Perspectives on Japanese Practice

Japanese production methods have been viewed from a variety of perspectives, the three main ones being  the technological, the social-political and the ideological, each of which is reviewed below.

  

The Technological/Rational Perspective

            Early proponents of this view were Voss and Robinson (1987), who described 23 practices (from flexible working to kanban materials control), all of which they classified as ‘elements’ of JIT. Voss and Robinson’s work is described in some detail in chapter 5 (I—the blog owner—won’t post the chapter 5 of this book). From this perspective, JIT is used as an umbrella term to refer to a package of techniques. The criteria for the inclusion of techniques in this package are rarely articulated, but centre on custom and practice. This view of JIT amalgamates the commonly espoused ends of JIT (such as continuous improvement, inventory reduction) with the means used to achieve them (smoothed build rates, set-up reduction). From this viewpoint, the successful implementation of JIT is seen primarily as a technical problem, requiring enhanced responsiveness and particularly precise coordination of the resources involved in the production process.

              The work of Womack, Jones and Roos (1990) on lean production also fits into this perspective, although conceptually and empirically this work is considerably more advanced than that of Voss and Robinson. Lean production is seen as a package, an interrelated and mutually supportive set of manufacturing practices capable of delivering Japanese levels of manufacturing performance anywhere in the world, if implemented correctly. Other examples of work that predominantly lies within this perspective include Schonberger 1982; 1986; Goldratt and Cox 1984; Aggarwal 1985; Potts 1986; Parnaby 1987a; Ingersoll Engineers 1986; and Macbeth 1987.

The Social-Political Perspective

            The second perspective on Japanese methods has focused on its social and political dimensions. This perspective covers a diversity of views. One recognizable position is held by those whose predominant approach to Japanese methods is from a critical social science perspective (Turnbull 1986; 1988; Crowther and Garrahan 1988; Dickens and Savage 1988; Briggs 1988; Holloway 1987; Fucini and Fucini 1990; Garrahan and Stewart 1992). The predominant argument of this group is that Japanese manufacturing methods lead to work intensification, and that the social relations of production that surround them rely on the assertion of managerial prerogatives to the detriment of the workforce, which is even further subordinated than it was under previous manufacturing regimes. From this perspective, the new management techniques are seen as the latest weapon in the corporate arsenal and should be treated (and resisted) as such by those faced by their introduction.

            A second recognizable group of authors writing with a social-political perspective adopts what might be termed a socio-technical systems perspective (Dohse, Ulrich and Malsch 1986; Sayer 1986; Oliver and Wilkinson 1988; Wilkinson and Oliver 1989; Oliver 1990; Oliver and Davies 1990; Kenney and Florida 1988). This group also includes those who have noted some of the difficulties inherent in implementing these techniques and who have commented on the ways in which the methods may fail, be circumvented or be adapted to local circumstances (Smith 1988; Black and Ackers 1988; Trevor and Christie 1988; Hague 1989; Klein 1989; Radford 1989; Dawson and Webb 1990).

Philosophical/ideological perspective

            A third recognizable perspective on Japanese methods, and JIT in particular, is as a set of beliefs that provide those who subscribe to them with a distinct world-view – in the same way as a faith or religion provides a set of principles that guide action in (and interpretation of) the world. One of the earliest proponents of this perspective was Graham (1988), who has explored the manner in which the dialogue about Japanese management methods is shaped and used by those with vested interests in the area. Pollert (1988) has adopted a similar line of analysis of the related phenomenon of the ‘flexible firm’. More recently, this line of analysis has been taken up by Oliver (1990), who has used Kuhn’s ideas on scientific revolutions to explore how traditional production philosophies have been displaced by the ‘new’ approach. One strand to Graham’s argument is that many of the elements in the ‘Japanese’ manufacturing package have been sought by manufacturing managers for years. However, their apparently ‘Japanese’ identity links them to competitiveness, and therefore legitimates their introduction. In support of this, Graham has analysed the results of a survey by Voss (1987), which examines the extent to which British companies are currently using, implementing or planning to introduce the elements of Japanese-style production management techniques. Noting that flexible working comes top of this list in terms of its prevalence as a Japanese technique in use in the UK, Graham concludes:
            The most striking point about the results of this survey is that the JIT techniques which are being most widely considered are not in themselves novel. Manufacturing managers have recognized the ineffeciencies caused by task specialization which exist in both craft and Taylorist manufacturing systems and have sought to remove or reduce demarcation, without this being seen as a copying of practice in Japan. (Graham 1998, p. 76).


            Ford’s ‘After Japan’ programme of productivity improvement of the early 1980s is one example of this, involving ‘a process of giving publicity to the need to face up to the competition’, but nonetheless involving many changes to existing practices at all levels in the company (Ackroyd et al. 1988).
            A second strand to this perspective concerns the ‘shaping’ of ideas about Japanese manufacturing methods. Writing specifically about JIT, Graham argues that those groups with a significant stake in the manufacturing status quo have succeeded in diluting JIT principles in order to protect their interests. Citing computer software houses, hardware suppliers and management consultants as groups who have interests in promoting centralized computer-based scheduling systems such as MRP, he concludes:

            The result of this political shaping is that most of the actual claimed implementations of JIT techniques in the West are too superficial to claim to represent a new production paradigm. (Graham 1988, p. 73)

            Having examined some of the perspectives on Japanese manufacturing methods, we shall now briefly consider ‘Japanization’ as a concept and review the debate over the term’s usefulness and legitimacy.

(Source: Oliver, Nick & Wilkinson, Barry. 1992. The Japanization of British Industry. USA: Blackwell Publishers Inc. pg. 9-12)

× 『rui@96yR』【butterflyuu】 ×