Upload
forest-products-society
View
148
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Implementation of Advanced Manufacturing Technology in the Wood products Industry:
Exploring role and potential of personnel in China’s furniture industry
656565ththth FPS FPS FPS Int. Con.Int. Con.Int. Con.June 2011June 2011June 2011
Institute of Forest Utilization and Work Science, University of Freiburg
College of Furniture and Industrial Design, Nanjing Forestry University
Na Yu and Siegfried Lewark
Introduction
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 2
Introduction(continue)
23%Yes
� Asking about innovation for next 1 or 2 years ~ (n=26)
65%12%
Yes
No
Not sure
International Furniture Fair of IMM Cologne 2009
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 3
M-T-O model
man
- qualifications
- interests and needs
primary task
bord
er r
egul
atio
n border regulation
Elements of a working system (after Strohm 1997, transl. S. Lewark)
technology organisation
transformation processinput output
secondary tasks
variations and
disturbances
problems
variations and
disturbances
bord
er r
egul
atio
n border regulation
- machinery
- working tools
- space conditions
- working processes
- distribution of work
- structures of decision
- structures of communication
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 4
� What are drivers and barriers to the implementation of AMT in China’s furniture industry?
Research questions
� What are impacts of implementing AMT on employees?
1
2
� What can be done in the implementation of AMT regarding potential of personnel?
� What are impacts of implementing AMT on employees? 2
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 5
Research methods
� Case study method (Yin, 2002) .
� Face to face interviews with open-ended questions
� Questionnaire survey
( Job Diagnostic Survey [JDS], Hackman and Oldham1974)( Job Diagnostic Survey [JDS], Hackman and Oldham1974)
????20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 6
Cases selection
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 7
Cases description
Category Firm A Firm B Firm C Firm D
Location Jiangsu Guangdong Shenzhen Zhejiang
Size Medium Medium Large Large
Population of Employees 500-1000 500-1000 2000 2000Employees 500-1000 500-1000 2000 2000
Type of ProductKitchen and
home furnitureKitchen and
home furniture Home furniture Office furniture
OwnershipSino-foreign joint
venture Private PublicSino-foreign joint venture
Process Innovation CIM/MC CIM/MC CIM CIM/LP
Start of Innovation 2009.4/2003 2006.9/2006.9 2009.5 2009.4/2008.7
CIM: computer integrated manufacturing; MC: mass customization; LP: lean production.
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 8
Research procedure
The process of implementing AMT
Study period (One year)
Keeping in touch by phone with production managers
The first field work & data collection(May-Aug. 2009)
The second field work & data collection(May-Aug. 2010)
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 9
The AMT implementation processes
2009.5-8 2010.5-8Questionnaire surveyInterviews
Questionnaire survey Interviews
First survey Second survey
Research procedure (cont.)
Firm A
Firm B
Firm C
Firm D
Firm C
Firm A
Firm B
Firm D
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 10
Interviews (cont.)
� Description of respondents1
Code Firm A Firm B Firm C Firm D
A-1 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 D-1 D-2 D-3
Position Production manager
Production manager
Human resource manager
Production manager
Supervisor in production
Production manager
Human resource management
AMT Project specialistmanager production management
specialistspecialist
Sex Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Female
Age (y) 30–39 30–39 30–39 30–39 30–39 30–39 25–30 25–30
Education Master Bachelor Master College College Secondary school
Bachelor Secondary school
Working experience (y)
4 3 1 5 2 3.5 1.5 2
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 11
Interviews (cont.)
• What were key drivers of introducing new AMT in the firm?
• What were main barriers in the process of implementing AMT?
� Interview questions2
• What were main barriers in the process of implementing AMT?
• How long did it take the workers to accept the new working system?
• Were the employees willing to accept the new working system?
• How did you motivate the employees in the process of
implementing AMT?
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 12
Interviews (cont.)
� Simultaneously recorded by a digital recorder & handnotes
� Translated by the author from Chinese into English.
� Data collection and analysis3
� Translated by the author from Chinese into English. A bilingual person proofread and corrected the translations
� Qualitative data analysis (Miles and Huberman,1994) : reducing the data exploring and describing the data deepening and explaining the data making sense of the data and concluding the analysis
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 13
Results – Key drivers
Firm A Firm B Firm C Firm D
Production process
·The need to improve productivity and product quality
·The need to improve productivity and product quality
·The need to improve productivity and product quality
·The need to improve productivity and product quality
·The need to improve land productivity (referring to the limitation of land resources)
·Requirement of changes in production process to meet wide range of products
·The need to reduce human error in production
·The need to reduce human error in error in production human error in production
Human side ·Difficulties in recruitment caused by shortage of skilled workers
·The need to reduce dependence on the work skills of employees
·Difficulties in recruitment caused by shortage of skilled workers
·The need to reduce dependence on the work skills of employees
·Increased labor costs ·The need to reduce dependency on the work skills of employees
·Increased labor costs
Others ·Introducing new production line
·Facing bankruptcy ·Requirement of changes in management
·Decision of top manager were Influenced by visiting a successful firm in process innovation
Results – Main barriers
Preparationphase
·Difficulties for middlemanagers andsupervisors tounderstand the newproduction concept
·Difficulties for middlemanagers andsupervisors tounderstand the newproduction concept
·Difficulties for middlemanagers andsupervisors tounderstand the newproduction concept
·Difficulties for middlemanagers andsupervisors tounderstand the newproduction concept
·Difficulties for first lineworkers to understandthe new productionconcept
·Lack of confidence inthe new workingsystem of middlemanagers andsupervisors
·Difficulties for first lineworkers to understandthe new productionconcept
Firm A Firm B Firm C Firm D
supervisors
·Unwilling to acceptthe new workingsystem for skilledworkers
·Unwilling to accept thenew working systemfor skilled workers
Applicationphase
·Difficulties inCommunicationbetween managementand worker levels
·Difficulties in processimprovement andoptimization
·Shortage of qualifiedstaff and workers
·Difficulties inCommunicationbetween managementand worker levels
·Shortage of qualifiedstaff and workers
·Shortage of ofqualified staff andworkers
·Insufficientunderstanding andcooperation from otherdepartments
·Insufficientunderstanding andcooperation from otherdepartments
·Ill-matchedorganizational structure
·UnsatisfiedOrganizationenvironment
Questionnaire survey
Questionnaire Design
Functionally designed based on the JDS. 9 sections and 18 indicators.
1
The JDS provides measures of a number of personal, affective reactions or feelings a person obtains from performing the job.
Target group2
Data collection3
Employees who were participating the implementation of AMT in the
case-study firms.
Data analysis4
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 16
Indicators
N. Abb. Indicator N. Abb. Indicator
1 SV Skill variety 10 KR Knowledge of results
2 TI Task identity 11 GeS General satisfaction
3 TS Task significance 12 IWI Internal work motivation
4 Au Autonomy 13 PaS Pay satisfaction
5 FJ Feedback from the job itself 14 SeS Security satisfaction5 FJ Feedback from the job itself 14 SeS Security satisfaction
6 FA Feedback from Agents 15 SoS Social satisfaction
7 DO Dealing with others 16 SuS Supervisory satisfaction
8 EMW
Experienced meaningfulness of the work
17 GrS Growth satisfaction
9 ERW
Experienced responsibility for the work
18 MPS Motivation potential score
FJAu3
TSTISVMPS ××
++=
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 17
Data collection
First survey (T1) Second survey (T2)
Frequency Valid Percent Frequency Valid Percent
Firm A 68 29.7% 101 18.1%
Firm B 59 25.8% 182 32.7%
Firm C 24 10.5% 85 15.3%
Firm D 78 34.1% 189 33.9%
Valid Total 229 100.0% 557 100.0%
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 18
Data analysis
SV TI TS Au FJ FA DO EMW ERW KR GeS IWM PaS SeS SoS SuS GrS MPS
SV 1.00
TI ,251** 1.00
TS ,172** ,197** 1.00
Au ,354** ,322** ,271* * 1.00
FJ ,193** ,264** ,256* * ,329** 1.00
FA 0.12 ,368** ,252* * ,316** ,449** 1.00
Experienced meaningfulness of the work
General satisfaction
Social satisfaction
Feedback from the job itself
Supervisory satisfaction
Growth satisfaction
Dealing with
others
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) ;* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); Listwise N=229
Feedback fromAgents
Knowledge of results
Paymentsatisfaction
Correlation among indicators of the questionnaire survey (n=229)
DO ,213** ,171** ,340* * 0.13 ,180** ,215* * 1.00
EMW ,239** ,300** ,233* * ,274** ,235** ,361* * ,136* 1.00
ERW ,159* ,212** ,230* * ,228** ,196** ,277* * ,143* ,382** 1.00
KR ,153* ,272** ,173* * ,253** ,411** ,332* * 0.06 ,369** ,336** 1.00
GeS ,155* ,187** ,225* * ,281** ,211** ,326* * ,131* ,604** ,370** ,282* * 1.00
IWM 0.08 0.07 0.10 ,141* ,221** ,197* * ,261** 0.08 ,247** ,152* ,177** 1.00
PaS -0.13 0.05 0.08 ,170* ,166* ,218* * ,245** ,215** ,217** 0.11 ,424** ,185* * 1.00
SeS ,225** 0.12 ,204* * ,345** ,343** ,187* * ,153* ,327** ,249** ,254* * ,442** ,173* * ,337* * 1.00
SoS 0.08 ,246** ,160* ,244** ,270** ,196* * ,177** ,232** ,304** ,216* * ,363** ,180* * ,221* * ,324* * 1.00
SuS 0.11 ,269** ,160* ,302** ,328** ,421* * ,163* ,313** ,331** ,354* * ,429** ,197* * ,440* * ,441* * ,433* * 1.00
GrS ,265** ,245** ,239* * ,523** ,345** ,344* * ,190** ,375** ,329** ,262* * ,464** ,177* * ,346* * ,397* * ,474* * ,479* * 1.00
MPS ,501** ,513** ,480* * ,792** ,710** ,478* * ,270** ,383** ,308** ,396* * ,319** ,212* * ,189* * ,432* * ,337* * ,384* * ,544* * 1.00
Listwise N=229
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 19
Data collection (Cont.)
Factors Levels Factors Levels
Sex Female / /
Male
Age Under 30 Occupation Manager
30-40 White-collar worker
Above 40 Blue-collar worker
Educational levelPrimary school and junior
middle school Work experience Less 2 years
High school and vocational school 2 - 5 years
College and University Over 5 years
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 20
Results (occupation)
dfMeanSquare F Sig.
Occupation 2 50979.39 16.47 .00**
Phase 1 290.6 0.09 .76
Occupatio*Phase 2 19106.07 6.17 .00**
** P<.001
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 21
Results (cont.)
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
N Mean SD F Sig.
SV M 78 4.95 1.01 12.46 .00**
W 122 4.3 1.26
B 357 4.21 1.19
TI M 78 5.09 1.13 14.65 .00**
W 122 4.67 1.29
B 357 4.33 1.15
TS M 78 5.81 1.1 19.5 .00**
The JDS indicators of employees in different occupational groups in the second phase (T2)
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
SV TI TS Au FJ FA DO EMWERW KR GeS IWM PaS SeS SoS SuS GrS
Managers Blue-collar workers White-collar workers
W 122 5.61 1.12
B 357 5.03 1.25
Au M 78 5.16 0.94 22.8 .00**
W 122 4.6 1.07
B 357 4.24 1.19
FJ M 78 5.3 1.04 15.42 .00**
W 122 5.16 1.1
B 357 4.68 1.11
** P<.001
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 22
Results (cont.)
Psychological barriers of blue-collar workers
Emerging role of female employees
Occupation
Sex
Different psychological barriers for younger and older employees
Significant differences between employees
with and without higher education background
Age
Education
Work experience is a positive factor for the AMT implenentationWork experience
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 23
Conclusions
Technological and nontechnological issues should both be considered
during process innovation.
Work redesign and motivating employees according to the results of the
assessment to eliminate people’s psychological barriers is necessary for
successful process innovation.
Integrating Human to advanced manufacturing system !
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 24
Acknowledgment:
The Elisabeth und Barbara Grammel-Studienstiftung
Graduate School Environment, Society and Global Change
20/6/11 56th FPS convention Portland, OR, USA N. Yu and S. Lewark 25