Productivity Paradox: Difference between revisions
From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "1. The productivity approach is not enough as cutting costs is a zero sum game 2. Focussing on mfg structure and technology are better ways to boost prodictivity 3. Massive inves...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
1. The productivity approach is not enough as cutting costs is a zero sum game | *1. The productivity approach is not enough as cutting costs is a zero sum game | ||
2. Focussing on mfg structure and technology are better ways to boost | *2. Focussing on mfg structure and technology are better ways to boost productivity | ||
3. Massive investments in low cost technology can reduce flexibility | *3. Massive investments in low cost technology can reduce flexibility | ||
4. Whan costs are the goal, quality suffers | *4. Whan costs are the goal, quality suffers | ||
5. When quality is the goal costs often go down | *5. When quality is the goal costs often go down | ||
6. Investment in innovation sometimes get ignored becuase they temporarily reduce productivity | *6. Investment in innovation sometimes get ignored becuase they temporarily reduce productivity | ||
*7. Focus on competiveness not productivity | |||
**What to buy | **What to buy | ||
**Size lovarion and capacity of plant | **Size lovarion and capacity of plant | ||
Latest revision as of 11:17, 27 December 2010
- 1. The productivity approach is not enough as cutting costs is a zero sum game
- 2. Focussing on mfg structure and technology are better ways to boost productivity
- 3. Massive investments in low cost technology can reduce flexibility
- 4. Whan costs are the goal, quality suffers
- 5. When quality is the goal costs often go down
- 6. Investment in innovation sometimes get ignored becuase they temporarily reduce productivity
- 7. Focus on competiveness not productivity
- What to buy
- Size lovarion and capacity of plant
- Choices of PT
- PICS
- Quality systems
- Cultures
- Workforce Policies
