精益生产的影响.doc

学生毕业设计（论文）外文译文
学生姓名：
学号：
专业名称：
译文标题（中英文）：精益生产对工作条件的影响
The impacts of lean production on working conditions
译文出处：International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics 39 (2009) 403–412
指导教师审阅签名：
外文译文正文：
管精益生产（LP）对质量和生产效率的积极影响得到了一致认可，但它对于工作的影响却不尽如此（Delbridge等，2000）。一方面，一些作者已经确定了LP的有害影响。根据Niepce和Molleman（1998年）的典型LP原则，如连续流动以及生产过程中阶段生产的定义，LP会提高工人的压力，并减少他们的自治权。Berggren（1992）和Klein（1989）还指出LP的其他缺点，如：（a）标准化周期时间，阻碍了工人管理他们工作的的步伐；（b）多技能，这往往意味着工作扩大和工作量加重而不是丰富工作；（c）无限性能方面的要求；（d）工人不愿意在极短时间内频繁加班；（e）密切监视个人（F）对工作场所过度严格地控制；（g）很少强调对累积创伤的防止，而是重点强调事故预防。 Wokutch和Vansandt（2000年）还得出结论，丰田和所有主要的日本汽车公司采用一种强烈行为定向安全管理方法，该方法强调累积性伤害和缺乏重点是其中一个不利之处。
另一方面，对工作条件的积极影响也受到重视。伯格伦研究（1992年），是在日本分析的基础上，移植入美国和欧洲汽车工业、鉴定出一套这种影响，如：（一）职业安全；（二）平等性（即白领雇员和蓝领员工享有同样的地位）；（三）精心挑选的，高素质的员工队伍；（d）重视管理工人为改进所提出的的建议。Jackson和Mullarkey (2000)确认了LP在从自治,体格上的要求以及社会方面的正负两方面影响。
LP对工作条件的不利影响也被Ferreira(2006)检测出来了,他就这个话题分析了52篇科学文章，还列举了一系列积极的或消极的影响。总的来说，其中所引用的48%是积极的影响，而52%是消极影响，尽管大多数研究表明，正面和负面的影响是同时发生的(Ferreira，2006)。此外对于LP的固有性，像这样含糊不清的证据也可能是由于许多因素造成的，如：(a)每个公司的组织文化的影响，特别是安全的程度和人机工程学核心价值观；(b)公司精益系统的不同层次的期满，而这些变化又依赖于一组变量(如：某类型的产品和工艺以及LP被采用的时间的长短)；(c)社会经济背景下的地区工厂所在地(例如失业率，劳动标准，工会的角色)；(d)LP实施过程中的生产力水平。同时，Schouteten和Benders(2004)考虑到歧义是由于缺少一个通过经验验证的研究仪器所支持的外部评估框架。
根据这些参数，Mullarkey等人以及Jackson和Martin(1996)得到的结论是，LP不一定对工作条件有害，因为，在很大程度上，这取决于它的实施环境。它极大地依赖于管理者在设计和操作精益系统上的选择(Cont 等，2006)。此外，他们工作中的个人意见是由他们的实际工作条件、早期工作经验以及普遍的生活环境所决定的（贝格格伦，1992年）。因此，工人对于LP的满意度的变化在很大程度上取决于他们是否是在Taylorist–Fordist的环境或社会科技所设计的环境中。
由于使用的调查研究一直是评估人类对于LP影响最常见的研究战略，所以要在定性数据的基础上对这个问题进行深入的研究已经很难了。例如，Cont（2006），Angelis（2004)，国家环保总局和Klemola (2004)，Lewchuk (2001)，Landsbergis (1999)及Dankbaar (1997)等人做的调查。他们讨论了基于文献评论但是缺乏实证数据支持的主题。其中的一些研究,如Kato和Rob (1993) 承办的,似乎是有偏见思想的观点。两极分化的辩论和强大影响力的意识形态立场也被Schouteten和Benders（2004）在一些研究中发现出来。
同时,由于大多数先前的研究已经无法调查LP被接受的程度（Cont 等人，2006），因此，在没有考虑工作环境实际上是否可靠的情况下就评价LP对工人是积极的或负面的，这是有缺陷的。大多数研究采取组织作为一个整体,这也是一个缺陷，因为LP的水平在公司各部门实施可能会有所不同。
本研究是基于一个假设,即由于在组织可能变动的环境和LP实施的成熟度为实例,公司根据它们自己的实际情况对LP对于工作环境的影响进行评估是至关重要的，因此他们能分辨其特定的驱动所产生的正面和负面影响。

外文：
Although there is agreement on the positive impacts of lean production (LP) on quality and productivity, the same is not true for the impacts of LP on working conditions (Delbridge et al., 2000). On the one hand, several authors have identified detrimental effects of LP. According to Niepce and Molleman (1998), typical principles of LP, such as continuous flow and the definition of work-in-process caps, couple processes tightly and, as a result, increase stress in workers and reduce their autonomy. Berggren (1992) and Klein(1989) point out other drawbacks of LP, such as: (a) the standardization of cycle time, which prevents workers from managing the pace at which they work; (b) multi-skilling, which often implies job enlargement and work intensification rather than job enrichment;(c) unlimited demands on performance; (d) willingness to work overtime very frequently and at very short notice; (e) close surveillance of the individual; (f) excessive regimentation of the workplace; and (g) little emphasis on preventing cumulative trauma injuries, which contrasts with a strong emphasis on accident prevention. Wokutch and Vansandt (2000) have also concluded that Toyota and all major Japanese auto companies adopted a strongly behavior-oriented approach to safety management which has given little emphasis to cumulative trauma injuries and that this lack of emphasis is one of the drawbacks of such an approach.
On the other hand, positive impacts of LP on working conditions have also been emphasized. The study of Berggren (1992), which was based on the analysis of Japanese transplants into the US and European auto industry, identified a set of these impacts, such as:(a) job security; (b) its egalitarian character (i.e. white-collar employees and blue-collar employees enjoy similar status);(c) a carefully selected and highly qualified workforce and; (d)management giving value to workers’ proposals for improvement.Jackson and Mullarkey (2000) identified both positive and negative effects of LP in terms of autonomy, physical demands and social climate.
The ambiguity of the impacts of LP on working conditions was also detected by Ferreira (2006), who analyzed 52 scientific articles on the subject, and listed the number of positive or negative impacts that were cited. Overall, 48% of the citations referred to positive impacts and 52% referred to negative impacts, even though most studies indicated that positive and negative impacts occurred simultaneously (Ferreira, 2006). In addition to the intrinsic characteristics of LP, such ambiguity may also be caused by a number of factors, such as: (a) the influence of each company’s organizational culture, especially the extent to which safety and ergonomics are core values; (b) the different levels of maturity of companies’ lean systems, which in turn are dependent on a set of variables (e.g. The types of products and processes, the length of time since LP was adopted); (c) the socio-economic context of the region where the plant is located (e.g. unemployment rates; labor standards, the role of unions); (d) the level of workforce involvement in the LP implementation process. Also, Schouteten and Benders (2004) consider that the ambiguity is due to the lack of an external assessment framework supported by validated research instruments.
In line with these arguments, Mullarkey et al. (1994) and Jack- son and Martin (1996) concluded that LP is not necessarily detrimental to working conditions, since, to a large extent, this depends on the context in which it is implemented. It does depend heavily on management choices in designing and operating lean systems (Conti et al., 2006). Moreover, individuals’ views of their jobs are determined both by their actual working conditions and earlier experiences and by their living conditions in general (Berggren, 1992). Therefore, workers’ satisfaction with LP may greatly vary depending on whether they are in a Taylorist–Fordist environment or one that has been socio-technically designed.
Since the use of surveys has been the most frequent research strategy to evaluate the human impacts of LP, it has been difficult to undertake deep investigations into this issue based on qualitative data. For instance, surveys have been conducted by Cont ie tal. (2006), Angelis (2004), Sepa¨laänd Klemola (2004) and Lewchuk et al. (2001). Landsbergis et al. (1999) and Dankbaar (1997) have discussed the subject based on reviews of the literature, without the support of empirical data. Some of these studies, such as the one undertaken by Kato and Rob (1993), seem to be biased by ideological points of view. Polarization in the debate and the strong influence of ideological positions in some studies were also detected by Schouteten and Benders (2004).
Also, since most previous studies have not carried out an investigation into the extent to which LP has been adopted (Conti et al., 2006), there is the risk of characterizing LP either as positive or negative to workers without evaluating the extent to which the work environment is in fact lean. In this respect, most studies take organizations as a whole, which is a drawback since the level of LP implementation may vary across company departments.
This study is based on the assumption that, due to the wide possible variations in organizational contexts and the maturity levels of instances of LP implementation, it is key that companies conduct assessments of the impacts of LP on working conditions for their specific reality, so they can identify their particular drivers for either positive or negative impacts.

（正文页面请加页；从教务处主页下载，统一用A4纸单面激光打印）
4