Initially, these writers saw Japan as an alternative model to American practices, the latter frequently conceptualized as Taylorist or Fordist mass production methods of work, combined with antagonistic employment relations, governance structures, and supplier relations. The transplant represented a mechanism for spreading Japanese ways of doing things to the rest of the world, and researching it shifted the terms of debate from Japan to learning and borrowing from Japanese practices. This shift in focus had several effects that shaped the intellectual debate on the character of the new entrants. Second, research and public attention focused on the issue of the transfer of all or a selective menu of these set qualities.
Fordism refers to the system of mass production and consumption characteristic of highly developed economies during the ss.
Under Fordism, mass consumption combined with mass production to produce sustained economic growth and widespread material advancement. The ss have been a period of slower growth and increasing income inequality.
During this period, the system of organization of production and consumption has, perhaps, undergone a second transformation, which when mature promises a second burst of economic growth.
This new system is often referred to as the "flexible system of production" FSP or the "Japanese management system. Henry Ford was once a popular symbol of the transformation from an agricultural to an industrial, mass production, mass consumption economy. Although partly myth, there is some merit to this attribution.
As Womack, Jones, and Roos And how we make things dictates not only how we work but what we buy, how we think, and the way we live. This helped to create the market as we know it, based on economies of scale and scope, and gave rise to giant organizations built upon functional specialization and minute divisions of labor.
Economies of scale were produced by spreading fixed expenses, especially investments in plant and equipment and the Fordism toyotaism and post fordism of production lines, over larger volumes of output, thereby reducing unit costs.
Economies of scope were produced by exploiting the division of labor -- sequentially combining specialized functional units, especially overheads such as reporting, accounting, personnel, purchasing, or quality assurance, in multifarious ways so that it was less costly to produce several products than a single specialized one.
It also engendered a variety of public policies, institutions, and governance mechanisms intended to mitigate the failures of the market, and to reform modern industrial arrangements and practices Polanyi, The the hallmark of his system was standardization -- standardized components, standardized manufacturing processes, and a simple, easy to manufacture and repair standard product.
Standardization required nearly perfect interchangeability of parts. To achieve interchangeability, Ford exploited advances in machine tools and gauging systems. These innovations made possible the moving, or continuous, assembly linein which each assembler performed a single, repetitive task.
Ford was also one of the first to realize the potential of the electic motor to reconfigure work flow. Machines that were previously arrayed about a central power source could now be placed on the assembly line, thereby dramatically increasing throughput David, Hence, the term Fordize: Ford vertically integrated for two reasons.
First, he had perfected mass production techniques and could achieve substantial economies by doing everything himself. Of course, total vertical integration required the organization of huge numbers of activities and employees.
Workers, staff specialists, and middle managers had to be recruited, sorted out, and fitted into a hierarchical scheme. Their administrative innovations included detailed centralized materials requirements and logistical planning, control by rules, standard operating procedures, and the merit principlefunctional administrative designdecomposition of tasks to their simplest components, and sequential processing.
The Prussian administrative system was widely emulated by forward looking contemporary organizations and in a majority of cases these organizations out performed the market.
Not only did the Prussian administrative system make large, complex organizations efficient, it also evidently made them inevitable. Only very large organizations could take full advantage of the Prussian administrative system.
Only they could afford to devote substantial amounts of resources to gathering and processing quantities of data for top management to use to coordinate activities and allocate resources. Hence, for a long time it seemed that bigger organizations were necessarily better. And, there seemed to be no natural limits to this conclusion.
The centralized planning system, Gosplan, used in the Soviet Union to implement its long-term policies and strategic plans was merely an adaption of the Kriegwirtschaftsplan. These innovations were implemented by Alfred P. Sloan, who is best known for the multi-product, or M-form, organizational structure, in which each major operating division serves a distinct product market.
When Sloan took over GM in the early s, it was little more than a loose confederation of car and car-parts companies. Sloan repositioned the car companies to create a five-model product range from Chevrolet to Cadillac and established a radically decentralized administrative control structure.
Under this system, each division kept its own books and its manager was evaluated in terms of a return-on-assets target. Sloan, believed that it was inappropriate, as well as unnecessary, for top managers at the corporate level to know much about the details of division operations Womack, Jones, and Roos, If the numbers showed that performance was poor, it was time to change the division manager.Organization Theory: Tension and Change provides the most current and concise analysis of the development and evolution of organizational theories, forms, and practices, from the rise of the factory system to the emergence of the virtual global organization.
Using a wide variety of examples and applications from private- and public-sector. As the authors argue in the collaboratively written introduction, "The first political casualty of the information age is the communist state system, based on a s-model hierarchical industrial organization and incapable of incorporating new, flexible management of .
Fordism is a key concept in the theories of the Regulation school, often in contrast to post-Fordism, and the term is also used in Western Marxist thought.
Mass consumption is the other side of Fordism. The “post-impasse” perspectives ranged from perspectives offered by the regulation school, the actor-oriented approach, post imperialist thinking, gender studies and eventually sustainable development and post. The Social Organization of the Labor Process in the Japanese Automobile Industry Show all authors.
Knuth Dohse. See all articles by this From "Fordism" to "Toyotism"? The Social Organization of the Labor Process in the Japanese Automobile Industry Fordism and Post-Fordism; SAGE Video Streaming video collections.
SAGE Knowledge. There have been waves of technological progress in from the early and mythical stage of Hinduism, through merchant capitalism, industrial capitalism, managerial capitalism, Fordism, Toyotaism that represent different productive efficiency.