Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence on how smart manufacturing (SM) affects work organization at both micro-level – i.e. work design, described in terms of operator job breadth and autonomy, cognitive demand and social interaction – and at macro-level – i.e. organizational structure, described in terms of centralization of decision making and number of hierarchical levels in the plant. Design/methodology/approach The paper reports on a multiple-case study of 19 companies implementing SM. Findings Results present four main configurations differing in terms of technological complexity, and micro and macro work organization. Research limitations/implications The paper contributes to the academic debate about the interplay between technology and work organization in the context of SM, specifically the authors find that the level of technology complexity relates to different characteristics of micro and macro work organization in the plant. Practical implications Findings offer valuable insights for practice, with implications for the design of operator jobs, skills and plant organizational structure, in light of the challenges generated by the implementation of SM technology. Guidelines on how policymakers can foster the implementation of SM technology to enhance social sustainability are proposed. Originality/value This study advances a novel focus in studying SM, i.e. work organization implications of this new manufacturing paradigm instead of its mere technological implications.

No abstract

Research background: beyond Fordism Over the past 20 years manufacturing and assembly activities have experienced many changes, not only technological but also organizational and managerial. A wide range of innovations have been implemented across countries and industries, such as just-in-time, total quality management, concurrent engineering and others. As a result, both the internal organization of the factories and the external environment-including market demand, technology development, workforce education and expectations, labour and capital market-appear to be very different today from the general features that dominated the industrial development in the past, which is generally referred to as the Fordist paradigm. This paradigm shift has been described from both a macro and institutional perspective; see the comprehensive reviews by Roobeek[1] and Kenney and Florida[2]. Also, from a managerial point of view, clear-cut breaks with the consolidated Fordist practices have been highlighted. For example, Jaikumar[3] proposed new mission statements about the management of new technologies, Drucker[4] and Hayes et al.[5] put forward new principles to organize and manage manufacturing systems, others pointed out new

Part of a research programme being undertaken in Italy on the applicability of the just‐in‐time (JIT) approach. The programme includes both the development of methodological concepts to evaluate JIT applicability and an extensive survey of the value of JIT implementation as seen by Italian industry. Two levels of performances are identified: o First, the various performances at system level (critical manufacturing tasks) where the dimensions and measurement of productivity, service, quality and flexibility are defined; o Second, “operating conditions” being the variables describing the characteristics of single production factors and their interconnection (such as efficiencies, capability, process flexibility and lead times) The set of JIT techniques in the area of product, process, organisation, planning and control and supply are classified, the ways the techniques impact on operating conditions and, through them, on performance at production system level are analysed. A paradigm of JIT approach results, which explains the changes in the traditional trade‐offs within overall performance.

The evolution of production models raises a number of questions on the changes which are taking place, on the continuity of or break with consolidated models, and on whether new production paradigms are emerging. Traces back this broad and multi-faceted debate to five theses which summarise the principal interpretative approaches: the emergence of lean production as the dominant model; the indeterminacy of production models and the unpredictability of their evolution; the existence of a number of different models which are strongly dependent on context; the asymptotic convergence over time of different models on a single point of reference which is not lean production, while the latter will decline or be revised; and the emergence of a new unifying paradigm which leaves room for and even requires specific variations and adaptations. Reassesses these positions in the light of the life-cycle of management models and in support of the fifth thesis, i.e. the emergence of a new paradigm. Among the different possible formulations of the new paradigm, that termed "strategically flexible production" is presented.