Introducing new manufacturing technology: Manpower problems and policies*

Abstract

Manufacturing industries face a new wave of modernization. Computer integrated manufacturing (CIM) can no longer be seen as only a ‘high tech’ experiment. Installing flexible manufacturing systems (FMS) becomes more and more an important strategy for improving productivity in batch production. The paper suggests that attention has to be paid not only to technological problems but also to an adequate manpower policy. Problems of work reorganization and labour savings have to be considered. For illustration the process of introducing a new developed FMS in a big West German metal manufacturing company is described and analysed. Because of the key role manpower still has to play in those highly complex systems, the focus is on the manpower approach regarding job design and work force structures. Experiences are quoted which suggest that – in order to ensure high flexibility, productivity, quality, and utilization times – a homogeneous job structure on a high level of skills might best fit computerized equipment.

Work organization in FMS: Two case descriptions

“…They are described along the following dimensions: technical design, work design, attitude of management, and implementation prerequisites. In order to discuss work organization in manufacturing systems, earlier research has found that technical design and work design are essential variables to describe [e.g., see Karlsson (1979), Schulz-Wild and Kohler (1985), Bengtsson and Berggren (1989)l. A more extended case study of FMS installations in Sweden (Borjesson and Tunalv, forthcoming) indicates that the attitude of management and implementation prerequisites, which also is argued by Schulz-Wild and Kohler (19851, impact on work organization.…”

“…The following functions are those that are primarily performed in installations in the Federal Republic of Germany (Fix-Sterz et al, 1987): programming testing and correcting programs responsibility for production in FMS process control pre-setting of tools loading of tools and tool magazines fixing/palletizing workbenches process monitoring maintenance minor repair quality control and inspection local planning and sequencing ordering material from previous unit How these tasks are distributed among operators in the FMS and personnel external to the FMS, determines the actual degree of division of labor. Schulz-Wild and Kohler (1985) postulate and FMS work organization model consisting of a traditional and an alternative work structure, based on different skills requirement and different tasks. These two structures are:…”

“…The analysis of the two FMS cases presented here is based on Schulz-Wild and Kohler's (1985) distinction between two basic types of work organization. They argue that important differences in the structure of work organization are deter-mined by management's assumptions of optimal level of division of labor, optimal work organization, and optimal level of skill requirements, rather than by differences in production technology.…”

“…The two cases described herein represent the two basic types of work organization described by Schulz-Wild & Kohler (1985). In this section the two cases will be analyzed with regard to differences in technical design, work design, managements' attitude, and implementation process.…”

Workers' assessments of three flexible manufacturing systems

“…With their high levels of automation and task interdependence, FMSs are particularly interesting contexts in which to study the theoretical issues of work organization and effectiveness. To date, only one in-depth study of workers on an FMS installation has been reported (Blumberg and Gerwin, 1984, also reported in Blumberg andAlber, 1982, andCummings andBlumberg, 1987; there are several other studies of FMS work organization, but they are not as systematic as the Blumberg et al study: Ebel, 1985;Jaikumar, 1986;Jones, 1985;Jones and Scott, 1986;Graham and Rosenthal, 1985;Kohler and Schultz-Wild, 1985;Schultz-Wild and Kohler, 1985;Seppala, Tuominen and Koskinen, 1986;Toikka, 1986). The study by Blumberg and his colleagues has received considerable attention since it revealed two disturbing results.…”