Question Description
Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What could be the best defence of the “different work norms in contiguous assembly lines”?a)Without such variation allowed, rights of manager to design work-rules would have made very little sense, making the company similar to Ford.b)Proscribing standardised work norms would prevent Toyota from benefiting from workers' problem solving ability in resolving different kinds of problems that emerge, thus making it difficult to attain the Toyota philosophy.c)If similarities were imposed, rights of workers to experiment with work-rules would have made very little sense.d)Standardisation of work rules is only justified when the investments in plants are huge and experimenting with the work rules would be detrimental to the efficiency of the plants. Since Toyota's plants typically involved low investment, it could tolerate non standard work rules.e)With standardisation of processes, right of the workers in design of work-rules made sense. Since Toyota's manufacturing processes were non-standardised, the different work norms did not make sense.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What could be the best defence of the “different work norms in contiguous assembly lines”?a)Without such variation allowed, rights of manager to design work-rules would have made very little sense, making the company similar to Ford.b)Proscribing standardised work norms would prevent Toyota from benefiting from workers' problem solving ability in resolving different kinds of problems that emerge, thus making it difficult to attain the Toyota philosophy.c)If similarities were imposed, rights of workers to experiment with work-rules would have made very little sense.d)Standardisation of work rules is only justified when the investments in plants are huge and experimenting with the work rules would be detrimental to the efficiency of the plants. Since Toyota's plants typically involved low investment, it could tolerate non standard work rules.e)With standardisation of processes, right of the workers in design of work-rules made sense. Since Toyota's manufacturing processes were non-standardised, the different work norms did not make sense.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What could be the best defence of the “different work norms in contiguous assembly lines”?a)Without such variation allowed, rights of manager to design work-rules would have made very little sense, making the company similar to Ford.b)Proscribing standardised work norms would prevent Toyota from benefiting from workers' problem solving ability in resolving different kinds of problems that emerge, thus making it difficult to attain the Toyota philosophy.c)If similarities were imposed, rights of workers to experiment with work-rules would have made very little sense.d)Standardisation of work rules is only justified when the investments in plants are huge and experimenting with the work rules would be detrimental to the efficiency of the plants. Since Toyota's plants typically involved low investment, it could tolerate non standard work rules.e)With standardisation of processes, right of the workers in design of work-rules made sense. Since Toyota's manufacturing processes were non-standardised, the different work norms did not make sense.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What could be the best defence of the “different work norms in contiguous assembly lines”?a)Without such variation allowed, rights of manager to design work-rules would have made very little sense, making the company similar to Ford.b)Proscribing standardised work norms would prevent Toyota from benefiting from workers' problem solving ability in resolving different kinds of problems that emerge, thus making it difficult to attain the Toyota philosophy.c)If similarities were imposed, rights of workers to experiment with work-rules would have made very little sense.d)Standardisation of work rules is only justified when the investments in plants are huge and experimenting with the work rules would be detrimental to the efficiency of the plants. Since Toyota's plants typically involved low investment, it could tolerate non standard work rules.e)With standardisation of processes, right of the workers in design of work-rules made sense. Since Toyota's manufacturing processes were non-standardised, the different work norms did not make sense.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What could be the best defence of the “different work norms in contiguous assembly lines”?a)Without such variation allowed, rights of manager to design work-rules would have made very little sense, making the company similar to Ford.b)Proscribing standardised work norms would prevent Toyota from benefiting from workers' problem solving ability in resolving different kinds of problems that emerge, thus making it difficult to attain the Toyota philosophy.c)If similarities were imposed, rights of workers to experiment with work-rules would have made very little sense.d)Standardisation of work rules is only justified when the investments in plants are huge and experimenting with the work rules would be detrimental to the efficiency of the plants. Since Toyota's plants typically involved low investment, it could tolerate non standard work rules.e)With standardisation of processes, right of the workers in design of work-rules made sense. Since Toyota's manufacturing processes were non-standardised, the different work norms did not make sense.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What could be the best defence of the “different work norms in contiguous assembly lines”?a)Without such variation allowed, rights of manager to design work-rules would have made very little sense, making the company similar to Ford.b)Proscribing standardised work norms would prevent Toyota from benefiting from workers' problem solving ability in resolving different kinds of problems that emerge, thus making it difficult to attain the Toyota philosophy.c)If similarities were imposed, rights of workers to experiment with work-rules would have made very little sense.d)Standardisation of work rules is only justified when the investments in plants are huge and experimenting with the work rules would be detrimental to the efficiency of the plants. Since Toyota's plants typically involved low investment, it could tolerate non standard work rules.e)With standardisation of processes, right of the workers in design of work-rules made sense. Since Toyota's manufacturing processes were non-standardised, the different work norms did not make sense.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What could be the best defence of the “different work norms in contiguous assembly lines”?a)Without such variation allowed, rights of manager to design work-rules would have made very little sense, making the company similar to Ford.b)Proscribing standardised work norms would prevent Toyota from benefiting from workers' problem solving ability in resolving different kinds of problems that emerge, thus making it difficult to attain the Toyota philosophy.c)If similarities were imposed, rights of workers to experiment with work-rules would have made very little sense.d)Standardisation of work rules is only justified when the investments in plants are huge and experimenting with the work rules would be detrimental to the efficiency of the plants. Since Toyota's plants typically involved low investment, it could tolerate non standard work rules.e)With standardisation of processes, right of the workers in design of work-rules made sense. Since Toyota's manufacturing processes were non-standardised, the different work norms did not make sense.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What could be the best defence of the “different work norms in contiguous assembly lines”?a)Without such variation allowed, rights of manager to design work-rules would have made very little sense, making the company similar to Ford.b)Proscribing standardised work norms would prevent Toyota from benefiting from workers' problem solving ability in resolving different kinds of problems that emerge, thus making it difficult to attain the Toyota philosophy.c)If similarities were imposed, rights of workers to experiment with work-rules would have made very little sense.d)Standardisation of work rules is only justified when the investments in plants are huge and experimenting with the work rules would be detrimental to the efficiency of the plants. Since Toyota's plants typically involved low investment, it could tolerate non standard work rules.e)With standardisation of processes, right of the workers in design of work-rules made sense. Since Toyota's manufacturing processes were non-standardised, the different work norms did not make sense.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the following discussion/passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Of the several features of the Toyota Production System that have been widely studied, most important is the mode of governance of the shop-floor at Toyota. Work and inter-relations between workers are highly scripted in extremely detailed 'operating procedures' that have to be followed rigidly, without any deviation at Toyota. Despite such rule-bound rigidity, however, Toyota does not become a 'command-control system'. It is able to retain the character of a learning organization.In fact, many observers characterize it as a community of scientists carrying out several small experiments simultaneously. The design of the operating procedure is the key. Every principal must find an expression in the operating procedure - that is how it has an effect in the domain of action. Workers on the shop-floor, often in teams, design the 'operating procedure' jointly with the supervisor through a series of hypothesis that are proposed and validated or refuted through experiments in action. The rigid and detailed 'operating procedure' specification throws up problems of the very minute kind; while its resolution leads to a reframing of the procedure and specifications. This inter-temporal change (or flexibility) of the specification (or operating procedure) is done at the lowest level of the organization; i.e. closest to the site of action.One implication of this arrangement is that system design can no longer be rationally optimal and standardized across the organization. It is quite common to find different work norms in contiguous assembly lines, because each might have faced a different set of problems and devised different counter-measures to tackle it. Design of the coordinating process that essentially imposes the discipline that is required in large-scale complex manufacturing systems is therefore customized to variations in man-machine context of the site of action. It evolves through numerous points of negotiation throughout the organization. It implies then that the higher levels of the hierarchy do not exercise the power of the fiat in setting work rules, for such work rules are no longer a standard set across the whole organization.It might be interesting to go through the basic Toyota philosophy that underlines its system designing practices. The notion of the ideal production system in Toyota embraces the following- 'the ability to deliver just-in-time (or on demand) a customer order in the exact specification demanded, in a batch size of one (and hence an infinite proliferation of variants, models and specifications), defect-free, without wastage of material, labour, energy or motion in a safe and (physically and emotionally) fulfilling production environment'. It did not embrace the concept of a standardized product that can be cheap by giving up variations. Preserving consumption variety was seen, in fact, as one mode of serving society. It is interesting to note that the articulation of the Toyota philosophy was made around roughly the same time that the Fordist system was establishing itself in the US automotive industry.Q. What could be the best defence of the “different work norms in contiguous assembly lines”?a)Without such variation allowed, rights of manager to design work-rules would have made very little sense, making the company similar to Ford.b)Proscribing standardised work norms would prevent Toyota from benefiting from workers' problem solving ability in resolving different kinds of problems that emerge, thus making it difficult to attain the Toyota philosophy.c)If similarities were imposed, rights of workers to experiment with work-rules would have made very little sense.d)Standardisation of work rules is only justified when the investments in plants are huge and experimenting with the work rules would be detrimental to the efficiency of the plants. Since Toyota's plants typically involved low investment, it could tolerate non standard work rules.e)With standardisation of processes, right of the workers in design of work-rules made sense. Since Toyota's manufacturing processes were non-standardised, the different work norms did not make sense.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.