respective plants in securing worker commitment and identiWcation with theWrm
and thus run contrary to the generic argument of participation underpinned by
high commitment.^4 Before considering the empirical evidence on these claims in
more detail, let us articulate more precisely the key features of the lean model.
- 2 The Key Characteristics of Lean Manufacturing
The genesis of lean manufacturing can be traced to the emergence of just-in-time
manufacturing at Toyota during the 1960 s. One of the key architects of the Toyota
Production System, Taiichi Ohno, provides a detailed account of his ideas and their
implementation in his bookJust-in-Time: For Today and Tomorrow( 1988 ). At the
outset he articulates the integrative and holistic nature of lean manufacturing,
arguing that business must be seen as a ‘trinity’ of the market, the factory, and the
company as a whole. The Toyota approach is contrasted with that of Ford, in
particular in the way that production is determined by market needs and pulled
through the factory rather than by schedules that push products onto the market.
As the name suggests, products are manufactured ‘just-in-time’ to meet customer
demand. This cuts waste in terms of stocks, waiting time, and over-production and
places a considerable emphasis on reliable, high-quality processes andXexible
workers able to work where they are required by market demands. This close
coordination, reliability, andXexibility are also required of the supply chain,
since the just-in-time system runs with minimal buVers with regard to time or
inventory between plants as well as between work stations.
Along with internal process control and tightly integrated supply chains, the
third important aspect of the Toyota system is ‘innovation.’ Ohno ( 1988 : 81 ) makes
it clear that he has higher-level innovation in mind, including the development of
new products and new manufacturing techniques, though under lean manufac-
turing this has become understood in rather more limited terms as continuous,
incremental, process improvement orkaizen.^5 Still, this provides a further key
contrast with the Fordist production system, with workers expected to contribute
to how their jobs are designed and organized. Nevertheless, along with other early
assessments of the Toyota Production System (Schonberger 1982 ; Monden 1983 ;
Shingo 1988 ), Ohno emphasizes the operational and technical aspects of the
(^4) These examples question the signiWcance of worker commitment and the relevance of job security
within the employment relationship. In these cases, high insecurity appears to have contributed to
the successful (for management) adoption of HPWSs. This contrasts with expectations that the
implementation of HPWSs will be founded on reassurances over job security as a necessary element
of the mutual obligations of the ‘high commitment’ employment relationship.
(^5) Kaizenis a Japanese word meaning gradual and orderly, continuous improvement and has been
considered the most important concept within Japanese management (Imai 1986 ).
hrm and contemporary manufacturing 411