Cellular management: a framework for the support

services?
Humphreys, Paul; McAleer, Eddie. Management Decision;
London Tomo 35, N.º 6, (1997): 464-473.

Resumen
The introduction of cells has in general been beneficial to organizations by improving
productivity and quality, reducing lead times and providing non-routine jobs for personnel
within the cell. However, there is no doubt that such changes create conflict due to the transition
from a functional structure to a more flexible cellular environment.

This paper charts the development of the cell structure within an aerospace company in order
to identify the potential problems which can arise between the various participants both inside
and outside the cells. Maister's Professional Service Firm model is used to identify the roles and
responsibilities of the support functions and management which service the cells. This
framework not only illustrates how planning and organizing issues can be addressed using the
concepts developed by Maister, but also provides an illustration of how one model propounded
by management educators can provide a foundation for enhancing organizational performance.

Texto completo
Paul Humphreys: Lecturer, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering,
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Eddie McAleer: Professor, The School of Management, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland,
UK

Introduction

Manufacturing industry, since the 1960s, has had to face an increasing range of pressures and
problems. These have included the introduction and application of new technologies, the
strengthening of domestic and international competition, and increasingly volatile trading
conditions. Manufacturing organizations in the UK have been repeatedly criticized for failure to
emulate the apparently more efficient manufacturing methods of overseas competitors in
Europe and Japan (Kirosingh, 1989). UK industry has therefore found itself forced into a
reappraisal of its production processes, working practices and labour relations (Nolan, 1989).
The recent Technology Foresight Report (1995) provides further support for these views and
indicates that even though manufacturing employment in the UK showed a reduction of 30 per
cent in the 1980s compared with reductions of 17 per cent in France, 5 per cent in the USA and
an increase of 13 per cent in Japan, labour productivity is still well below that of other major
industrialized nations. For example, with regard to labour productivity measured in terms of
manufacturing output per head, the UK lags Japan by 38 per cent, France by 62 per cent and the
USA by 100 per cent, based on 1991 figures.
The search for more efficient manufacturing methods has begun to coalesce in what Drucker
(1990) has termed "a new theory of manufacturing" and which is characterized in what he calls
the "postmodern factory". Drucker's theory is founded on four concepts: the modular or cellular
organization, statistical quality control, a strategic approach to management accounting and a
systems methodology to the business of creating value within an organization.

A more detailed and practical vision of the potential properties of Drucker's postmodern factory
can be found in the work of Parnaby (1988, 1991, 1994). Parnaby, like Drucker, argues for a total
systems view to manufacturing systems engineering and suggests that this can best be achieved
through the creation of business process organization structures which carry out three core
processes: the development process, the operational process and the support operations
process. This approach in his opinion must incorporate a range of related and supportive
changes in a number of areas, resulting in improvements to such key issues as jobstructures,
training programmes, customer and supplier interfaces, scheduling andplanning systems and
interdepartmental relationships.

Drucker uses the term "flotilla" to describe the multiple autonomous manufacturing cells which,
if considered in isolation, confer the benefits of standardization, and which combined offer
flexibility for the whole organization. The core of the approach advocated by Parnaby also
concerns the formation of a cellular organization structure, which is based on closely related
groupings of people and machines around information and material flows. This cellular structure
should also facilitate such factors as the simplification of production control, the provision of
flexible job structures and multiskilling, and the introduction of relevant performance measures
at the manufacturing cell level.

Two main advantages are claimed for cellular manufacturing over the more conventional
functional layout, where machines are grouped according to the function they perform (Oliver
and Wilkinson, 1988). First, is the effect it has on the flow of materials within the factory. In a
factory laid out on functional lines, products being manufactured must travel to and from the
different functional areas. Different products will therefore follow separate routes. Hence, the
travelling time between areas will form a large proportion of the total time taken to manufacture
a product, and a great deal of time and effort has to be devoted to ensuring that material flows
as it should. In a cellular system, because each product is manufactured wholly or largely in one
area, travelling time is kept to a minimum and any travelling that is necessary is along a few
simple and well-defined routes.

Second, personnel within a cell work on a single product or family of products and, since most
of the work on a product is done within a clearly defined area, the employees are more likely to
develop a concern for the quality of what they produce. Thus, a cellular system can lead to
encouraging among the workforce a sense of ownership of its respective products, as well as
increasing the flexibility of those working within the cells.

This view is supported by a recent survey of machining and fabrication cells. Wemmerlov and
Hyer (1989) report that, in cellular layouts, set-up times were reduced by an average of 41.4 per
cent, throughput times were reduced by 24.3 per cent, work-in-process inventory decreased by
19.4 per cent and quality improved by 15 per cent. The adoption of a cellular layout has also
been associated with reductions in performance obstacles to do with material delivery, the
availability of resources and the quality of work information (Brown and Mitchell, 1991).

A brief review of the literature indicates that much has been written about cellular
manufacturing and its many advantages over traditional systems of production. In addition, the
impact that cells have had on shopfloor personnel has been covered by a number of authors
(Huber and Hyer, 1985; Huq, 1992; Shafer et al., 1995). However, the effect on the support
functions and management levels within an organization, of introducing cells, has received
limited coverage (Alford, 1994). The intention of this article is, first, to chart the development of
the cell management structure within an aerospace company (to retain confidentiality the
company will be referred to as Aero plc) in order to identify the potential problems between the
various participants both inside and outside the cells and, second, using this company as an
example, to examine how Maister's Professional Service Firm model (1982) could be applied in
assisting manufacturing organizations to identify the structure, role and responsibilities of the
support functions and management which service the cells. This will be illustrated by looking
specifically at the manufacturing engineering function.

Organization background

Aero plc has been involved in the aerospace industry for over 80 years and has established a
reputation for engineering innovation and excellence. In 1987 after a period in public ownership
and poor financial results, a new managing director was appointed and at the same time the UK
Government announced that the company was to be sold under its privatization policy. Clearly,
if it did not become world class, the company would cease to be competitive and suffer the
consequences. Senior management therefore energetically embraced a comprehensive
organizational review to initiate strategic change in every part of the business.

Bringing about this change involved establishing strategic business units, delayering and
adopting the philosophy of total quality. The company also identified the urgent need for
planned management development in all areas and at all levels. At the operations level reducing
shortages, cycle times and work-in-progress were tackled by improving capacity planning,
scheduling, work flows and facilities and by the increased application of information technology.

In 1989 the company was purchased from the UK Government by a multinational manufacturer
of transportation systems. The existence and early success of the overall change programme in
exposing the real potential of the business was later cited by the parent company as a significant
factor in their purchase decision. The parent company brought substantial commercial acumen
and, very importantly, the capital investment required for new technology and systems
development. Notably, no managerial appointments were made after privatization and the
existing management were given responsibility to continue with the planned change process.

This process of change required radical shifts in the methods and style of management. There
was a need to replace the "autocratic/traditional" labour relations culture with a dynamic
responsive one in which the full potential of all could be realized. Results with regard to process
improvement and cost savings as a consequence of total quality projects, together with a major
emphasis on training and development leading to improved individual and team performances
helped to convince even the most conservative managers that this new culture had to be
created.

In the manufacturing division, the process of change led to its decentralization into four main
business units: machined parts production, sheet metal production, tooling production and
composites production. Further analysis pointed to the need to create even smaller units - cells
- as the next phase of change required to maximize business opportunities and cost reductions.
Each cell would be a mini business within a unit with enhanced visibility across all the business
metrics such as cost, performance and quality contributions. The teamwork approach would be
adopted with the removal of all functional barriers to establish cross functional teams reporting
to a single management position.

Initially there was a lack of in-depth understanding of the full implications of such change and
the time that would be required to prepare the workforce at all levels. The cell manager or
operations team leader was an entirely new position, with significantly wider responsibilities
given the removal of all supervisory positions. Thus there was a clear need to ensure the
selection of the right people with a consequential substantial investment in management
development. A rigorous assessment process was used with regard to prospective cell managers
and team members and extensive communications took place with the workforce and the trade
unions to keep them informed of company intentions and actions.

Simplified cell structure

The manufacturing cell established within Aero plc consists of three distinct parts, as shown in
Figure 1. The formality of precise and varied reporting links is replaced by a self-directing, team-
based structure. The cell is split into two sub-groups under the general guidance of the cell
manager whose prime role is as facilitator and formally appointed chairperson. He will act as the
point of contact to the cell and an information and communication conduit. Traditionally the
operational side of the team has reported to a production manager/supervisor and the majority
of personnel in this group see little change from the traditional hierarchical structure. The
inclusion of quality inspection and other manual groups reflects the multi-functionality of the
group. The support team represents those skills traditionally devolved into separate
departments which act in support of operations. By bringing these skills within the group on an
"as required" basis the cell becomes empowered to complete whatever task is assigned without
recourse to outside assistance.

There is no limit to the number of diverse skills which can be brought within the cell structure
nor is there a specific requirement to include any one of them. The listing in Figure 1 merely
illustrates some of the potential inclusions. Within the cell the free sharing of information should
be the common objective with all cell members acting together for the common goals.

In terms of role, the greatest change has taken place for the professional or departmental heads
and the potential for conflict as some managers experience loss of control can pose a threat to
the harmony of cellular working. The need to control the daily tasks of the departmental
employees has now been replaced by a coaching and developmental role. The organization
should benefit from cellular management in that the workload of the professional heads is
reduced from an administrative point of view. This should release time for creative thought and
more importantly time to concentrate on whole factory issues. The professional head is then
able to take an active part in such areas as concurrent engineering, continuous improvement,
training and project work.

In effect a consultancy resource, as shown in Figure 2, is available to senior management who

can use in-house personnel in lieu of expensive external consultants. For example, Dumaine
(1993) quotes an information manager who is working in a cellular environment as stating that
he hopes to "manage my way out of my current job in two years". The professional head should
be able to work closely with the cell managers assisting and advising as a member of a larger
team under the overall control of the general manager.

Hence, as Figure 3 illustrates, the various cells can be welded together as a single unit, in a similar
fashion to Drucker's (1990) "flotilla" organization or Parnaby's (1994) business process team
cells. The organization takes on the shape of overlapping scales and like the Roman shield wall
the "teamwork organization" provides strength in depth.

Problems caused by adopting a cellular structure within Aero plc

If the key to successful working in cells is teamwork, then the factors most likely to affect it are
those which destroy or inhibit teamwork, as illustrated in Figure 4. Commonly these are due to
a residue of the historical "pecking order" of the various skills and functions which now
constitute the cell. Lack of respect and covert hostility exist which lead to ineffective
communication resulting in poor team performance.

There is little change in the traditional relationship between operations management and
operational staff, so there tend to be few barriers in this area. One of the areas where change is
greatest is the shift of direct control from departmental heads to operations management of
support services. For example, in the course of a series of structured interviews conducted by
Cheddy et al. (1994) within Aero plc, engineers considered the professional head at least equal
or above the cell manager in importance. These ownership contests invariably force a barrier
between the cell manager and the professional head, thereby destroying the co-operation and
synergy of the larger team.

In addition, these conflicts of ownership can result in a weakening of the trust and teamwork
between the cell manager/operations team and the support team. Cheddy et al. (1994) describe
one example of conflict which can evolve when an operator approaches a manufacturing
engineer and asks why a particular decision was made to introduce a new cutting tool. The
manufacturing engineer can perceive the question as a threat to his authority, although the
operator genuinely wants to know the reasons for the introduction of the new tool so that the
rest of the operations team can be kept informed. The engineer's response to the operator can
be vague and dismissive which makes the operator feel rebuffed. The operator therefore comes
to the conclusion that the elitist engineers have only contempt for the operations team. It is
clear that the manufacturing engineer and operator do not know how to manage the
psychological boundaries that order their relationship, because neither has an accurate map to
assess the kind of relationship they are in. The interaction that was intended to make them more
effective colleagues only serves to separate them. The result is a failed encounter and an
unproductive relationship.

Management and employees, within a cellular structure, need to view their roles and
responsibilities in a new perspective. New technologies, fast-changing markets and global
competition are revolutionizingbusiness relationships. As companies eliminate their traditional
functional boundaries in response to this fluctuating business environment, the roles and tasks
that people have to perform become less clearly defined and require a much more flexible
attitude.

However, just because work roles are no longer defined by organizational structure does it not
mean that differences in authority, skill, talent and perspective simply disappear. Instead these
differences present both managers and employees with an added challenge. Everyone within
the organization needs to examine and identify the roles and relationships they need to maintain
in order to utilize these differences effectively in productive work.

As an illustration, the operations team leader (OTL) within the cellular structure has to play a
complex variety of roles. Sometimes the OTL has to deputize for the cell manager or provide an
advisory role to ensure efficient completion of operations to meet the production schedule. On
other occasions the OTL has to be able to troubleshoot, be responsible for paper work, liaise
with personnel involved in specific projects or deal with inspection and pre-setting queries. The
OTL also has to have the ability to work with people from the support functions who have a high
degree of professional expertise. Hence, no one role exhausts the kinds of relationships the OTL
must adopt to ensure the smooth running of the cell.

Another consequence of introducing a cellular structure is the reduction in the number of

managerial levels within Aero plc. The managerial hierarchy was reduced from 13 reporting
levels to five and this has major implications in terms of status, the reward system and training
requirements. The opportunities for advancement within the organization therefore become
restricted and this may lead to employee dissatisfaction. In addition, employee status reduces
in importance with more emphasis being placed on ensuring that management and employees
have the appropriate skills. Delayering ultimately leads to a requirement of higher level skills for
all employees and thus organizations which have adopted cellular structures need to update the
skills of their workforce to reflect the changing circumstances.

Hence, the introduction of a cellular structure requires that organizations examine alternative
proposals to enhance the motivational levels of all employees. For shopfloor personnel, this may
lead to the empowerment of groups/individuals by allowing them to participate in the decision-
making process or providing them with greater job freedom and discretion. For support services
and senior management, this may provide the opportunity to move away from their maintaining
role to that of identifying how the organization can improve the products/services it delivers.
Thus, as proposed by Herzberg et al. (1959) in the seminal work on motivator and hygiene
factors, the emphasis in terms of the reward system applied by Aero plc, as outlined in their
manufacturing strategy document, moves from one dominated by extrinsic rewards such as
salary and status, to that governed by intrinsic factors, such as training, empowerment and skills
development.

Maister's model

In order to understand these managerial and inter-group conflicts within Aero plc, an
organizational model which seems likely to prove useful is that of the Professional Service Firm
(PSF) described by Maister. A PSF is a firm which sells its talents, skills and abilities through the
services provided by its professional staff. Typical examples would be accounting, legal,
architecture and engineering partnerships.

Maister defines three types of PSF, namely Brains, Grey Hair and Procedure, each of which
targets a different market and has a different pricing structure. For continued survival, a firm
has to achieve excellence in its chosen markets. In the first type (Brains), the client's problem is
likely to be extremely complex, perhaps at the forefront of professional or technical knowledge.
Thus, Brains firms concentrate on problems requiring novel solutions, need highly creative staff
and demand the highest prices for their services. A typical example of a Brains firm would be a
consulting engineer organization which is involved in high technology projects, such as the
Channel Tunnel and which hasresponsibility for the design of the complex mining equipment.
With regard to Grey Hair firms, these provide a customized service and are hired on the basis of
reputation and experience in their particular kind of problem. The general nature of the problem
is familiar and the activities necessary to complete the project would involve a lesser degree of
innovation and creativity than those performed in a Brains firm. The implementation of a
computerized MRPII system could be considered as representative of the projects carried out
by Grey Hair firms. Clients of Procedure firms will have problems that are well recognized with
standard solutions which can be delivered efficiently at a competitive price. A procedure project
might be the preparation of detailed electrical wiring drawings in an engineering consultancy
practice.

Applying Maister's model to the cellular structure within Aero plc

Viewing professional heads as Brains, manufacturing engineering support as Grey Hair and the
operations team as Procedure, one can apply Maister's model to the cellular structure in order
to gain considerable insight into how it can best be managed.

Maister has identified a number of factors affecting the success of a PSF including the:

- project mix which is undertaken;

- allocation of projects to individuals;

- possession of a uniform definition by staff members of the kind of excellence which the firm is
trying to achieve.

Applying these ideas to the cellular organization leads to the questions:

- What "project mix" will best serve to enhance the development of the cellular structure?

- What project allocation will best serve to enhance the development and general job
satisfaction of individual members within the organization?

- What kind of excellence is the cellular organization aiming for?

Addressing these questions meansinvestigating what emphasis should begiven to maintaining

and improving current manufacturing systems/technology and identifying future areas for
development. In addition, it is important to consider the contribution that should be made to
these areas by individuals with different expertise, experience and aspirations. In order to
understand how Maister's model could be applied, the manufacturing engineering function
within Aero plc will be used to illustrate how the role of the support functions can be changed
to provide for a more effective use of resources and, at the same time, minimize inter-group
conflicts which can arise.

With reference to the aerospace industry, the commercial aircraft market is in a period of rapid
sectorial change (Yang and Rothman, 1993), which is supported by a recent study undertaken
under the auspices of the Innovative Manufacturing Initiative (1995). For example, the Boeing
Corporation have established an action plan which will attempt to reduce their cost base and at
the same time improve their service to customers. The key points in this plan are to:

- reduce costs by 25 per cent to 30 per cent by the year 2000;

- reduce manufacturing time by 50 per cent;

- cut inventory levels and move towards a just-in-time system;

- bring customers and suppliers into the process of designing new aircraft.

These changes have significant implications, not only for the large aircraft manufacturers, but
also for the many sub-contractors, since such a plan places a great onus on contractors to
support and to implement policies which will facilitate the achievement of these targets.
Tables I and II suggest how the manufacturing engineering function within Aero plc could be
restructured to take account of not only the movement to a cellular structure, but also the global
changes which are taking place within the industry. The Tables illustrate the situation before and
after introducing Maister's PSF model.

Brains

With the movement to a cellular structure much of the administrative burden on the
professional heads has been reduced with a greater emphasis being placed on supporting the
cell team. The role of the professional head needs to be redefined and this new position must
be recognized and supported by all concerned. Burnes (1992) and Meyer (1993) support the
view that the role of the professional head should be one of mentoring, coaching and facilitating
the teams. In addition, the professional head needs to maintain the level of core competence of
his discipline, set standards and maintain them. This is in accordance with the ideas expressed
by Rohan (1990) who indicated that a team needs to have basic technical strength.

Consequently, this provides additional time to provide strategic leadership in a range of areas
considered vital to the long-term survival of the company. These areas may include
benchmarking, just-in-time and concurrent engineering. One role for the professional head may
therefore be that of a consultant. Such a person could investigate how the organization can
meet the requirements of customers as outlined, for example, within Boeing's action plan. Each
professional head could investigate the impact that these changes will have on their specific
support function and examine the overall implications for the operations team. As a result of
this analysis, a number of strategic options could be identified which the organization could
embrace to successfully manage these major change programmes.

Another role the professional head might adopt is to bring experience to the team and in turn
capture experience from the team for communication to other cells. Updating process and
strategy in the light of developments is a key task with a focus on providing, facilitating and
supporting a continuous learning environment.

Responsibility for training and development of both the team leader and the team could also
fall on the professional head ensuring that the right complementary resources and skills are
available to the team. Forexample, Humphreys et al. (1995) describe the development of a
customized postgraduate programme for operations team managers and manufacturing
engineers within Aero plc. One innovative aspect of this course is that professional heads and
other senior managers deliver detailed, company-specific material. It was found that the
company personnel elaborating on their own specific internal systems added significantly to the
participants' understanding of the subject area. Hence, a shared learning process evolved in that
the group of company managers, consisting of the participants and those delivering the
function-specific material, helped to develop one another in their functional and management
expertise.

Grey Hair

A recent study of manufacturing engineers in the company by Cowan et al. (1994), found that
their role was largely one of maintaining the existing systems with little time being devoted to
improvements of the processes and systems within the organization. Themanufacturing
engineers therefore find themselves in the situation of providing direct intervention on the
shopfloor. By transferring many of the maintaining tasks to the operations team, the
manufacturing engineers can concentrate on operationalizing the policies developed by the
professional heads.

Manufacturing engineers can therefore concentrate more effectively on trying to improve

organizational effectiveness through, for example, value analysis, process improvement and
being part of the multi-functional team in a concurrent engineering project. The manufacturing
engineers should therefore be able to concentrate on such factors as:

- ensuring, during the design process, that parts, sub-assemblies and complete products are
capable of manufacture in the most cost-effective manner which minimizes lead-times to
customers;

- provision of effective manufacturing and tooling methodologies which will translate innovative
design into profitable sales;

- provision of valid engineering and time standards as tools to measure and improve
manufacturing performance;

- the design of jigs and tools to support consistent manufacture of high quality products;

- the selection and implementation of new production facilities and the development of
procedures which will maximize their productivity;

- the effective utilization of manufacturing systems and technologies such as CAD/CAM and
MRPII;

- continuous engineering and cost improvement with a strong emphasis on value engineering
and right-first-time principles.

In terms of training and development, this has already been discussed with reference to the
professional heads above. However, the manufacturing engineers will now be involved in
providing a developmental role to the operations team, in order that they can take over many
of the maintaining functions. For example, in terms of correcting quality problems, the
operations team would need to have an understanding of statistical techniques and this
knowledge is currently held by the engineers. Thus, the role of the manufacturing engineers
moves from one of providing direct support to shopfloor operators to that of acting in an
advisory capacity.

Procedure

As has already been explained, the cellmembers can call on the support functions to assist them
with any queries on an ad hoc basis. However, it should be remembered that these cell
personnel have been selected after successfully completing a rigorous assessment process.
Thus, as outlined by Susman and Chase (1986) and Huq (1992) task design for shopfloor
personnel working in a cell environment needs to be upgraded to take account of the high
growth needs of these workers. This is apparent in many of the maintaining tasks currently
conducted by manufacturing engineers but which could be performed by the workers within the
cell. Thus, for example, the cell personnel should be able to deal with tooling queries, maintain
the bill of materials and monitor job progress rather than leave such tasks to be conducted by
manufacturing engineers from the support services. Consequently, the operations team will
need to have their skills upgraded in order to take on the additional tasks. Hence, as outlined in
Tables I and II, many of the tasks currently being carried out by the manufacturing engineer
could, after appropriate training, be accomplished by the operations team.
Conclusions

The introduction of cells has in general been beneficial to organizations in terms of improving
productivity and quality, reducing lead times and providing non-routine jobs for those who
operate within the cell. However, there is no doubt that such changes do create conflict as a
result of moving from the traditional functional structure to a more flexible and dynamic cellular
environment.

The case of manufacturing engineering support to manufacturing cells in Aero plc has been
analysed using Maister's Professional Service Firm model. Applying this model should assist
managers to alleviate some of the tensions and conflicts which currently exist between the
variousorganizational levels and groups within cells. Referring to the activities in Tables I and II,
the overall responsibility of the senior professional manufacturing engineer is to ensure that
manufacturing engineering within the cell is and remains world class. In particular this implies
an external environment "intelligence" responsibility covering the needs of customers, the
actions of competitors and the broad thrust of developments worldwide within manufacturing
engineering. This means acting to make sure that there is continued investment in recruitment,
education and training of manufacturing engineers so that the total specialist knowledge and
lore allows the company to remain competitive by maintaining its world class capability. The
operations team assume responsibility for carrying out the maintaining role which was
previously a role of manufacturing engineering by performing the many procedural type tasks.
This releases the supporting manufacturing engineers allowing them to concentrate on
improvements to the current systems and techniques.

Manufacturing engineering was used for illustration purposes but a similar approach could be
applied to the other support functions such as purchasing which service the cells. Cellular
management should therefore not solely concentrate on the internal mechanisms affecting the
smooth running of a cell, but needs to take a more holistic approach and consider those
influencing factors external to the cell boundaries.

Few would disagree that the most important input to the system are the employees and that
improved outputs can only be achieved by developing and motivating these inputs. Thus, staff
development must be a central theme for the success of the organization adopting a cellular
structure. Maister (1986) used the term "human capital" to refer to the collective judgement,
knowledge, experience and ability of all the staff within a PSF. Hence, the overall project mix
and project allocation has to be sought which will maximize the human capital and facilitate the
achievement of excellence within cells and so within the organization as a whole.

The speed and force of change currently taking place in the aerospace industry has increased
the need for a more focused approach to management related issues. This article shows how
planning and organizing issues within cells can be addressed using the PSF concept of Maister.
By so doing, it provides an illustration of how one model propounded by teachers of
management can be made operational to provide a foundation for the pursuit of enhanced
levels of organizational efficiency and effectiveness.

References

1. Alford, H. (1994, "Cellular manufacturing: the development of the idea and its application",
New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 3-18.
2. Brown, K. and Mitchell, T. (1991, "A comparison of just-in-time and batch manufacturing: the
role of performance obstacles", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 906-17.

3. Burnes, B. (1992, Managing Change, Pitman, London.

4. Cheddy, K., Crone, D. and Quigley, B. (1994, "Cellular management - people issues",
unpublished dissertation, University of Ulster..

5. Cowan, S., McCord, J., Weir, G. and Wilton, B. (1994, "Manufacturing engineering role in cells",
unpublished dissertation, University of Ulster..

6. Drucker, P. (1990, "The emerging theory of manufacturing", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68
No. 3, pp. 94-102.

7. Dumaine, B. (1993, "The new non-manager managers", Fortune, 22 February, p. 40.

8. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. (1959, The Motivation to Work, Wiley, New York,
NY.

9. Huber, V. and Hyer, N. (1985, "The human factor in cellular manufacturing", Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 213-28.

10. Humphreys, P., McAleer, E., Wightman, S., Keogh, M. and Manson, B. (1995, "Customer-
focused management development: a case study", The Journal of European Industrial Training,
Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 26-32.

11. Huq, F. (1992, "Labor issues in the implementation of group technology cellular
manufacturing", Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 15-20.

12. Innovative Manufacturing Initiative - The Business Processes Dimension (1995, Joint Seminar
with ESRC and EPSRC, London, July.

13. Kirosingh, M. (1989, "Changed working practices", Employment Gazette, August, pp. 422-9.

14. Maister, D. (1982, "Balancing the professional service firm", Sloan Management Review, Vol.
24 No. 1, pp. 15-29.

15. Maister, D. (1986, "How to build human capital", The American Lawyer, 6-8 June.

16. Meyer, C. (1993, Fast Cycle Time, The Free Press, New York, NY.

17. Nolan, P. (1989, "The productivity miracle?", in Green, F. (Ed.), The Restructuring of the UK
Economy, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.

18. Oliver, N. and Wilkinson, B. (1988, The Japanisation of British Industry, Blackwell, Oxford.

19. Parnaby, J. (1988, "A systems approach to the implementation of JIT methodologies in Lucas
Industries", International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 483-92.

20. Parnaby, J. (1991, "Designing effective organizations", International Journal of Technological

Management, Vol. 6 No. 1/2, pp. 15-32.

21. Parnaby, J. (1994, "Business process systems engineering", International Journal of

Technological Management, Vol. 9 No. 3/4, pp. 497-508.

22. Rohan, T. (1990, "World class manufacturing: Part 3", Industry Week, 3 September.
23. Shafer, M., Bennett, T., Meredith, J. and Marsh, R. (1995, "Comparing the effects of cellular
and functional manufacturing on employees' perceptions and attitudes", Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 12, pp. 63-74.

24. Susman, G. and Chase, R. (1986, "A socio-technical analysis of the integrated factory",
Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 72, pp. 257-70.

25. Technology Foresight Report: Progress through Partnership (1995, Manufacturing,

Production and Business Processes, Vol. 9, HMSO, London.

26. Wemmerlov, U. and Hyer, N. (1989, "Cellular manufacturing in the US industry: a survey of
users", International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 1511-30.

27. Yang, D. and Rothman, A. (1993, "Reinventing Boeing: radical changes amid crisis", Business
Week, 1 March, pp. 38-41..

Illustration

Caption: Figure 1; Cell teamwork structure; Figure 2; Role of professional heads; Figure 3;
Teamwork management; Figure 4; Residual barriers that inhibit cellular management; Table I;
Manufacturing engineering activities matrix: before applying Maister's PSF model to Aero plc;
Table II; Manufacturing engineering activities matrix: after applying Maister's PSF model to Aero
plc