MOTORES PASO A PASO (PAP)

Sections

<*

The a lternative paradigm is summarised in the following proposition. It offers a dynamic approach to the changes in the market place, integrating control and improvement into a coherent framework.

Proposition

The revised paradigm of control replaces the maintenance of stability phase with a dynamic programme of strategically chosen incremental improvements. This becomes the core of the production manager's task, and it depends on increasing the skill and knowledge within production and the adoption of a proactive approach. The aim of the improvements is to support corporate competitiveness.

A diagrammatic representation of the revised paradigm was outlined in Figure I. Figure I ) below shows a development of the model, concentrating on the interface between good traditional practice and the application of the revised paradigm.

139 Figure 13 Part of the Framework of the Paradigm of the Control of Production

('continuous incremental improvement & control' condition! RANGE OF DIMENSIONS OF IMPROVEMENT

I

TRADITIONAL Tactical ■ »■ Strategic REVISED

P RACTICE Fragmented ■ - Integrated PARADIGM

* ~ Interm ittent ■ — Continuous

m

Stepped — w Incremental

Weak Good Initial Rapid Final Unending

Traditional traditional 'slow start' 'catch up' 'long grind' improvemen practice practice incremental incremental incremental

Area of overlap in performance

Advancing forms of the paradigm of control in production 6 .1 1 The Four Factors A ffec tin g the Form of Improvement

Figure 13 shows four dimensions of improvement. The right hand side shows the features found in the 'revised' paradigm, while the le ft hand side reflects the 'traditional' practices. Although discussed individually, the dimensions need to be considered as a whole, because of their interactive nature. It is evident that these dimensions can only provide a guideline between the 'traditional' and 'revised' paradigms. The c ritic a l test is whether a plant is satisfactorily pro­ gressing along all these dimensions towards the higher levels found in the 'revised' paradigm.

6.111 Tactical v. strategic improvements

The combination of Wheelwright (1981) and Schonberger (1982) provided the link between the control and improvement processes. Wheelwright linked individ­ ual 'improvements' and the corporate strategy, while Schonberger linked improve­ ment and variability. Both showed improvements in a number of Japanese plants stemmed from production; managers and workers. This contrasts strongly with the traditional approach in which improvements are s ta ff based and tend to concentrate on technological or procedural changes. As shown in sections 9 and

160

5, such changes are generally made without a manufacturing strategy, and fre­ quently lead to conflicts and fragmented development. Furthermore, the emph­ asis on tactical improvements to the organizational sub-systems tends to reinforce the development of sophisticated control systems. These controls in turn tend to reinforce conflicts between staff groups and to emphasise conflicting dimensions of performance.

As noted above, the revised paradigm contrasts sharply with the traditional approach. Production is expected to at least support, and if possible to create, a competitive advantage. This requires a strategic framework to guide the devel­ opment of the individual sub-systems within manufacturing.

6.112 Fragmented v. integrated improvements

I showed above that the emphasis on the control of resources led to fragment­ ation of efforts between various staff groups and between line and s ta ff. In the 'revised' paradigm emphasis is on the link between strategy and improvements and the proactive role of production management. The strategic emphasis ensures that investments in improvement are not wasted by unnecessary fragmentation or in piecemeal developments which detract from the c ritic a l OWC.

Not only does the traditional paradigm lead to a fragmented improvement process, it also leads to fragmentation o f the control systems. Although the production management team has a common role as the recipient o f the reports produced by s ta ff, it has little power to modify them or to integrate the diverse approaches of the powerful staff functions. The allocation of tasks between the various s ta ff reflects and amplifies the differences in their roles. Quality is looked at by quality control, delivery and plant utilisation by production control, labour efficiency by work study, while physical plant and processes are the concern of production engineering.

161

The revised paradigm seeks to overcome the conflicting aims of these staff functions and to provide a means of unifying the efforts to control and improve towards common and strategically important goals. The common denominator in this process is the line production manager.

6.113 Stepped v. incremental improvements

The literature and practice of the traditional paradigm include both incre­ mental and stepped improvements. However, the over-riding emphasis tends to rest on stepped improvements. Such an approach cannot w ith justice be termed Taylorian, as his contributions were typified by both stepped and incremental improvements. Indeed it can be argued that the techniques of work study, which form an important component of modern improvements, were initiated by Taylor. Nevertheless, Western practice in the post second world war period has strongly favoured strengthening the role of staff specialists who have in turn emphasised stepped improvements, such as introduction of new plant and equipment and / or new systems and procedures, rather than improving the use of existing systems etc. Although uncharted, there appears, at the same time, to have been a move away from work study, which was the chief staff agent for introducing small incremental changes on the shop floor.

6 .1 1* Interm ittent v. continuous improvements

Not only are we concerned with the size of the improvements, but also with their continuity of direction. Thus, the revised paradigm seeks a continuous flow of improvements which re-inforce the strategic objectives of the plant. This contrasts with the traditional paradigm, in which the improvement process frequently oscillates between periods of intense activity and periods of relative inactivity.

162

6.115 An evaluation of the cases studies using the four factors of improvement

I developed the sets of scales shown in Figure 16 below, for the four elements of the revised paradigm. I applied these to the case studies with the results shown below.

Figure 16 Classification of Characteristics of Plants CHARACTERISTICS OF PERFORMANCE CASES STATE OF CONTROL TA C TIC A L/ STRATEGIC COHERENCE FRAGMENTED/ INTEGRATED INTERMITTENT/ CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTS STEPPED/ INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS Brakes OOC 2 2 1 1 Kitchen OOC 1 2 1 1 Furniture Clutches O O C /IC 2 2 1 2 Pumps 1C 3 3 2 3 Ceramics 1C 3 3 3 3 Medical 1C 6 3 2 3 Food C A I

U

Using the evaluations shown above, it can be seen that none of the cases adequately adopted the revised paradigm. One case, food processing showed indications tha t it was on the borderline between the revised paradigm and an example of a well organised plant following a more traditional approach. I now consider the c rite ria underpinning the three phases shown in Figure 15 and establish the differences between them.

1 6 3