Nummi - Reflection Paper

NUMMI Reflection Paper

When I first listened to the story about the GM-Toyota venture to create the New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) and transition a historically poor performing, and actually closed, automobile production plant in Fremont, CA into a facility implementing and using Japanese methods of manufacturing cars, I immediately thought of the 1888 movie Gung-Ho with Michael Keaton. In this story, A Japanese car company buys a shut-down plant in Pennsylvania then re-opens it using Japanese managers and American workers. Michael Keaton plays a senior American manager who convinced the Japanese to re-open the plant thus saving the town economy. Of course there is a culture clash as Japanese management demands far more regimentation and output than the workers are used to, and unpaid overtime is expected when output falls short of productivity standards. Management has little regard for the workers and the quality of their lives, focusing on productivity alone. The workers become agitated and their relationship with management becomes adversarial. Keaton’s character tries to play peace-maker but is unsuccessful and the Japanese decide to close the plant. Keaton makes a deal to produce a high number of cars, in return the he Japanese will keep the plant open and return wages to higher level. Of course, they fall short of the goal, but the Japanese owner, impressed by the teamwork and camaraderie decides to keep the plant open anyway, and all is well, at least in Hollywood. Not exactly the same story at NUMMI, but I bring this up because the NUMMI venture experienced similar problems and because it provides a good illustration of the problems involved in forming, training, and leading teams, especially when there are differences in culture and goals. This paper will reflect on NUMMI’s creation and attempt to address some of the things GM did well and did poorly during the transition and that directly affected performance. I will also discuss team design/performance and whether it is inconsistent with a unionized workforce, and offer suggestions on how GM could have taken advantage of the lessons learned at NUMMI and successfully implement those same procedures at other GM plants throughout the country.

What did General Motors do well and do poorly? Two fundamental questions when looking at the success of NUMMI and GMs failure to implement change across the organization. Recognizing the need for change, GM took a very good first step when it decided to send re-hired workers to Japan for training. This not only provided new skills, but it reinforced to the workforce GM’s commitment to the transition. This was key if success was to be achieved. The workforce of the past was a slave to a flawed process. This new training and building of trust between the workforce and management helped NUMMI overcome the problems of the past like rampant absenteeism, poor quality, and trouble with the union. Another thing GM did well was to allow the rehiring of former workers. I found it surprising given the troubles with the union, but it proved effective because it provided a workforce with at least some level of training and a commitment to quality. What GM didn’t do well was reward its employees as teams, and it never fully grasped the team management principles espoused by Toyota. GM continued to think of its workforce as individuals vice teams.

Team design can a tendency to "pit