How skills development affects manufacturing’s
competitive capability
Discusses the link between
various forms of shopfloor
worker competences and the
ability of manufacturing
plants to compete on differ-
ent forms of market attrac-
tiveness. Shows how move-
ment along a four-level model
of competence, ranging from
operator proficiency to high
levels of problem-solving
ability, affects a firm’s ability
to support improvements in
different dimensions of com-
petitiveness. Enables firms to
consider their worker compe-
tence strategies in terms of
their specific competitiveness
rather than in some general
form of abstraction.
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
7/1 [1996] 38–44
© MCB University Press
[ISSN 0957-6061]
[ 38 ]
David Woodcock University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Superior performance is ultimately based
on the people in an organization … the capa-
bilities that create competitive advantage
come from people[1].
An earlier article addressed the question of
the competences needed to support world
class manufacturing[2]. It set out a basic
model of the development of shopfloor compe-
tences and linked this with the practices
found in a range of manufacturing plants in
the UK East Midlands. In this article the
attention shifts to how different types of skill
development are required to support particu-
lar forms of competitiveness. This link
between the type of competence and the form
of competitiveness will enable a more strate-
gic perspective of the approaches to skill
development. A modified version of the four-
level model of shopfloor worker competence
is given in Figure 1.
This article extends earlier arguments,
examining the specific links between each of
the levels of competence development and
their particular forms of manufacturing
performance. It is becoming increasingly
clear that, despite a heavy emphasis on
price[3] as the dominant market criterion,
many western manufacturers face serious
difficulties in achieving low cost competitive-
ness. This is particularly true when products
are traded internationally and rely on the use
of simple process technologies. The problem
of competitiveness is, however, even more
serious as firms find that they are required to
achieve both higher quality and often wider
flexibility alongside tight costs. This is not to
deny the importance of price as an attraction,
but rather to emphasize the need to see it in
the context of a wider bundle of attractions
which must be given their due attention. As
the locus of competitiveness has, of necessity,
shifted from prices to a wider bundle of
attractions, the importance of shopfloor
worker competences has also grown. How-
ever, it is now time to move away from the
simple arguments about high versus low
competence to one where the emphasis is on
the relevance of particular forms of compe-
tence, reflected in the ability of the firm to
sustain specific forms of customer satisfac-
tion. This more focused approach applies at
all levels of the organization. However, in this
article, the emphasis is on the knowledge and
competence of shopfloor workers. It is not
that competence development is any more
important at the shopfloor level than at man-
agerial level, but rather that shopfloor work-
ers’ needs have traditionally been even more
understated. Thus, by improving the general
level and specific relevance of shopfloor com-
petence, firms will achieve significant
improvements in competitiveness.
Level one: conventional
proficiency
Highly proficient shopfloor workers assist
manufacturing performance in several small
but significant ways. They help to:
• reduce scrap rates;
• raise direct and indirect productivity;
• make increases in effective capacity;
• increase overall output levels.
Plants with highly proficient workforces tend
to have slightly better yield levels for similar
products than those with less skilled workers.
In situations where the plant has grown
rapidly and thus generally has a high propor-
tion of relatively unskilled workers, reject
rates (yield losses) can be very high. In
extreme instances such as in the Babcock &
Wilcox Company, reject/rework levels rose to
70 per cent compared with a previous norm of
10 per cent for similar welding tasks[4]. Con-
versely, such plants have highly proficient
workers who can undertake the production of
more complex products without the fear that
their profit margins will be consumed via
high yield losses[5]. There are also likely to be
some small but useful gains in primary
(direct) and secondary (indirect) productivity.
The primary gains stem straight from the
work undertaken by direct operatives. There
are also likely to be some further gains by
reducing the time lost by staff and indirects
through high levels of uncertainty when
tackling, what are for them, complex tasks.
The potential benefits of such improvements
increase as the manufacturing task becomes
more difficult. However, they are likely to be
insufficient to deal with the highly complex
environments found in most “best practice”
organizations. The secondary productivity
David Woodcock Figure 1
How skills development Five meanings of competence
affects manufacturing’s
competitive capability
Integrated Manufacturing
s
Systems Active
ion
7/1 [1996] 38–44 problem
pt
lo
solving
kil
es Widen into
nc
indirect work roles
ha
En
Widen range of conventional
work roles
Improve conventional
proficiency
De
sk
Deskill task through advanced technology
il
lo
pt
ion
gains come from reducing the amount of
rectification work, supervision and general
administration concerned with overcoming
problems. Such “gains” will eventually show
up in the form of reduced rates of overheads.
Finally, the effects of less rejects/rework and
increased work tempos are likely to show up
in the form of an increase in the output level
per unit of time and thus an effective increase
in the capacity.
It is quite common to find that firms mak-
ing products above the traditional “norms” of
sophistication run into labour shortages
quite rapidly following periods of recession.
Even when the national level of unemploy-
ment remains high, such firms can find that
their recovery is severely restricted by a
shortage of suitably proficient workers.
Therefore increasing both the proficiency of
individual workers, and the proportion of
such employees in the workforce, will enable
firms to sustain their expansion for longer
periods.
Although beneficial, the improvements in
competitiveness from increased proficiency
are relatively small, compared with the more
advanced forms of skill development
discussed below.
Level two: widening range of
operator tasks
In recent years there has been a major shift
towards widening the range of tasks a group
of shopfloor workers is expected to perform
proficiently. In most instances, the nature of
the tasks remains narrowly defined and is
limited to the conventional range of shopfloor
work. The crux of the innovation is that work-
ers perform several of these “narrowly”
defined tasks rather than one or very few of
these tasks. To achieve this effect, workers
are given both more and better training so
that they are then able to perform well on a
greater variety of jobs. An increasing number
of firms have set out programmes which sys-
tematically identify the tasks they wish their
operators to perform and then both train and
rotate the employees so that they can achieve
and maintain this proficiency.
There are several benefits that stem from
this approach:
• increased flexibility to make changes in the
workload in response to variations in the
customer’s required product mix;
• further small increases in quality, as opera-
tives have a better understanding of their
task in its wider context;
• improved process capacity;
• increased productivity.
The most noticeable effect of widening the
range of tasks performed proficiently by each
operator is an increase in the plant’s overall
flexibility. Most plants face variable work-
loads in their work as a consequence of
changes in their product mixes. Many firms
also experience significant seasonal varia-
tions in demand. The practice of multi-
skilling the workforce, particularly when
combined with the use of “cellular systems”
of production, makes it possible to operate
work centres with a variable size of work-
force. Increasing the ability of the employees
to move between workstations with a work
centre, and from work centre to work centre,
in response to these external changes, makes
the plant more responsive to changes in mix
and volume.
The renewed interest in “cellular” and
“just-in-time” systems of production has
stimulated the need for multi-skilled
shopfloor personnel. When cells are manned
by workers who can perform all the produc-
tion tasks, there is a greater opportunity to
adjust output levels more closely with the
level of demand. Thus a cell of six machines
could be manned with a variable number of
workers, ranging from one per machine to
one per cell, depending on the output levels
required. Such volume flexibility is not prac-
tical when each can only perform a limited
set of tasks competently. Certainly any firm
contemplating the adoption of just-in-time
techniques will need to develop its workforce
to at least such levels.
There are a number of favourable knock-on
effects of such flexibility. First, workers are
likely to have a better understanding of how
their part of the work affects other jobs,
because they will have done many/most of
those jobs themselves at some time. Thus
they will better understand the consequences
of any minor problems being passed on to the
[ 39 ]
David Woodcock next workstation. There are also likely to be
How skills development further gains in productive capacity as the
affects manufacturing’s more mobile workers learn to exploit the
competitive capability physical potential of the plant and equip-
Integrated Manufacturing ment. Finally, other small improvements in
Systems productivity also arise from reductions in the
7/1 [1996] 38–44
proportion of time employees spend without
work (because of the effects of adverse prod-
uct mix problems). Despite the potential
gains outlined above, it remains necessary to
be very careful about moving personnel
around within the plant. An increasing num-
ber of plants are developing “team working”
approaches to manufacturing production.
While such approaches are still probably only
followed in a minority of plants, they are,
nevertheless, growing. Undue movement of
individuals around the plant could weaken or
even destroy the benefits of these team struc-
tures[6]. In addition, there are likely to be
some employees who still feel particularly
insecure in these “new” roles and are thus
more prone to making mistakes.
It is important to recognize that in compe-
tence levels one and two the role of the opera-
tives remains very closely linked to the con-
ventional set of tasks that have been tradi-
tionally performed by shopfloor workers.
There are many examples of firms that have
been developing highly proficient multi-
skilled shopfloor workers. One such firm, a
canner of fruit and vegetables, was able to
train its predominantly rural female labour
force to undertake virtually all the produc-
tion tasks in the plant. Similarly, an engineer-
ing plant also gave its workers wider training
(see Table I). This training enabled both
plants to match their highly variable work-
ing patterns to their requirements. Managers
at these plants clearly recognized the impor-
tance of such flexibility and invested consid-
erable time and effort in developing their
workers to be able to do so efficiently.
Another instance of this type of highly
competent shopfloor worker was found in a
Table I
A skill matrix
The Wonderful Widget plc
Production tasks
Employee Centre Mill Mill
name Drill lathe large vertical
Jones N.C. a b – a
Smith A.C. b a – –
Watts T.F. – b b c
Wilson K.L. a – a b
Notes:
– Not yet trained
a Basic training
b Intermediate training
c Highly skilled
[ 40 ]
motor vehicle assembly plant. In this plant
each worker was expected to be able to per-
form well on at least four types of production
task. The company recognized that some of
their workers were more adept at such adapt-
ability than others. It is therefore defined
three levels of performance on these tasks.
Thus the most skilled of the production work-
ers were able to perform four types of task at
the highest level, while some of the less able
personnel were only able to achieve two or
three tasks at the second level. Those who
were not able to meet these standards within
six months had their employment ter-
minated. It is clearly more desirable to use
pre-entry tests which will identify those
employees most likely to be able to perform
such tasks well. In order to be able to follow
this type of approach, and even more so in the
context of the next level of skill expansion,
production operatives must possess the abil-
ity and willingness to be trained.
Level three: widening the shopfloor
worker role into indirect tasks
So far, the types of shopfloor competence
development described above are largely
possible within traditionally run manufac-
turing working plants. The next two stages
of competence development require signifi-
cantly different cultures and managerial
styles of leadership. Such changes are neces-
sary for those firms which intend to progress
to “world class” levels of performance[7]. It
should be noted that a plant is very unlikely
to move successfully directly from a level one
to a level three approach to shopfloor worker
competence. As well as having to expend
considerable effort in providing the neces-
sary training, firms also need to bring about
major changes in their internal cultures to
sustain the new working practices. The tradi-
tional command and control form of supervi-
Cylinder Horizontal Surface Final
grind grind grind Assembly test
b c b – –
– – – a –
– – – – –
a a b a b
David Woodcock sory management needs to change to one
How skills development based much more on a partnership mode of
affects manufacturing’s management, in which positional authority
competitive capability is less important than personal leadership
Integrated Manufacturing and ability to command respect. There is also
Systems likely to be a considerable increase in the use
7/1 [1996] 38–44
of “team working”. In these teams, the way in
which team leaders operate will be a critical
issue determining how successful, or not, the
implementation is[8]. A less obvious, but
equally important, type of skill is likely to be
needed by shopfloor workers practising levels
three and four types of competence. This
additional dimension is that of team working.
To operate these newer forms of working,
operatives will increasingly need to perform
their work as part of an integrated team of
workers. As a consequence, part of their
selection and subsequent training for these
roles should consider their ability to work
well with other people at their own and more
senior levels in the company.
Movement towards this type of approach
tends to be divided into two camps. The
majority camp is composed of those who see
the undoubted opportunities to improve total
productivity. The second camp is made up of
those who see the shift as also having a signif-
icant potential for improving product quality,
enhancing flexibility, etc. Those whose per-
spective is limited to an increase in total
productivity are likely to achieve their expec-
tation, but are unlikely to accomplish the
many other, often more important benefits
this approach offers.
At this stage of development, a major shift
in thinking is required about the role of
direct shopfloor workers. We will begin to see
shopfloor workers taking over responsibility
for many of the tasks formerly performed by
indirect shopfloor based workers:
• major improvements in total productivity;
• increased mastery of the process;
• increased quality in terms of compliance to
specifications;
• delivery reliability improved;
• reductions in inventory;
• small improvements on product position-
ing.
The most dramatic improvements are likely
to be seen in terms of total productivity com-
ing from major reductions in the number of
indirect employees. Over the years there has
been a considerable expansion of the number
of indirect employees on the shopfloor. These
groups consist of inspectors, setters, trans-
porters, etc. In addition, the functional layout
commonly found in traditionally organized
plants has led to a significant increase in the
number of staff/clerical employees serving
the production system. The complex work
systems that have evolved to control the
“simplified” and de-skilled shopfloor person-
nel system have swallowed up most and some-
times more than the expected productivity
gains. In addition, they have helped to create
a negative culture in the plant which has
inhibited much of the potential for learning.
One of the first moves is to retrain the
shopfloor workers to be responsible for their
own quality. In some firms the ratio of inspec-
tors to direct shopfloor operatives was as high
as 1:3[5]. When operatives take over these
tasks there is usually an improvement in
quality as well as productivity. As the
shopfloor workers learn to inspect their own
work, they further improve their understand-
ing of what needs to be done to produce good
quality and why it is important. As well as
taking responsibility for their own inspec-
tion, a number of shopfloor workers become
trained to perform the set-ups/changeovers
needed to transfer production from one prod-
uct to another. Typically, setters have com-
posed 1:8 or 1:10 of the workforce. In some
instances the ratio has been as high as 1:4[5].
It is well known that this transfer of responsi-
bilities has been accompanied by major
reductions in the time necessary to perform
the set-ups. Such reductions are generally at
least 80 per cent and in many instances much
higher[9].
Another area where shopfloor workers are
taking new responsibilities is in respect of
machine care and attention. Usually this
starts with simple lubrication of the equip-
ment on a routine basis and can move on to
limited programmes of maintenance and
routine replacement of some parts of the
equipment[7]. It has been argued that the
workers’ role in maintenance is one of their
most important tasks:
Many assembly workers handle routine
preventive maintenance and minor break-
downs, and in many cases will help the
maintenance craftsman if it is
necessary…[6].
This type of programme can have the effect of
improving the reliability of the machinery, as
it is likely to receive more regular attention
and, if the workers can be persuaded to take
responsibility for the equipment, better set-
up time[9]. While the most dramatic effects of
developing the shopfloor workers’ skills into
indirect work are clearly in the area of total
productivity, other important changes are
also likely to take place. The more direct
involvement in inspection will generally help
to promote a higher level of compliance to the
products’ specifications. Over an extended
period this may even lead to tightening of
these specifications and thus better products.
Similarly, the involvement in both set-ups
and maintenance is likely to promote more
[ 41 ]
David Woodcock reliable achievement of delivery promises.
How skills development Set-ups that take place on time, and machines
affects manufacturing’s that do not break down unexpectedly, all help
competitive capability to maintain smoother work flows and thus
Integrated Manufacturing better inventory levels and more reliable
Systems accomplishment. Most of these types of
7/1 [1996] 38–44
change are individually quite small. However,
if the effort is maintained over an extended
period, the effects are quite dramatic.
Thus as a result of these many changes,
some only small improvements, a noticeable
repositioning may take place in terms of the
product place in the market.
Level four: involvement in problem
identification and solution
The highest level of direct shopfloor worker
competence occurs when their roles include
positive activities in data collection, exami-
nation and problem solving.
Movement to this type of role for the major-
ity of the shopfloor workers in a plant repre-
sents a major shift in philosophy and culture.
It must be recognized that, as well as being
threatening to the shopfloor workers, it is
often seen as very threatening by staff and
supervisory personnel. Workers equipped to
perform this type of activity may well be far
better trained than the “conventional” super-
visor. Staff will undoubtedly fear that their
jobs will go and that, having spent many
years learning their specialist skills, the jobs
are now about to be “undertaken” by opera-
tives, many of whom the supervisors consider
to be less able than themselves.
Despite the problems outlined above, we
would still expect to find the following advan-
tages flowing from the move towards level-
four types of competence:
• small short-term improvements in produc-
tivity, major long-term improvements in
productivity from enhanced process capa-
bility;
• elimination of a number of process-related
quality problems;
• quality quickly returns to its long-term
“norm” when new products are introduced;
• further enhancement of range and volume
flexibility;
• reduced lead times and improved synchro-
nization of processes;
• reduced bottlenecks increase output levels;
• removal of many trivial problems increases
ability to undertake significantly increased
“value adding” complexity.
Neave[10] reports that it has variously been
claimed by Juran and by Deming that
between 85 and 92 per cent of quality prob-
lems are caused by, and can only be cured by,
management. I would not significantly dis-
agree. What then is the role of shopfloor
[ 42 ]
workers in seeking improvement when so
much depends on the managers? The well-
known Pareto curve can help us understand
the workers’ role more clearly. Figure 2 shows
a curve which relates the number of problems
faced in a manufacturing plant and the size of
their impact. It indicates that, broadly speak-
ing, 20 per cent of the problems are responsi-
ble for 80 per cent of the adverse effects. The
converse of this argument needs to be under-
stood. The 80 per cent of minor problems have
the effect of continuing interference with
management’s ability to tackle the 20 per cent
of critical problems. The significance of such
interference becomes clear when trying to
run a complex manufacturing plant. Most
manufacturing managers are very well aware
of the “big issues”. Their problem is more
often having the time to deal with them. The
multitude of smaller problems tends to over-
whelm many managers because of their vol-
ume and often immediacy. It is in precisely
this area that shopfloor problem solving can
have its greatest effect. These teams can con-
centrate on bringing about solutions to these
many smaller problems and thus also directly
contribute to freeing managerial time and
enabling them to tackle the bigger and/or
more complex tasks for which the manage-
ment groups have received high levels of
training. Under this approach, both staff and
shopfloor workers can contribute in the areas
of problem solving for which they are best
suited. Staff can, in Schonberger’s terms[9],
act as “supporting actors” in developing
shopfloor improvements.
It is known from the East Midlands Survey
that in only 21 per cent of manufacturing
plants were workers’ suggestions about
improvement regularly incorporated into the
improvement programme. We similarly
found little evidence of suggestion schemes
or other devices for encouraging shopfloor
personnel to make suggestions for improve-
ments[3].
Figure 2
Proportions of manufacturing problems
resolvable by managers and shopfloor workers
Percentage
100
Effects of problems
80
Many trivial problems
solved by individuals
and by teams of
shopfloor workers
Critical
few
problems
solved by
management
0 and staff
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of problems
David Woodcock
How skills development
affects manufacturing’s
competitive capability
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
7/1 [1996] 38–44
It must not be overlooked that organizations
in which the shopfloor workers are expected
to make a significant number of suggestions
for improvement can be seen as stressful,
because a key objective of “lean production”
is to push responsibility as far down the orga-
nization as is practical[11]. With the right
policies of job protection this threat can be
reduced, but for many employees the thought
of virtually having to keep coming up with
ideas is frightening.
It is important to recognize that relatively
few firms practise the ideas represented in
the level four model of competences. In a
recent survey, we found that only 10 per cent
of the companies offered any form of long-
term job security for their shopfloor workers,
while only 15 out of 82 adopted any formal
system of multi-skilling, of either the level
two or level three type. Similarly, we were
only able to find nine out of 82 plants adopting
quick set-up techniques, let alone using their
shopfloor workers to undertake this activity.
As we move to the more intellectual tasks of
“Andons” for control (7 per cent) and Poke
Yoke (6 per cent), we find the level of adoption
declining even more sharply[3].
The impact on alternative forms of
competitiveness
The discussion above has highlighted four
levels of enhanced worker skill. These have
in turn been related to six aspects of compet-
itive behaviour. The link between the levels
of skill and their impact on competitive
performance is shown in Table II. It will be
seen that all four forms of skill/competence
development are expected to have favourable
impacts on productivity, quality and the
level of output. However, Table II shows that
the expected impact on flexibility, timeliness
and complexity is likely to be more selective.
As we examine each of the six aspects of
improved performance, we can see that the
type of changes from level to level are impor-
tant:

Table II
Impact on competitiveness of alternative forms of shopfloor worker competences
Level of Output
competence Productivity Quality Flexibility Timeliness levels Complexity
1 Proficiency Increased output Small but valuable Little or none None Support growth in None
per head by shop- reductions in yield output longer before
floor workers. losses running into capacity
Small improvements constraints.
in staff and indirects Lower level of rework
increases capacity
2 Widen range Improved shopfloor Increased aware- Noticeable Improved flexibility Reduction in None
of tasks worker productivity ness of other tasks increase in ability and mobility of number of
from less idle time helps to improve to respond to workforce “personnel”-based
because of unsuitable quality awareness changes in product bottlenecks
product mixes on mixes. Supports
plant use of “cell” type
systems
3 Widen role Major increase in Significant improve- Able to produce Major shortening Small increase Simplification
into indirect “total” productivity, ments from aware- much wider range of lead times from movement of process
tasks mainly from reduction ness of require- of products and of labour to helps firm to
in number of ments; better more rapidly match changing take on more
indirects maintenance and adjust product workloads complex “value
lower set-up scrap mixes adding” tasks
4 Active problem Small, short-term Long-term major Continued Further reductions Increase from Reduction of
solving increase from saving improvements as improvement in in lead times. reduction in the many
of staff, but major, “process”-related range and Closer synchron- long-term “trivial” pro-
long-term improve- problems are product mix ization of activities bottlenecks blems enables
ments from enhanced eliminated. Rapid major increase
process reliability return to “quality in ability of
norm” when new plant to take on
products are more complex
introduced “value adding”
activities

[ 43 ]
David Woodcock 1 Productivity: there is a distinct shift in
How skills development emphasis from improved shopfloor pro-
affects manufacturing’s ductivity to total plant productivity.
competitive capability 2 Quality: this starts with improvements to
Integrated Manufacturing the process yield and evolves into the elim-
Systems ination of long-standing problems and
7/1 [1996] 38–44
enhanced capability. Improvements in
quality have a secondary benefit in further
improvements of productivity.
3 Output levels: this is principally a side-
effect of improved productivity.
4 Flexibility: the initial impact on flexibility
is negligible. However, increased skill
levels quickly improve the plant’s ability
to be flexible. At levels two and three the
benefits are mainly in terms of product
mix; however, at level four there is an
enhanced ability to adapt to the produc-
tion of new generations of products with-
out the traditional loss of productivity and
quality decline.
5 Timeliness: the ability, at level two, to shift
the workforce around the plant to meet
changes in the pattern of demand can be
highly valuable. By level three, the empha-
sis changes to faster delivery as lead times
are improved via such techniques as quick
set-ups etc.
6 Complexity: initially, at levels one and two
there is no gain in terms of the ability to
remain in a state of control while under-
taking more complex tasks. However, this
may indeed prove to be one of the most
valuable characteristics of firms at level
four forms of worker skill/competence.
Conclusions
The examination of the four-level model of
shopfloor worker competence suggests that
each level has its own potential distinctive
contribution to make towards a firm’s com-
petitiveness. Moving from a baseline of level
zero shopfloor competence to a level one
approach will not affect the strategies that
the firm might successfully adopt. The only
real change is in its efficiencies and a possi-
ble extension of the period of expansion of its
output. Moving on to level two competence
produces a more significant set of effects on
the competitive strategies available. The most
significant effects are experienced in
increased flexibility which in turn produces
knock-on effects in quality and output levels.
There are also important gains in shopfloor
productivity from the reduction in the num-
ber of indirect shopfloor employees. Although
such improvements are significant, they are
unlikely to have any effects on the choice of
manufacturing strategies adopted. Moving on
to the level three form of worker competence
carries with it a major set of implications.
[ 44 ]
Dramatic improvements in timeliness, total
productivity, quality and flexibility are all
available. However, not only are these conven-
tional forms of manufacturing competitive-
ness significantly affected, but the potential
range of strategies which manufacturing can
effectively support are dramatically influ-
enced. In this sense, level three can be consid-
ered the gateway into the world class manu-
facturing approach. It opens up the realistic
possibility of competing in ways which were
previously unattainable. How such potentials
are exploited depends on the chosen business
and manufacturing strategies. However, it is
the attainment of level three competences
which makes this possible. Despite the power-
ful benefits of level three, it should be seen as
essentially catching up with good practice: a
staging post in the movement towards level
four. Level four represents a further dramatic
change in concepts and attitudes. It is this
approach which really offers the firm contin-
uous improvement beyond the level of copy-
ing other good firms. To be truly “world
class” a firm must push forward, in its own
right, on some dimensions of its manufactur-
ing performance. It cannot be “world class”
and only a copier of other people’s ideas, how-
ever rapidly it implements these. The level
four model of shopfloor competence not only
contributes ideas directly from the shopfloor
workers, it also frees managers and the
remaining staff to attack the major problems
faced.
References
1 Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.O., Dynamic
Manufacturing; Creating the Learning Organi-
zation, Free Press, New York, NY, 1988.
2 Woodcock, D.J., “The worker competencies
support world class manufacturing”, Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 4 No. 1, 1993.
3 Woodcock, D.J., “The application of advanced
manufacturing methods in the English East
Midlands”, Report by the Department of Man-
ufacturing Engineering and Operations Man-
agement, University of Nottingham, 1992.
4 Meyers, H.B., “Nuclear fizzle case study”,
Fortune, November 1969.
5 Woodcock, D.J., “Revising the paradigm of
control in repetitive production”, PhD thesis,
University of Warwick, Warwick, 1987.
6 Wickens, P., The Road to Nissan: Flexibility,
Quality, Teamwork, Macmillan, London, 1987.
7 Suzuki, K., The New Manufacturing Challenge,
Free Press, New York, NY, 1987.
8 Ward, M. et al., “The lean enterprising bench-
marking project”, Report, Andersen Consult-
ing.
9 Schonberger, R., World Class Manufacturing,
Free Press, New York, NY, 1986.
10 Neave, H.R., The Deming Dimension, SPC
Press, Knoxville, TN, 1990.
11 Womack, J.P. and Roos, D., The Machine that
Changes the World, Rawson Jones, DT Associ-
ates, 1990.