3.1 The trajectory for goal attainment – a descriptive model
The evolution of the ‘Reflective Production System’ followed a nonlinear trajectory over time. The initial goal of the planning group was to create a profitable factory. Whereby, the concrete goals were: high flexibility, high productivity and best quality, together with employee satisfaction. The goals remained the same during the entire planning process, as their attainment steadily improved. The planning process went more and more in the direc-
tion of a ‘competence intensive’ factory.
When the ‘Reflective Production System’ in the Uddevalla factory was de-
veloped, there was an interdependence between industry and research. Step by step the theoretical statements were tested in the factory. The stepwise development occurred, due to the strong resistance from many ‘traditional-
Thus, during the developmental process the theoretical and practical levels were closely linked to each other as theoretical statements were practically tested and worked out. For example, an educational workshop was started in the spring of 1986, even before the final decision to build the factory. In the educational workshop, the first 20 car builders were on Volvo’s pay-
roll. Together the researchers and some skilled workers from other Volvo factories, transformed the theoretical principles for technology and learn-
ing into the small educational work shop, where it was applied. This test showed that the principles were correct, even when confronted with real world conditions. It also showed that it was possible to learn how to build a car with long work cycles, when the materials were exposed in such a way that the assembly was facilitated. In fact, the car builders quickly learned how to build at least one quarter of a car. After some months many of them were able to build half a of car, some of them could build three quarters of a car and eventually there were some who could build the whole car alone. Therefore, this intensive competence growth proved to be achievable, when the new principles for learning and for grouping and exposing the materials were practised.
Using a descriptive model to give an overview of the creative planning process, the planning of the Uddevalla assembly plant can be seen as a trajec-
tory. The trajectory, shown in figure 1, moves from the first idea presented, where each one of about 700 persons performed individual work tasks of about two minutes long in duration. The final idea shows a factory where small, independent parallel teams, with about seven to ten members, as-
semble the whole car themselves. The time duration of the individual work tasks were now a couple of hours.
Below, the steps of the trajectory are described one by one. The steps show how the new production and learning principles were integrated in the thinking of the planning group. In the beginning, the ideas were simply beautiful words, which seemed to be unattainable goals, but in the end they were realized. It is clear that the development was slow when compared to a traditional planning process, but on the other hand, it was very creative and successful.
3.2 May 1985 – quite a traditional layout: ‘Not good enough’
In May of 1985, half a year after the initial meeting, the planning group had to present a layout for a complete automobile plant which include a body shop, a paint shop and an assembly shop. The group presented a sketch of a factory layout which emphasized the goals for the factory.
The assembly shop, however, remained quite traditional. For example, in this layout the product flow in the assembly shop was more or less similar to that in the Volvo Kalmar assembly plant. There were two minute work
Figure 1. Illustration of the trajectory describing the movements of the Volvo
trajectory (line V), during the planning process of the Uddevalla plant. The model has a time dimension and a dimension of production mode. The end points of the horizontal dimension is the idea of automatized assembly on a large scale on one hand and the idea of ‘craftmans like’ assembly on large scale, on the other. The position of the planning in January of 1988, is shown by the angle touching the line NOW: January, 1988. The trajectory shows clearly the steps in the planning process that are described in more detail in the text. The first layout for the Uddevalla plant would have meant that about 700 persons should have assembled each car together. The layout in January of 1988 meant that 8 persons made one car.
cycles in a serial flow, which were meant to be changed into a partly parallel flow later on. Whereby 700 persons together should have the competence to build a car with opportunities for the assemblers to learn about 10 work cycles, of approximately 20 minutes of work.
Many members in the planning group, among them the union representa-
tives, did not find this layout corresponding to the goals set up. It was im-
portant to reach an agreement, as one of the goals set up for the Uddevalla factory was that the planning process itself should improve the cooperation between the company and the unions. The unions refused to acknowledge this traditional layout as something better than existing other factories. The top management at Volvo were of the same opinion. This layout was rejected at a planning meeting. A new layout, in better accordance with the initial goals set up for the factory was sought. Furthermore, environmental pollution emissions had to be considered.
3.3 December 1985 – the start of something really new
Half a year later, in December of 1985, the planning group had worked out a new layout. The general ideas of smaller organizational units, parallel work stations and extended work cycles were integrated in the layout. According to this layout, the assembly plant should be divided into eight series-linked product shops. In each product shop one eigth of the car should be assembled, and each product shop was to be an independent unit in the organization. Within the eight product shops, the work stations were to be parallel. This meant that all assembly work performed in each product shop (i.e., one eigth of the car) should be done on one single station per car. See figure 2.
The car should stand still in a ‘dock-station’ during the assembly, with pairs of assemblers doing all assembly work at each parallel station. Not only assembly work should be performed in the product shops, but also, much of the materials handling. The materials handling should be performed on an-other floor of the building. The work tasks would thus become more varied. Whereby, each employee would be responsible not only for assembly, but also for materials handling related to the assembly task at hand. This meant that the work cycle for every assembler should increase to about 15–20 minutes on every car (6). Thus, this layout presented to the steering commitee in December of 1985, presented something really new.
The assembly plant was meant to be located in and upon the big shipyard dock. It would become very expensive to control the level of moisture in the ship yard dock. The planning group still did not recieve an answer from the authorities, concerning the negotiations regarding polluting emissions from the factory. These circumstances resulted in the steering commitee’s request for a less expensive layout: one which made use of pre-existing buildings on the ship yard land area, and did not use the dock.
<Figure 2, Page 45, Part I, Ellegård>
Figure 2. The second layout was something new (December, 1985). The
car should pass one work station in each one of eight seriesl inked product shops. On each of these stations (the stations within the product shop were parallel), all work was to be performed by a pair of car builders, who also were responsible for their own materials handling.
At the end of one year of planning an acceptable layout was not yet found. Negotiations regarding emissions also slowed the process. The result was an oportunity for a unique type of factory, previous unknown to the auto-
mobile industry.
3.4 Putting the assembly line into history
This opportunity was felt, ‘in the air’ by the project leader. He set up a small sub-group, with a couple of free-thinking technicians and one union representative. Together they produced a layout based on the two main ideas from the researchers.
One of them favoured parallel product flow and a materials handling ac-
cording to the flow. Which meant that the material to be handled were ‘car- related’ and not primarily related to a geographical area in the factory. The other idea focused on the human’s ability to learn huge work tasks when an overview of the production process and understanding of it as a whole are emphasized. This occurs when one has control over the working order and working pace, as well as finding meaning in the work. It had already been
<Figure 3, Page 46, Part I, Ellegård>
Figure 3. The shape of the Uddevalla plant at the final decision to start
building the plant. Six parallel product shops (no 1. to 6. in the figure), two test shops (no 7. and 8.) and one rust protection shop (no 9.), and one central shop for material handling.
theoretically shown that, the smallest content of a work task in car assembly that fills these criterias is approximately one quarter of a car. These were the basic starting points for the subgroup.
An important result from the subgroup work was that the small, independ-
ent organizational units, the product shops, were proposed not be linked in a serial flow. On the contrary they should be independent of each other. This meant that they should be parallel, and thus that whole cars should be built in each one of them. This was manifested by the location of the buildings, as one separate house was to be built for every product shop. This was a radical change compared to the earlier layouts put up by the planning group.
3.5 June 1986 – The buildings support the idea of parallel product shops
These ideas were identified by the rest of the planning group as interesting and progressive, and they were involved in the further development. One point, however made some persons anxious. That was the lack of opportu-
work. In the final layout given to the steering commitee in June of 1986, the independent product shops were placed corner to corner in two three-clover leaf configurations. See figure 3. In that way, it was possible, but expensive, to return from the highly parallel flow to a serial flow of a more traditional kind. All materials handling means, in a car factory relying on the principles of reflective production, preparation of individual sets of materials for each individual car. These were to be performed in an existing building from the ship yard era. This meant that there was a physical separation between material preparation and assembly.
Some months before the decision was made to build an assembly factory according to this layout, it was also decided that no body or paint shop should be built. The main reason was that there still was no answer from the authorities regarding the negotiations about the permitted level of pol-
lution emissions. Another reason was that the cost of the paint shop was very high.
3.6 The educational work shop – testing the theoretical statements
All creative efforts were now concentrated to plan an assembly plant well meeting the goals. The researchers in technology and educational science had already given their view of how to do this. Theoretically, it was shown that the time use for assemblying a car should be much shorter in a highly parallel product flow, than in a serial flow (7). Theoretically it was also shown that learning was facilitated (much more effective) if it contributed to the understanding of the car as a whole and which had meaning to the learner (8). The big question remained if these theoretical truths correspond to what would appear in the real world, when the principles were put into practice.
This question was answered when the educational workshop was started in spring of 1986. The first 20 carbuilders were deeply involved in planning and equipage of the educational workshop. Work methods were tried, as they learned the work content of at least one quarter of a cars assembly. Not one of these carbuilders had worked in the automobile industry before.
In the educational workshop the carbuilders then proved that it was pos-
sible to learn very quickly, how to assemble one quarter of a car, and to assemble it with high quality. There were two main reasons for this. The first, is that all materials to each individual car were placed in prepared sets on stands defined for that car only. The second, is that the materials on the stands were grouped and arranged in such a way that the assembly work was facilitated.
Some months later, all car builders mastered one quarter of a car, many of them half the car and others still had achieved three quarters of a car. Some time later, in the educational workshop, one or two car builders were able to build the whole car themselves.
When the decision was made to build an assembly plant in Uddevalla, the planning group knew that they would succeed if they kept the build-
ings, equipment and learning according to the principles. In June of 1986, the final decision to build the Uddevalla factory was made, after which no substantial changes were made in respect to buildings, but there were great changes in the product shop layout. This process was constantly fed with arguments based on experiences from the educational workshop. In it, new ideas and improvements were tried out. The competence to build a whole complete car was, step by step, geographically concentrated.
<Figure 4, Page 48, Part I, Ellegård>
Figure 4. Product flow through one of the six product shops (the other ones
were intended to be the same), the layout in June of 1986. Whole cars in product shop, one car is made by 80 persons. The four quarters of the car (I. Leads, II. Decor, III. Drive line and IV. Interior), define the content of the work in each team zone (that is in 1/4 of the product shop. Two teams constitute each team zone.
3.7 Whole cars in a product shop: one car is made by 80 persons
In each of the six parallel product shops whole cars should be built, ac-
cording to the layout presented in June of 1986. In each product shop, the total assembly work was divided into the four quarters of the car, and each
quarter was to be built in a separate area (9). The four separate areas were series linked and called ‘team-zones’. That meant that; one quarter of the product shop was equipped for assemblying the first quarter of the car, leads (electricity and water and other fluids), the next quarter for decor (ceiling, windows etc), the third quarter for the drive line (engine, gear etc) and the final quarter for the interior (chairs, steering wheel etc). See figure 4. These four areas in the product shop were labled ‘team-zones’, and there were two teams in each of them. This constituted approximately 80 employees in a product shop with four team zones.
The work stations within the separate series linked team-zones were par-
allel. A pair of workers did all the assembly (one quarter of a car) on one station and when they had finished their quarter they sent the car to the next team-zone, where the next quarter of the car was to be assembled. When the whole car was ready, it had passed through all four team-zones, and one work station within each team zone.
3.8 Whole cars in a team-zone: one car is made by about 20 persons
In January of 1987, the planning group realized that the production ar-
ranged according to the June 1986 plan, still gave only a limited overview of the assembly to the workers. They had no immediate feedback as to the consequenses of their work. Why not then, concentrate the assembly work and build the complete car in a team-zone, i.e., in one quarter of the product shop? None of the buildings were equipped as yet, so this change was not expensive. The planning group decided to follow the idea, and thus there were four parallel team zones in each product shop. In each team zone about 20 persons assembled the whole car. See figure 5. Their parallel work stations were equipped for each quarter of the car. The area in the building was a decisive restriction. However, when this layout was related to the produc-
tion volume required, it was clear that it would not meet the requirements of 40,000 cars per year, in one shift.
3.9 Whole cars in the team I:
One car is made by 8 persons on two work stations
Because of the restricted area, it was now necessary to use even less space to reach the production volume required. This could only be done by geo-
graphically concentrating work tasks even further. The results showed that a car should be built on two stations only, with half the car assembled at each station. The first three product shops in the Uddevalla factory were equipped according to this layout. See figure 6. When production ceased in 1993, the production pattern still was the same in these three product shops.
3.10 Ergonomic arguments for efficiency
If a work task is easily performed, it also can be effectively performed, though much can be related to mental efforts. Variations in the work tasks are good for the human body and mind. Such questions were dicussed in the planning group and the group pointed out that one central component in work is related to ergonomics. The planning group made great efforts to improve the ergonomics at work in the Uddevalla plant. Less repetitive work tasks (i.e., long work tasks of about two hours), is one result. When you repeat the same task only four times a day, your body does not get worn out as quickly as if you have to repeat the same task more than 200 times a day. Another effort was the development of hand machines adapted to the hand size of women (10).
<Figure 5, Page 50, Part I, Ellegård>