revenues. Cost reductions are associated with Kaizen, continuous improvements, which has stimulated further price competitions. |
|Increased revenues need increased sales volumes, new products and diversified products. That demands new investments, more indirect |
|labour, increasing break-even point and reductions of profits. During the "bubble" economy this continuous cycle was maintained. Now |
|larger sales volumes are difficult to achieve due to stagnant consumptions. There are also reduced opportunities for Japanese |
|companies to rely on exports as a means of compensating for lower domestic sales. |
|The production system is changing and gradually adopting a more flexible system with the following characteristics: |
|- Production system is more flexible in order to adapt itself to changes in demand; this will reduce costs of production. |
|- Achievement of lower fixed costs using fewer frequent changes in products and less replacement of equipment is being achieved. |
|- Technological solutions are being implemented in order to have flexibility in production system design on both downstream and |
|upstream products. |
|- Efforts are there to reduce work-in-progress and set-up times by grouping of parts and products into families. |
|- Standardised modules of established and reliable design are being incorporated into new products which allow greater mixing of |
|products. |
|- Mixing of productions is there in order to allow a variety of products to be manufactured without large inventories. |
|- There are extensive usages of Kaizen activities and TQM (total quality management) and TPM (total productive maintenance). |
|Conclusion |
|We can see that Japanese companies in the UK have tried to maintain their own management styles despite cultural differences and have|
|succeeded in many ways not only in their own plants but have influenced a number of UK companies associated with their operations. |
|Although the basic features of Japanese style management system (i.e. just-in-time production system) cannot be transplanted in the |
|UK in the same way that it was implemented in Japan, both Nissan and Toyota have successfully implemented this system internally in |
|their plant management system as far as the relationships between workers-managers are concerned, which is extremely important in a |
|class dominated society like the UK. |
|Currently when the yen has depreciated to levels somewhat below its recent peak, prospective economic trends in the USA and Europe |
|are uncertain. The environments for exports from Japan remain severe. Japan is yet to recover from its recessions since 1991 although|
|a gradual recovery is expected. However, a large increase in domestic demand for all these producers discussed is hard to predict. |
|Thus competition for market share will intensify in future. Against this background Japanese automobile companies are maintaining |
|their efforts to enhance the competitiveness of their products by bolstering R&D, augmenting efficiency of their manufacturing |
|system, strengthening their sales activities and further localising their overseas operations. |
|References |
|1. Abo,T. (Ed.) (1994), Hybrid Factory: The Japanese Production System in the United States, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. |
|2. Altmann, N. (1995), "Japanese work policy: opportunity, challenge or threat?", in Sandberg, A. (Ed.), Enriching Production - |
|Perspectives on Volvo's Uddevalla Plant as an Alternative to Lean Production, Avebury, Aldershot, pp. 367-81. |
|3. Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (1994), The Dynamics of Employee Relations, Macmillan Press, London. |
|4. CJAWU (Confederation of Japan Automobile Workers' Unions) (1993), Japanese Automobile Industry in the Future, JAW, Tokyo. |
|5. Company Report (1998), Nissan. |
|6. Company Report (1998), Toyota. |
|7. Cusumano, M.A. (1994), "The limits of 'lean"', Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp. 27-32. |
|8. Edwards, P. (1995), Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice in Britain, Blackwell, Oxford. |
|9. Florida, R. and Kenney, M. (1991), "Organisation vs culture: Japanese automotive transplants in the US", Industrial Relations |
|Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 181-96. |
|10. Hayes, R.H. (1981), "Why Japanese factories work", Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp.57-66. |
|11. Hofstede, G. (1985), "The interaction between national and organisational value system", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 22 |
|No. 3, pp. 347-57. |
|12. Hofstede, G. (1993), "Cultural constraints in management thoeries", Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 81-94. |
|13. Goffee, R. and Scase, R. (1995), Corporate Realities: The Dynamics of Large and Small Organisations, Routledge, London. |
|14. Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen: The Key to Japan's Competitive sucess, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. |
|15. Jonsson, D. (1995), "Lean production in the automobile industry: second thoughts", in Sandberg, A. (Ed.), Enriching Production - |
|Perspectives on Volvo's Uddevalla Plant as an Alternative to Lean Production, Avebury, Aldershot, pp. 367-81. |
|16. Karlsson, C. and Ahlstrom, P. (1996), "Assessing changes towards lean production", International Journal of Operations & |
|Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 25-39. |
|17. Katayama, H. and Bennet, D. (1996), "Lean production in a changing world: a Japanese perspective", International Journal of |
|Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 8-23. |
|18. Kujawa, D. (1979), "The labour relations of US multinationals abroad: comparative and prospective views", Labour and Society, |
|Vol. 4. |
|19. Kumazawa, M. and Yamada, J. (1989), "Jobs and skills under the lifelong Nenko employment practice", in Wood, S. (Ed.), The |
|Transformation of Work, Unwin Hyman, London. |
|20. Miyai, J. (1995), "The redesign of Japanese management systems and practices", APO Productivity Journal, Summer. |
|21. Monden, Y. (1983), Toyota Production System - Practical Approach to Production Management, Industrial Engineering and Management |
|Press, Atlanta, GA. |
|22. Morita, A. (1992), "A moment for Japanese management", Japan-Echo, Vol. 19 No. 2. |
|23. Negandhi, A.R., Eshghi, G.S. and Yuen, E.C. (1985), "The management practices of Japanese subsidiaries overseas", California |
|Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 93-105. |
|24. Nohara, H. (1985), "Technologies electroniques et gestion de la main-d'oeuvre dans l'industrie Japonaise", Revue d'Economie |
|Industrielle, Vol. 34 No. 4. |
|25. Nomura, M. (1993),The End of Toyotism - Recent Trend of a Japanese Automobile Company, Okai University, Okayama. |
|26. Ohno,T. (1978), Toyota Production System, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA. |
|27. Purcell, J. (1987), "Mapping management styles in employee relations", Journal of Management Styles, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 205-23. |
|28. Purcell, J. and Ahlstrand, B. (1994), Human Resource Management in the Multi-Divisional Firm, Oxford University Press, Oxford. |
|29. Redher, R. (1994), "Saturn, Uddevalla and the Japanese lean systems: paradoxical prototypes for the twenty-first century", |
|International Journal for Human Resource Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-31. |
|30. Sandberg, A. (1995), Enriching Production - Perspectives on Volvo's Uddevalla Plant as an Alternative to Lean Production, |
|Avebury, Aldershot. |
|31. Sasaki, S. (1994), "Struggle against Toyotism", Aichi Institute on Labour Problems,The Asian Pacific Trade Union Symposium,Tokyo.|
|32. Shimada, H. (1993), "Japanese management of auto-production in the United States; an overview of human technology in |
|international labour organization", Lean Production and Beyond, ILO, Geneva. |
|33. Shingo, S. (1981), A Study of the Toyota Production System from an Industrial Engineering Viewpoint, Productivity Press, |
|Cambridge, MA. |
|34. Shingo, S. (1985), A Revolution in Manufacturing: The SMED System, Productivity Press, Cambridge Press, MA. |
|35. Suzaki, K. (1987), The New Manufacturing Challenge, Free Press, New York, NY. |
|36. Wickens, P. (1987), The Road to Nissan, Macmillan Press, Basingstoke. |
|37. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Rees, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson Associates, New York, NY. |
|Appendix 1 |
|See Table A1. |
|Appendix 2 |
|See Table A2 |
|[Illustration] |
| |
|Caption: Table I.; Lean production system; Table II.; Training facilities in Nissan, UK, 1995; Table III.; Nissan: Objectives for |
|partner selection; Table IV.; Nissan: Causes of conflict with partners; Table V.; Nissan: Reasons for choosing the UK; Table VI.; |
|Toyota: Reasons for choosing the UK; Table AI.; Management style in Nissan; Table AIa.; Management style in Nissan; Table AII.; |
|Toyota management style; Table AIIb.; Toyota management style; Figure 1.; Japanese humanware model; Figure 2.; Production flow |
| |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
Related searches
- human resource management pdf download
- human resource management pdf book
- human resource management dessler pdf
- human resource management plan sample
- human resource management plan
- human resource management ppt
- human resource management books free download
- human resource management metrics
- why is human resource management important
- human resource management functions
- human resource management system
- strategic human resource development pdf