Good Work Toolbox

GWT Analyst’s summary: In Nilsson’s paper, he describes the thinking behind the design of work at Volvo’s Uddevalla plant, for which he provided consulting services. The design of work at Uddevalla was based on the concept of “natural work”. Nilsson describes natural work as work that is controlled by the worker throughout the day. Additionally, natural work is performed over a longer period of time, encompasses an entire product, is meaningful from the worker’s perspective, and is taught by more experienced workers. To support natural work, Nilsson suggests a model of learning that must be used which replaces the typical subdivided tasks and standardized work instructions with an apprentice-journeyman training and greatly expanded work. The Uddevalla plant was unique in its work design because it allowed small groups to build entire cars from start to finish in parallel. This gave the workers a sense of connection to the product and allowed them to see their work in the context of the company’s success. The results of the natural work design were evident in high quality, productivity, and flexibility. The plant experienced very low rates of absenteeism and turnover among its workers, who were represented in both genders and a broad age range. 

T. Sandberg. Volvo Kalmar – twice a pioneer. 

GWT Analyst’s summary: Volvo’s Kalmar plant was the first automotive plant to break from the traditional Ford-type moving assembly line. The Kalmar plant relied on powered car carriers to move cars through the plant. The carriers allowed for easy access to all regions of the car and allowed the assembly to be de-coupled from an assembly line. Workers were grouped in small autonomous working teams and had long cycle times assembling large amounts of a car. The new design of manufacturing also brought a much flatter organizational structure, which located control among the workers. Work groups were given control over their production and quality, and given time allowance for inspecting their own work. The Kalmar plant was known for high quality cars and was a model of efficiency for other Volvo plants. Proof of their method of building quality into every step came in 1993, when the Kalmar-produced 940 model was awarded a first position initial quality award from J.D. Powers.

In K. Ellegard. The creation of a new production system at the Volvo automobile assembly plant in Uddevalla, Sweden

GWT Analyst’s summary: In Ellegard’s paper, the planning and development of Volvo’s Uddevalla plant are analyzed. The plant was a radical departure from the traditional automotive assembly line, and built on what was learned at the Kalmar plant (see other references). Volvo saw the Uddevalla plant as an opportunity to create ‘good work’, something the metal unions in Sweden had been arguing for. The unions were involved during the design phase, as well as consultants who were experts in human learning. The plant was designed around making car assembly fit to natural human ability. The plant was notable for its small work groups who worked together on a static car in their workspace. Materials for assembly were presented to the work groups in packaged kits rather than located in inventory bins. The assembly method was parallel and allowed pace flexibility. Workers performed enlarged work with long cycle times. The result was that a small group, often only 20 workers, assembled an entire car. This gave the employees a level of feedback and association with the final product impossible to achieve on an assembly line. 

U. Jurgens. Group work and the reception of Uddevalla in German car industry. 

GWT analyst’s summary: Efforts by Volvo to enrich and improve work for its car builders were also found in the German car industry in the 1970s and 1980s. The German government sponsored a policy program aimed at the ‘humanization of work’ in response to workers’ and unions’ demand for better working conditions. During this same period of time, factory automation was increasing and as such some efforts to improve work included automating difficult work. The German Industrial Union of Metalworkers successfully lobbied for elimination of jobs with cycle times below 1.5 minutes, and other measures designed to eliminate highly demanding repetitive work. The workforce in the German automotive industry at the time was considered highly skilled as a result of apprenticeship programs. This resulted in many skilled workers performing tasks below their skill level where traditional assembly line work was performed. At this time, Lean methods had gained attention and several authors from MIT had openly criticized the German and Swedish efforts at work enrichment as inefficient neo-craftsmanship. In this article, Jurgens addresses and rebuts the criticism. 

Shimuzu, K. Humanization of the production system and work at Toyota Motor Co and Toyota Motor Kyushu. 

GWT analyst’s summary: In this article, Shimuzu presents the reasons why Toyota modified its Lean production system. A labor crisis in the 1980’s led to Toyota leadership to redesign work to better fit the workers. Toyota’s just-in-time was modified to apply less to the people doing the tasks. Training methods were changed, jobs were enriched, working conditions and pace improved. These efforts were made without hindering productivity. Toyota’s goal was to create a more humane version of its famed production system which could function just as efficiently and more sustainably.

Berggren, C. The fate of branch plants – Performance versus power

Volvo’s Uddevalla plant is described as being a very successful venture in terms of quality of products and flexibility of manufacturing. The plant was greatly appreciated by dealers, as custom cars could be produced easily and much more rapidly than on a conventional assembly line type plant. Uddevalla’s quality and flexibility were the results of a radical departure from conventional automotive assembly. Parallel assembly in small work groups was performed, often with groups assembling a large amount of the finished car in one workstation. Teams were given autonomy unmatched in the industry. Berggren defends Uddevalla against critics who judge it against the standards of Toyota’s Lean production; by hourly statistical measures alone the plant did not show its true value. Changes between model years were exceptionally easy to implement due to their design of tools, group-focused work, and cooperation between process engineers and designers. The culture that Volvo created resulted in a very effective plant.