Outline
- Introduction
- Mass Production
- Increasing Labor Productivity via Taylor’s Scientific Management
- Downside of Mass Production
- Flexible Production
- Summary
- References
Introduction
The first and second industrial divides according to Piore and sable
Before the industrial divide that was claimed by Piore and Sable in 1984, some countries were engaged in mass production like US auto industry that was commonly referred to as Fordist Method (After Henry Ford of the Ford Auto Company) and others followed the path flexible production like the clothing industry in France.
Both of these modes of production were quite successful from the onset of the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s up to the mid 20th century when flexible production proved to be more successful than mass production (Piore & Sabel 1984). In this essay, we will spell out the characteristics of the two modes of production and their inception from the Industrial Revolution.
In the early 1800s, two major methods of technological growth in production were competing against each other. There was the craft production (which was the earlier form of Piore and sable’s flexible production) which entailed the use of the producer’s knowledge to create flexible machines in the production process (Piore & Sabel 1984).
The second one was mass production. This involved the use of machines to replace the producer’s knowledge and create a huge quantity of products at the lowest costs possible and in the shortest amount of time. Mass production filled the gap of demand of products which could not be sustained by a craftsman like mode of production. However, the craft production was able to produce products of higher quality but to be able to sustain them in the market the various products had to be sold at a higher price than the mass produced accessories.
The justification for the higher price was that craftsmanship only targets a particular market hence the general demand for their products is generally low and a lot more time and resources are consumed in the production process. This is seen today in the high-end fashion stores and personalized jewelry stores Other businesses that were simply pushed by cheaper mass produced products are usually found at the fringes of the market but they still survive because they offer a particular brand of products (Braverman).
Mass Production
There are several changes that occurred as businesses strived to produce goods cheaply and quantitatively that increased the rate of industrialization. Division of labor together with the invention of various machines was the way to go so as to produce goods quickly and at the least possible costs. The movement of people from rural areas to urban areas so as to work in factories saw the balance of power swing towards rich businessmen and hence they hard more sway in dictating their policies.
This is clearly illustrated by Fredrick Taylor when he introduced the concept of “scientific management” at the Midvale Steel Plant in Philadelphia. Scientific management entailed breaking down every task in the factory into units, measuring how long the workers assigned to these units take to complete their respective jobs and furthermore setting targets for these workers so as to increase production (Taylor 2008).
This style of management spread out to other factories and is also visible today in other sectors like banking and insurance. The sub- division of tasks was done as extensively as possible without running the risk of hiring new labor and increasing cost of production. This allowed workers to specialize on a particular skill and on top of improving the quality of their delivery, the time output also increased due to the repetitive nature of their tasks Taylor also measured how fast they can perform the assigned tasks and gave them time targets. He got rid of unnecessary tasks either by finding new and innovative ways or simply assigning the task to another factory which is now referred to as outsourcing.
Errors due to accidents or delays in the production process were factored in when calculating the time consumed in production. Lastly, the fastest and the most efficient workers were rewarded with better pay while the average ones knew they had to work harder so as to move up the pay grade. We can see this mode of management laid the foundation for the modern day time clocks and inventory control measures. (Lowson, 2002, p88)
Increasing Labor Productivity via Taylor’s Scientific Management
Taylor eventually came up with four key principles which he believed were the solutions to maintaining the performance of your workers at optimum levels. The first thing he realized was that workers wasted a lot of time and effort in what he called “rule-of-thumb methods” while performing tasks whereby they adapted a unique style when performing these duties; styles that were not efficient but were otherwise followed because their predecessors used to perform their tasks in a similar manner.
Taylor sought to replace these rule-of-thumb methods with techniques that have been scientifically proven to be more efficient and have the hard data to prove so. He therefore set a precedence for every manager whereby their newer roles included probing the system and looking for inefficient methods that could be replaced.
His second principle proposed the selection and scientific training of each worker so as to improve their skills instead of leaving the workers to train themselves. This way, a worker would know what is expected of him and the skills he will have to bring to work everyday so as to accomplish his tasks. For mass production to work, every worker must play his part in the system so if you have a section of poorly performing workers training their fellow workmates, their weaknesses will reverberate thought the system and affect the level of performance.
The third principle called for cooperation between the managers and workers to guarantee that “scientific developed methods are being followed” (Braverman) to the letter. Coming up with a plan on paper is easy and Taylor realized that implementation was the difficult part and this could only be realized if management and the subordinate staff have a cordial relationship. While the workers were supposed to follow the manager’s instructions, the manager also had a duty to cooperate with the workers during the production process. He should be give clear instructions as to what is supposed to be done but also have a keen eye for seeing if an adapted method is putting too much strain on the workers therefore a longer rest time is required or the entire process should be scrapped.
Lastly, proper division of labor between the managers and workers is necessary whereby the job description of the manager is to apply scientific management principles to planning the work and the worker’s duty is to actually perform the task. Everyone must play their position for the system to work.
Downside of Mass Production
Initial opposition by workers faded away since they were earning more than before and the factory also increased production due to the specialization of various tasks. Mass production therefore had the advantage of producing goods quickly and cheaply. However critics argue that it turns employees into “robots” and Taylor with his observation of Henry Noll noticed that workers are the most productive when you know their physical limitations and when they follow your every command with blind loyalty. According to Taylor, the ideal worker was a cog in a system that is designed to function with the input of each individual worker (Taylor 2008).
The other disadvantage of mass production was that it was not flexible enough to adjust to market changes, which is one advantage craft production has over mass production. Re-organizing entire production lines and hiring new workers or finding new machinery was and still is the Achilles heel of mass production. With the concept of mass production, factory managers realized they could reduce the cost of production and they kept pursuing this path which led to the inventions of various machines to replace the human workers. Machines could work faster and longer than human workers at zero labor costs. Massive hiring of workers characterized the industrial revolution but the latter part of this history is marked by lay-offs and specific hiring due to the invention of machines like robots (Taylor 2008).
Flexible Production
A number of factors led to the increase in mass production of goods over craft production. Tax incentives and loans being offered led to the setting up of large mass production plants. Standardization of certain products meant that the only efficient way of producing them cheaply was en-mass. This was evident during the Second World War when various factories could produce a variety of products cheaply to sustain their armies (Braverman 1974).
Early in the 19th century, we are seeing a boom in the mass production industry with hundreds of factories being set up to meet the demand of the various products in the market. The key word here is demand and that is what drives a mass-producing economy like the United States. A high population and low prices for commodities are the key ingredients (Braverman 1974).
However, towards the end of 1960, the demand for standardized products begins to dwindle and the high growth rate of this industry also begins to fall. In order to adapt to the market changes flexible specialization now become necessary in order to respond to the needs of the consumer. This concept was introduced by Piore and Sable in 1984 to give an insight as to why mass producing economies like the US and Britain were going through hard financial times while their counterparts like Japan and Germany, who had a more flexible production principle were successful in those harsh times (Piore & Sabel 1984).
Piore and Sable claimed they were at a crossroad with two opposing forces of production and still undecided as to which would offer the greatest hope for the future. While product price was the key driver for mass production, product characteristic was the deciding factor in flexible production.
To achieve this, a wide variety of products have to be produced using the same production line. To justify their higher prices as compared to mass produced quantities, the quality of products from flexible production also has to be quite visible to the consumer. Achieving this with the Taylor philosophy would have been a long shot since producing a wide variety of products requires greater flexibility requirements in the output of the workers.
Introduction of multi-purpose machines to produce different variety of products must be incorporated plus a workforce that can operate them. The workers in these re-modeled factories also have to acquire new skills in addition to the previous ones and multi-task in the day to day procedures. Continuous innovations to keep up with the changing trends are the key driver in flexible specialization. Although, they cannot achieve similar quantities of production as mass-production, flexible specialization allows for quick adaptability to market forces and production of more customized products to satisfy a particular consumer (Piore & Sabel 1984).
Summary
Standardized mass production and flexible production do co-exist in today’s modern economies. There are certain products like automobiles which have to be produced in large quantities so as to make a profit. While some might argue this is flexible production, I think it is a bit of both since the niche for a particular design lacking in the market (which is flexible specialization) can only be produced in large quantities so as to make the commodity as affordable as possible. The purely exclusive mass producing or flexible producing industries might be the ones producing the raw materials or spare parts for the automotive industry respectively
References
Economic and Political Weekly, 1996 “Flexible Specialization: New Paradigm for Industrialization for Developing Countries?”. Web.
Lowson Robert H, (2002), Strategic Operations Management, Routledge, pp 88-93.
Fredrick Taylor (2008): The principles of scientific management (Forgotten Books,).
Harry Braverman (1974): Labor and monopoly capital (monthly review press).
Michael Piore and Charles Sabel (1984): The second industrial divide: Basic Books.