1 / 15

Transforming Team Dynamics at Volvo Bus Plant: Individualized Team Approach

This study examines the evolution of team dynamics at the Volvo Bus Plant in Borås, Sweden, where the FLiSa organizational model was introduced but struggled to meet expectations. Key challenges included imbalances in resources, time orientation among operators, and a lack of supportive structures, leading to fragmented teams and lost community feel. The Individualized Team model emerged, emphasizing individual and collective time management while highlighting the need for team development and a rewarding environment. The conclusions advocate for a balanced investment in both social and technical systems to foster trust, autonomy, and collaborative improvement.

will
Télécharger la présentation

Transforming Team Dynamics at Volvo Bus Plant: Individualized Team Approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Individualised Team:Individual and collective in a team based production system at the Volvo Bus Plant Margareta Oudhuis University College of Borås

  2. Background • The Volvo Bus Plant, Borås, Sweden, was established in 1977 • Number of employées: 365 (today) • The dock model was in use 1977-1999 • The FLiSa organisational model was introduced between end 1998 up to the summer of 2000

  3. Assembly stations 1 – 3 Completed bus- chassis ompleted frames Tyres, fluids, batteries and testing on rolling road C Assembly station 4 (q uality assurance) = Bus-chassis The Dock Model

  4. = Bus-chassis The FLiSa Organisational Model Pre-assembly of Pre-assembly of coolers, Pre-assembly of engine instruments, electrical central, etc. valves and air tanks (“engine dressing”) Tyres, fluids, batteries and testing on rolling road Completed frames Completed bus-chassis Assembly station 1 Assembly station 2 Assembly station 3 Assembly station 4 Assembly station 5 (quality assurance)

  5. Expected advantages with the new model • Increased possibilites for competence development and to become multi-functional through rotation and support roles • Increased efficiency/productivity • Increased quality level

  6. Outcomes • FLiSa is no longer spoken of • The support-roles have been brought together/to the teamleaders • The expected rotation did not take place • A couple of pre-assembly stations have been re-centralised • The birth of the individualised team

  7. Reasons – System Imbalances • Resources spent on the technical vs the social system • The line layout • Workload differences • Difficulties to balancethe time between pre-assembly- and line work • The lean organization; few retirement positions • Contradicting demands • Operators’ time orientation

  8. Consequences • Loss of community • Difficulties to learn from one another • Tension among teams • Tension within teams • Tension between individuals • Feelings of disappointment, anger, irritation • Whining

  9. Operators’ time orientation ”Saved in time is my own private time”

  10. Operators’ time orientation – reasons and consequences • The balance time is the target and what one is able to control (to some degree) • Distrust toward other stations/individuals • Unwillingness to help each other • Unwillingness to share improvements/ shortcuts

  11. The individualised team -explanation • Individuals/teams are time-oriented, not task-oriented • Lack of control, other than over time • Lack of holism • ’Us against them’ • Lack of team development investments • Lack of a supporting reward system

  12. CONCLUSIONS • Increased participation/involvement/autonomy/ learning possibilities for the teams • A better balance between resources spent on the social vs the technical system • Team development activities • A supporting reward system

  13. Conclusions cont.. • Attitude change; production and operators are to be in focus amongst everybody at the plant • Model for taking advantage of operators’ continuous improvements • Create a sense of a ”we” throughout the plant

  14. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

  15. Definition of a well functioning team by the operaters • ”Trusting everyone is minding his own business” • ”Trusting everyone to help out when needed”

More Related