La Maquina Que Cambio Al Mundo
Páginas: 32 (7763 palabras)
Publicado: 27 de mayo de 2012
BOOK SUMMARY
The machine that changed the world
The machine that changed the world
AV Vedpuriswar This classic book explains the evolution of lean manufacturing practices in the automobile industry. As the authors put it, the oft-repeated statement that the world faces a massive overcapacity crisis in automobile production is a misnomer. The reality is that the world has an acute shortageof competitive lean-production capacity and a vast glut of uncompetitive massproduction capacity.
Authors’ Profile
Daniel Roos, Ph.D., is director of the International Motor Vehicle Program at MIT. James P Womack, Ph.D., is research director of the program. Daniel T Jones is the program’s European research director.
The most striking difference between mass-production and lean-productionlies in their ultimate objectives. Massproducers set a limited goal for themselves. This translates into an acceptable number of defects, a maximum acceptable level of inventories and a narrow range of standardized products. To do better, they argue, would cost too much or exceed inherent human capabilities.
Lean producers, set their sights explicitly on perfection: Continually declining costs,zero defects, zero inventories, and endless product variety. No lean producer may have achieved perfection and none ever will. But the endless quest for perfection, on the part of lean producers, continues to generate surprising results.
Henry Ford and the rise of mass-production
Craft production had the following characteristics: • A work force that was highly skilled in design, machineoperations, and fitting. • Organizations that were extremely decentralized, although concentrated within a single city. • The use of general-purpose machine tools to perform drilling, grinding, and other operations on metal wood. • A very low production volume—1,000 or fewer automobiles a year, only a few of which were built to the same design. It was Henry Ford who really understood the drawbacks ofcraft production. With his Model T, Ford achieved two objectives. He had a car that could be easily manufactured and was, userfriendly as well. Almost anyone could drive and repair the car without chauffeur or mechanic. The key to mass-production was not the moving, or continuous, assembly line. Rather, it was the complete and consistent interchangeability of parts and the simplicity of attachingthem to each other. These were the manufacturing innovations that made the assembly line possible. Taken together, interchangeability, simplicity, and ease of attachment gave Ford tremendous advantages over his competition. Besides cutting costs, he could also eliminate the skilled fitters who had always formed the bulk of every assembler’s labor force. The assemblers/fitters performed the same setof activities over and over at their stationary assembly stands. They had to get the necessary parts, file them down so they would fit and then bolt them in place. Ford made this process more efficient by delivering the parts to each work station. Now the assemblers could remain at the same spot all day. Then, around 1908, Ford finally achieved perfect part interchangeability. He decided that theassembler would perform only a single task and move from vehicle to vehicle around the assembly hall. By August 1913, just before the moving assembly line was introduced, the task cycle for the average Ford assembler had been reduced from 514 to 2.3 minutes. Ford soon recognized the problem with moving the worker from assembly stand to assembly stand. Walking took time and jam-ups frequentlyresulted as faster workers overtook the slower workers in front of them. In 1913, Ford introduced the moving assembly line, which brought the car part to the stationary worker. This innovation cut cycle time from 2.3 minutes to 1.19 minutes.
Pages : Price : Publisher :
323 $10.50 Harper Perennial
he automobile industry has come a long way since the days of craft production. The craft...
The machine that changed the world
The machine that changed the world
AV Vedpuriswar This classic book explains the evolution of lean manufacturing practices in the automobile industry. As the authors put it, the oft-repeated statement that the world faces a massive overcapacity crisis in automobile production is a misnomer. The reality is that the world has an acute shortageof competitive lean-production capacity and a vast glut of uncompetitive massproduction capacity.
Authors’ Profile
Daniel Roos, Ph.D., is director of the International Motor Vehicle Program at MIT. James P Womack, Ph.D., is research director of the program. Daniel T Jones is the program’s European research director.
The most striking difference between mass-production and lean-productionlies in their ultimate objectives. Massproducers set a limited goal for themselves. This translates into an acceptable number of defects, a maximum acceptable level of inventories and a narrow range of standardized products. To do better, they argue, would cost too much or exceed inherent human capabilities.
Lean producers, set their sights explicitly on perfection: Continually declining costs,zero defects, zero inventories, and endless product variety. No lean producer may have achieved perfection and none ever will. But the endless quest for perfection, on the part of lean producers, continues to generate surprising results.
Henry Ford and the rise of mass-production
Craft production had the following characteristics: • A work force that was highly skilled in design, machineoperations, and fitting. • Organizations that were extremely decentralized, although concentrated within a single city. • The use of general-purpose machine tools to perform drilling, grinding, and other operations on metal wood. • A very low production volume—1,000 or fewer automobiles a year, only a few of which were built to the same design. It was Henry Ford who really understood the drawbacks ofcraft production. With his Model T, Ford achieved two objectives. He had a car that could be easily manufactured and was, userfriendly as well. Almost anyone could drive and repair the car without chauffeur or mechanic. The key to mass-production was not the moving, or continuous, assembly line. Rather, it was the complete and consistent interchangeability of parts and the simplicity of attachingthem to each other. These were the manufacturing innovations that made the assembly line possible. Taken together, interchangeability, simplicity, and ease of attachment gave Ford tremendous advantages over his competition. Besides cutting costs, he could also eliminate the skilled fitters who had always formed the bulk of every assembler’s labor force. The assemblers/fitters performed the same setof activities over and over at their stationary assembly stands. They had to get the necessary parts, file them down so they would fit and then bolt them in place. Ford made this process more efficient by delivering the parts to each work station. Now the assemblers could remain at the same spot all day. Then, around 1908, Ford finally achieved perfect part interchangeability. He decided that theassembler would perform only a single task and move from vehicle to vehicle around the assembly hall. By August 1913, just before the moving assembly line was introduced, the task cycle for the average Ford assembler had been reduced from 514 to 2.3 minutes. Ford soon recognized the problem with moving the worker from assembly stand to assembly stand. Walking took time and jam-ups frequentlyresulted as faster workers overtook the slower workers in front of them. In 1913, Ford introduced the moving assembly line, which brought the car part to the stationary worker. This innovation cut cycle time from 2.3 minutes to 1.19 minutes.
Pages : Price : Publisher :
323 $10.50 Harper Perennial
he automobile industry has come a long way since the days of craft production. The craft...
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.