The Cambridge International Handbook of Lean Production Diverging Theories and New Industries around the World
Book contents
- The Cambridge International Handbook of Lean Production
- The Cambridge International Handbook of Lean Production
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Figures and Sidebars
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- 1 Lean Production as the Dominant Division of Labor
- Part I Theories of Lean Production
- Part II Lean Production across Industries
- Part III Lean Production Around the World
- 17 Lean in Europe and the USA – A New Dominant Division of Labour?
- 18 The Development and Diffusion of the Hyundai Production System
- 19 Transferring Lean to the United States
- 20 Disseminating Lean across the UK: A Personal Reflection
- 21 Lean Production in Germany
- 22 Tricolore
- 23 Lean Production in China: A Case Study of the Automobile Industry
- 24 Lean Production in India and Australia
- 25 The Four Stages of Lean in Mexico
- 26 Lean Production in Post-Communist Europe
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
21 - Lean Production in Germany
A Contested Model
from Part III - Lean Production Around the World
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 March 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge International Handbook of Lean Production
- The Cambridge International Handbook of Lean Production
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Figures and Sidebars
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- 1 Lean Production as the Dominant Division of Labor
- Part I Theories of Lean Production
- Part II Lean Production across Industries
- Part III Lean Production Around the World
- 17 Lean in Europe and the USA – A New Dominant Division of Labour?
- 18 The Development and Diffusion of the Hyundai Production System
- 19 Transferring Lean to the United States
- 20 Disseminating Lean across the UK: A Personal Reflection
- 21 Lean Production in Germany
- 22 Tricolore
- 23 Lean Production in China: A Case Study of the Automobile Industry
- 24 Lean Production in India and Australia
- 25 The Four Stages of Lean in Mexico
- 26 Lean Production in Post-Communist Europe
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
The first publications on lean production and the evidence of the competitive advantage Japanese companies held over German competitors (Womack et al. 1990) shocked the German automotive industry of the late 1980s and early 1990s, leading to difficult discussions within companies, trade unions and the academic community about the future development of production systems. While some of the actors pushed for radical change and the adoption of lean production, others pointed out specific conditions in Germany that made directly adopting Japanese models impossible (Turner/Auer 1994; Streeck 1996). The watchword of these latter contributions was “Japan kapieren, nicht kopieren” – understand Japan, but do not copy it.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge International Handbook of Lean ProductionDiverging Theories and New Industries around the World, pp. 507 - 528Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Adler, Paul. 1995. “‘Democratic Taylorism’: The Toyota Production System at NUMMI.” pp. 207–219 in: Babson, Steve (Ed.), Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto Industry. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, Eileen and Batt, Rosemary. 1994. The New American Workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.Google Scholar
Babson, Steve. 1993. “Lean or mean: the MIT model and lean production at Mazda”, Labor Studies Journal 18(1): 3–24.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, Lisanne. 1983. “Ironies of automation. Analysis, design and evaluation of man–machine systems”, Automatica 19(6): 775–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, James. 1993. “Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly 38(3): 408–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batt, Rosemary and Doellgast, Virginia. 2006. “Groups, Teams, and the Division of Labor: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Organization of Work”, pp. 138–161 in Ackroyd, Stephen, Batt, Rosemary, Thompson, Paul and Tolbert, Paul (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Work and Organization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benassi, Chiara and Dorigatti, Lisa. 2015. “Straight to the core – explaining union responses to the casualization of work: the IG Metall campaign for agency workers”. British Journal of Industrial Relations 53(3): 533–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bispinck, Reinhard. 2000. Tarifentgelt nach Leistung und Erfolg [Regulating Performance-based Pay in Collective Agreements]. Düsseldorf, Germany: WSI.Google Scholar
Buer, Sven-Vegard, Strandhagen, Jan Ola and Chan, Felix T. S.. 2018. “The link between Industrie 4.0 and lean manufacturing: mapping current research and establishing a research agenda”. International Journal of Production Research 56(8): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butollo, Florian, Jürgens, Ulrich and Krzywdzinski, Martin. 2018. “From Lean Production to Industrie 4.0. More Autonomy for Employees?” WZB Discussion Paper SP II 2018–303, Berlin: WZB.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Susan and Bailey, Diane. 1997. “What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite”. Journal of Management 23(3): 230–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, Thomas. 1978. “Self-regulating work groups: a socio-technical synthesis”. The Academy of Management Review 3(3): 625–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doellgast, Virginia and Greer, Ian. 2007. “Vertical disintegration and the disorganization of German industrial relations”. British Journal of Industrial Relations 45(1): 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dohse, Knuth, Jürgens, Ulrich and Malsch, Thomas. 1985. “From ‘Fordism’ to ‘Toyotism’? The social organization of the labor process in the Japanese automobile industry”. Politics & Society 14(2): 115–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dombrowski, Uwe, Palluck, Markus and Schmidt, Stefan. 2006. “Strukturelle Analyse Ganzheitlicher Produktionssysteme” [Structural analysis of holistic production systems]. ZWF Zeitschrift für wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb 101(3): 114–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dombrowski, Uwe, Richter, Thomas and Krenkel, Philipp. 2017. “Interdependencies of Industrie 4.0 & lean production systems: a use cases analysis”. Procedia Manufacturing 11: 1061–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreher, Carsten, Fleig, Jürgen, Harnischfeger, Monika and Klimmer, Matthias. 1995. Neue Produktionskonzepte in der deutschen Industrie [New Production Concepts in the German Manufacturing Sector]. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enderle, Peter. 1994. “Das Opel-Produktionssystem im Werk Eisenach” [The Opel Production System in the Eisenach Plant], pp. 160–166 in: Brokmann, Wilfried (Ed.), Lean Production II. Erfahrungen und Erfolge in der M+E-Industrie [Lean Production II. Experiences and Achievements in the Metal and Electrotechnical Industry]. Köln, Germany: Institut für angewandte Arbeitswissenschaft.Google Scholar
Evers, Maren, Krzywdzinski, Martin and Pfeiffer, Sabine. 2018. “Designing wearables for use in the workplace: the role of solution developers”, WZB Discussion Paper SP III 2018–301, Berlin: WZB.Google Scholar
Fricke, Werner. 2003. “Dreißig Jahre staatlich geförderte Arbeitsgestaltung – eine Bilanz” [Taking Stock of Thirty Years of State-supported Work Design], pp. 51–66 in: Peters, Jürgen and Schmitthenner, Horst (Eds.),“Gute Arbeit”: Menschengerechte Arbeitsgestaltung als gewerkschaftliche Zukunftsaufgabe [Good Work: Human-focused Work Design as a Future Task for Trade Unions]. Hamburg, Germany: VSA.Google Scholar
Fujimoto, Takahiro. 1999. The Evolution of a Manufacturing System at Toyota. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerst, Detlef. 2011. “Sind ganzheitliche Produktionssysteme und Gute Arbeit vereinbar?” [Can we combine holistic production systems and good work?] Arbeit 20(3): 246–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerst, Detlef, Hardwig, Thomas, Kuhlmann, Martin and Schumann, Michael. 1999. “Group Work in the German Automobile Industry: The Case of Mercedes-Benz”, pp. 366–394 in: Durand, Jean-Pierre, Stewart, Paul and Carillo, Jorge (Eds.), Teamwork in the Automobile Industry. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greer, Ian and Hauptmeier, Marco. 2016. “Management whipsawing: the staging of labor competition under globalization”. ILR Review 69(1): 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günther, Georg, Benisch, Michael, Dankl, Andreas and Isopp, Jutta. 2015. Roadmap der Instandhaltung 4.0. [Maintenance 4.0 roadmap]. Salzburg, Austria: Salzburg Research.Google Scholar
Haipeter, Thomas, Korflür, Inger and Schilling, Gabi. 2018. “Neue Koordinaten für eine proaktive Betriebsratspolitik. Erfahrungen aus dem Gewerkschaftsprojekt ‘Arbeit 2020 in NRW’” [ New directions for active works councils: Experiences from the trade union project “Work 2020 in Northrine-Westfalia”]. WSI-Mitteilungen 70(3): 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heßler, Martina. 2014. “Die Halle 54 bei Volkswagen und die Grenzen der Automatisierung. Überlegungen zum Mensch-Maschine-Verhältnis in der industriellen Produktion der 1980er Jahre”. [Plant 54 at Volkswagen and the limits of automation. Reflections on the human–machine relation in the industrial production in the 1980s]. Zeithistorische Forschungen 11(1): 56–76.Google Scholar
Hirsch-Kreinsen, Hartmut. 2018. “Arbeit 4.0: Pfadabhängigkeit statt Disruption”, Soziologisches Arbeitspapier 52/2018 [Work 4.0: Path dependency or disruption]. Dortmund, Germany: Technical University Dortmund.Google Scholar
Hirsch-Kreinsen, Hartmut, Schultz-Wild, Rainer, Köhler, Christoph and von Behr, Marhild. 1990. Einstieg in die rechnerintegrierte Produktion: alternative Entwicklungspfade der Industriearbeit im Maschinenbau. [First Steps Towards Computer-integrated Production: Alternative Development Paths of Manufacturing Work in the Machine-building Industry]. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Campus.Google Scholar
Holweg, Matthias. 2007. “The genealogy of lean production”. Journal of Operations Management 25(2): 420–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance. 1996. Autonomous Maintenance for Operators. Portland, OR: Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance.Google Scholar
Jürgens, Ulrich. 1995. “Group work and the Reception of Uddevalla in German Car Industry”, pp. 199–213 in: Sandberg, Ake (Ed.), Enriching Production. Perspectives on Volvo’s Uddevalla Plant as an Alternative to Lean Production. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.Google Scholar
Jürgens, Ulrich. 1997a. “Rolling Back Cycle Times: The Renaissance of the Classic Assembly Line in Final Assembly”, pp. 255–273 in: Shimokawa, Koichi, Jürgens, Ulrich and Fujimoto, Takahiro (Eds.), Transforming Automobile Assembly. Experience in Automation and Work Organization. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jürgens, Ulrich. 1997b. “Germany: Implementing Lean Production”, pp. 109–116 in: Kochan, Thomas, Lansbury, Russell and MacDuffie, John Paul (Eds.), After Lean Production. Evolving Employment Practices in the World Auto Industry. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.Google Scholar
Jürgens, Ulrich. 1998. “Implanting Change: The Role of ‘Indigenous Transplants’ in Transforming the German Productive Model”, pp. 319–341 in: Boyer, Robert, Charron, Elsie, Jürgens, Ulrich and Tolliday, Steven (Eds.), Between Imitation and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jürgens, Ulrich and Krzywdzinski, Martin. 2008. “Relocation and east–west competition: the case of the European automotive industry”. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management 8(2): 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jürgens, Ulrich and Krzywdzinski, Martin. 2009. “Changing East-West division of labour in the European automotive industry”. European Urban and Regional Studies 16(1): 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jürgens, Ulrich and Krzywdzinski, Martin. 2013. “Breaking off from local bounds: human resource management practices of national players in the BRIC countries”. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management 13(2): 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jürgens, Ulrich and Krzywdzinski, Martin. 2015. “Competence development on the shop floor and industrial upgrading. Case studies of auto makers in China”. International Journal of Human Resource Management 26(9): 1204–1225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jürgens, Ulrich and Krzywdzinski, Martin. 2016. New Worlds of Work. Varieties of Work in Car Factories in the BRIC Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jürgens, Ulrich, Krzywdzinski, Martin and Teipen, Christina. 2006. “Changing work and employment relations in German industries: breaking away from the German model?”, WZB Discussion Paper No. SP III 2006–302, Berlin: WZB.Google Scholar
Jürgens, Ulrich, Malsch, Thomas and Dohse, Knuth. 1993. Breaking from Taylorism. Changing Forms of Work in the Automobile Industry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jürgens, Ulrich and Naschold, Frieder. 1992. “Arbeitsregulierung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Spannungsfeld zwischen nationalen Gestaltungsstrategien und internationaler Produktivitätskonkurrenz” [Labour regulation in Germany between national strategies and international productivity competition], pp. 361–394 in: Grimmer, Klaus, Häusler, Jürgen, Kuhlmann, Stefan and Simonis, Georg (Eds.), Politische Techniksteuerung [Politics of Technology]. Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jürgens, Ulrich, Naumann, Katrin and Rupp, Joachim. 2000. “Shareholder value in an adverse environment: the German case”. Economy and Society 29(1): 54–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kädtler, Jürgen and Sperling, Hans Joachim. 2002. “After globalisation and financialisation: logics of bargaining in the German automotive industry”. Competition & Change 6(2): 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagermann, Henning. 2014. “Chancen von Industrie 4.0 nutzen” [Using the Chances of Industry 4.0], pp. 603–614 in: Bauernhansl, Thomas, ten Hompel, Michael and Vogel-Heuser, Birgit (Eds.), Industrie 4.0 in Produktion, Automatisierung und Logistik [Industry 4.0 in Manufacturing, Automation and Logistics]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, Horst and Schumann, Michael. 1984. Das Ende der Arbeitsteilung. Rationalisierung in der industriellen Produktion. Munich, Germany: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Krafcik, John. 1988. “Triumph of the lean production system”. Sloan Management Review 30(1): 41–52.Google Scholar
Krzywdzinski, Martin. 2011. “Exporting the German work model to Central and Eastern Europe”, pp. 99–116 in: Contrepois, Silvie, Delteil, Violaine, Dieuaide, Patrick and Jefferys, Steve (Eds.), Globalizing Employment Relations, London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzywdzinski, Martin. 2017. “Accounting for cross‐country differences in employee involvement practices: comparative case studies in Germany, Brazil and China”. British Journal of Industrial Relations 55(2): 321–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzywdzinski, Martin and Jürgens, Ulrich. 2019. “Transfer deutscher und japanischer Ansätze der Facharbeiterausbildung an die BRIC-Standorte: Volkswagen und Toyota im Vergleich” [ Transfer of German and Japanese Approaches to Skilled Work to the BRIC Countries: Volkswagen and Toyota in Comparison], pp. 281–319 in: Gessler, Michael, Fuchs, Martina and Pilz, Matthias (Eds.), Konzepte und Wirkungen des Transfers Dualer Berufsausbildung [Concepts and Outcomes of the Transfer of Dual Vocational Training]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhlmann, Martin. 2004. Modellwechsel? Die Entwicklung betrieblicher Arbeits- und Sozialstrukturen in der deutschen Automobilindustrie [Model Change? The Development of Workplace Social Structures in the German Automobile Industry]. Berlin: edition sigma.Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, Martin. 2006. “Good Practice einer integrierten Fabrikorganisation” [Good Practice of an Integrated Factory Organisation] pp. 90–117 in: Schumann, Michael, Kuhlmann, Martin, Sanders, Frauke and Sperling, Hans Joachim (Eds.), VW Auto5000: ein neues Produktionskonzept. Die deutsche Antwort auf den Toyota-Weg? [VW Auto5000: A New Production Concept. The German Answer to the Toyota Way?]. Hamburg, Germany: VSA Verlag.Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, Martin, Sperling, Hans Joachim and Balzert, Sonja. 2004. Konzepte innovativer Arbeitspolitik. Good-Practice-Beispiele aus dem Maschinenbau, der Automobil-, Elektro- und Chemischen Industrie. [Concepts of Innovative Work Policy. Good Practices from the Machine-building, Automobile, Electrotechnical and Chemical Industry]. Berlin: sigma.Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, Martin, Splett, Barbara and Wiegrefe, Sascha. 2018. “Montagearbeit 4.0? Eine Fallstudie zu Arbeitswirkungen und Gestaltungsperspektiven digitaler Werkerführung” [Assembly work 4.0? A case study on work design and work outcomes of digital assistance systems]. WSI-Mitteilungen 70(3): 182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacher, Michael and Springer, Roland. 2002. “Leistungspolitik und Co-Management in der Old Economy” [Performance politics and co-management in the “Old Economy”]. WSI-Mitteilungen 54(6): 353–359.Google Scholar
Meier, Klaus-Jürgen. 2017. “Lean QRM 4.0 –Das Beste aus Lean Production, QRM und Industrie 4.0 vereint in einem gemeinsamen Managementansatz” [Lean QRM 4.0 – The Best of Lean Production, QRM and Industry 4.0 in a Unified Management Approach], pp. 119–135 in: Koether, Reinhard and Meier, Klaus-Jürgen (Eds.), Lean Production für die variantenreiche Einzelfertigung [Lean Production for High-Variant Single-Piece Production]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Mitlacher, Lars. 2007. “The role of temporary agency work in different industrial relations systems – a comparison between Germany and the USA”. British Journal of Industrial Relations 45(3): 581–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muster, Manfred. 1988. “Zum Stand der Gruppenarbeit in der Automobilindustrie in der Bundesrepublik” [The State of Group Work in the German Automobile Industry], pp. 259–281 in: Roth, Siegfried and Kohl, Heribert (Eds.), Perspektive Gruppenarbeit [Perspectives on Group Work]. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Bund Verlag.Google Scholar
Orsburn, Jack, Moran, Linda, Musselwhite, Ed and Zenger, John. 1990. Self-Directed Work Teams: The New American Challenge. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rinehart, James, Huxley, Christopher and Robertson, David. 1997. Just Another Car Factory? Lean Production and its Discontents. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, Siegfried. 1996. “Wiederentdeckung der eigenen Stärke? Lean-Production-Konzepte in der deutschen Autoindustrie” [Rediscovering Own Strengths? Lean Production Concepts in the German Automobile Industry], pp. 109–139 in: Kißler, Leo (Ed.), Toyotismus in Europa: schlanke Produktion und Gruppenarbeit in der deutschen und französischen Automobilindustrie. [Toyotism in Europe: Lean Production and Group Work in the German and French Automobile Industry]. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Campus.Google Scholar
Roth, Siegfried. 1997. “Germany: Labor’s Perspective on Lean Production”, pp. 117–136 in: Kochan, Thomas, Lansbury, Russell and MacDuffie, John Paul (Eds.), After Lean Production. Evolving Employment Practices in the World Auto Industry. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.Google Scholar
Rüttimann, Bruno and Stöckli, Martin. 2016. “Lean and Industry 4.0 –twins, partners, or contenders? A due clarification regarding the supposed clash of two production systems”. Journal of Service Science and Management 9(6): 485–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Frauke. 2006. “Verknüpfung von Arbeit und Lernen” [Combining Work and Learning], pp. 79–89 in: Schumann, Michael, Kuhlmann, Martin, Sanders, Frauke and Sperling, Hans Joachim (Eds.), VW Auto5000: ein neues Produktionskonzept. Die deutsche Antwort auf den Toyota-Weg? [VW Auto5000: A New Production Concept. The German Answer to the Toyota Way?]. Hamburg, Germany: VSA.Google Scholar
Schlick, Jochen, Stephan, Peter, Loskyll, Matthias and Lappe, Dennis. 2014. “Industrie 4.0 in der praktischen Anwendung” [Industry 4.0 in Practice], pp. 57–84 in: Bauernhansl, Thomas, ten Hompel, Michael and Vogel-Heuser, Birgit (Eds.), Industrie 4.0 in Produktion, Automatisierung und Logistik. [Industry 4.0 in Manufacturing, Automation and Logistics]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, Michael. 1994. “Gruppenarbeit und neue Produktionskonzepte” [ Group Work and New Production Concepts], pp .186–203 in: Binkelmann, Peter, Braczyk, Hans-Joachim and Seltz, Rüdiger (Eds.), Entwicklung der Gruppenarbeit in Deutschland. Stand und Perspektiven. [Development of Group Work in Germany. State and Perspectives]. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Campus.Google Scholar
Schumann, Michael. 2003. “Frisst die Shareholder-Value-Ökonomie die Modernisierung der Arbeit?” [Does the Shareholder Value Approach Roll Back the Modernization of Work?], in: Schumann, Michael (Ed.), Metamorphosen von Industriearbeit und Arbeiterbewusstsein. [Metamorphoses of Manufacturing Work and Workers’ Consciousness]. Hamburg, Germany: VSA.Google Scholar
Schumann, Michael, Baethge-Kinsky, Volker, Kuhlmann, Martin, Kurz, Constanze and Neumann, Uwe. 1994. Trendreport Rationalisierung. Automobilindustrie, Werkzeugmaschinenbau, Chemische Industrie. [Rationalisation Report. Automobile Industry, Machine-Tool Industry, Chemical Industry]. Berlin: sigma.Google Scholar
Schumann, Michael, Kuhlmann, Martin, Sanders, Frauke and Sperling, Hans Joachim (Eds.). 2006. VW Auto5000: ein neues Produktionskonzept. Die deutsche Antwort auf den Toyota-Weg? [VW Auto5000: A New Production Concept. The German Answer to the Toyota Way?]. Hamburg, Germany: VSA.Google Scholar
Seibold, Bettina, Schwarz-Kocher, Martin and Salm, Rainer. 2016. Ganzheitliche Produktionssysteme [Holistic Production Systems], HBS Study No. 340. Düsseldorf, Germany: Hans-Böckler-Stiftung.Google Scholar
Seltz, Rüdiger. 1994. “Gruppenarbeit in der Produktion. Ein Beitrag zur Systematisierung von Entwicklungsstand und –perspektiven” [Group Work in Production. Developments and Perspectives], pp. 33–73 in: Binkelmann, Peter, Braczyk, Hans-Joachim and Seltz, Rüdiger (Eds.), Entwicklung der Gruppenarbeit in Deutschland. Stand und Perspektiven. [Development of Group Work in Germany. State and Perspectives]. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Campus.Google Scholar
Shimokawa, Koichi and Fujimoto, Takahiro. 2009. The Birth of Lean: Conversations with Taiichi Ohno, Eiji Toyoda, and Other Figures who Shaped Toyota Management. Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Shirose, Kunio. 1996. TPM –Total Productive Maintenance: New Implementation Program in Fabrication and Assembly Industries. Tokyo: Japan Institute of Plant Management.Google Scholar
Smith, Chris and Meiskins, Peter. 1995. “System, society and dominance effects in cross-national organisational analysis”. Work, Employment and Society 9(2): 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorge, Arndt and Streeck, Wolfgang. 1988. “Industrial Relations and Technical Change: The Case for an Extended Perspective”, pp. 19–44 in: Hyman, Richard and Streeck, Wolfgang (Eds.), New Technology and Industrial Relations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sorge, Arndt and Streeck, Wolfgang. 2018. “Diversified quality production revisited: its contribution to German socio-economic performance over time”. Socio-Economic Review 16(3): 587–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperling, Hans Joachim. 2006. “Flexibilisierte und beteiligungsorientierte Lohn-Leistungspolitik” [Flexible and Participatory Wage-Performance Policy], pp. 72–78 in: Schumann, Michael, Kuhlmann, Martin, Sanders, Frauke and Sperling, Hans Joachim (Eds.), VW Auto5000: ein neues Produktionskonzept. Die deutsche Antwort auf den Toyota-Weg? [VW Auto5000: A New Production Concept. The German Answer to the Toyota Way?]. Hamburg, Germany: VSA Verlag.Google Scholar
Springer, Roland. 1996. “Neue Formen der Arbeitsorganisation – Ursachen, Ziele und aktueller Stand in der Mercedes-Benz AG” [New Forms of Work Organization – Origins, Goals and Current State at the Mercedes Benz AG], pp. 61–80 in: Kißler, Leo (Ed.), Toyotismus in Europa: schlanke Produktion und Gruppenarbeit in der deutschen und französischen Automobilindustrie. [Toyotism in Europe: Lean Production and Group Work in the German and French Automobile Industry]. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Campus.Google Scholar
Springer, Roland. 1997. “Rationalization also Involves Workers – Teamwork in the Mercedes-Benz Lean Concept”, pp. 274–288 in: Shimokawa, Koichi, Jürgens, Ulrich and Fujimoto, Takahiro (Eds.), Transforming Automobile Assembly. Experience in Automation and Work Organization. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, Roland. 1999. Rückkehr zum Taylorismus? Arbeitspolitik in der Automobilindustrie am Scheideweg [Comeback of Taylorism? Work Policies in the Automobile Industry at the Crossroads]. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Campus.Google Scholar
Streeck, Wolfgang. 1996. “Lean Production in the German Automobile Industry: A Test Case for Convergence Theory”, pp. 138–170 in: Berger, Susan and Dore, Ronald (Eds.), National Diversity and Global Capitalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, Lowell. 1991. Democracy at Work. Changing World Markets and the Future of Labor Unions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, Lowell and Auer, Peter. 1994. “A diversity of new work organization. Human-centered, lean, and in-between”. Industrielle Beziehungen 1(1): 39–61.Google Scholar
Weltz, Friedrich. 1997. “Anspruch und Wirklichkeit von arbeitspolitischen Ansätzen: das Beispiel Gruppenarbeit” [Claims and Reality of Work Design: The Case of Group Work]. Arbeit 6(4): 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyer, Johannes. 1997. “Die Risiken der Automationsarbeit” [The Risks of Work in Automated Environments]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 26(4): 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyer, Johannes. 2007. “Autonomie und Kontrolle. Arbeit in hybriden Systemen am Beispiel der Luftfahrt” [Autonomy and Control. Work in Hybrid Systems in the Aviation Industry]. Technikfolgenabschätzung − Theorie und Praxis 16(2): 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wireman, Terry. 1991. Total Productive Maintenance: An American Approach. New York: Industrial Press.Google Scholar
Womack, James, Jones, Daniel and Roos, Daniel. 1990. The Machine That Changed the World. New York: Rawson.Google Scholar