Coordinating Production Improvement in International Production Networks: What’s New?

Chapter

Abstract

How can a multinational firm simultaneously improve the productivity of all its factories? A popular answer is to develop and deploy multi-plant production improvement programmes. Inspired by the sustained success of the Toyota Production System, many companies develop their own company-specific production systems (XPS) and implement them in their dispersed networks of plants. This paper explores what is new in how multinational companies coordinate the improvement of operations on a corporate level. A multiple-case method is used to investigate the production improvement programmes of four Scandinavian multinationals: Elkem, Hydro, Jotun and Volvo. It is suggested that an XPS differs from how companies traditionally have organised improvements in production in three ways: First, it is a lasting strategic programme and not a project. Second, it is tailored to the specific characteristics of the company. Third, it creates a common corporate language for production improvement in all parts of an organisation and in all corners of the world, enabling an easier transfer of practices and learning among plants in the network. These characteristics offer several implications for practice, especially for multinational firms that have yet to start coordinating production improvement in their networks of plants.

Keywords

Production improvement International production networks Multinational companies Lean production 

References

  1. Aa OA, Anthonsen H (2011) Management of best practices in multinational companies: a comparative case study concerning implementation of operations best practices in two subsidiaries of the jotun group. Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Trondheim, NTNUGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvær I, Westgaard SH (2012) Implementation of company-specific production systems (XPS) in multinational companies: a comparative case study concerning implementation of XPS in two subsidiaries of Elkem. Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Trondheim, NTNUGoogle Scholar
  3. Barratt M, Choi TY, Li M (2011) Qualitative case studies in operations management: trends, research outcomes, and future research implications. J Oper Manage 29(4):329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartlett CA, Ghoshal S (1998) Managing across borders: the transnational solution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MassGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman N (2005) Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement. Int J Oper Prod Manage 25(3/4):261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi TY, Hong Y (2002) Unveiling the structure of supply networks: case studies in Honda, Acura, and DaimlerChrysler. J Oper Manage 20(5):469–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colotla I, Shi Y, Gregory MJ (2003) Operation and performance of international manufacturing networks. Int J Oper Prod Manage 23(10):1184–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eide TLH (2012) Critical success factors for managing company-specific production systems. Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Trondheim, NTNUGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev 14(4):532–550Google Scholar
  10. Feggeler A, Neuhaus R (eds) (2002) Ganzheitliche Produktionssysteme—Gestaltungsprinzipien Und Deren Verknüpfung. Köln, Wirtschaftsverlag BachemGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferdows K (ed) (1989) Managing international manufacturing. New York, North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferdows K (1997) Made in the world: the global spread of production. Prod Oper Manage 6(2):102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferdows K (2008) Managing the evolving production network. In: Galavan R, Murray J, Markides C (eds) Strategy, innovation, and change: challenges for management. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghoshal S, Bartlett CA (1988) Creation, adoption, and diffusion of innovations by subsidiaries of multinational corporations. J Int Bus Stud 19(3):365–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammer M, Champy J (1995) Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. Nicholas Brealey, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Henderson KM, Evans JR (2000) Successful implementation of six sigma: benchmarking general electric company. Benchmarking Int J 7(4):260–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jensen R, Szulanski G (2004) Stickiness and the adaptation of organizational practices in cross-border knowledge transfers. J Int Bus Stud 35(6):508–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Juran JM (1988) Juran on planning for quality. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Kogut B, Zander U (1993) Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. J Int Bus Stud 24(4):625–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewis MW (1998) Iterative triangulation: a theory development process using existing case studies. J Oper Manage 16(4):455–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liker JK (2004) The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Mcdonald CJ (1998) The evolution of Intel’s copy EXACTLY! technology transfer method. Intel Technol J Q4(98):1–6Google Scholar
  23. Netland TH (2013) Exploring the phenomenon of company-specific production systems: One-best-way or own-best-way? Int J Prod Res 51(4):1084–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Netland TH, Aspelund A (2013) Company-specific production systems and competitive advantage: a resource-based view on the Volvo production system. Int J Oper Prod Manage 33(12):1511–1531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Netland TH, Aspelund A (2014) Multi-plant improvement programmes: a literature review and research agenda. Int J Oper Prod Manage 34(1):5Google Scholar
  26. Netland T, Sanchez E (2012) People at the wheel—Volvo’s lean journey. Lean Manage J 35–36Google Scholar
  27. Ohno T (1988) Toyota production system: beyond large-scale production. Productivity Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Porter ME (1986) Changing patterns of international competition. Calif Manage Rev 28(2):9–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schonberger RJ (1986) World class manufacturing: the lessons of simplicity applied. ASQC Quality Press, MilwaukeeGoogle Scholar
  30. Schonberger RJ (2007) Japanese production management: an evolution—with mixed success. J Oper Manage 25(2):403–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shingo S, Dillon AP (1989) A study of the Toyota production system from an industrial engineering viewpoint. Productivity Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Sousa R, Voss CA (2008) Contingency research in operations management practices. J Oper Manage 26(6):697–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stake RE (1994) Case studies. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  34. Szulanski G (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strateg Manage J 17(Winter):27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Voss C, Tsikriktsis N, Frohlich M (2002) Case research in operations management. Int J Oper Prod Manage 22(2):195–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Womack JP, Jones DT, Roos D (1990) The machine that changed the world. Rawson Associates, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, SageGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Economics and Technology ManagementNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations