Anthony D'costa wrote:
>There is a strategy called mass customization. Also, those who do not
>visit factories and see how things are made cannot appreciate the millions
>of intermediate inputs that go into the final product but which we never
>see. Doug makes the same mistake. There are lots of products that are
>customized, including software.
Yeah, and you could order a '64 Plymouth with or without air conditioning,
bucket seats or bench, etc. etc. Simon Clarke has an article somewhere
arguing that the post-Fordist crowd underestimates the flexibility of
Fordist production and overestimates that of the present. I think he has a
point.
Doug
Anthony:
I agree that flexible production has been overstated, especially when Piore
and Sabel romanticize about it in terms of going back to "craftsmanship".
On the other hand, there is something to be said about the variety of goods
that can be produced on an assembly-line. There is also custom-made
products. Consider Boeing's aircraft for the different airlines and the
associate parts and components from suppliers.
Product variation is not spurious nor nominal --like the ac example above.
There are some real qualitative aspects of it. Consider my inkjet printer.
It's cheap but highly versatile and operates like an intelligent machine.
It can read the thikness of the paper and self-correct itself when
printing. Microelectronics and software are the two sides of this
technology that make flexibility and product variety quite different from
Fordist lines. However, like most things, it is not a complete break from
the past. I have written a chapter that is subtitled "Flexible
Institutions for Mass Production Goals" (forthcoming in Economic Governance
in East Asia-- Cornell UP).
Cheers, Anthony
