session 11 ic2011 yu

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


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


� 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


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


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.


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)


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


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


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?


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


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 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 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


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 ××

++=


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%


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


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


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


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


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


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 !


Acknowledgment:

The Elisabeth und Barbara Grammel-Studienstiftung

Graduate School Environment, Society and Global Change


session 11 ic2011 yu

Business

lewark qualifications

firm bfirm cfirm d

new amt

implementation1 of amt

process ofimplementing

new working system

lean production

describingthe data deepening