ELSEVIER

ooo%l3370(95)ooofs-s
Applied Ergonomics Vol 27, No. 2, pp. 11 l-117, 1996
Copyright @ 19% Published by Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
ooo36670/96 $10.00 + o.al
The Rationalisation Movement in
perspective and some ergonomic
implications
Torsten BjGrkman
National I nstitute of Occupational Health, S-171 84 Solna, Sweden
The paper gives an overview of the Rationalisation Movement from Taylor to the most recent
organisation models such as Business Process Reengineering. Special emphasis is put on the
estimated implications of the different rationalisation strategies in terms of ergonomics/work
physiology. In addition, basic terms and concepts are defined.
According to the author, Taylorism, Fordism and Lean Production seem to offer an
insufficient potential for good ergonomics. However, more recent organisational models such as
Time Based Management and Business Process Reengineering, may appear more promising
but unfortunately almost no research has been conducted to describe the ergonomics
implications of these models.
Keywords: ergonomics, Lean Production, Rationalisation, reengineering, review, Taylorism
Roots of the Rationalisation Movement
The International Rationalisation Movement has an
American origin. Frederick Taylor (18561917) is
commonly considered to be the most important found-
ing father and his teachings of Scientific Management
regarded as the basic formulation of the classical
doctrine (see Box I). Time and motion studies, strict
division of labour, detailed preplanning, specific job
and task descriptions, and piece-rate pay are some of its
most salient characteristics. Taylorism is another name
for those principles which Taylor thought constituted
the one best way of organisation and management.
Not choosing the one best way was simply irrational
according to Taylor, applying his principles on the
other hand would be rational. For this reason his
many disciples started to call implementation of Taylors
principles rationalisation.
Targeting a days work was considered to be of
paramount importance; Scientific Management
involves a complete mental revolution on the part of
the working man according to Taylor (1912), this new
mentality focused on the daily achievement and easily
measurable production targets. Taylor was, in other
words, introducing some kind of workload concept,
although it is obvious from his writings that he
understood little of work physiology. Taylor was
successful in his lifetime. He and his principles became
famous before he published anything. His short books
about Shop Management (1903) and The Principles
of Scientific Management (1911) sold very well. He
often attracted huge audiences. In 1914, for instance,
Box 1 Taylorism. See also Figure I
Scientific Management, Taylorism, Fordism:
Often used as synonyms. Frederick Taylor (1855
1917), the founding father of the Rationalisation
Movement, used to call his principles Scientific
Management but nowadays Taylorism is more
common; note that it is often used derogatorily.
During its golden era it happened that Taylorism
was named after some of Taylors disciples like
Lilian Gilbreth or after its latest internal fad or
methodology, like MTM in the 196Os, but most of
the time the name was and still is Taylorism.
Fordism has a somewhat different story. The
most straightforward interpretation is to see it as
a special application of Taylors principles,
namely in mass-production, and with a key
characteristic in the moving assembly line. A
number of scholars and debaters, mostly belong-
ing to the so-called Regulation school, gives
Fordism a wider interpretation. It means both
the specific Fordistic way of organising mass
production, as well as the societal conditions and
institutions supporting the mass consumption
society.
Super-Fordism or Neo-Fordism are contro-
versial interpretations of what is happening in for
instance the Japanese manufacturing industry
(see Box 2).
111
The Rationalisation Movement in perspective and some ergonomic implications: T. BjBrkman
around 70,000 people attended The Efficiency Exposi-
tion at Grand Central Palace in New York, where
Taylor was lecturing. Many corporations tried to
implement his ideas. He was not without opponents
and competitors though.
The most influential of the other founding fathers of
the Rationalisation Movement was the French ex-
manager Henri Fayol (1841-1925), who challenged the
great American (Fayols own expression) on a number
of issues. Fayol advocated unity of command, that the
workers have one and only one foreman (Fayol, 1916).
Taylor, on the other hand, wrote extensively about the
merits of applying the principles of division of labour
also to management. Taylor insisted on dividing the
tasks of the foreman according to function; product
quality clerk, gang boss, speed of working-clerk,
repairs foreman, etc. According to Taylors writings
every worker should have eight different foremen.
Fayol has won that debate as well as a few others. Some
of Taylors principles remain theory not practice, like
the idea of never downscaling a piece-rate wage
agreement. In spite of these deviations from his
teachings it is still fair to say, in a historical perspective,
that most of Taylors principles have had a great impact
on the way work is organised in the world, especially
the industrialised parts of it. As a matter of fact that is
an understatement: No other doctrine of management
has been as influential during the twentieth century.
From what time we can call Taylors disciples and
their activities a movement is debatable, but the 1920s
is a good estimate. At that time they were far ahead in
organising themselves. The Anglo-Saxon countries,
Germany and the Nordic countries belong to the
nations that from early on saw a rationalisation
movement with its own organisations and training
institutes. The international diffusion of the message
was visible in many other countries as well. Brazilian
industry for instance had an early rationalisation
movement of its own and the same is true of Japan
during the midwar period.
In the Mediterranean countries and in Latin America
Fordism is a more common name than Taylorism but
referring to much the same reality. The distinguishing
feature of Fordism apart from the adherence to
Taylorism is of course the moving assembly line and its
applicability in mass production. It is plausible that
Fordism is a special case of the more general doctrine
of Taylorism (Figure 1). Fords breakthrough experi-
ments were carried out at the Highland Park Plant in
Lean production
Figure 1 Some synonyms and acronyms in the conceptual
universe of Lean Production. Further explanations in Boxes
1 and 2
downtown Detroit in 1913. The control of pacing and
workload was built into the assembly line. The short-
cycleness of the tasks along the line could be developed
down to seconds. Henry Ford himself focused on the
job delivery aspect of the assembly line and praised
himself for having solved this fundamental problem of
manufacturing management (Ford, 1922). Along the
moving assembly line no single worker or station can
refuse to accept the job delivery of the line without
causing a line stop or break-down, hurting results, costs
and everybodys pay.
The classical proponents of rationalisation like
Taylor, Ford and Fayol had a holistic approach. They
tried to think of everything: productivity, management,
time and motion studies, wage calculation, definition of
optimal work load, continuous improvements, surveil-
lance, motivation, group work, adaptation to changing
technology and so forth. Out of this spectrum a number
of different specialities and occupations developed, for
instance rationalisation experts and consultants with
sub-disciplines widely different like capital rationalisers,
office work rationalisers, shop floor rationalisers, etc.
There was also a range of new occupations more or
less created by the Rationalisation Movement: produc-
tion planners, layout experts, quality inspectors and
recorders, task definers, piece rate wage calculators
and negotiators, foremen specialised in productivity
improvements, time-study men, machine set-up men,
on-the-job instructors, work psychologists, ergonom-
ists. To those knowledgeable about the field the birth
of these occupations and professions add to the
Rationalisation Movement like annual rings inside a
tree; the inner ones are the oldest.
In each of these specialities knowledge and skill have
developed but something has been lost as well. The
understanding of the whole picture deteriorated. Who
was putting the puzzle together? Thus lack of under-
standing between specialists is particularly harmful for
the formation of teams of rationalisation experts. They
have lost their inter-lingua and encounter increasing
difficulties in communicating with each other.
Criticism of the Rationalisation Movement is as old
as the Movement itself. American trade unions were
among the earliest opponents. On their initiative
Taylor was brought before a special commission, the
famous Taylor-hearings before the 1912 Special
House of Representatives Committee. There are similar
reactions and reports along the path of diffusion of
Taylorism in other countries and other times.
A more scientific critique of Taylorism took some
time. A landmark contribution is of course the so-
called Hawthorn studies at Western Electric
(Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939), and particularly
the earlier and more philosophical book by Elton Mayo
based on these studies The Human Problems of an
Industrial Civilisation (Mayo, 1933). That book estab-
lished The Human Relations school of management, a
school of thought competing with Taylorism although
others would say supporting and prolonging Taylorism.
Critiques of Taylorism also became part of pop culture
with Charlie Chaplins movie Modern Times (1935)
typical of the ridiculing of Fords modern ideas.
Time-study men were educated to estimate the
performance level of the operator which caused advers-
arial relationships between these two occupational
112
The Rationalisation Movement in perspective and some ergonomic implications: T. Bjiirkman
groups. Operators were trying to appear to be working
at their utmost capacity whilst in reality having a lot
more to give. The most common problem for the
rationalisation man was to calculate for such cheating,
and observation +20% has been a much used rule of
thumb (Maynard and Stegemerten, 1935).
In the Rationalisation Movement this problem is now
considered to be history. The alternative approach used
to employ so-called therbligs, Gilbreth spelled back-
wards, after Lilian and Frank Gilbreth, who claimed
they discovered the atoms of task analysis (basic
elements of all manual work). The elementary or basic
motions included such as stretch, grasp, and turn,
combined with different eye movements (Gilbreth and
Gilbreth, 1924). These therbligs were studied in work
laboratories of the 192Os, 1930s and 1940s and finally
resulted in a kind of data bank of standard times and
recorded peak performances measured with a rather
high accuracy. The measurement unit was and is a
hundred thousand part of an hr, i.e. 27.78 units per sec.
This strange measurement unit was the result of
counting frames on ultra-rapid films.
Work physiology was seen as a sub-discipline to
rationalisation by the 1920s. The interest in peak
performances was as great or even greater than the
attentiveness shown to normal or average performance.
Accordingly, the co-operation with sport-physiologists
was intense. The determination of maximal work
capacity as well as optimal work load to maximise
productivity was priority. Famous studies with these
objectives were carried out at the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institut in the Weimar Republic in the 1920s (Atzler,
1927). These physiological studies were sponsored by
REFA, the still existing, but now very changed
German rationalisation organisation. This is an import-
ant part of the early history of ergonomics/work
physiology. The tradition was later continued in
Denmark and Sweden, and is further discussed by
Westgaard and Winkel in this issue.
In the Scandinavian countries the author has met
some ergonomists who do not know of the connections
between Taylorism and work physiology, thus being
somewhat ignorant of the origins of their profession.
As a consequence some ergonomists have shown little
interest in relating their own activities to issues like the
wage system, or to different management styles and
ideas. Hopefully the situation is better in other
countries but some international conferences on related
themes are not overly encouraging. I am not arguing
that ergonomists are less informed of other job design
- specialities compared with the knowledge or lack of
knowledge of ergonomics amongst, for instance, piece
rate calculators or capital rationalisation experts. How-
ever, I do claim that it might be harmful in general to
be that specialised.
Alternatives to Taylorism?
J ob redesign ideas from the post-war period
In the post-war period the critique of Taylorism and
Fordism became more constructive both in America
and Europe; empirical evidence of its shortcomings
became. more obvious and well documented. One of
the classical studies of the era is Man on the Assembly
113
Line from 1952 by Walker and Guest describing the
discontent with repetitive tasks and with the lack of
control and influence. Other classical studies during the
following years are, in chronological order: Abraham
Maslow (1954) demonstrating a hierarchy of needs
from physiological to safety to social to ego to self-
actualisation; Frederick Herzberg et al (1959) discrim-
inating hygiene factors from motivators where to
activate the latter job redesign is essential, and in
particular job enrichment; Douglas McGregor (1960)
contrasting Taylorism and Job Redesign ideas; Rensis
Likert (1961) arguing in favour of the so-called system
4 theory claiming that work democracy pays; and Chris
Argyris (1964) presenting a goal congruence theory of
how to integrate individual aspirations with the goals of
the organisation, and claiming that Taylorism is failing
to do just that.
In America in the 1950s and 1960s a number of
scholars proposed ideas and examples of how to create
alternatives to Taylorism. They are often grouped
together under the label of Neo Human Relations
(NHR), although they were more sensitive to their
differing points of departures and conclusions than
keen on seeing similarities in their opinions and results.
In Europe of the 1960s and 1970s the so-called socio-
technical school made a strong impact. The basic
theses were first formulated at the Tavistock School of
Human Relations in London but soon spread to
Norway. Famous proponents were Einar Thorsrud
from Norway and the Australian scholar Fred Emery
(Emery, 1978; Thorsrud, 1967). The socio-technical
school presented many job redesign ideas and was able
to prove itself in a number of pilot installations in UK
and the Scandinavian countries, later on in Germany
and the Netherlands, as well as many other places
around the world. The socio-technical school was even
more opposed to Taylorism and Fordism than were the
NHR people in the US (Emery, 1978). Taylors notion
of the One Best Way was confronted; according to the
socio-technical approach there is always organisationai
choice and to choose Taylorism is a poor choice.
Semi-autonomous work groups are a salient feature
of many of the socio-technical work organisations,
sometimes doing away with the foreman altogether and
often redefining his role from supervision to support.
The democratisation of the work place was and is basic
to the socio-technical approach. Both NHR and the
socio-technical school have many redesign ideas in
common, like job rotation, job enlargement, making
the work cycles longer, and in particular job enrich-
ment, adding planning, reflection and decision making
to manual work.
Lean production
For decades the direction and development of organisa-
tion theory and practice seemed to be determined,
although the progress was slow. Few questioned that
the advanced industrial countries were abandoning
Taylorism and Fordism, and were designing and creat-
ing more enlarged and enriched jobs. The main way to
explain the slowness of the change was to refer to the
enormous backlog of old-fashioned Tayloristic work-
places. When starting anew, when given the opportun-
ities at so called greenfield sites, the new workplaces
The Rationalisation Movement in perspective and some ergonomic implications: T. Bjiirkman
were designed differently from the old Tayloristic
paradigm. The long-term perspective was optimistic.
This post-Tayloristic and post-Fordistic vision of the
advancing working life is rapidly becoming dated, the
options are renamed. The 1990s seem to become leaner
than few had expected in Europe a few years ago. The
Rationalisation Movement, as well as most managers,
has some hard decisions to make, and the outcome is
highly relevant for ergonomists, not to mention the
employees themselves. What is at stake is the degree of
harmfulness of our working environments.
The symbol of the new situation is the rapid adoption
in Europe and North America of the Japanese inspired
organisational doctrine Lean Production (Box 2).
The Toyota Production System would be a more
adequate description, so as not to use buzzword
rhetoric from the well-known MIT-book The Machine
that Changed the World (Womack et al, 1990).
However, Lean Production (or in Germany Schlanke
Produktion) has rapidly become the prevalent name
for making an organisation more productive and
efficient. It is undoubtedly a way of organising which
has some competitive edge over more traditional
organisations. However, its human consequences may
be questioned.
Arguably, Lean Production is not abandoning, but is
modifying the elements of Fordism (Figure 2). The
assembly line is still there with shorter work cycles than
ever before, typically around 30 set (Berggren et al,
1991). The moving assembly line is described as the
superior way of organising assembly work. Time and
motion studies are generally applied although some-
times they are the responsibility of the workers them-
selves, which never was the case during classical
Fordism. The division of labour is strict as is the
preplanning and the adherence to the principle of the
Box 2 Kaizen, Lean Production, Toyotism, Kanban,
JIT, TQM. See also Figure 1
Kaizen: Usually translated as continuous
improvements. Characterise the Japanese way of
day-to-day rationalisations and is a code-word for
Toyotism.
Lean Production: A synonym to Toyotism.
Kanban: Refers to a special Toyotistic method-
ology of governing production
J IT (Just in time): A name for the Toyotistic
way of supply management, demanding strict
time discipline of deliveries. Often called Lean
Supply, Outsourcing or Virtual Organisation
(extreme case of outsourcing with purchasing the
central function).
TOM (total quality management): Has its roots
in the American quality gurus Deming and Juran.
To many observers the term has become more
Japanese than American, because of the early
and successful implementation of the total quality
management-principles in Japan.
one best way. The meaning of that principle is in short
that there always, at any given phase of organisational
and technical development, exists one best way of
doing a task. That standard is often changed and
improved, an activity called tkaizen or continuous
improvement but there are never two different ways of
doing things approved at the same time. Thus, the work
culture is disciplined and controlled, and implies little
autonomy at the shop floor level except for the right to
suggest improvements and adapt to changes.
Historically speaking the Japanese origin of these
organisational ideas and models is of importance. The
Rationalisation Movement of Japan has met little
opposition - the trade unions of the early 1950s tried
and lost (Cusumano, 1985). The shortening of the work
cycles, extent of job rotation, intensification of work
have all been driven to the extreme. When it comes to
discipline, synchronisation and individual integration of
organisational objectives, then lean production (or the
Toyota system) marks peak performance in the
Fordistic tradition.
History never completely repeats itself though. The
major differences of lean production in comparison
with traditional or classical Fordism are primarily the
extensive application of job rotation and the adaptations
to that job rotation. Thus, a skilled and multiskilled
workforce is needed. Team-work is often referred to as
another deviation from Fordism, but that is a more
questionable argument. You see a lot of teams and
team spirit in lean production, but you have to search
before you find team work. The meaning of Team
Toyota is, for instance, all employees of Toyota
working towards the same goals of continuous improve-
ment and increasing market share, a huge team by
Western standards! (Berggren and Bjorkman, 1992);
but with cycle times of 30 set at isolated single-worker
work stations the preconditions for team work are
simply not there. Typically, team work in lean produc-
tion is mostly applied to indirect functions like quality
circles or preventive maintenance, and sometimes to
cleaning and housekeeping which are usually shared
responsibilities of the work-teams.
Lean production seems presently to have lost in
competitiveness in Japan (Altmann, 1995; Berggren
1994). Chrysler, the smallest American motor manu-
facturer, was making a bigger profit in 1993 than all the
nine Japanese motor manufacturers combined
(Fortune, 1994).
Furthermore, Womack et al (1990) appear to be
ignorant about work environment matters, devoting
almost no attention to such topics apart from claiming
that lean production is a superior way of organising.
Other proponents of lean production have been more
eloquent. One of the popular arguments is that lean
production only arouses positive stress (Helling,
1991), disregarding the fact that it is usually applied
with a lot of overtime. Still another of the standard
arguments points out the longevity of the Japanese
population; life expectancy is amongst the highest in
the world. Some of the lean production proponents
claim a causal relationship, the healthy condition of the
population being due to healthy working conditions
within lean production (Helling, 1991). However, only
a small fraction of the Japanese work force works under
lean production conditions, not even the whole auto
114
The Rationalisation Movement in perspective and some ergonomic implications: T. Bjiirkman
industry. Nissan is, for instance, far from lean. The
new doctrine has only been around for 30 years at its
birthplace, Toyota and for far less at the disciple
corporations like some of the suppliers. It seems
reasonable to allow for some lead time between
changes in working conditions and taking measures of
life expectancy.
In surveys the younger generation of would-be
recruits to the auto-plants in Japan express fears for
Karoshi, the mysterious sudden death at the work-
place due to exhaustion that has got a lot of media
attention in Japan (Teruoka, 1991). A considerable
proportion also estimate the workplace to be harmful.
Accordingly, Toyota is struggling with a shortage of
willing applicants (Gronning, 1995). The beliefs of .the
American workforce are similar, but in contrast to the
young generation of Japan many Americans still try to
get jobs at the Japanese transplants (Berggren et al,
1991). At the workplace in the US, lean production is
often called lean and mean production, hinting at the
intensification of work that is one of the dominant
characteristics of lean production, enabling you to
double or triple your output with the same resources
(Fucini et al, 1990).
To the authors knowledge, no physiological or
ergonomic research of relevance has been allowed
access to lean production work-sites in Japan. A
common management argument for denying that access
is a reference to the strong production-result-oriented
spirit of their workforce, saying that workers do not
like giving away time from their process of continuous
improvement of output. However, have they been
asked for their own opinion or are the arguments only
management assumptions?
The most production oriented or stochastic type of
job rotation imaginable may still contain potential for
meaningful physical and mental variation, and thus
reduction of risks for developing musculo-skeletal
disorders. The problem is that we do not know when
this potential is realised in general nor do we know it in
the single case. The need for workplace related
ergonomic research of lean worksites is obvious.
Fordistic revival?
Apart from the Japanese challenge, organisationally in
the form of Lean Production, there is another
important new element - the availability of numerous
low-wage workforces close to the advanced countries.
Corporations in Western Europe have now for the first
time during the post-war period access to nearby
Eastern Europe. In countries like the Czech Republic,
geographically as close or closer to the high tech
corporations of southern Germany as the former DDR-
industries, wages and salaries are roughly one tenth of
what they are in Germany, but education and skills of
the respective workforces are close to equivalent. If
comparison is made with the immigrant labour in
Western Europe, the so-called Gastarbeiter, some of
the East European skilling might be superior. This is at
least a popular belief amongst West European
managers, judging from articles in the leading manage-
ment magazines. Investors are focusing on the potential
for best practice in different countries rather than on
national characteristics. Creating an island of elitist
115
performance in the midst of a gloomy general economic
situation is a real possibility for a daring entrepreneur.
Exchanging employment in Germany for employ-
ment in the Czech Republic is as tempting as hopping
onboard a time-machine. The organisation of today or
even of yesterday might become profitable simply due
to the lowered wage account. You do not necessarily
need to improve; to move geographically might be
enough. If many think the same the result might
become the one we witness in the Czech Republic, a
boom time and low unemployment (3% in 1994). The
new investments are not characterised by organisational
innovation, large parts seeming to be channelled into
old-fashioned organisational solutions.
The situation is similar for Japan in relation to most
of the other Pacific Rim countries, mainland China in
particular. US corporations have the same kind of
options south of the border in Mexico or Latin America
in its entirety. The new workplaces in these countries
are seldom sophisticated when it comes to job enrich-
ment or enlargement. A substantial number of the new
workplaces of Eastern Europe and the so-called NIC-
countries (Newly Industrialised Countries) are old-
fashioned. Taylorism and Fordism are alive and
rumour of their death seems premature. If you use the
work environments of the advanced industrial countries
as a yardstick, some of the work environments that are
created in the newly industrialised countries are decades
behind. The lag remains in the development of work
environment qualities in comparison with the develop-
ment of productivity and profitability. The few cases of
modern work-organisation in Eastern Europe are
mostly variations of lean production, like Opels new
plant in Eisenach in Thtiringen in former DDR, which
might be the leanest within the whole GM-giant.
In combination with the recession that has dominated
the early 1990s the relocation of many former West
European workplaces to low wage areas in Eastern
Europe puts additional performance pressure on the
remaining ones. With failing demand the weaker
performers risk becoming the victims of the ongoing
shakeout of capacity. Will this slimming of capacity be
used for progression or regression? Many fear regres-
sion, but that might be limited to the period of
economic downturn. When we see more ups of the ups
and downs of economic development then progressive
workplaces will hopefully start multiplying.
What has happened in Sweden is telling in this
respect. Many of the reformed workplaces from the
1970s and 1980s have come to a halt or are being closed
during the 1990s (e.g. Kadefors et al, this issue; Bae et
al, this issue). The star-examples of good workplaces
in the auto industry have been shut down, the Volvo
Uddevalla and Kalmar plants, and the Saab-plant in
Malmo. The Uddevalla plant has been reopened in
1995, but to what extent this also means a reopening of
the former Uddevalla concept of car manufacturing
remains to be seen. The Volvo Kalmar and Uddevalla
plants were closed in spite of the fact that they were
more efficient and produced with higher quality than
the remaining Torslanda plant in Gothenburg (further
discussed by Berggren, 1994; Kadefors et al, this issue;
Sandberg, 1995). In the wake of these closures we
witness a Fordistic revival at some of the remaining
auto plants in Sweden.
The Rationalisation Movement in perspective and some ergonomic implications: T. Bjtirkman
Rationalisation models of the future and their
ergonomics implications
In Sweden a number of industries and corporations
implement doctrines other than lean production; the
old Socio-Technical School, Service Management,
Total Quality Management (TOM) and Time Based
Management (TBM) presently being the most prevalent
(Bjorkman et al, 1993) (Box 3 and Figure I). If we will
take all the synonyms and consultancy brand concepts
into account the list will become considerably longer.
This year in Sweden a conceptual addition would be
Michael Hammers program for Reengineering
(Hammer and Champy, 1993).
The whole list of organisational models is dominated
by imported concepts from the US and an important
cause is certainly the competitive market for consultancy
in the US. The potential customers and audiences have
a taste for the latest thing. They tend to be tempted by
new concepts rather than new practices, it has become
utterly important to choose the right packaging and
labelling.
The American organisation models originate from
Boston, a city playing a similar role in organisational
design as Paris in the fashion industry. In 1990 two new
models were put to market. Time Based Management
(TBM) was introduced by the Boston Consulting
Group and Reengineering (often called BPR for
Business Process Reengineering) by the ex-MIT
professor Michael Hammer. Process Organisation is
very much a common denominator; map the process
from start to finish, and try to discover or invent short
cuts. Reengineering, in particular, is not very keen on
every day rationalisations like those called kaizen in
lean production. Instead you are supposed to be
looking for smart short-cuts resulting in quantum leaps
in performance.
Those of us who are used to this kind of hype and
marketing are hardly enthusiastic; we have heard the
claims and not been given the evidence too many times
in the past to be impressed now. The quick-fix promises
are understandable if you want to get buyers of your
consultancy services, but understanding this does not
make the promises more convincing, on the contrary.
Box 3 TBM and BPR
TBM (Time Based Management) and BPR
(Business Process Reengineering often called
just Reengineering): American organisation
models from Boston. Process Organisation is very
much a common denominator, which often is also
described as the horizontal organisation. The
process is mapped from start to finish to invent
short-cuts. Reengineering, in particular, is not
very keen on every day rationalisations like those
called kaizen in lean production. Instead smart
short-cuts resulting in quantum leaps in perform-
ance are focused. TBM seems similar to the
rationalisation of capital utilisation that was the
height of fashion a decade ago. One of a few
differences might be that TBM focus more on
total through-put times, not only on production
through-put times.
By the same token, we should appreciate that the
marketing experts promoting the ever changing
acronyms for new organisation structures may claim
that the models are beneficial for alleviating musculo-
skeletal problems even if the claims are not valid. The
claims, however, could be seen as a first step towards a
truly serious treatment of the topic.
An investigation of which organisational doctrines
are applied at present in Sweden has given the
preliminary result that Time Based Management
(TBM) is on top (Bjorkman et al, 1993). TQM and
related quality procedures are also said to be widely
implemented, especially in the manufacturing sector.
Lean production is a distant third in Swedish manufac-
turing. In the public service sector different versions of
Service Management still predominate. The leading
proponent of TBM in Sweden is ABB, a multinational
corporation with most of its products in electro-
technology. ABB management prefers to name the
corporation multi-domestic due to its dispersed inter-
national structure (Economist,. 1993). In 1990-1993
ABB/Sweden successfully completed a so called T 50
program amongst their 100 Swedish daughter companies
(for a description of the program see ABB 1991a;
1991b), the main goal of an average 50% reduction of
total through-put-times was reached. In the elite group
of so-called T 50 companies this goal and others were
surpassed during the same period. Now they are talking
about a third wave of T 50 reform at ABB focusing
more than ever on traditional white collar work. The
well-known shop floor methodology of process organ-
isation, parallelisation, multi-skilling and team building
is applied within the offices as well. The ultimate goal is
abandoning the division of blue and white collar work
altogether and forming complete teams of associates.
All these TBM-changes have so far made ABB a
swifter and more flexible competitor on the market-
place, but what has happened to individual work loads
and other job characteristics experienced by the
employees? Several studies are in progress, but so far
few published results. From our own investigations,
e.g. at ABB CEWE in Nykoping/Sweden, we can at
least say that some features of the methodology look
promising. The farewell to line production is one such
feature, and restricting monotonous work tasks to 2 hr
in a row is another. Contrary to lean production the
breakage with Taylorism and Fordism is explicit. Line
work and short cycles are seen as evils that you have to
minimise or better still, abandon altogether. The team
building within ABB seems to be closer to the socio-
technical tradition than to lean production. The so-
called goal directed groups within ABB, normally the
smallest organisational unit, are more independent and
self-directed than at lean production work-sites. Co-
operation in the goal directed groups implies more
than job rotation. The groups handle their own
customer and supplier relations, and they plan and co-
ordinate their own internal activities, without any
foremen ordering the group members to do so. The
foremen have to a large extent left the scene. Some of
the former supervisors have been promoted to positions
where they co-ordinate a number of goal directed
groups. The implications of these changes for the
ordinary employee seem to be a more varied work-day
and certainly greater job-enrichment.
116
The Rationalisation Movement in perspective and some ergonomic implications: T. Bjiirkman
The new emphasis on flexibility, job rotation, multi-
skilling and team work, might result in more variation.
Theoretically speaking these reforms are anti-
Tayloristic in the sense that they are lessening the
horizontal division of labour. The mixture of former
white and blue collar tasks, and thereby, the lessening
of the vertical division of labour, is hopefully also
making work load and the work situation more varied
in many respects. In some instances this job enrich-
ment might decrease the total work load, at least for
the former blue collar workers.
Pitman, London
However, we still have to repeat the argument from
our lean production examples; so far proof from the
worksites is lacking. We do not know yet to what extent
the organisational changes are helping to reduce
musculoskeletal problems of assembly and other routine
tasks of manufacturing; perhaps they are initiating new
risks in their turn. There is no shortage of research
issues in the interaction between organisational change
and ergonomics.
Ford, H. 1922 My Life and Work Heinemann, New York
Fuccini, J. and Suzy 1990 Working for the J apanese. I nside Mazdas
American Auto Plant The Free Press, New York
Garten, J. 1992 A cold peace America, Japan, Germany and the
Struggle for Supremacy Times Books, New York
Gilbreth, F. and Gilbreth, L. 1924 Finding and classifying the
elements of work Management and Administration Vol. 2
Griinning, T. 1995 Recent developments at Toyota Motor Co in
Sandberg, A. (ed.) Enriching Production Avebury, Aldershot
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. 1993 Reengineering the Corporation. A
Manifesto for Business Revolution Harper Business, New York
Helling, J. 1991 Viirldsmiistarna Sellin, Helsinghorg (in Swedish)
Herzberg. E., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. 1959 The Motivation
to Work Wiley, New York
Hirzel, L. and Partner (Hrsg.) 1902 Speed-Management.
Geschwindigkeit zum Wettbewerbsvorteil muchen Gabler,
Wiesbaden
Huczynski, A. 1993 Management Gurus Routledge, London
Imai, M. 1986 Kaizen Random House, New York
Jtirgens U., Malsch, T. and Dohse, K. Moderne Zeiten in der
Automobilfabrik. Strategien der Produktionsmodernisierung im
Liinder- und Konzrrnvergleich Springer, Berlin
Kanter, R.M. 1989 When Giunts Learn to Dance Simon & Schuster,
New York
References
ABB 1991a Customer focus. What it means lo us Ziirich
ABB 1991b T 50: ABB Swedens Customer focus program Paper
presenting the Program internally and externally, VBsteris
Argyris, C. 1964 I ntegrating the I ndividual and the Organisation
Wiley, New York
Keller, M. 1993 Collision. GM, Toyota, Volkswagen and the Race to
Own the 2I st Century Currency. New York
Kelly, J. lY82 Scientific Management, J ob Redesign and Work
Performance Academic Press, London
Kiihler, C. and Schmierl, K. 1992 Technological innovation -
organizational conservatism. 7 in Altmann, Norbert, KGhler and
Meil (eds) Technology and Work in German I ndustry Routledge,
London
Altmain, N. 199.5 Japanese work policy: opportunity, challenge or
threat? in Sandbere. .&. (ed.1 Part IV Beyond Lean Production:
Enriching Production A&b&y, Aldershot
Argyris, C. 1964 I ntegrating the I ndividual and the Organisation
Wiley, New York
Likert, R. 1961 New Patterns of Management McGraw Hill,
New York
Littler, C. 1978 Understanding Taylorism in British J ournal of
Sociology Vol. 2
A Survey of Multinationals 1993 Everybodys favourite monsters
reprint from The Economist 27 March
Atzler, E. 1927 Ktirper und Arbeit. Handbuch der Arbeitsphysiologie
Georg Thieme, Leipzig
Maslow, A. 19.54 Motivation and Personality Harper, New York
Maynard, H.B. and Stegemerten, G.J. 1935 Method, Time,
Measurement. MTM. McGraw-Hill, New York
Mayo, E. 1933 The Human Problems of an I ndustrial Civilization
Harvard Business School, Boston
Berggren, C. 1994 Toward Normalization? Japanese competitive
position and employment practices after the Heisei boom KTH,
Stockholm
McGregor, D. 1960 The Human Side of Enterprise McGraw Hill.
New York
Berggren, C. 1993 Mlstarprestationer eller mardriimsfabriker? En
utv%dering av Volvos smiskaliga fabriker i Uddevalla och Kalmar
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm (in Swedish)
Berggren, C. 1992 Alternatives to lean production ILR Press,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Berggren, C. and Bjiirkman, T. 1992 Contradictions in the team
concept: auto transplants and labour relations in North America in
Tokunaga, Sbigeyosbi, Altmann, Norbert and Helmut, Demes (eds)
New I mpacts on I ndustrial Relations, I nternationalization and
Changing Production Strategies Philip Franz von Siebold Stiftung,
Deutsche Institut fiir Japanstudien. Iudicium, Miinchen
Berggren, C., Bjbrkman, T. and Hollander, E. 1991 Are they
unbeatable? Report from a field trip to study transplants, the
Japanese owned auto plants in North America KTH Stockholm
Bjiirkman, T. 1991 Lean production pl svenska in Eklund/
Westerberg (eds) Efter Taylor Produktivitetsdelegationen och
Arbetslivsfonden, Stockholm
Peters, T. 1992 ABB Asea Brown Boveri: giant industrial company.
small businesses, lean staff, big leverage through knowledge
dissemination in Liberation Management. Necessary Disorganiza-
tion for the Nanosecond Nineties Macmillan, New York
Roethlisberger, F.I. and Dickson, W.J. 193Y Munagement and the
Worker Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Sandberg, A. 1995 The Uddevalla experience in perspective
Sandberg, A. (ed.) Enriching Production Avebury, Aldershot
Seitz, K. 1991 Die japa&ch-amerikanische herausforderung.
Deutschlands Hochtechnoloaie-I ndustrien kiimafen urns iiberleben
Bonn Aktuell, Miinchen
.
Stalk, G. and Hout, T. 1990 Competing Against Time. How Time-
based Competition is Reshaping Global Markets The Fret Press.
New York
Bjbrkman, T. 1992 Den arbetsorganisatoriska fronten (Report in
Swedish) Arbetslivsfoden, Stockholm
BjSrkman, T., Berggren, C., Friedrich, R. and Bengtsson, L. 1993
The comparative international ABB-project, The meaning of
being local worlwide Progress report from the Swedish
Project group, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Burckhardt, W. (Hrsg.) 1992 Schlank, intelligent and schnell. So
fiihren Sir Ihr Unternehmen zur Hochleistung Gabler, Wiesbaden
Carol& P. 1993 Big Blues. The Unmaking of IBM Crown, New York
Chandler, A. 1990 Scale and Scope. The Dynamics of I ndustrial
Capitalism Hayward University Press, Cambridge
Cusumano, M. 1985 The J apanese Automobile I ndustry Harvard
University Press, Cambridge
Steger, U. 1992 Future Management. Europiiischr Unternehmen im
globalen Wettbewerb Fischer Wirtschaft, Frankfurt am Main
Steger, U. (Hrsg.) 1993 Der Niedergand des US-Management
Paradigmas. Die Europiiische Antwort Econ. Diisseldorf
Stiizl, W. 1992 Lean Production in der Praxis. Spitzenleistungen
durch Gruppenarbeit Junfermann, Paderborn
Taylor, A. 1994 The new golden age of Autos Fortune 4 April
Taylor, F.W. 1912 Principles of scientific management and
Testimony before the special house committee in Taylor, F.W.
(ed.) Scientific Management Harper & Brothers. New York (1947
edition)
Taylor, F.W. 1903 Shop Management Harper & Brothers, New York
(1947 edition)
Teruoka, I. 1991 Armes J upan Rasch and Rahring, Hamburg
Thorsrud, E. 1967 Sociotechnical Approach to J ob Design and
Organisational Development Tavistock Institute of Human
Relations, London
Deming, E. 1986 Out of the Crisis MIT Press, Boston
Emery, F. 1978 The Emergence of a New Paradigm of Work
Australian National University, Canberra
Fayol, H. 1949 General and I ndustrial Management (the French
original: Administration industrielle et g&&ale from 1916)
Walker, C.R. and Guest, R.H. 1952 Man on the Assembly Line
Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Warnecke, H.-J. 1992 Die Fraktale Fabrik. Revolution der
Unternehmenskultur Springer, Berlin
Womack, J., Daniel, T.I. and Roos, D. 1990 The Machine that
Changed the World Macmillan, New York
117