Mechanisms and rationales for the coordination of a modular assembly system

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to investigate one crucial aspect and inherent difficulty of modular assembly systems, which is how the dispersed activities, resources and organizational units are coordinated with one another and the corresponding effects. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on a subset of the data collected during a four‐year case study of Volvo Car Corporation's modular assembly system. For this particular paper, 15 semi‐structured interviews were conducted with representatives from different functions related to both pre‐ and final assembly activities. Findings The paper concludes that the efficiency of a modular assembly system is dependent on the use of several coordination mechanisms, such as the use of plans, standardization and mutual adjustment. The efficiency‐related rationales of activity synchronization, resource sharing, and activity and resource development can then be achieved. These mechanisms should cross the boundaries of the organizational units performing pre‐ and final assembly activities. The efficiency of a modular assembly system thus relies on an integral coordination pattern. Research limitations/implications The findings are mainly relevant for companies which design and produce complex products involving several technologies, and which use company‐specific module interfaces. Practical implications The importance of using a variety of mechanisms for coordinating activities in modular assembly systems is highlighted. The paper also shows what effects can be obtained by using several coordination mechanisms. For practitioners, the detailed case description may also provide valuable reference material. Originality/value The paper highlights how efficiency of a modular assembly system can be achieved through the planning and use of several mechanisms when designing and operating it.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 60 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.