Little is c u r r e n t l y h o w n a b o u t t h e implications of computerized technology for t h e social s t r u c t u r e of t h e factory. However, bits a n d pieces of r e s e a r c h a r e beginning t o e m e r g e which eventually can form a c o h e r e n t picture. This section c o n c e n t r a t e s on two a s p e c t s of s t r u c t u r e ,
work organization and systems and procedures.
Work Organization
The appropriate work organization for computerized manufacturing depends in p a r t on t h e n a t u r e of t h e technology but also on t h e indivi- dual and social needs of those people assigned t o t h e equipment. While t h e r e has been a g r e a t deal of speculation on needs in this context, little empirical work h a s appeared. Elurnberg and Gerwin (1984) however s t u - died supervisors and workers on a n American FMS in order to l e a r n about perceived job characteristics, satisfaction, and stress.
The work organization was in t h e traditional m a n n e r with man-to- m a n supervision a n d specialized tasks. Each of the two shifts had a supervisor, a mechanical maintenance man, a tool s e t t e r , four loaders, a n d t h r e e operators t o monitor t h e machines. Eighteen of t h e twenty m e n responded t o a s t r u c t u r e d questionnaire. Results were compared to those for existing normative samples.
The findings for workers on perceived job characteristics indicated t h a t most of t h e m viewed t h e i r tasks negatively. On autonomy, t h e degree t o which t h e job provides freedom in determining procedures, all four job classifications h a d scores below t h a t of the normative sample.
Three groups were below t h e norm for experienced responsibility. t h e degree to which t h e employer feels personally responsible.for results, a n d on task identity, t h e degree to which t h e job requires completion of a n identifiable piece of work. Two groups were below on each of t h e remaining characteristics. Mechanics were above t h e norms on seven
out of t h e eight factors a n d tool s e t t e r s were above on four. However, satisfaction factor except one. This applied to satisfaction with comfort (all four), resource adequacy (all four), challenge (3), promotions (3) a n d relations with co-workers (3). Mechanics scored higher than the norms demands for high machine utilization. The equipment's technical com- plexity reduced machine reliability, a problem which could only be han- dled by technical specialists. Although performance pressures were not measured directly, i t was found t h a t supervisors were t h e only occupa- tional group t o score below t h e normative sample on all five stress fac- tors. Lack of control is suggested by their having the second lowest score on autonomy. Thus, a t t h e same time t h a t more is expected from
t h e m t h e y have lost s o m e of t h e i r freedom to maneuver. solicit t h e cooperation of technical people responsible for maintaining a n d controlling t h e equipment. It is also necessary t o motivate workers t e n instructions, consistently scored t h e lowest.
The relatively self-contained n a t u r e of t a s k s i n a n integrated s y s t e m
complex problems. The result should be higher scores on such factors a s autonomy, t a s k identity, responsibility, challenge, co-worker relations, utilization of valued skills and resource adequacy.
A work organization utilizing some of these principles h a s been designed for West Germany's first rotary FMS (Asendorf a n d Schultz-Wild, 1983). There is one t e a m leader and five workers per shift. The workers will be responsible for loading and machine monitoring, and some quality control, c o m p u t e r programming a n d maintenance. Each is being t r a i n e d t o perform t h e s e functions on t h e different types of hardware in t h e sys- tem. The t e a m leader will coordinate the overall system, do production scheduling a n d supply tools a n d materials.
Systems and Procedures
Technical specialists in accounting, quality control, m a i n t e n a n c e , production control, process planning a n d o t h e r functions mus t design systems a n d procedures which control and maintain computerized t e c h - nology. In doing so. they a r e forced t o cope with t h e conflicting forces illustrated in Figure 2.
The technical complexity of t h e equipment pushes for attaining s o m e desirable level of novelty in procedures. Technical constraints s u c h a s t h e s t a t e of t h e a r t a n d t h e availability of data, lack of experience with computerized equipment, a n d t i m e pressures are forces for relying on existing routines. All too often t h e result is a compromise which does n o t completely satisfy e i t h e r s e t of demands. As a result, t h e very basis for judging a n d improving operating efficiency can be endangered
(Genvin. 1981; Blumberg a n d Gerwin. 1984).
I cedures, as is illustrated by problems in quality control and accounting.
With an FMS t h e r e are n o n a t u r a l pauses during t h e machining sequence for manual quality control t o be exercized. Automated continuous moni- toring is still too limited in scope t o perform most sophisticated tests (Senker, e t al., 1981). If quality checks a r e made a t the end of t h e machining sequence t h e r e can be too long a delay from t h e occurrence t o the detection of the defect. Difficulty in finding t h e source of a defect due t o t h e many interacting subsystems is a complicating factor.
Consequently, t h e usual methods of exercising quality control m a y n o t t u r n out t o be appropriate.
Machine utilization is o n e of t h e basic parameters used t o control shop operations. Accountants calculate it by comparing the actual value during s o m e t i m e period t o a s t a n d a r d value. The l a t t e r usually contains
operations was rooted in informal procedures based on direct labor hours t h a t they had developed over many years. These were of little use in controlling t h e FMS.
When the size of t h e initial investment in a computerized system is large, management may pressure for immediate returns. If the invest- m e n t decision h a s been made on a narrow, quantitative basis the pres- sures will be greater. Once t h e equipment is installed, management will want it t o operate a t full scale a s quickly as possible. Technical special- ists will not have a good chance to learn about t h e system's capabilities and limitations. Foremen a n d workers may not be adequately trained in how to operate it. Two of the firms studied by Gerwin (1984) noted these problems.
Finally, various technical constraints impede t h e development of new systems and procedures. The state of t h e a r t in a certain area may not be advanced enough t o m e e t the equipment's needs. Kaplan (1983) has noted t h a t new managerial accounting techniques m a y be needed t o replace the standard cost model.
Once more, data availability becomes a problem in such a novel situation. In Gerwin's (1981) study a company which h a d purchased a n FMS to build a new product line discovered t h a t t h e r e was little informa- tion available f r o m other firms or from its own shop for calculating stan- dard cost parameters. Even after several years a completely reliable data set had not been compiled for some major cost components such as maintenance and rework.
CONCLUSIONs
The adoption and implementation of computerized manufacturing technology is not just a technical problem of calculating rates of r e t u r n a n d installing new equipment. Strategic and organizational issues m u s t be considered if t h e equipment is to function effectively. It is little wonder t h a t Rosenthal and Vossoughi (1983) discovered t h a t over nine out of t e n of the CAM experts t h e y interviewed agreed t h a t while techni- cal issues existed, the toughest problems a r e managerial.
Some of the more critical problems have been discussed in this paper. Strategic managers m u s t be able to identify features of new manufacturing systems which a r e compatible with company objectives.
They m u s t also insure t h a t t h e design and selection of a system reflects t h e i r priorities r a t h e r t h a n those of engineers. First line supervisors a n d workers need t o be motivated through t h e choice of a suitable work organization in order to avoid problems with job perceptions, satisfaction a n d stress. Technical specialists m u s t develop adequate systems and procedures in t h e face of technical constraints, time pressures, and lack of experience. turing problems. Less complex alternatives which are compatible with strategic needs and 'organizational capabilities may be more effective.
Special a t t e n t i o n should be given t o having a comprehensive s t r a t e g i c a n d organizational development plan ready before t h e e q u i p m e n t arrives.
Some specific suggestions from this paper could be incorporated i n t o t h e plan. The s t r a t e g i c framework discussed h e r e is a n initial s t e p towards revealing t h e n a t u r e of t h e connections between manufacturing technology a n d a company's objectives. A work organization based on group c o n c e p t s i n s t e a d of t h e traditional approach should be considered.
Little c a n be done about t h e technical c o n s t r a i n t s faced by t h e designers of systems a n d procedures, b u t lack of experience a n d t i m e p r e s s u r e s c a n be mitigated by a gradual buildup of equipment. This m i x t u r e of new ideas a n d common s e n s e is essential if t h e potential of computerized m a n u f a c t u r i n g i s t o be realized.
Abernathy,
W.J.
( 1 9 7 8 ) m e Productivity Dilemma, The John Hopkins Press Baltimore.Asendorf, I. and R. Schultz-Wild, "Work Organization a n d Training in a Flexible Manufacturing System: an Alternative Approach", Proceed- i n g s of the Conference o n Design of Work in Automated Manufactur- ing S y s t e m , Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1983.
Blumberg, M. a n d D. Gerwin. "Coping with Advanced Manufacturing Tech- nology", Journal of Occupational Behaviour, Vol. 5 , 1984, pp. 113-130.
Cook,
N.H.,
"Computer Managed P a r t s Manufacture", Scientific American, Vol. 232, 1975, pp. 22-29.Gerwin,
D..
"Hage's Theory of Innovation and Microelectronics Manufac- turing Technology", in M. Warner (ed.) Microprocessors, Manpower, and Society, Gower Press, 1984, forthcoming.Gerwin D., "A Framework for Analyzing t h e Flexibility of Manufacturing Processes", School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
1983.
Gerwin, D., "The Do's and Dont's of Computerized Manufacturing", Har- v a r d B u s i n e s s R e v i e w , Vol. 60, No. 2, March-April 1982, pp. 107-116.
Gerwin, D. "Control a n d Evaluation in t h e Innovation Process: The Case of Flexible Manufacturing Systems", IEEE Transactions in E n g i n e e r - i n g M a n a g e m e n t , August, 1981, pp. 62-70.
Hayes, R.H., and W.J. Abernathy, "Managing our Way t o Economic Decline", Harvard L k s i n e s s R e u i e w , July-August, 1980.
Kaplan, R.S., "Measuring Manufacturing Performance: A New Challenge for Managerial Accounting Research", l h e Accounting R e v i e w , Vol.
58, No. 4, October, 1983, pp. 686-705.
Rosenthal. S. and H. Vossoughi, "Factory Automation in t h e U.S.", Management School, Boston University, 1983.
Senker, P.N., N. Swords-Isherwood, T. Brady. and C. Huggett, "Mainte- nance Skills in t h e Engineering Industry: The Influence of Techno- logical Change", Occasional Paper No. 8, Engineering Industry Train- ing Board, Watford, England, 1981.
Skinner, W., "Operations Technology: Blind Spot in Strategic Manage- ment", h t e r f a c e s , Vol. 14, No. 1, January-February, 1984, pp. 116-
125.
Skinner. W.. M a n u f a c t u r i n g in t h e Corporate S t r a t e g y , New York, John Wiley, 1978.
Slack. N., "Flexibility as a Manufacturing Objective", h t e r a t i o n a l Journal
of Production and Qnerations Management, Vol 3, No. 3, 1983, pp. 4- 13.
Trist, E., "The Evolution of Socio-Technical Systems", Occasional Paper No. 2, Ontario Quality of Working Life Center, Toronto, Canada, 1981.