2007/08/06 11:40 Takahiro Fujimoto, "Manufacturing as a System of Design Information", ISSS Tokyo 2007

2007/08/06 11:40 Takahiro Fujimoto,  "Manufacturing as a System of Design Information", ISSS Tokyo 2007

This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker's presentation(s) and comments from the audience. The content should not be viewed as an official transcript of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. The digest has been made available for purposes of scholarship, posted on the ISSS web site by David Ing.

Jim Kijima

Takahiro Fujimoto, Professor, Manufacturing Management

[Takahiro Fujimoto]

Takahiro Fujimoto

Research Center, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

Read social systems theory when an undergraduate at University of Tokyo

  • One of first English books read with von Bertalanffy
  • Wrote paper on systems approach to irrigation

Entered business administration, particularly of manufacturing, now moving to the services sector

Manufacturing Management Research Center, University of Tokyo since 2003

Systems thinking a common approach

  • Many engineers by training, some social scientists

Root view of manufacturing:

  • Continue view of material flows
  • Would like to expand view to service sectors, by introducing the ideas of design
  • Design concept from engineering, social theories of trade theories and competitiveness from economists and management
  • Herbert Simon had tried to combine these in the Sciences of the Artificial, which is a big influence

Focus:

  • Often visit factories, at least once per week
  • Look at the flows of value to the customers
  • Where does the value reside?  Materials, not really.
  • Most cases it's the design information

e.g. a cup:  it's made of plastic, sometimes it's glass or metal

  • There's someone's design thinking behind this
  • The essence of artifacts is design information

Economists haven't thought of products this way, have thought of them as things that are already designed

  • But someone designed it, somewhere
  • A missing link in standard economics

Design-based competitive advantage

  • Key concept:  design information has value
  • Firm's products and processes are artifacts that have been designed
    • This doesn't say anything about materials, could be product or a service
  • Manufacturing is the creation and transmission of design information to customers
  • e.g. Toyota people think about manufacturing this way, as value flows, and they try to make good flows of value:  fast, smooth, precise, accurate information flows to the customer
  • Monozukuri:  manufacturing capability as a distinct ability to handle flows of design information toward customers
  • Service sector is low productivity

Product-process architecture

  • Design is common denominator

Basic idea:

  • All products and services are a combination of the design information, plus the medium (material)
  • Compare to Aristotle:  object as form and material, and form is more essential
  • Products (as goods and services) are artificial, i.e. something designed
  • If the medium is tangible, it's manufacturing; if intangible, it's services

Penrose, nature of the firm

Manufacturing as the control of flows of design information between productive resources

  • Design information goes together with materials
  • Development, production and sales can all be explained by these ideas of manufacturing as design flows

Value-added time

e.g. body exterior press shop

  • Information transmission time = value-adding time
  • Information non-transmission time is MUDA (waste)

Organizational capabilities:

  • From Nelson and Winter (evolutionary economics) ideas of organizational routines, as repeated control of design information flows between productive resource

Toyota: high productivity and high quality

  • Their focus is muda
  • Muda is unnecessary non-transmission time, which includes inventory, over-production, and defects on the information receiver side
  • Toyota has 600,000 Kaisen activities, because it still has lots of muda

Toyota has 3 layers of capability:

  • Routinized manufacturing capability
  • Routinized learning capability (kaizen)
  • Evolutionary capability (capability-building capability)
    • There are many mistakes that were made, that aren't report, but the failures are source of capabilities
    • (Have written a 400-page book on this)
    • Fortune favours the prepared mind

Don't rush to connect profit performance from organizational capability, at least two intermediaries

  • Organizational capability --> Productive performance --> Market performance --> Profit performance
  • First two are arean of capability-building competition
  • Good companies are alwsys looking at productivity performance: productivity, lead time, conformance quality

Productive performance of Japanese companies was higher in the 1990s, but profits were lower, which speaks to long-term effects

  • By late 1990s, Japanese were slow to catch up on profits, suggesting weak strategy but strong operatoins

Architectural thinking and industrial classification

  • If decompose the products, are they general components or specific components?
  • Modular architecture: product function hierarchy and product structure hierarchy are one-to-one
    • Can recombine, e.g. computers, bicycles
  • Others have integral architecture, e.g. motorcycles
    • Need teams to solve simultaneous equations
    • Good retention of employees
    • Illusion that Japan is good at high-tech products, much moved to China

Integral architecture:  many-to-many mapping between function and structure

Open architecture

Three types of architectures:  closed-integral, closed-modular, open-modular

  • Closed integral:  Japanese automobiles
  • Closed modular:  American trucks are good at this, body on frame
  • Chinese products:  quasi-open modular architecture, on Chinese local markets
    • Seldom see this in India motorcycles, but do see this in China, where have mix and match of copied types

Japanese cars, 90% are product-specific, compared to computers that are only 50%

Two-staged design process, linked by trial-and-error coordination

  • Japanese are good with this, due to long-term employment

Design-based comparative advantage

  • Economists ignore where design is done, focusing on where manufacturing is done

Predictions on architecture-based compariative advantage (by country)

  • Integral axis and modular axis:
  • Japan most integral
  • China and Korea most modular

e.g. steel trade pattern, economists can't explain

  • Cars use different types of steel in different parts of cars
  • Japan exports outer panels, whereas inner panels are Korean

Implication to Japanese Industrial Policy

  • Protectionism tries to protect slowest runnings
  • Want to chang to front-runner-oriented industrial policies
  • Slowest runners need to be handled by social policies, not industrial policies

Announcements