Why did this new production system develop?

In the mid 80s Volvo needed to expand its production capacity. The demand for Volvo cars increased steadily during the first part of the 80s, whereby existing plants could not meet this demand without great changes. At the same time, work in industry was not correlated with positive values among people in the work force in Sweden, and the car plants were mere symbols for monotonous work on seemingly endless assembly lines. Concurrently, the labour market in Sweden was very hot during the mid 80s, with an unemployment rate of only about 2 percent. Hence, it was hard to find people willing to work in traditional industries in general and automobile industries in particular. The metal workers union in Sweden had for several years argued and worked for the creation of ‘good work’ for its members. The national metal union in Stockholm, as well as the local Volvo metal union in Gothenburg, found the plans for a Volvo plant in Uddevalla to be an opportunity to put into practice the ‘good work’ philosophy. Others, however, in Gothenburg saw the plans as a threat to the jobs for the metal union’s members in the old plant in Torslanda, Gothenburg.

Volvo wanted to be able to recruit good workers to its automobile plants in order to produce quality cars in an efficient and flexible production system. Since the experiences from the Kalmar plant (an innovative plant of its time) were good, not only concerning production results but also because it led to positive publicity all over the world, the company wanted to make a new effort to create something extra.

Volvo raised the goals for the Uddevalla plant which aimed at the creation of a profitable and flexible factory, with high total productivity, the best qual-

ity and where at the same time the people felt that they had a good job. Also, the cooperation between the company and the unions were meant to develop further during the planning of the factory in Uddevalla. Therefore, it was

important that all union representatives were favourable towards the creation of a good working environment in the factory. This meant something very different from short cycle work tasks on an assembly line. The unions were represented in the planning group from the very beginning of the project.

One person in the management staff of the Volvo company, was fasci-

nated by the concept of ‘holistic learning’ and ‘natural work’ presented at a seminar by a researcher from the University of Gothenburg. As a result of this interest the researcher was engaged in the planning of the Uddevalla factory from the start.

Volvo had for many years made experiments with new production layouts and flows, both in truck and car production on a small scale. Some of these experiments had shown very good results, even better than expected. There was, however, no obvious answer to the question: Why is it so good? The leading production technician from these experiments, a ‘free thinker’ in the company, was also involved in the planning process of the Uddevalla factory from the very start. He also utilized his contacts with researchers in the field of alternatives to line production at the Chalmers Technical University in Gothenburg. They knew, theoretically, that it should be more efficient and profitable to replace the assembly line with a highly parallelized product flow. This would, as a consequence, improve the working environment. The theoretical statements were yet to be proven. Their involvement in the design process became deeper and deeper through the years.

Involved in the planning process were also a few production technicians of a more traditional school whom exerted great influence in the beginning of the planning period. This meant that there was an intellectual struggle between these two groups of technicians. Some steps in this struggle will be indicated below by showing the changing plans from the planning group.

There were several circumstances present that worked in favour of the development of the new ‘Reflective Production System’. Most important was the unique opportunity to combine the different spheres of knowledge and experience from the Volvo car company on the one hand, and from researchers, on the other. This was a necessary precondition and without it, the result would probably not have been successful, in spite of the other favourable circumstances. Some of the more important of those other fac-

tors were:

• Various parties within Volvo were in agreement as to the direction of the project and were thus in fact able to strengthen each others arguments in the daily work.

• The leader of the planning group handled new ideas in a way that favoured the new ideas favouring good working environment. New suggestions were not laid aside solely for lack of time, but were ac-

of the parties involved. For example, the first suggested layout for the assembly shop was laid aside because it lacked renewal. It was more or less a copy of the ten year older Kalmar factory. The majority of the planning group, the company executives and the union representatives, all envisioned something better than that.

• The close cooperation between the representatives from the four differ-

ent unions and the creation of a new role for themselves were of dicisive importance (5). They were able to leave the role of ‘demanders’ making claims and instead take the position of ‘suggestion-makers’.

• The entire planning group was seated in the same office, and all mem-

bers, including the union representatives, worked full-time with the planning process. This geographical proximity made it easier to develop and try new design proposals, as discussions constantly could be started and all members of the planning group were easily involved.

• The negotiations concerning pollutants were protracted. This was im-

portant since the delay led to cancellation of the body and paint shops. Thus, an assembly shop only was eventually built. This cancellation at least had one short term positive and one long-term negative effect. The positive effect was that the planning group could concentrate on mak-

ing something new in the assembly shop. Until the decision to proceed with the planning of an assembly shop only was made, the resistance to change concerning new ideas had been greatest in the subgroup planning the assembly shop. Now all forces were concentrated on that spot. The negative effect, the decision in autumn of 1992 to close the Uddevalla factory, was due in part to the lack of the body and paint shops.