What Is Fordism?
Definitions of Fordism are varied, numerous and at times conflicting. This essay discusses which features are pertinent to and uniquely defining of Fordism rather than Taylorism, Sloanism, Toyotism or any other socio-economic policy with which it may have become intertwined.
While many of these -isms share characteristics, this essay will try to distinguish which were distinctly Fordist and how they shaped the revolution in terms of management and organisation and ultimately society. Also discussed will be some of the limitations of Ford’s practices, which at times were just as necessary as the successes in inspiring revolution.
Meticulous and innovative organisation are what first propelled the Ford Motor company to success. In this regard it is principally characterised by fragmentation of tasks, specialisation of tools, mass production, and vertical integration.
‘Mass production’ a term coined by Henry Ford himself, was the principal force behind the firm’s early success, marking a radical departure from traditional craft manufacture. In the early 1920’s Ford was producing 2 million identical Model T’s on an annual basis, whereas Panhard et Lavassor the world’s leading car manufacturer in 1984 could muster at best one thousand heterogeneous cars a year (Womack 1990).
The main way that Ford achieved this astonishing level of production in comparison to his rivals was by deconstructing the production process into simple, individual and easy tasks.
There are obvious symmetries with Taylorism here, whereby Frederick Taylor famously broke down work into individual tasks and timed how long it took to complete each one. From here he worked out the maximum output a worker could achieve in a day, and set incentives for going above and disincentives for falling below this output. Ford too achieved great success by degrading and decomposing work into small and simple tasks. Despite having a Works-study department dedicated to calculating how long each task
While many of these -isms share characteristics, this essay will try to distinguish which were distinctly Fordist and how they shaped the revolution in terms of management and organisation and ultimately society. Also discussed will be some of the limitations of Ford’s practices, which at times were just as necessary as the successes in inspiring revolution.
Meticulous and innovative organisation are what first propelled the Ford Motor company to success. In this regard it is principally characterised by fragmentation of tasks, specialisation of tools, mass production, and vertical integration.
‘Mass production’ a term coined by Henry Ford himself, was the principal force behind the firm’s early success, marking a radical departure from traditional craft manufacture. In the early 1920’s Ford was producing 2 million identical Model T’s on an annual basis, whereas Panhard et Lavassor the world’s leading car manufacturer in 1984 could muster at best one thousand heterogeneous cars a year (Womack 1990).
The main way that Ford achieved this astonishing level of production in comparison to his rivals was by deconstructing the production process into simple, individual and easy tasks.
There are obvious symmetries with Taylorism here, whereby Frederick Taylor famously broke down work into individual tasks and timed how long it took to complete each one. From here he worked out the maximum output a worker could achieve in a day, and set incentives for going above and disincentives for falling below this output. Ford too achieved great success by degrading and decomposing work into small and simple tasks. Despite having a Works-study department dedicated to calculating how long each task