Rewsfeed
Why mass production is passe in Japan
So often we have the achievements of the Japanese rammed down our throats and compared to the achievements of our country,
perhaps in an attempt to make us feel inadequate and humble. Whatever the reason, speakers at conferences, engineering
consultants, and even some managing directors constantly remind us of Japanese practices and methods that we should adopt if we
are to remain competitive. It is interesting, then, to read the views of a Japanese managing director on the state of affairs in his
country, hopefully not deriving too much pleasure from the fact that the Japanese have their problems too. The following is a
translation of an article that appeared in an industrial daily in March this year, written by Kikuo Suzumura, senior managing
director of Iseki & Co, under the title 'Mass production is out of step with the times'.
'Although it is common knowledge that the era of
high growth ended long ago and that we are now in
a low growth era, Japanese industry seems to have
a misconception about desirable production
methods in the new age. First of all, industry is
wrong in its analysis of reasons for the recent
sluggish sale of goods. The main reason is not that
the absolute volume of demand has decreased; it is
only that goods no longer sell the way manufac-
turers have been used to.
Manufacturers are fussing about investment
with the idea of rationalisation and of adoption of
advanced technology and are still after mass
production. I question this attitude and in this
connection I would like to direct your attention to a
few basic ideas.
A high growth era creates a state in which
demand is always greater than supply. Thus, in
order to narrow the gap between supply and
demand, factories which are the source of supply
can and did establish mass production systems.
Starting with the production line of Ford's Model
T, factories kept adopting new means of pro-
duction, such as numerical control machine tools,
and the scale and speed of production became a
matter of pride.
Simply put, cost is the value of capital invest-
ment divided by the volume of production. This
means that investment effectiveness rises as pro-
duction expands. Thus, in the days when output
Three ways to PERA project
semi-automatic on moulding
assembly tool use
Manufacturing industry is continuously calling for
various degrees of automation within its pro-
duction systems, covering both component manu-
facture and product assembly. As far as assembly
is concerned, there are various processes and
machines which can be classified as hand oper-
ation, semi automatic or fully automatic assembly,
the latter involving dedicated machinery.
However, not all products can warrant fully
automatic assembly as the quantities, design
variations or product life span do not contribute to
an accepted return on the capital needed for the
machinery involved. Therefore, the engineer has to
consider alternative methods to assemble the
product within an economic target both in labour
cost and capital outlay.
A specialist discussion, by the IProdE on 'Three
approaches to semi-automatic assembly', will
present three case studies from companies which
have successfully introduced combinations of
manual and automatic assembling of their prod-
ucts.
This automated assembling/robotics working
party specialist discussion will be held on 18
October 1984 at Institution Headquarters.
Further details from Nan Dancer, The Manager
—Conferences & Exhibitions, Rochester House
(01-579 9411).
kept expanding, the more a company invested in
the most up-to-date equipment, the better result it
could achieve. In fact, the productivity, increased
almost automatically as the volume increased, and
this was true no matter what new production
method was in use.
The problem in this low growth era with
oversupply is that enterprises appear to be seeking
even bigger production volume and faster speed as
they did in the days of high growth.
A visit to electric appliance retail stores in
Tokyo's Akihabara district or discount stores in
the Shinjuku district will convince you of the state
of oversupply. Video sets, cameras and micro-
computers produced in the most up-to-date facili-
ties are being sold at discounts of 30% to 50%. It is
almost like dumping. It is a side effect of using the
same mass production system as in the high
growth era.
I should think that a mixed production system of
making a large variety of products in small lots is in
keeping with the low growth era since its charac-
teristics are diversification of demand and custom-
oriented marketing. One might go even further and
say that it is the one-of-a-kind production system in
which products are made to the specifications of
individual customers. Over and above, this system
is supposed to work without lowering the pro-
duction efficiency.
The automobile is a good example. Although
To assist companies in their choice of tool for small
batch production, PERA is proposing to carry out
a multi-client project to review technical and
economic alternative mould tool specifications,
manufacturing techniques and sources for injec-
tion moulding tools.
Specific cost information covering a range of
moulded component sizes, complexities and
qualities will be sought and put into case study
form. This will provide a body of data for
independent cost estimating prior to seeking
commercial quotations.
Data for the project will be sought from
companies in the UK, Europe and the USA
covering tool materials, manufacturing techniques
and design concepts. Extensive use will be made of
data from PERA research reports, and infor-
mation accumulated over the past 15 years arising
from the use of a range of tooling for commercial
development work.
Particular attention will be paid to the factors
affecting flexibility of operation in service, such as
tool changing and setting time, tool production and
ease of development modification.
For further information, contact the Manager,
Machinery, Plastics & Dynamics Department,
PERA, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire LEI3
OPB (0664 64133).
The Production Engineer — July/August 1984
cars come off the assembly line at the rate of almost
one car every 60 seconds, it does not mean that the
same model is assembled one after another. An
1800cc hardtop for export to Britain might be
preceded by a 1500cc three-door car for the
domestic market.
Speaking from my own experience at Toyota
Motor Corporation, the number of body types for
a very popular car increased from three to 350 in
under 10 years. Conversely, the number of units
produced monthly for a body type decreased
drastically from 5000 units in the early days to
only 200 units today. Such a decrease in the
production of a model with the same body type
would ordinarily mean a drop in efficiency.
However, at Toyota, this was covered by speeding
up the set-up time for each model. In fact, the
company was successful in its efforts for pro-
ductivity increase.
The same applies to other automakers. They
developed engines and interior parts that would
most adequately meet the production requirements
of the day—to produce a variety of models in small
lots.
Of course, much of this achievement is a result
of quality control movements and research and
innovations made by production engineers. But of
greater importance, it seems, is the selection of
equipment to be installed. Let us assume that a new
stamping machine with a capacity of 1000 strokes
per hour costs X5000 000, and that a higher
performance model of 2000 strokes per hour costs
¥7500 000. If the factory needs the capacity of
only 800 strokes, it would be well to purchase the
high performance equipment if a greater market
demand can be anticipated.
However, in an age of oversupply, the machine
to be installed should not be the high performance
model but the one that is close to the capacity
actually needed. A high performance machine
would not pay for itself unless it is used to its full
capacity. Besides, a high capacity stamping oper-
ation could cause trouble in other operations, but if
the line speed is fixed by the speed of other
operations, the high performance machine would
have to be remodelled and its speed capacity
reduced to half.
Industry today is enthusiastic about industrial
robots and flexible manufacturing systems (FMS),
but it should not forget that the standard for
selection of a machine must be in accordance with
the needed capacity. We hear of many cases in
which FMS was installed and operated even during
the night shifts resulting in overproduction and
overstocked warehouses. We hear, too, that the
workers who became extra as a result of a machine
installation, have been kept in the adjoining room
as stand-by staff for maintenance of the same
machine. Nothing can be more wasteful than such
an investment.
Consumer tastes and preferences are di-
versifying constantly. This is not the age to invest
hurriedly in the latest facilities to please the
management or engineers. Recognising that this is
the age of oversupply, companies should invest
wisely in appropriate facilities to bring their
production systems in line with the times.'