Thursday, April 4, 2019

Fordist And Taylorist Production Systems Cultural Studies Essay

intersectionist And Taylorist Production Systems cultural Studies EssayFordism, named after the Henry Ford from US, who refers to a variety of communal theories about takings, assembling and relate socio- economical pheno manpowera1. Although Henry Ford was not the inventor of the automobile nevertheless he developed extraordinary methods of hold out and marketing that all(a)owed the automobile to become r distributivelyable to the the Statesn working class. Ford al focuss wanted to sack cars that his team workers could afford easily. So, the mass overtake began in Detroit in 1914, when Ford discovered that a piteous assembly line employ interchangeable parts which could completely reduce the cost of making beat spur cars. After that he gaind the Ford Motor Company, which was one of a dozen minuscule automobile manufacturers that emerged in the early 20th century. Mass production was really an unpleasant work, with elevated turnover because new production system must be oriented to wards multi-skilling and rapid re-skilling workers in modulate to hold the search for transporting a newly forming market in a post mass production (cf. Piore, M. and Sabel, C., 1984). Just to hold escaped his unskilful workforce, Ford doubled their wages to $5 per day justified by high productivity2. After three years of production, he introduced the Model T, which was simple and light yet sturdy bountiful to drive on the countrys very ele custodytary road system. He sold 18m Model T Fords, transforming to America into the first car-owning democracy, at a low price that dropped from $600 to $250 over 15 years. Henry Fords success and revolutionary techniques of production were then termed Fordism3.The scale of mass production is hard to understand. Fords River Rouge plant in Detroit, terminate in 1928, he extended for a mile along a tributary of the Detroit River and engaged 100,000 men workers. Raw materials like iron ore and rubber were unloaded at one end, and finished cars emerged from the other end, 72 hours later. But Fords system proved less economical than GM4, which produced a range of models for different pocketbooks. poke traffic were troubled, sit-down strike, at the big automakers in the 1930s with layoffs and speed-ups, the end of organized capitalist economy has a tendency to become dis-organized in that the labour-employer relationships argon fracturing (cf. Lash, S. and Urry, J. 1987) . GM was the first company forced to recognize the UAW5 unification after a sit-down strike closed its plants in Flint, Michigan in 1937. After to a great extent battles, the workers won higher wages and benefits, sharing in the Ameri endure Dream. Unions also negotiated pissed work rules to comfort workers from exploitation by foremen. Ford was even to a greater extent(prenominal) determined to oppose fusions than GM, and Henry Ford employed 3,000 service department personnel to prevent them taking hold. In 1937 they beat up key UAW union organizers attempting to hand out leaflets near the River Rouge factory. But in 1941, even Ford was forced to replication to union power, to ensure industrial peace during wartime. But the legacy of bitter industrial relations endured.The right of mass production is due to Post Fordism small scale batch production in small medium plants not mass production in large plant, only customized not standardized products, victimisation multi-skilled workers with flexible work roles not fixed job descriptions, robots and computerized work teams instead of moving assembly lines (cf. Murray, R. 1989). railroad car manufacture ceased with the outbreak of World War II, but the auto manufacturers made good profits dower with the war effort, producing everything from jeeps to aircraft engines. The mass production helped the Allies win the war, and led to further consolidation in the pains. The war also brought new societal groups, like women and black people, into the auto ind ustry, but also increased social tensions in Detroit. Unemployment disappe ared, and the UAWs power grew. The end of the war released an enormous surge of pent-up demand, especially for cars and houses, and Detroit boomed as neer before. Car workers wages soared and galore(postnominal) became homeowners. The Big three car companies dominated production as neer before. In 1955 GM became the first company to make $1bn profit. Big cars predominated, promoted by sexy adverts6.The first signs that all was not come up with Detroit was the 1973 oil crisis, when Middle East producers declared a boycott. Queues formed at gaseous state stations, and consumers for the first time switched in large numbers to smaller, more economical cars- much made by the Japanese which they found more reliable. The Detroit-made cars had more defects, and Detroits attempts to build a successful small car failed. The auto industry now is much better prepared to withstand the effects of an oil crisis and mee t consumer demand for exceedingly fuel- in effect(p) vehicles than it was during the Middle East oil crisis of the 1970s, Ford Motor Company Chairman Harold A. Poling said7.Imports of Japanese cars soared in the 1980s as consumers gradually grew to prefer the smaller, more reliable cars. The unions and the US companies reacted to the threat by stressful to get the US government to block imports, and by the mid-1980s had succeeded in getting Japan to agree think export chains (cf. Womack, J., P., Jones, J.T., Roos, D., 1990). But the move backfired as Japanese firms became more profitable and moved up market, launching cars like the Lexus. The US companies determined that they could make more money by selling sports service program vehicles, built on a truck chassis. In the 1990s sales of SUVs8and minivans soared. Imported SUVs attracted a higher tariff rate, blocking Japanese rivals. They were not very fuel-efficient, but with oil prices at $18 a barrel, no one seemed to mind. As imports flooded in, the car market became increasingly dominated by opposed producers, who imported millions of cars from overseas factories. Companies also increasingly relocated production to Canada and Mexico after the Nafta free trade agreement. GM, Ford and Chrysler thought that the Japanese had an unfair advantage due to an undervalued (low) currency. They also believed that oil prices would return to lower levels. leaning production, Japanese manufacturers like Toyota and Nissan were also building more factories within the US to escape import controls, threat from Japan,(cf. Womack, J., P., Jones, J.T., Roos, D., 1990) in the response to eliminate waste by introducing this method. These factories were based on a new and more efficient production system, and they also allowed the transplants to develop new models more quickly. They also developed closer relationships with suppliers, using just-in-time methods. Soon they were competing across the whole range of vehicles, from trucks to compact cars. Green cars, in the last year many Ameri layabouts defy accepted the reality of global warming, and the demand for green vehicles has grown. Toyota sells 100,000 Prius intercrosseds a year and is rolling the hybrid technology out across its entire range. Both Ford and GM exposed electric-powered concept cars at the 2007 Detroit Motor Show, but they may be years out-of-door from mass production.Taylorism, a system of production devised by F. W. Taylor (1911), and characterized by the division of factory work into the smallest and simplest jobs while closely co-ordinating the sequence of tasks in order to achieve maximum efficiency, as, for example, on a production line. As a result, skilled managers and technicians oversee semi-skilled or unskilled workers who are engaged in simple, repetitive chores. This system of production has had profound spatial implications, as large firms often allocate skilled and unskilled jobs to different locations, creating a division of labour9.Taylorism is often mentioned along with Fordism, because it was closely associated with mass production methods in manufacturing factories. Taylors own name for his approach was scientific prudence10. Applications of scientific management sometimes fail to account for two inherent difficultiesIndividuals are different from each other the almost efficient way of working for one person may be wasteful for another.The economic interests of workers and management are rarely identical, so that some(prenominal) the measurement processes and the retraining required by Taylors methods are frequently resented and sometimes sabotaged by the workforce.Both difficulties were recognized by Taylor, but are by and large not fully addressed by managers who only see the potential improvements to efficiency. Taylor believed that scientific management cannot work unless the worker benefits. In his view management should arrange the work in such a way that one is able to produc e more and get compensable more, by teaching and implementing more efficient procedures for producing a product.Although Taylor did not compare workers with machines, some of his critics use this image to explain how his approach makes work more efficient by removing unnecessary or wasted effort (cf. Parker M. and Slaughter, J., 1988). However, some would say that this approach ignores the complications introduced because workers are necessarily human personal needs, interpersonal difficulties and the very real difficulties introduced by making jobs so efficient that workers consecrate no time to relax. As a result, workers worked harder, but became dissatisfied with the work environment. Some have argued that this discounting of worker personalities led to the rise of labour unions.It can also be said that the rise in labor unions is leading to a push on the part of industry to accelerate the process of automation, a process that is undergoing a renaissance with the invention of a host of new technologies starting with the computer and the Internet. This shift in production to machines was clearly one of the goals of Taylorism (cf. Berggren, C., 1989), and represents a victory for his theories. It may not be adaptational to changing scenarios it overemphasizes routine procedures, i.e. strictly following a given set of rules and regulations, work procedures, production centeredness etc.However, tactfully choosing to ignore the still controversial process of automating human work is also politically expedient, so many still say that practical problems caused by Taylorism led to its replacement by the human relations school of management in 1930. Others (cf. Braverman, H., 1974) insisted that human relations did not replace Taylorism but that both approaches are rather opposite Taylorism determining the actual organization of the work process and human relations helping to adapt the workers to the new procedures.However, Taylors theories were clearly at the roots of a global revival in theories of scientific management in the last two decades of the 20th century, under the moniker of corporate reengineering or pedigree process re-engineering (cf. Milkman, R., 1997). As such, Taylors ideas can be seen as the root of a very influential serial of developments in the workplace, with the goal being the eventual elimination of industrys need for unskilled, and later perhaps, even most skilled labor in any form, directly following Taylors recipe for deconstructing a process. This has come to be know as commoditization, and no skilled profession, even medicine, has proven to be immune from the efforts of Taylors followers, the re-engineers, who are often called disparaging names such as bean counters.A complex division of labour11and the expansion of economic interdependence accompanied the result of industrial capitalism. The division of labour reached its logical conclusion in the emergence of Taylorism and its mass production partner, Fordism. These had their weaknesses including high start-up costs and a relatively rigid production process. Such low-trust systems can be contrasted with high-trust systems, where workers operate with greater autonomy and cooperation.A whole series of techniques and initiatives are described by the term post-Fordism including group production and mass customization. These are epitomized by the Quality Circle, a concept disaffect to Taylorist assumptions that workers need to be stripped of opportunities for creative input. Such systems tend to be marked by high skill levels and rapid turnover of product designs. The decline of manufacturing industry as an employer can be explained both by competition from the Far East and the increasing rate of technological change. Global production systems have also contributed to the movement of industry around the world. These processes have led to a steady decline in trade union membership since the 1970s.The separation of home and work contri buted to the marginalization of women from paid employment, a archetype gradually reversed during the ordinal century. Within the economy women remain concentrated in poorly paid routine occupations12. Either work becomes recreated as womens work, or heartlands of female employment slowly have their locating eroded over time. Labour-force participation is higher among childless women, though many more females now return to their full-time jobs after childbirth than they did a decade ago. Women dominate part-time employment, though their reasons for remaining in such jobs remain the source of controversy13.The most notable change in working tone in developed countries has been the expansion of female participation in the paid labour market and resulting wearing away of the male breadwinner model within families. Among men, the trend has been away from manual work and currently also away from routine non-manual labour. These trends have levelled off in recent years, with women re maining over-represented in routine white-collar jobs and men over-represented in skilled manual work. Despite womens advances across the economy, the top posts remain the preserve of men. Women in the most recent generation have benefited from the legislation passed in the 1970s, but the pay divide remains veridical over a tonetime. Debates on skills in the workplace have tended to become polarized between those, (cf. Braverman, H., 1974), who see capitalism as continually deskilling the workforce as new machines and technologies replace crafts and creativity who argue that it is not technology but the way this is used that is most important14.Unemployment has a long history and has ebbed and flowed finishedout the twentieth century. There are significant effects for individuals, communities and the wider society. These are disproportionately borne by the young and ethnic minorities. A key task for individuals will be to find ways of forging long-term life plans in a society tha t privileges the short-term. In 1990s the the new industrial relations associated with the introduction of HRM, also seeks to create an atmosphere and a framework for union-management collaboration (cf. Guest, D., 1989, Storey, J., 1992).From the above it is possible to deduce some conclusions. First of all, thither are changes in the way by which work is done and controlled. The Fordism model is dictatorial, with rigid discipline, technical and specialised personnel training, taking man as a simple addition of the machine and separating the intellectual from the manual work. Classical management control is performed by rigid supervision procedures. The number of problem with general post-Fordist double has implication for the potential embedding (cf. Kelly, J., 1998) The post-Fordist model presents flexible authority and control systems by which conformism and passivity open spaces for dynamism and creativity (according to the management model established earlier).However, when t his analysis is centred on the objects and ideology that guide the originative process, one can conclude that no evolution has occurred. Management, yesterday and today, aims toward maximum rationalization of the production system, greater increase in productivity, profitability and competition, maintaining together the older way of production (cf. Sparrow, P. and Marchington, M., 1998). When that concentration is measured in employment harm, aggregate data for the mid-70s to the mid-80s show that larger firms in all three societies have been cast labour, even though disproportionately. This fact must be analysed also by the quality of employment, the quality of life and the security of economic recovery, and not just from the point of view of job creation in terms of head-counts.The de-centralization of decision-making and flattening of managerial hierarchies in post-Fordist has led to a de-centralization of managerial control, or whether Fordist centralized management control i s being maintained, even in spatially decentralized units, through the development of new control technologies (cf. Lane, C., 1995). In fact, at that place is not, in either model, a proposal that guarantee the autonomy of the worker. In both, Taylor and Ford, task obligations are reached through rigid control and supervision concerning the worker. In the post-Fordism model, task obligations occur by way of a rigid management scheme. Direct supervisory control is inhibited, assuming either the form of auto-control or control by complex technological procedures nevertheless, it continues to exist.Beyond the work strengthening and capital concentration, the post-Fordism model maintains the division of work, although on more ample bases. If in Taylorism-Fordism the tasks were broken down into simple and routine movements, in post-Fordism the division into fractions of work happens with the attribution of responsibility to the groups that fulfil a set of specific tasks (activities). T here is widespread agreement in the publications that due to the need for more flexible and speedier reaction to changing market demands, de-centralization of decision-making and flattening of managerial hierarchies has occurred (cf. Lane, C., 1995). However, there is shortsighted systematic evidence as to what form that de-centralization has taken and which hierarchical levels have been affected. To the post-Fordism is like Fordism as well as post-modernism is like modernism. Postmodernism is another version of that historical amnesia characteristic of American culture the dictatorship of the new. According to the Green (cf. Green, A., 1997), postmodernism should be seen not as a development beyond modernism but rather as a continuation of a certain idealist current within it. unmatched can make the same statement about Fordism and post-Fordism.Finally, it seems opportune to repeat the words of Ford from back in the 40s (cf. Ford, H., 1991) We are not surviving in a machine a ge we are living in the power age. This power age of ours has great possibilities, depending upon how we use it. Of course it can be mistreated. But, it can also be used greatly to benefit mankind. If this sentence were true during that period of time, today it seems even more adequate.References

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.