Production model discourse and experiences from the Swedish automotive industry

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.

Integrating human factors into discrete event simulations of parallel flow strategies

“…The superior performance of the more parallelised flow is consistent with previous simulation studies (Sengupta and Jacobs 2004, Johnson 2005, Freiheit et al 2007, theory (Wild 1975(Wild , 1995, and empirical studies (Engstro¨m et al 1996b, Medbo 1999). Engstro¨m and colleagues have a considerable body of work discussing the design and operation of parallelised long-cycle production systems developed by Volvo (Engstro¨m and Medbo 1992, Engstro¨m et al 1995, 1996a,b, 1999, Medbo 1999, 2003b.…”

“…A critical element in the performance of these systems is the variability in cycle time attributed to each station. If a company underestimates cycle time variability in their model then they will greatly overestimate the output of serial line flows which are vulnerable to systems losses related to inter-station dependencies (Wild 1975, Engstro¨m et al 1996b, Neumann et al 2006. In our example the impact of cycle time variability was significant but not large, probably due to the beneficial effects of buffering (two places) between each six-station production area.…”

“…presence of a single variant had a similar minor effect on all three system flows tested here, we note that variant flexibility can be simpler in parallel flows as they are less susceptible to differences in assembly times that lead to balance losses in serial flows (Engstro¨m et al 1996b). …”

A comparative analysis of Lean practices and performance in the UK manufacturing and service sector firms

“…Hines, Holweg, and Rich (2004), Bendell (2005) and Shah and Ward (2007), while the other part has raised the question of whether the concept is clearly defined, e.g. Engström, Jonsson, and Medbo (1996), Lewis (2000) and Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park (2006). According to Shah, Chandrasekaran, and Linderman (2008), the Lean concept can be classified in the literature into three categories: a philosophy, a set of principles and bundles of practices.…”

Strategies of performance self-monitoring in automotive production

“…In the automotive industry, productivity is central to an organization's viability. Mass production is made possible with assembly line work, which involves division of tasks into small tasks and short work cycle times (Engströ m et al, 1996). In addition, automotive manufacturing is based on customization that, contrary to standardization, implies the production of a diversity of manufactured products to meet customers' specific needs (Liu et al, 2006), thus allowing for flexibility of production.…”