| La Lettre du GERPISA | no 138 (janvier 2000) |
Editorial - Michel Freyssenet
"It is January 2015, and Mr. Smith has just decided to replace his car. He turns on his computer and gets on the web. He enters the AutoChoice site where a software program registers his criteria list, then proposes a first model to him: a Renissamsung Futura, with the possibility to choose among:
Insofar as other aspects of the vehicle are concerned, such as the
navigational system, the list of possible choices is even longer. Based
on financial information provided by Mr. Smith, Ford International Credit
can also offer personalized financing plans.
However, Mr. Smith is not enthusiastic about the proposed model. He would prefer to have a Valvisteon road system, and Peugeot/Fire diesel motorization. He modifies these parameters accordingly, yet subsequent models suggested by the software still do not correspond to his expectations. After several hours interacting with his computer, Mr. Smith grows weary, turns it off, and drives to his local supermarket where he buys one of their models in stock: a Rover Mini4".
The modular vehicle, an engineer's absolute dream and the consumer's ideal customized car, is once again at the heart of automobile firms' search for strategies. A socio-economic analysis has not to focus over the technical feasibility of this type of vehicle, opposing those in favor of a "shelf" model to those defending the irreducible systemic nature of the automobile whose quality (meaning the product's integrity) does not fit well with any form of decomposability. Arguments pointing to modularity's success in other industrial areas (electronics, computer science, and aeronautics) do not seem convincing in light of the technical and social specificity of the automobile.
Social scientists who partake in GERPISA can not answer the technical question, and common projects could be engaged leaving everyone with his own personal conviction. Therefore, let us - at least temporarily - set aside the question of technical feasibility. Contribution by social scientists to the issue of modularity must be based on their competencies and knowledge. A few essential steps to take might serve as a guide.
1/ Analyze strategies implemented by different actors relative to this scenario, by accepting the high degree of uncertainty associated with the former, as demonstrated by recent transformations in the automobile distribution sector, both by carmakers and new actors (see Bernard Jullien's article in this issue of GERPISA's newsletter). Automobile producers and Tier 0.5 suppliers are the main actors involved, joined by other firms (lower tiering supplier firms, design and engineering companies), workers and their unions, and last but not least, distribution and automobile usage (dealers, repair companies, consumers).
2/ Evaluate how modular production accommodates to the different industrial models elaborated during GERPISA's first international program. Though it seems to be a natural prolongation of the Sloanist model (hence, VW's vigorous activity in this area), its articulation with the Toyotaist model is more difficult (indeed, Toyota's reluctance is easily observable). Insofar as the Hondaist model is concerned (based on innovation and reactivity), recomposing organizational principles is required in order to integrate modular production.
3/ Anticipate the impact of modular production on the entire automobile system, all the way from relations with suppliers to distribution to automobile usage. Deregulation in the automobile distribution, development of e-commerce, but also regulation relative to recycling are facts to consider that go beyond the simple question of modular production.
GERPISA's next colloquium will allow us to embark upon this area of
analysis within the framework of our new international program. Pursuing
our desire to imagine and even to dream, the years ahead in this new millennium
promise to be fruitful ones for everyone at GERPISA. Happy New Year and
all the best to each and everyone of you in the years to come.