PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate a strategic change from parallel cell‐based assembly (old) to serial‐line assembly (new) in a Swedish company with special reference to how production system design elements affect both productivity and ergonomics.Design/methodology/approachMultiple methods, including records and video analysis, questionnaires, interviews, biomechanical modelling, and flow simulation were applied.FindingsThe new system, unlike the old, showed the emergence of system and balance losses as well as vulnerability to disturbances and difficulty handling all product variants. Nevertheless, the new system as realised partially overcame productivity barriers in the operation and management of the old system. The new system had impaired ergonomics due to decreased physical variation and increased repetitiveness with cycle times that were 6 per cent of previous thus increasing repetitiveness, and significantly reducing perceived influence over work. Workstations' uneven exposure to physical tasks such as nut running created a potential problem for workload management. The adoption of teamwork in the new system contributed to significantly increased co‐worker support – an ergonomic benefit.Practical implicationsDesign decisions made early in the development process affect both ergonomics and productivity in the resulting system. While the time pattern of physical loading appeared to be controlled by flow and work organisation elements, the amplitude of loading was determined more by workstation layout. Psychosocial conditions appear to be affected by a combination of system elements including layout, flow, and work organisation elements. Strategic use of parallelisation elements in assembly, perhaps in hybrid forms from configurations observed here, appears to be a viable design option for improved performance by reducing the fragility and ergonomic problems of assembly lines.Originality/valueThe interacting design elements examined here pose potential “levers” of control by which productivity and ergonomics could be jointly optimised for improved total system performance.

No abstract

This paper explores materials planning procedures to ensure the materials' availability during production transfers. The paper defines a production transfer as the preparation, physical transfer and start-up of relocated production. A structured procedure of materials planning during production transfer is developed based on theory, and then validated and refined based on the analysis of four case studies. The paper shows that there is a need for a structured procedure of materials planning during production transfers. It also explains the importance of activities that create prerequisites for the materials' availability during production transfer, such as updating and adapting documentation, planning and control systems, and describes the activities that ensure the materials' availability, such as preventive and corrective actions. A valid estimation of the time needed to reach a steady state and a combination of several preventive actions improves the ability to ensure that materials are available. The cases showed differences across company size, because large companies took more and farther-reaching preventive actions.

No abstract

Discusses production models for final assembly in the automotive industry and also reports on the performance of one final assembly plant representing an innovative production model, namely the Volvo Uddevalla plant. Briefly considers some issues and pitfalls in current production model discourse, and in this connection introduces a distinction between two manufacturing models and broader industrial models. Describes two manufacturing models for final assembly work as namely the “serial flow model” and the “parallel flow model”. Discusses the Japanese “lean production”, sometimes synonymous with “Toyotism”, as an industrial model and the impact of socio‐economic and socio‐cultural contexts on manufacturing models and industrial models. Concludes that the Uddevalla plant highlights the paradox that long cycle time work in parallel flow assembly systems is in fact more efficient than short cycle time work in serial flow systems, provided that suitable technical and administrative preconditions exist. Therefore, the engineering point of view and the Swedish experiences of innovative manufacturing systems should be carefully considered in the current production model discourse.