DOCSLIB.ORG

The Toyota Way Model: an Alternative Framework for Lean Construction Shang Gao∗ and Sui Pheng Low

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Toyota Way Model: an Alternative Framework for Lean Construction Shang Gao∗ and Sui Pheng Low Total Quality Management, 2014 Vol. 25, No. 6, 664–682, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.820022 The Toyota Way model: an alternative framework for lean construction Shang Gao∗ and Sui Pheng Low Department of Building, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore As the success of lean production is widespread, both inside and outside the manufacturing industry, there have emerged a number of models of lean construction, which look into the possible implementation of the lean principles in the construction industry. While it is commonly accepted that lean production has its basis in the Toyota production system (TPS), the ‘Toyota Way’ has developed as something more than simply the TPS. This study examines the current implementation frameworks of lean construction and proposes an alternative framework for the construction industry based on the Toyota Way model. It is hoped that this ‘back to the basics’ approach can be used to bring greater clarity to lean construction by means of the Toyota Way model. The comprehensiveness of the Toyota Way model means that it can bring about multiple angles from which to look at the lean construction model for the construction industry. Keywords: Toyota Way model; lean construction; construction industry Introduction Today, lean production – a management philosophy which originated from the Toyota production system (TPS) – is widely applied outside of the manufacturing industry. For example, Dahlgaard, Pettersen, and Dahlgaard-Park (2011), among others, have discussed the development of lean and quality systems for healthcare organisations. The research undertaken by Alsmadi, Almani, and Jerisat (2012) found that the service sector has also embraced the concept of lean, and outperformed in soft lean practices compared with the manufacturing sector in the UK. In the construction industry, the term ‘lean con- struction’ has become an established theme, and is promoted as a means to achieve oper- ational improvement (i.e. quality and productivity) through elimination of waste and maximising value (Egan, 1998; Diekmann, Krewedl, Balonick, Stewart, & Won, 2004). However, a closer examination of the related literature shows that little agreement still exists on the definition of – as well as implementation framework of – lean construction (Green & May, 2005; Morris & Lancaster, 2006; Jørgensen & Emmitt, 2008; Mossman, 2009). As Green and May (2005) noted: Lean construction is variously understood as a set of techniques, a discourse, a “socio-tech- nical paradigm” or even a “cultural commodity” (p. 503). The objectives of this article are to provide an alternative framework to give to the lean construction research community better explanations based on the Toyota Way model. First, current frameworks or models of lean construction will be reviewed and synthesised. Topics derived from these models will be discussed, and missing elements that need to be addressed will be highlighted. Second, the Toyota Way model and its associated principles ∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] # 2013 Taylor & Francis Total Quality Management 665 will be reviewed, with the hope of learning lessons or ‘best practices’ to bridge the missing links lacking from the current lean construction models. The discussion of the alternative framework appears in Section 5, where its applicability and implications for the construc- tion quality are discussed. Literature review Development of lean production It is commonly acknowledged that lean production was pioneered by Toyota in what is known as the TPS. Holweg (2007) provides a rich account of the genealogy of lean pro- duction, in which a timeline of research on and dissemination of lean production was mapped. Lean has had an evolutionary journey similar to the path followed by total quality management (TQM) (Dahlgaard-Park, Chen, Jang, & Dahlgaard, 2013): both have travelled from the USA to Japan and from Japan to the West. In the view of Holweg (2007), before Krafcik (1988) coined the term ‘lean’, the TPS as developed by Taiichi Ohno, had long existed as a ‘secret weapon’ for improving operational efficiency. This came to be the first source available in English, until the paper written by Sugimori, Kusunoki, Cho, and Uchikawa (1977) was published. Prior to that, Ohno (1988) acknowl- edged that the just-in-time (JIT) concept was influenced by the American supermarket system. Lean later became a huge success and drew great attention when the International Motor Vehicle Programme (IMVP) published its findings (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990), which clearly showed that there was something special in terms of Japanese quality and efficiency (Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard-Park, 2006). Meanwhile, TPS has ‘evolved’ gradually into the Toyota Way. Efforts have been made by Liker (2004), who conceptualised the Toyota Way as a pyramid model, in which a set of principles are built in, at both shop floor level and firm level (see Figure 1). The literature has seen a sizable volume of lean production (and lean manufacturing) models emerged in more recent years. According to Dahlgaard-Park et al. (2013), in the Figure 1. The Toyota Way model (Source: Liker, 2004). 666 S. Gao and S.P. Low period 1987–2011, articles published in the area of JIT/TPS/lean outnumber those on TQM. Basically, these frameworks of lean can be categorised into two broader themes, namely ‘design/conceptual’ frameworks and ‘implementation’ frameworks. Yusof and Aspinwall (2000) compared the differences between conceptual framework and implementation framework in the context of TQM. In a similar vein, the former (concep- tual framework) discusses the contents of lean production, i.e. what the elements of lean production are (Koskela, 1992, 2000; Karlsson & A˚ hlstro¨m, 1996; Shah & Ward, 2007), whereas the latter deals with frameworks that can provide a discussion on how to implement lean production, including what the sequence of activities should be and so on (A˚ hlstro¨m & Karlsson, 2000). Furthermore, several authors have examined the frameworks of lean production. For example, approximately 30 frameworks for lean production were examined by Anand and Kodali (2010) in terms of their comprehensiveness, abstractness, and degree of fit to an organisation. The results showed that a majority of the examined frameworks lacked a high degree of comprehensiveness, whereas many showed high and medium degrees of abstractness. In short, all these features are attributed to an improper under- standing of lean production. Earlier, another comparative study was performed by Paez et al. (2004) with less selected lean production frameworks. In their study, each framework was assessed with respect to its human and technological aspects. The finding implied that most frameworks did not equally take into account of both lean tools on the shop floor and the development of the workforce. Lean construction Over the last few decades, in order to introduce aspects of lean production into construc- tion projects, various research efforts have been undertaken. Although lean construction is still in its infancy, a set of practices have been proposed, tested, and implemented (Paez, Salem, Solomon, & Genaidy, 2005; Jørgensen & Emmitt, 2008). In particular, Jørgensen and Emmitt (2008) noted that, ‘implementation and application’ have emerged as a domi- nant theme in lean construction, in which numerous projects and process performances connected to lean initiatives were reported. However, compared with lean production or TQM (Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard-Park, 2006), which has achieved a certain maturity, lean construction has been slow in opening to critical debate (Jørgensen & Emmitt, 2008). Jør- gensen and Emmitt (2008) also pointed out that, in the transition of the lean principles from production to construction, the process losses appear to be related mainly to the chal- lenges surrounding the application of the practices in a different context. This motivates the present research to evaluate existing frameworks of lean construction with a critical eye, and discover what is really missing. Implementation frameworks for lean construction In this section, various frameworks for lean construction are reviewed (see Table 1). Given that a full coverage of all frameworks would be impractical, only the most widely published and most relevant ones are presented. The parameters used for analysis are provided below: (1) Objective: this parameter helps to identify what is the drive that has led to the fra- mework being utilised by researchers or practitioners. (2) Topics covered: this represents the main issues addressed in each framework. (3) Research methods (if any): this identifies how the data collected – i.e. question- naires, interviews, or case study. Table 1. Comparison of lean construction models. Research Where No. Author(s) Model name Objectives Topics covered methodology applied 1 Ballard Last planner To produce more reliable schedule † Four levels of scheduling: master plan, Case studies USA (2000) systemTM (LPS) phase plan, look-ahead plan, and weekly plan † Reliable matrix: percent plan complete † Daily huddle meeting: remove potential barriers 2 Diekmann Lean construction To assess the extent to which an † Elimination of waste Questionnaire and USA et al. wheel organisation conforms to lean † Standardisation case studies (2004) ideals † Culture/people † Customer focus † Continuous improvement Total Quality Management 3 Green and Not mentioned To evaluate the existing model of † Model 1: waste elimination Industry-wide
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System
    www.hbrreprints.org The Toyota story has been intensively researched and Decoding the DNA of painstakingly documented, yet what really happens inside the Toyota Production the company remains a mystery. Here’s new insight into the unspoken rules that System give Toyota its competitive edge. by Steven Spear and H. Kent Bowen Included with this full-text Harvard Business Review article: 1 Article Summary The Idea in Brief—the core idea The Idea in Practice—putting the idea to work 2 Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System 12 Further Reading A list of related materials, with annotations to guide further exploration of the article’s ideas and applications Reprint 99509 Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System The Idea in Brief The Idea in Practice Toyota’s renowned production system (TPS) TPS’s four rules: clude that their demand on the next ma- has long demonstrated the competitive ad- chine doesn’t match their expectations. All work is highly specified in its content, vantage of continuous process improve- They revisit the organization of their pro- sequence, timing, and outcome. ment. And companies in a wide range of duction line to determine why the machine Employees follow a well-defined sequence of industries—aerospace, metals processing, was not available, and redesign the flow steps for a particular job. This specificity en- consumer products—have tried to imitate path. ables people to see and address deviations TPS. Yet most fail. immediately—encouraging continual learn- Any improvement to processes, worker/ Why? Managers adopt TPS’s obvious prac- ing and improvement.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcgraw Hill Construction
    SmartMarket Report Lean Construction Leveraging Collaboration and Advanced Practices to Increase Project Efficiency Premier Partner: ■ Design and Construction Intelligence SmartMarket Report McGraw Hill Construction Lean Construction: Leveraging Collaboration and Advanced President Practices to Increase Project Keith Fox EfficiencySmartMarket Report About McGraw Hill Vice President, Product Development Executive Editor Kathryn E. Cassino Harvey M. Bernstein, F.ASCE, LEED AP Construction McGraw Hill Construction’s data, Editorial Advisor and Contributor McGraw Hill Construction analytics, and media businesses— Research & Analytics/ Stephen A. Jones Industry Insights & Alliances Dodge, Sweets, Architectural Record, Editorial Director GreenSource, and Engineering Vice President, Industry Michele A. Russo, LEED AP News-Record— create opportunities Insights & Alliances Harvey M. Bernstein, F.ASCE, LEED AP Managing Editor for owners, architects, engineers, Donna Laquidara-Carr, LEED AP contractors, building product Senior Director, Research & Analytics manufacturers, and distributors to Burleigh Morton Senior Director, Head of Marketing strengthen their market position, size Director, Green Content & William Taylor their markets, prioritize prospects, Research Communications and target and build relationships Michele A. Russo, LEED AP Manager, Content Operations Juan Ramos that will win more business. McGraw Hill Construction serves more than Reproduction or dissemination Art Directors one million customers through its of any information contained
    [Show full text]
  • Moving-On — Beyond Lean Thinking
    Moving-on — beyond lean thinking Lauri Koskela1 Abstract Lean Thinking is currently often positioned as the underlying theory of lean production among practitioners and academics, although its originators, Womack and Jones, seem not to have presented it as a theory. This paper endeavours to analyze whether Lean Thinking can be viewed as a theory of lean production. For this purpose, a critical assessment of Lean Thinking is carried out. Lean Thinking is argued to lack an adequate conceptualization of production, which has led to imprecise concepts, such as the term “value”. The five principles of Lean Thinking do not systematically cover value generation, and they do not always encapsulate the core topics in their respective areas. The failure to trace the origin of lean concepts and principles reduces the opportunity to justify and explain them. Despite claims for generality, the application area of the five lean principles is limited to the transformation of mass production, with, for instance, one-of-a-kind production and construction being largely out of scope. It is concluded that it is opportune to move on beyond Lean Thinking, towards a generic theory of production, for acquiring a solid foundation for designing, operating and improving production systems. Keywords: Lean thinking, theory, production Introduction “Lean production is ‘lean’ because it uses less of everything compared with mass production: half the human effort in the factory, half the manufacturing space, half the investments in tools, half the engineering hours to develop a new product in half the time.” This characterization of lean production, as presented in the book The machine that changed the world by Womack, Jones and Roos (1990), captured the attention of production practitioners and researchers worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • The Toyotatoyota Wayway (The Company That Invented Lean Production)
    TheThe ToyotaToyota WayWay (The Company that invented Lean Production) 1414 ManagementManagement PrinciplesPrinciples fromfrom thethe World’sWorld’s GreatestGreatest Manufacturer Manufacturer By: Jeffrey K. Liker (Paperback,330p,ISBN 0-07-058747-7,Rs. 250) (Tata McGraw-Hill) Why to read this book ? •• You’ll learn how Toyota creates an ideal environment for implementing Lean techniques & tools by :: -Fostering an atmosphere of continuous improvement and learning -Satisfying customers (and eliminating waste at the same time) -Getting quality right the first time -Grooming leaders from within rather than recruiting them from the outside -Teaching all employees to become problem solver -Growing together with suppliers and partners for mutual benefits About Toyota •• Market capitalization over $ 105 billion; 2,40,000 employees •• 3rd Largest auto manufacturer in the world; behind GM & Ford •• Global Vehicle sale of over 6 million per year in 170 countries •• Big Brands like Corolla, Camry, Lexus •• Annual Profit margin: 8.3 times higher than industry average Contents… •• DevelopmentDevelopment ofof ToyotaToyota ProductionProduction SystemSystem “TPS”“TPS” (5-9)(5-9) •• FundamentalsFundamentals ofof TPSTPS (10-15)(10-15) •• TheThe ToyotaToyota PrinciplesPrinciples (16-19)(16-19) •• WhatWhat cancan bebe learntlearnt fromfrom ToyotaToyota (20-28)(20-28) •• HowHow toto adoptadopt TPSTPS (29-32)(29-32) DevelopmentDevelopment ofof ToyotaToyota ProductionProduction SystemSystem (TPS)(TPS) •• Toyota customer requirement was in small lots & different verities unlike Ford & GM using ‘mass production’ concepts •• These requirement is to be met with same assembly line •• Toyota was having cash crunch and there was no stable supply chain •• Toyota studied that ‘mass production’ concepts cannot be feasible in Japan. Ford & GM were facing many issues due to same.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning to See Waste Would Dramatically Affect This Ratio
    CHAPTER3 WASTE 1.0 Why Studies have shown that about 70% of the activities performed in the construction industry are non-value add or waste. Learning to see waste would dramatically affect this ratio. Waste is anything that does not add value. Waste is all around, and learning to see waste makes that clear. 2.0 When The process to see waste should begin immediately and by any member of the team. Waste is all around, and learning to see waste makes this clear. CHAPTER 3: Waste 23 3.0 How Observations Ohno Circles 1st Run Studies/Videos Value Stream Maps Spaghetti Diagrams Constant Measurement 4.0 What There are seven common wastes. These come from the manufacturing world but can be applied to any process. They specifically come from the Toyota Production System (TPS). The Japanese term is Muda. There are several acronyms to remember what these wastes are but one of the more common one is TIMWOOD. (T)ransportation (I)ventory (M)otion (W)aiting (O)ver Processing (O)ver Production (D)efects. Transportation Unnecessary movement by people, equipment or material from process to process. This can include administrative work as well as physical activities. Inventory Product (raw materials, work-in-process or finished goods) quantities that go beyond supporting the immediate need. Motion Unnecessary movement of people or movement that does not add value. Waiting Time when work-in-process is waiting for the next step in production. 24 Transforming Design and Construction: A Framework for Change Look for and assess opportunities to increase value through waste reduction and elimination.
    [Show full text]
  • SC2020: Toyota Production System & Supply Chain
    SC2020: Toyota Production System & Supply Chain by Macharia Brown Bachelor of Science in Comparative Politics United States Military Academy, West Point 2003 Submitted to Zaragoza Logistics Center in Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Engineering in Logistics and Supply Chain Management at the Zaragoza Logistics Center June 2005 © 2005 Brown, Macharia. All rights reserved The author hereby grant to M.I.T and ZLC permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. Signature of Author Zaragoza Logistics Center May 10th, 2005 Certified by Prashant Yadav, PhD ZLC Thesis Supervisor Approved by Larry Lapide, PhD. Research Director, MIT-CTL Brown, TPS 0 Toyota Production System & Supply Chain by Macharia Brown Bachelor of Science in Comparitive Politics United States Military Academy, West Point 2003 Submitted to Zaragoza Logistics Center in Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Engineering in Logistics and Supply Chain Management Abstract Over the past 50 years Toyota created and honed a production system that fostered its ascension in the automotive industry. Furthermore, the concepts that fuel Toyota’s production system extend beyond its manufacturing walls to the entire supply chain, creating a value chain where every link is profitable with an unwavering focus on teamwork, communication, efficient use of resources, elimination of waste, and continuous improvement. This report is a part of MIT’s Supply Chain 2020 (SC2020) research project focusing on Toyota’s production system and supply chain. The study begins by examining the automotive industry, evolution of top 5 automotive companies, and Toyota’s positioning against its main competitors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Toyota Way
    The Toyota Way The Toyota Way is a set of principles and behaviors that underlie the Toyota Motor Corporation's managerial approach and production system. Toyota first summed up its philosophy, values and manufacturing ideals in 2001, calling it “The Toyota Way 2001.” It consists of principles in two key areas: continuous improvement, and respect for people.[1][2][3] Contents [hide] 1 Overview of the principles 2 Research findings o 2.1 Long-term philosophy o 2.2 Right process will produce right results o 2.3 Value to organization by developing people o 2.4 Solving root problems drives organizational learning 3 Translating the principles 4 See also 5 References 6 Further reading Overview of the principles The two focal points of the principles are continuous improvement and respect for people. The principles for a continuous improvement include establishing a long-term vision, working on challenges, continual innovation, and going to the source of the issue or problem. The principles relating to respect for people include ways of building respect and teamwork. Research findings In 2004, Dr. Jeffrey Liker, a University of Michigan professor of industrial engineering, published "The Toyota Way." In his book Liker calls the Toyota Way, "a system designed to provide the tools for people to continually improve their work."[4] The system can be summarized in 14 principles.[5] According to Liker, the 14 principles of The Toyota Way are organized in four sections: (1) long-term philosophy, (2) the right process will produce the right results, (3) add value to the organization by developing your people, and (4) continuously solving root problems drives organizational learning.
    [Show full text]
  • Mistakeproofing the Design of Construction Processes Using Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ)
    www.cpwr.com • www.elcosh.org Mistakeproofing The Design of Construction Processes Using Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) Iris D. Tommelein Sevilay Demirkesen University of California, Berkeley February 2018 8484 Georgia Avenue Suite 1000 Silver Spring, MD 20910 phone: 301.578.8500 fax: 301.578.8572 ©2018, CPWR-The Center for Construction Research and Training. All rights reserved. CPWR is the research and training arm of NABTU. Production of this document was supported by cooperative agreement OH 009762 from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIOSH. MISTAKEPROOFING THE DESIGN OF CONSTRUCTION PROCESSES USING INVENTIVE PROBLEM SOLVING (TRIZ) Iris D. Tommelein and Sevilay Demirkesen University of California, Berkeley February 2018 CPWR Small Study Final Report 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000 Silver Spring, MD 20910 www. cpwr.com • www.elcosh.org TEL: 301.578.8500 © 2018, CPWR – The Center for Construction Research and Training. CPWR, the research and training arm of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, is uniquely situated to serve construction workers, contractors, practitioners, and the scientific community. This report was prepared by the authors noted. Funding for this research study was made possible by a cooperative agreement (U60 OH009762, CFDA #93.262) with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIOSH or CPWR. i ABOUT THE PROJECT PRODUCTION SYSTEMS LABORATORY (P2SL) AT UC BERKELEY The Project Production Systems Laboratory (P2SL) at UC Berkeley is a research institute dedicated to developing and deploying knowledge and tools for project management.
    [Show full text]
  • Isao Kato Article on Shigeo Shingo's Role at Toyota
    Mr. Shigeo Shingo’s P-Course and Contribution to TPS By Isao Kato Retired Manager Training and Development Toyota Motor Corporation July 2006 © Isao Kato www.ArtofLean.com Mr. Shigeo Shingo taught an industrial engineering course at Toyota Motor Corporation and then decades later at Toyota affiliated companies starting in latter part of 1955. After 1960 and up until the mid 1980’s I organized his classes, edited the materials, as well as coordinated the majority of his training visits to the company. Before that time it was handled by one of my senior colleagues. Despite several myths and wide spread rumors the only course Mr. Shingo actually taught at Toyota was something called the P-course (the P stands for production) and he never was an instructor to Mr. Ohno or any other senior executives at that time. In fact they rarely met. However his association with Toyota Motor Corporation as an instructor did continue for close to 30 years and was highly beneficial to both parties although there were frustrations toward the end on both sides. As requested I will explain his actual role on the following pages for those interested in the actual history of events. There were actually four different versions of the P-course taught by Mr. Shingo that were held on average a couple of times per year during this period. There was also a longer version of the P-course that combined the different elements together that was taught every three or four years. I will outline the material below. The participants in the course were primarily young engineers in manufacturing.
    [Show full text]
  • A Simulation of Lean Construction Principles
    Pollesch, P., Rovinsky, A., Alvarado III, R., and Alves, T.C.L. (2017). “House of Cards – a Simulation of Lean Construction Principles” In: LC3 2017 Volume II – Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Walsh, K., Sacks, R., Brilakis, I. (eds.), Heraklion, Greece, pp. 373–380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24928/2017/0212 HOUSE OF CARDS – A SIMULATION OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES Paul Pollesch1, Alexander Rovinsky2, Raul Alvarado III3, and Thais da C. L. Alves4 Abstract: The "House of Cards" simulation was developed to stimulate discussion and improve the application of lean production concepts (5S, flow, waste, kaizen, transparency, and collaboration) to construction engineering and management. It is a simple, scalable, hands-on exercise that enables a facilitator to lead teams to intuitively grasp lean concepts and their benefits to construction processes. The simulation requires minimal resources for each team: 3-4 players, a deck of playing cards, a timer, and a playing surface. “House of Cards” presents six phases of gameplay, and progresses from a worst-case scenario to an optimized ideal. The objective is to play the cards as quickly as possible to construct a 13-story building. As in construction, there is a logical sequence of work required. Lower floors must be built before upper floors, structural work must precede mechanical, and mechanical must precede finish work. This simulation was developed with a construction project context, but can easily be adapted to other industries. The analogies can be tailored to meet other industrial processes, and the floors can be changed to different parts of assembly or production lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Lean Methodology and Its Derivates Usage for Production Systems in Modern Industry
    Applied Engineering Letters Vol.2, No.4, 144-148 (2017) e-ISSN: 2466-4847 LEAN METHODOLOGY AND ITS DERIVATES USAGE FOR PRODUCTION SYSTEMS IN MODERN INDUSTRY Marko Miletić1, Ivan Miletić1 1Faculty of Engineering, University of Kragujevac, Serbia Abstract: ARTICLE HISTORY With lean methodology usage being the only way to stay competitive on Received 15.11.2017. nowadays market, it is important to implement it and spread it through the Accepted 07.12.2017. organization. Available 15.12.2017. In this paper, purpose of lean is explained, the most important definition and tools are given and differences between problem solving approaches are explained. KEYWORDS It can be concluded that problem solving approaches are in first look Lean Manufacturing, World Class Manufacturing, Toyota different, having also different number of steps, but they are adapted to the Production System, Basic Tools, company in which they are used and that they depend on the size, Continuous Improvement complexity and expected closing time of project. 1. INTRODUCTION which is initiated by management and bottom-up initiated by people on shop floor. The concept of lean methodology is nowadays Therefore, TPS is used in many industries and widely used in companies around the world in companies, adapted to its products and needs and order to maximise production by minimising loses now defined as common used methodologies such at the same time. Roots of integration of entire as: Lean [1], Lean Six Sigma [2], World Class production system done in flow was made by Manufacturing, Toyota Production System [3], Ford Henry Ford in 1913. However, true usage of lean Production System, Bosch Production System, etc… concept was started by Toyota owner Kiischiro Purpose of this paper is to show tools widely Toyoda and engineer Kaiichi Ohno after WWII, and used in these methodologies and present their finally summarized in 1980s rebranding their TPS main foundations.
    [Show full text]
  • Lean Production and the Toyota Production System ± Or, the Case of the Forgotten Production Concepts Ian Hampson University of New South Wales
    Lean Production and the Toyota Production System ± Or, the Case of the Forgotten Production Concepts Ian Hampson University of New South Wales Advocates and critics alike have accepted `lean' images of the Toyota production system. But certain production concepts that are integral to Toyota production system theory and practice actually impede `leanness'. The most important of these are the concepts of heijunka, or levelled (`balanced') production, and muri, or waste from overstressing machines and personnel. Actual Toyota production systems exist as a compromise between these concepts and the pursuit of leanness via kaizen. The compromise between these contrasting tendencies is in¯uenced by the ability of unions and other aspects of industrial relations regulation to counter practices such as short- notice overtime and `management by stress'. Introduction From the late 1980s, debate around work organization converged on the concept of `lean production' which was, according to its advocates, a `post-Fordist' system of work that is at once supremely ef®cient and yet `humane', even democratic (Kenney and Florida, 1988: 122; Adler, 1993; Mathews, 1991: 9, 21; 1988: 20, 23). How- ever, critical research found that, rather than being liberating, lean production can actually intensify work to the point where worker stress becomes a serious problem, because it generates constant improvements (kaizen) by applying stress and ®xing the breakdowns that result. It thus attracted such descriptions as `management by stress', `management by blame', `management by fear' (Parker and Slaughter, 1988; Sewell and Wilkinson, 1992; Dohse et al., 1985). Economic and Industrial Democracy & 1999 (SAGE, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi), Vol.
    [Show full text]