Home Page

To return to the previous topic, click the title below.

Deskilling Thesis

Flexible Specialisation:

Introduction to Topic Three:

            The previous topic was both a case study, and a celebration of the successes of the implementation of new technologies. Topic three is a more analytical one. It introduces you to the theory of flexible specialisation. This was both an attempt to understand the causes and consequences of the introduction of new technologies, and an attempt to produce a new theory of industrial organisation which was world wide. It prefigured the more contemporary concerns with globalisation.

            In the last quarter of the 20th century mass production, or Fordism, was seen to be in crisis. Different analysts saw the crisis in different ways. For some it was the high cost of introducing new models on to the market. This required a new production line, which could be a mile long. Another aspect of this was the long period of time it took to come to market with a new model. This began to contrast with new models arriving from Japan, and arriving more quickly, and more cheaply. The price of the new Japanese cars was itself an issue; it was lower than locally produced cars. Yet another issue was reliability. At first Japanese cars were seen as cheap; and so likely to be as, or more, unreliable as local cars. This perception changed as more cars came on the market. This produced a search for an explanation of how Japanese production methods were able to supply such cheap, but reliable cars.

The box below is a useful summary of these changes.   

           Just as there were differing views of the nature of the crisis, so views differed about the explanation. One common explanation was the culturalist one. This suggested that it was the tradition of loyalty to authority in Japanese society. So for example, if an office worker had finished their day's work, and was ready to go home; but then noticed that their manager was still working, they would stay and help. Similarly manual workers of the large firms were seen as loyal to the company. This style of explanation was criticised on two fronts. One was that this could be seen as pejorative, and even racist, as too much loyalty implied servility. The second front saw this explanation as outdated, as a younger generation displayed different values. Many young Japanese women now delay marriage, rather than accept  the long hours their mothers had to accept with their fathers at work and away from the family.  

Basic Concept

Just-in-Time:

Raw materials are delivered to the factory at the

Precise point where they are required, and exactly when they are required. This removes the cost of

Large stocks of raw materials.

Basic Concept

Kaizen:

A Japanese word for continuous improvement

Of the production process as new technology

Becomes available; but also with regular feedback

From the workers.

        More long lasting explanations focussed on the organisation of work. The most analysed features were the 'Just in Time' system; and Kaizen, or continuous improvement. 'Just in Time' meant that raw materials were delivered at precisely the time they were required to the factory floor. This had a number of advantages. One was that there was little or no stocks of raw materials sitting in a large warehouse. So less space was needed. There were little or no breaks in production because of shortages of raw materials. Kaizen focussed on improving the organisation of production on a regular basis. Quality circles would discuss the day's work and suggest solutions to problems every morning, before starting work. Workers had long period of training, so they understood the existing system. They were expected to see themselves as engineers, who could make valuable suggestions, some of which were then implemented. One consequences of this was that the product was continually evolving, even if in quite small ways. The experience of working was intense, and tiring. Added to the these two features was the promise of  a job for life. Life meant retirement at about 53 years of age, unless one was promoted. This last feature was important for the loyalty of employees.

        This system, however, only applied to the large firms, sometimes called the core. There was also the periphery of a very large number of very small firms. They supplied some raw materials, and had some work sub-contracted to them. They had none of the advantages of the core firms. Sometimes periphery workers worked alongside core workers. Sometimes managers, after retirement, would manage one of the periphery firms. But the majority of Japanese workers were not in the core. One large firm like Toyota might have about 20 firms to which they subcontracted specific tasks. But these subcontracted firms would have hundreds, even thousands, of other smaller firms to which they would subcontract. This threw more doubt on the culturalist explanation. At the same time, it made it seem that the Japanese system could be exported to other countries. Indeed the Nissan car plant in England is now seen as efficient as the Japanese plant. So from the 1980's onwards there were various attempts to introduce variants of the Japanese system in Britain, Europe and America.

The diagram below gives a summary of these changes.

        Instead of the long production line of mass production, small teams were set up. In Sweden there were large yellow markings on the factory floor to demonstrate the geographical space of the team. As an earlier team in the system finished their specific task, and checked it; it was passed over the yellow line to the next group. They then checked it; if anything was wrong, they returned to the earlier group. This eliminated many errors. The Japanese slogan was :

RIGHT FIRST TIME, EVERY TIME!

The small group could rotate tasks within the group to reduce boredom. They could control the speed at which the group worked by some working faster than others. Their raw materials were delivered to their space as and when needed. They had some say in the strategic decisions of the firm; and benefited from a workers fund largely controlled by their trade union. The strong presence of a union was very different from Japan; where trade unions had ceased to exist since the early 1950's.

            These features of flexible production were adopted in a wide variety of ways by western firms. This made it easier to respond to more sophisticated consumers, more quickly. Technical improvements could also be made more quickly. One measure used to judge the success of all this was a reduction of customer returns of goods which were imperfect in some way. At a deeper level the shock of the oil price rises of the 1970's and the closing down of many British factories and consequent unemployment, produced great instability into markets. Firms had to learn that instability was something they had to learn to live with. Hence there was a  need to be flexible.

            Specialisation was a means of achieving flexibility. One identified more specific, now called niche, markets. Mass marketing, like mass production, becomes unfashionable. One needed to be able to change the colour/style of the product quickly and easily. Computer aided design made this possible. The design would be changed on screen , and then the computer would change the specifications of all the factory machinery. The machinery could now change the product in line with the new computer instructions. This was called computer aided  manufacture. The whole process was called CAD/CAM. This process was much quicker than before, and made possible quick changes of colour and design.

            The cost of running production fell, but there was a high investment cost in the new technology, and installation problems were common. However, the more significant reduction in the firm's costs was the price of labour. Fewer workers were needed as CAD/CAM increased the productivity of each worker. Further, as each worker was being trained in different jobs, so functional flexibility increased. Put differently, unemployment rose.

            The emerging picture at the end of the 1980's was one of large firms, who could afford the investment, deciding to reorganise their production. There would be fewer workers, but more skilled in using the new technology. The product would be of world class quality, or  at least as good as the Japanese competition. There could even be alliances, as between Rover and Honda in Britain, although this alliance did not last.  The product would be sold world wide, and even made world wide, with computers making central controls of sales and production possible in the head office. The head office usually remained in the country of origin of the firm. Smaller firms would close.

     More recently the very success of increased productivity has produced concerns about stress at work. Another formulation of this issue is a concern with work life balance. The concern about the increasing number of hours spent at work by male, and increasingly female, workers has meant a more complex organisation of family life. Concerns about young children, when both parents are at work has produced a series of responses. These include paternity leave, longer maternity leave, flexible hours at work, work sharing, career breaks where your job is kept for your return, and working from home. All these changes imply greater flexibility in a working life; as opposed to working continuously for  30 or 40 years in one, or a few, organisations.  Another side to all these changes, which can appear benign at first sight, is longer working hours when at work. One response to this was the European Union’s Working Time Regulations, implemented in 1998, which has been the only attempt to curb long hours so far. But  about 60% of those working over 48 hours before the regulations were implemented are still doing so, while 21 % are working more hours than before, and only 2% have seen their work reduced below 48 hours per week.

Box four below is one recent example of one firm's attempt to get around this regulation.

Apart from the hours being longer, they are also more intensively worked. This produces stress and tiredness at the end of the day. This has implications for family life on returning home, often quite late. It is not easy o attempt to measure the intensity of work, especially in the service sector of the economy. In manufacturing the speed at which the line moves can be measured more easily. Indeed engineers spend much time changing the speed depending on a large number of variables. However, the detailed account of work in a telephone call centre; sometimes called the "new dark satanic mills", in box five below gives one a very good idea of daily life at work. This account is not atypical.

     An alternative view to the above from the management of Nissan car company in Britain in their Kaizen Leader Training Manual. This shows the positive or managerialist side of of such intensive work; albeit manual work in this example. One interesting, and much debated, point that comes from a comparison of these two examples is this: given both forms of work are more intense than previously, are manual and non manual jobs converging? Put differently, are middle class jobs becoming proletarianised in the 21st century?

It is difficult to come to a balanced view on the changes wrought by this theory over the last 30 years. One common view is that the fundamental consequence is the reduction of the firm's wage/salary bill, in a period of increasing competition from low wage economies. In the 1980's unemployment did increase. This is discussed at length in my text book "Why Work". Since then unemployment has fallen, in Britain at least. In other European countries, and in America, the picture is more mixed.  There are more now; but also more stressful, part time, and casual. Perhaps the most controversial critic of the new flexibility is André Gorz. In his book "Reclaiming Work", he argues for a redistribution of all work that is currently done in a firm/society to be redistributed. So everyone would be in full time work, but for much fewer hours. This has a number of consequences. Firstly, the part time, casual, and unemployed workers would all now be 'full time' workers. Secondly, the costs to society of unemployment would be severely reduced. Thirdly, all those fit and wanting to work would have work available to them. Fourthly, abuses such as zero hours contracts, whereby one waits at home for a call to go to work, but is not paid for this waiting, would be abolished.

Box Seven below gives you a flavour of his ideas. They are clearly utopian, and require state benefits for those unable, or unwilling to enter this 'full time' work. However, it does focus the debate on time, which many commentators now see as the most important debate about work; not least because of concerns about family life.

To proceed to the next topic, click on the title below.

Gender Divisions.