Team time: a model for developing self-directed work teams.

In The Machine that Changed the World, the best-selling management book which made the concept of lean production famous, teams are assigned a crucial role. They "emerge as the heart of the lean factory"[l, p. 9] and are called a "hallmark" of lean production[l, backflap]. The book's central message that the performance gap between Japanese and Western car producers needed to be closed by the latter adopting lean production did not go lost. In Europe, the publicity around the promising concept seems to have functioned as a catalyst for the diffusion of teamwork. Companies such as Fiat, Mercedes-Benz, NedCar, Opel, Renault and Volvo are now known to use teams, albeit in various forms and to various degrees. There is something ironical in this process. Teams have been promoted in Europe for more than 30 years because of their beneficial effects on organizational effectiveness and the quality of working life. These sociotechnically-informed designers were among the strongest advocates. Yet, until shortly before 1990, teams seem to have failed to break through. Riding the waves of lean production's popularity, however, the picture in the 1990s looks much different. But although teams are mentioned as an important explanation for lean production's alleged superior productivity. The Machine that Changed the World is rather ambiguous about the question as to what these teams look like. Hence, questions abound. Are sociotechnical and lean teams identical work forms, or does their similarity stop with their names? To what extent are they compatible? Should one form be favoured over the other, or can both be applied, yet in different situations? In an attempt to answer such questions, this article describes and compares both forms of team in general terms. It concludes that both forms differ with respect to some key characteristics. Furthermore, it is argued that the indigenously Japanese team form is only applicable in rather special circumstances; in other circumstances, a broader approach to teams is necessary. Next, a model for the development of such alternative teams is described and discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]