The evolution of manufacturing man and his ...

2 downloads 0 Views 237KB Size Report
Jun 8, 2012 - manufacturing language of the present. ... terra-cotta soldiers in China, and the mass manufacturing of iron by the Etruscans in Italy. This is ...
1 The Evolution of Manufacturing Man and his Manufacturing Species C.Rose-Anderssen, J.Baldwin, K. Ridgway Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre with Boeing University of Sheffield, UK

Paper submitted for the EURAM 2012 Conference, Rotterdam 6th – 8th June 2012 Acknowledgements: The authors acknowledge the support of the European Commission through the 7th Framework Programme under NMP-2008-3.4-1 Rapid design and Virtual Prototyping of Factories (COPERNICO; Contract number 229025-2)

Abstract Earlier manufacturing cladistic research has simply presented the most ancient manufacturing species as Ancient Craft System without reference to any characteristics. The paper tries therefore to explore ancient species through literature research based on archaeological and anthropological accounts. Thereby a useful out-group for cladogram construction could be created. Ancient evolutionary steps are brought together by applying cladistics. The paper shows that ancient manufacturing forms can be represented by character states. Their relationships are, however, based on the character states they share and not on geographical relationships. There is a continuous adaptation of the specie to the environment. Key words: Ancient manufacturing; cladistics, Darwin, activity theory

1 Introduction Cladistics has recently been successfully applied to discrete manufacturing systems (McCarthy, 1995, McCarthy et al, 1997, Leseure, 2000, McCarthy and Ridgway, 2000, Baldwin et al, 2003, Baldwin et al, 2004, Baldwin et al, 2010) and to aerospace supply chains (Rose-Anderssen et al 2009a, Rose-Anderssen et al, 2011). Classification of manufacturing systems distinguishes present from past systems and assists in validating and communicating emerging new systems (McCarthy et al, 1997). The cladogram (evolutionary tree) representing a specific classification is the communicating tool that itself through the communication is subject to modification as the picture of reality becomes clearer to the discussants. Previous cladistic classification of manufacturing organisation has presented the most primitive or ancient manufacturing form in the cladogram simply as Ancient Craft System (McCarthy et al, 1997, Leseure, 2000). The paper, however, specifically addresses ancient manufacturing systems. It also tries to analyse how manufacturing man, his practices and technologies can evolve through time and space. It discusses the eventual importance this could have for later manufacturing forms. In the paper manufacturing forms are referred to as species. The first part of our research project is concerned about modelling the evolutionary development of all factors of the manufacturing system in a holistic manner using cladistic classification. This involved substantial literature research on manufacturing practices and systems. However, it gradually emerged that the focus of interest was to be concentrated on manufacturing layout systems. This was based on the assumption that the selection and integration of resources into a factory layout is one of the key tasks during adaptation of a factory to change. The result was therefore a list of 26 characters and their respective 122 character states (CSs). When constructing an evolutionary tree, it is sometimes difficult to determine the common ancestor of the group of species (the in-group) subject to classification of relationships between them. Then it is helpful to search for an out-group species that shares one or more character states with the in-group. These character states can then be considered as common ancestral character states (Hennig, 1966). The fundamental species in our classification are different varieties of job manufacturing, project management, batch manufacturing, and mass manufacturing. By exploring the ancient varieties of the four species above, we are simply trying to produce a better informed out-group or starting point of the manufacturing systems we are researching. The exploration and classification of ancient manufacturing species was developed from literature research based on archaeological and anthropological accounts. The species are analysed from the perspective of the above 122 character states. Our argument is that the analysis is conducted in the

2 manufacturing language of the present. It is therefore more useful to us when comparing the ancient with present and recent manufacturing systems. The examples used in this paper are the different manufacturing species of the ancient job manufacturing of the Inuits, the pyramid project management in Egypt, the batch manufacturing of the terra-cotta soldiers in China, and the mass manufacturing of iron by the Etruscans in Italy. This is about a travel in time and space from ‘doing it alone’ by pre-historic man to emerging production of a collective nature. In that way, the paper intends to shed light on the basic principles of manufacturing change as a meeting place between the selective demand of the environment and the cultural ability of the population exposed to these demands. The story is about a journey from the manufacturing of simple hand-tools of the early Stone Age to refined standard weapons of a late stone age, through the making of tools necessary for settlements into villages, to large scale manufacturing in ancient times. In order to be able to describe the four different manufacturing species, examples had to be taken from very different periods in ancient times. Darwin (1859) argues that evolution of species may take thousands of generations. Therefore like in the case of traditional archaeological finds, we have to be satisfied with taking only snapshots along the evolutionary paths of manufacturing. In biology, a species can be defined as groups of interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups (De Queiroz, 2005). According to McKelvey (1982) a species of manufacturer can be defined as a group or population of organisations that are similar in competence needed to produce the product or services that is essential in order to sustain. The four cases were chosen due to their significance of showing manufacturing practices and systems. Their relationships are based on the characters they share, and therefore technically not on geographical relationships. The discussions in this paper are based on the triangulation between three theoretical perspectives; • The overarching approach, cladistics is applied for presenting the evolution of manufacturing man, his practices and technologies • Darwin (1859) arguments are applied to shed light on the evolution of species • Cultural-Historical Activity Theory is applied to analyse the above changes to man, his practices and technologies The aim of the paper is two-fold; to shed light on how manufacturing change may take place, and through exploring ancient manufacturing species to produce a useful out-group for our research. 2 Cladistics, ancestral relationships and the evolution of manufacturing species The methods of cladistics were originally developed by linguists to classify the cultural evolution of languages. Saphir (1916) investigated the evolutionary relationships between aboriginal American languages, and Kroeber and Chretien (1937) classified the relationship between Indo-European languages. Cladistics was later adapted to biology by the German entomologist Willy Hennig (1950) while he was working on phylogenetic classifications. Cladistics is an evolutionary classification scheme that not only describes the attributes of existing entities but also the ancestral characteristics. A classification starts off by defining the nature of the problem to be solved (Leseure, 2002). In terms of cladistics this means trying to understand the evolution of the identified classification problem. This assists in setting clear boundaries for which characters are relevant for the selected clade. The clade is a group which consists of the group of species under study. A character can be represented by one of several available character states. The character changes when evolving from one character state to another. Each species is defined by a list of character states. These character states distinguish one species, or in our research manufacturing layout systems from another. The selected species are defined by their possession of derived (new) character states. The resulting cladogram is constructed by grouping

3 species that share a similarity of change. Importantly, these relationships can be stretched in time and space. The systematic coding of categories identified in the literature texts resulted in the list of 26 characters and their 122 respective character states (CSs) in table 1, below: Table 1 - Character list for manufacturing layout systems 1. Main production type 10. Order type 1.0: Character not present 10.0: Character not present 1.1: Discrete production for market 10.1: Engineered to order 1.2: Process (mixing) Production for market 10.2: Make to order 10.3: Make to stock 10.4: Assemble to order 10.5: Assemble to stock 2. General layout 11. Order volume 2.0: Character not present 11.0: Character not present 2.1: Universal 11.1: Custom 2.2: Fixed position 11.2: Low 2.3: Process layout 11.3: High 2.4: Virtually linked processes 2.5: Nagare layout 2.6: Product layout 2.7: Cell layout 3. Primary material handling 12. Product variety/Uniqueness 3.0: Character not present 12.0: Character not present 3.1: manual mechanized 12.1: High 3.2: Automated 12.2: Medium 12.3: Low 4. Skill level 13. Customization 4.0: Character not present 13.0: Character not present 4.1: Skilled (artisanal trade technical full product 13.1: Unique 4.2: Deskilled (single simple processes) 13.2: Standard 4.3: Multi-skilled (multi-process handling) 13.3: Mass customized 5. Process technology type 14. Parallelization 5.0: Character not present 14.0: Character not present 5.1: Manual hand-tool 14.1: Parallel workshops 5.2: Semi-mechanized 14.2: Parallel machines – different set-ups 5.3: Mechanized 14.3: Parallel machine set-ups 5.4: Semi-CNC machine tool centre 14.4: Parallel stations 5.5: CNC machine tool centre 6. Secondary material handling 15. Cell layout 6.0: Character not present 15.0: Character not present 6.1: Manual mechanized 15.1: U-shape 6.2: Ergonomic 15.2: Multi-station U-shape 6.3: Automated 15.3: Split-U-shape 15.4: Split-Y-shape 7. Product mix 16. Integrated U-line layout 7.0: Character not present 16.0: Character not present 7.1: Multi-family 16.1: Multi-lined U 7.2: Part-family 16.2: Embedded U-line 7.3: Single product 16.3: Double dependent U-line 7.4: Mixed product models 16.4: Triple dependent U-line 16.5: Multi-dependent U-line 8. General manufacturing process 17. FMS flow direction 8.0: Character not present 17.0: Character not present 8.1: Project 17.1: Bypass 8.2: Jobbing 17.2: Bidirectional 8.3: Batch 17.3: Unidirectional 8.4: Mass 8.5: Continuous 9. Project organization 18. FMS layout 9.0: Character not present 18.0: Character not present 9.1: Functionally organized 18.1: space process constrained 9.2: Weak matrix organization 18.2: Line 9.3: Strong matrix organization 18.3: Loop 9.4: Pure project organization 18.4: Rectangle 18.5: Segmented L 18.6: Segmented U

19. Automated material handling type 19.0: Character not present 19.1: Conventional 19.2: rotary indexing 19.3: Robotic 19.4: Automated self guided vehicles 20. Number of cell operatives 20.0: Character not present 20.1: Single 20.2: Multiple

21. Line pacing 21.0: Character not present 21.1: Human un-paced 21.2: Human takt-time 21.3: Machine paced 22. Line layout 22.0: Character not present 22.1: Space process constrained 22.2: Line 22.3: U-shape 23. Line motion 23.0: Character not present 23.1: Intermittent 23.2: Continuous

24. Inventory type 24.0: Character not present 24.1: Decoupling buffer 24.2: Decoupling in-line buffer 24.3: No in-line buffer 25. Operative positioning/motion 25.0: Character not present 25.1: Operative picks-processes-drops 25.2: Operative processes on moving conveyor 25.3: Operative walks the line

26. FMC layout 26.0: Character not present 26.1: Space process constrained 26.2: Line 26.3: Unobstructed loop 26.4: Ladder 26.5: Open field

4

3 Darwin and the evolution of species Classification, as a science, began with biologists. The system of hierarchical biological classification was originally described by Carl Linnaeus (later; von Linne) in his book, Systema Naturea, originally written in 1735 (Linnaeus, 1958). Carl von Linne devised a hierarchy of biological classification limited to kingdom, class, order, genus, and variety. The Linnaean hierarchy, however, has its disadvantages. Linnaean classification ranks groups of organisms artificially into a hieracrchy. This can be misleading, as it seems to suggest that different groupings with the same rank are equivalent. In our research we try to correct these disadvantages by applying a phylogenetic or cladistic classification within our Linnaean one. As the Linnaean approach is not the theme of this paper our first generation Linnaean hierarchy is not shown in the paper. The first generation Linnaean hierarchy has since been developed into a second generation Linnaean hierarchy, and has now arrived at the level of a third generation Linnaean hierarchy in correspondence with the development of our cladistic classification. In his classification, Darwin (1859) uses a tree of life to explain the evolutionary history of species. The Darwinian approach is about the long term evolution of species through mutation. These mutations are small but significant and result in irreversible changes to a species. Darwin (1859) argues that species are not completely unique, but they share morphological similarities. Species can therefore, he suggests, be classified into a pedigree or evolutionary tree (figure 1) based on the similarities between them.

Figure 1 Darwin’s (1859) evolutionary tree

5 In his evolutionary tree, Darwin (1859) basically illustrates how species A after a thousand generations have produced two fairly well-marked varieties a1 and m1. They are slightly modified forms of their parent generation. And they have inherited those advantages that made their parent generation more successful than their competing varieties. In his tree Darwin (1859) shows the evolution of varieties a1 to a2, and m1 to m2 etc selected by nature through producing advantages that make them sustain. Darwin (1859) argues that it is never straight forward to ascertain whether two forms should be defined as different varieties of a species or simply be ranked as two different species. More specifically, the amount of differences between varieties is much less than the differences between species of the same genus (hierarchical level above species). The principle of divergence of character (Darwin, 1859) happens in the long-term, thousands of generations, as varieties become more distinct from each other. From an evolutionary perspective, Darwin (1859) argues that varieties are actually species in the process of formation. The split between varieties is a major bifurcation of evolution leading to a new species. The most severe competition for survival is between members of the same species and species of the same genus, because they frequent the same habitat for the same food (Darwin, 1859) using the same performance charecteristics. Therefore, variability is important for the evolution and the sustainability of species. For as Darwin (1859) observes in his chapter on the Variation under Nature: These individual differences are highly important for us, as they afford materials for natural selection to accumulate, in the same manner as man can accumulate in any direction individual differences in his domesticated producers (p. 39).

Darwin (1859) strongly argues that nature through evolution is favouring variation as a mechanism for preparing an individual and thus a species to sustain under particular circumstances. Nature favours the most improved varieties within a species. The less improved variety will become extinct (Darwin, 1859). He therefore defines Natural Selection as the preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations. Mutation is an important mechanism by which variations arise. And this is about the changes in chromosome numbers that may create the divergence of a species population, and thus produce new species (Ayala and Coluzzi, 2005). Nature therefore favours a mutation that increases the fitness of the individual in its environment, and it culls mutations that decrease the fitness of the individual. In this way nature through natural selection is trying to economise in every part of its organisation of a species (Darwin, 1859). The contents in table 2 are tools used in the discussions in section 5. Table 2 - Darwin’s evolution of species Species classification Species versus varieties Divergence of character in species Variety development Survival of species Natural selection Mutation Development of species

Species can be classified into a pedigree or evolutionary tree based on degree similarity Difference between varieties much less than difference between species of same genus Long-term development over thousands of generations Varieties are species in progress of formation Firstly, severe competition between members of same species. Secondly, competition between species of same genus The preservation of favourable variations and rejection of injurious variations Important mechanism by which variation arises Nature favours a mutation that increases the fitness of an individual in its environment

4 Cultural-historical activity theory – From doing it alone towards collective work activities The evolution of animal actions through to the collective actions within work activities are presented in this section. The adaptive nature of animal activity does not mean passive agreements with the demands and pressures of nature (Engeström, 1987). There also exists a collective and populational character to

6 animal activity and species development (Jensen, 1981). Vygotsky’s (1978) triangle (figure 2) below.

Engeström (1987) illustrates this through

Individual survival (Doing it alone) Individual member of species

Natural environment

Social life (Being together)

Collective survival (Doing it together)

Population; Other members of species

Figure 2

When it comes to higher levels of animal evolution, the evolution of primitive man, there will be disturbances to the three sides of the triangle in figure 2. • The upper side of the triangle is disturbed by emerging utilisation of tools • The social life at the left side of the triangle is disturbed by emerging collective traditions, rituals and rules • The collective survival at the right side of the triangle is disturbed by emerging divisions of labour This is illustrated in figure 3 below: Emerging tool making Individual member of species

Natural and artificial environment

Emerging division of labour Emerging collective traditions, rituals and rules Population community

Figure 3 (Engeström, 1987)

7

The next evolutionary step is therefore characterised by more significant and evolutionary interactive relationships between several of the elements of an activity. In that respect, a work activity is defined in Activity Theory as a developmental process connecting the individual and social levels and the object orientation of the process. Work activities are characterised by the multi-voiced interaction created within them, and their potential for expansive transformation (Engeström, 2001). Cultural-historical activity theory was founded by L. Vygotsky, A.N. Leont’ev and A.A. Luria in the Soviet Union in the 1920-30s. The theory is a philosophical framework for studying different forms of human practices and their transformation. The evolving interactions between the elements of the work activity (figure 4) are represented by the individuals, their activity community, the object and the mediating artefacts. There are three mediating artefacts; the instruments mediate between the individual and the object, the social rules mediate between the individual and the activity community, and the division of labour mediates between the community and the object. Instruments: Concepts, language, technologies, tools, strategies

Individual, group Emerging object

Social rules

Community

Division of labour

Figure 4 Work activity (Engeström, 1987)

Individuals have goals for their actions, whilst the object gives a collective purpose and direction to an activity (Hasu and Engeström, 1999). The object in this sense can be seen as the visual target or focus collectively being communicated and created by the community of a particular activity. An object is the vision that integrates the elements of the activity. Because of its imprecise nature the object needs to be reproduced more and more accurately in knowledge by the activity community for individuals to comprehend (Lektorsky, 1977). Thus the object emerges and thereby facilitates in changing and developing the activity. Rose-Anderssen et al (2009b) identified three levels of learning; adaptive, reactive, and expansive for the transformation of knowledge and thereby practices. Adaptive learning takes place when individuals and people adapt to practices developed by others. Reactive learning occurs when using routine practices in solving problems. Reactive learning is therefore about taking corrective action to perceived mistakes and learning from that. Neither of these two levels of learning really challenges the practices of the past. The third form of learning takes place as an expansion of the given context (Engeström. 1987). This is the learning that takes place due to multi-voiced interaction between the individuals within their work

8 activity. In that context they may challenge the practices and perceptions of the past by moving into the rough terrain of the unknown. The contents in table 3 are tools used for discussions in section 5.

Table 3 - Activity Theoretical perspectives on the evolution of a work activity Most primitive actions of individual manufacturing man The more significant development of manufacturing species Work activities Emerging object and change of activity Instruments Division of labour Learning

• Individual survival through ‘doing it alone’ • Individual has goals for her/his actions Evolutionary steps characterized by interactive relationships between several elements of an activity Characterised by the multi-voiced interaction created within them The object gives a collective purpose and direction to an activity The individuals apply concepts, language, technologies, tools and strategies Different competencies within activity community Individuals and groups apply different levels of learning to develop practices and products

5 The slow development of ancient manufacturing species: Archaeological and anthropological accounts In order to be able to proceed with the analysis of this section, it is necessary to present the set of definitions for our 4 fundamental species shown below; • The characteristics of job manufacturing are: o High variety and low volume (Slack et al, 2006). Chosen to meet one-off or small order requirement. Products that are typically purpose built equipment, and hand-made (Hill, 1983). • The characteristics of project management are: o A set of activities with a defined start point and end point (Slack et al, 2006). Large complex products that cannot be easily moved. A typical example is civil engineering contracts (Hill, 1983). • The characteristics of batch manufacturing are: o Not as high variety as job manufacturing (Slack et al, 2006). Similar items in larger volumes than in jobbing. Essentially to produce another product the process has to be stopped and reset (Hill, 1983). • The characteristics of mass manufacturing are: o High volume with narrow variety (Slack et al, 2006). The simpler form of mass manufacturing is a quantity product characterised by large quantities of relative simple items using simple production facilities (Wild, 1984). Before discussing the 4 ancient manufacturing species it is necessary to present an overview of ancient manufacturing times. The evolution of manufacturing man in pre-historic or ancient times is about a journey of adaptation to an ever but slowly changing environment. By manufacturing today is in general understood to make a product from a raw material, and especially large-scale operations using machinery (Collins, 2000). However, the term manufacturing comes from Latin; manus = hand, facere = make. Manufact means handmade. The factory is thus were something is made, and originally by hand. This journey of the ancient manufacturing man runs through the different Stone Age periods of Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, and from there into the Bronze Age and finally into the Iron Age. In table 4 below this evolution is shown in relation to the three geological periods and in terms of the two tool and weapon making materials periods. TABLE 4 Manufacturing man in relation to geological and tool making material periods (Barraclough, 1982) Period name Time Characteristics Lower 2.5 million years ago Simple stone tools as chopper Palaeolithic

9 Middle Palaeolithic Upper Palaeolithic Mesolithic

120,000 – 24,000 years ago

Neolithic Bronze Age

Iron Age

35,000 – 10,000 years ago

Organised societies Stone tool types developed to suit different environment

10,000 – 6,000 years ago

Rising sea levels and need to adapt tools to these changes

7,000 – 3,000 years ago 3,300 – 600 Before common era (BCE) • Near East 3,300 – 1,200 BCE • Indian Subcontinent 3,000 – 1,200 BCE • Europe 3,000 – 600 BCE • China 3,000 – 700 BCE • Korea 1,000 – 300 BCE • Egypt 3,150 1,300 – 60 BCE • Near East 1,300 – 600 BCE • India 1,200 – 200 BCE • Europe 1,200 BCE – 400 CE • China 6 00 – 200 BCE • Japan 300 BCE – 500 CE • Korea 400 – 60 BCE • Nigeria 400 BCE – 200 CE

Settlement into villages • Arsenical bronze (naturally occurring alloy) • Tin bronze o Tin mined and smelted o Molten copper added • Bronze tools replacing stone tools

• • • •

Shortage of tin in the Mediterranean led to search for an alternative material Iron too soft for tools (Snodgrass, 1967, Snodgrass, 1971) With early methods difficult to produce steel (Spoerl, 2007) o Resulted in the low carbon product, wrought iron To produce the best tools and weapons 0.02 % - 1.7 % carbon was added

5.1 Early Stone age – Palaeolithic to Mesolithic period Before proceeding into the discussions on our 4 ancient species it is necessary to search for an out-group for this clade under study. The lower Palaeolithic period is about individual survival. In the Middle Palaeolithic Period human populations are getting more organised (hunting together). In the Upper Palaeolithic period simple stone types are developing to suit different environments. During the Mesolithic period, dog is domesticated as a tool for hunting. Man makes a simple stone tool for himself. He is not highly skilled. There is no orientation towards a market, and therefore a main production type is not present. There is no product variation, and man is using a simple hand-tool to make his new tool. And he is working alone. He makes his single ‘product’ on his lap. A general layout character is therefore not present. The action does not satisfy the Slack et al (1983) characteristic of job manufacturing as high variety and low volume are not present. There is a single product only. However the general manufacturing process is jobbing. In Darwinian (1859) terms the actions taken could be argued to be a job manufacturing species in formation. In activity theoretical terms, this species represents the most primitive actions of an individual manufacturing man. He has goals for his actions, and he survives by doing his work alone. He is not influenced by a collective purpose through a community developed object. 5.2 Ancient job manufacturing – a Neolithic example The Inuit culture has here been selected as it is thought to have been less influenced by other cultures outside its marginal habitat. This is about a well adapted culture that followed the ice edge as this retreated towards the North Pole. Archaeological findings suggest a culture that spread out from Siberia, along the north coast of Alaska, then along the North Canadian coast to Greenland. The findings date the evolving culture from 4000 BC to 1000 AD (Birket-Smith, 1971). The Ancient Inuit job-shop thus sustained for an extremely long time. The Inuit job-shop is similar to the manufacturing of the Mesolithic man apart from this time the lone hunter manufacturer works on different models of tools and weapons. And these are refined compared to the weapons and tools of the Palaeolithic and Mesolothic periods. The product variety is still low. There was technology transfer from generation to generation for thousands of generations before any mutation or technological innovation to the products could be identified. In Darwinian terms, this small

10 rate of change could sustain due to only infinitesimal changes to environmental demand and competing technological challenges. There was thus not much need for change. Human artefacts from three Inuit cultural periods are shown in figures 5, 6, and 7 below. Figure 5 shows harpoon heads from the Neo-Eskimo culture 1200-300 BC.

Figure 5 Cultural artefacts from the Neo-Eskimo culture (The National Museum, Copenhagen)

Figure 6 shows harpoon heads, knife blades, flint scrapers and knife with iron blades from late Dorset culture in the Thule district, 700BC.

Figure 6 Cultural artefacts from the late Dorset Culture (The National Museum, Copenhagen)

11

Figure 7 shows harpoon heads, side prong for bird dart, arrow head, knife handle, trace buckle for dog harness, axe head, fish figure, ulo handle, bola ball, and comb, 1200-1300 AD.

Figure 7 Cultural artefacts from the Thule Culture (The National Museum, Copenhagen)

Figures 5, 6, and 7 in case of, for example, the harpoons reveal slight individual ingenuity by the different makers through time and space. However, the purposes of these tools or weapons for killing animal prey are based on the same principles; they are barbed to keep the harpoon head inside the prey and they are finely and smoothly chiselled to enter the prey easily. The slight individual variety in product appearance did not require any different production techniques nor did it require any tools of production. In Darwinian terms, there is really no competition between these varieties of manufacturing species as they are spread out over a vast area in time and space. Also the slight variation or divergence of characters of the species, in Darwinian terms, has taken place as a long-term development over thousands of generations. It describes a cultural species with excellent characteristics for adapting to and sustaining in a severe but stable environment. This species is about job production as it partly satisfies the Slack et al (2006) definition; high variety and low volume, production of small items. The product variety is low. But relative to the needs for sustaining in the environment it is relatively high. The largest items would be the Kayak, Umiak (large boat), and the dog sled. It is about job-shops where each hunter does his work alone based on cultural traditions (Birket-Smith, 1971). There is no general layout as he makes his products where he stands or sits. There is no order volume as the manufacturer makes simple products for his household only with no orientation towards a market. According to Slack et al (2006) and Hill’s (1983) definition of this

12 manufacturing species, it can be characterised as jobbing as it meets one-off or small needs. The products are purpose built and hand-made. In activity theoretical terms, this species shows a significant development of a manufacturing species. The species is characterised by interactive relationships between several elements of a work activity. Although there is no main production type, and there is only a single number of operatives, the product variety is low, the operative produces various items for his immediate family. This means there is some degree of multi-voiced interaction within the family community. His wife would certainly have a say at least in the design of ulos, combs and what she needs to fulfil her domestic tasks. Distinguishing the ‘true’ Neolithic cultures from the Neolithic hunter gatherer cultures is the manufacturing crafts of pottery and weaving, the inclusion of axes and adzes. Within the Neolithic cultures of the temperate climate zones, there is a discrete market production between members of the village community. The product variety has increased from low to medium (relatively high in terms of market needs). The significant change of environmental circumstances has in Darwinian (1859) terms favoured a variation of the ancient Inuit job-shop into the development of the Neolithic job manufacturing. Initially, the difference between these two was less than between species of the same genus. The transitional form of the ice-edge manufacturing species was about a species in progress of formation. This species satisfies the Slack et al (2003) and Hill’s (1983) definition of job manufacturing better than the previous one as there is an order requirement (from a market), and the order volume can be defined as low. This species represents a more fully developed work activity. Although the species can be characterised by a single number of “cell” operatives, each of them is a member of a village community. This is characterised by an early type division of labour for producing a medium variety of products. The discrete production for market means there is a demand to be satisfied. In other words, this division of labour mediates between the community as such and an emerging object that can give a direction to the quality and quantity of what village members want to be produce. 5.3 Ancient project management – a Bronze Age example In this sub-section Ancient Egyptian project management species are explored through the example of pyramid building in Egypt. In the example, we are talking about a period in the history of Old Egypt where pyramid building evolved into a more standard form with flat faces and adjacent temple buildings and a causeway (Roberts, 1995). In the example six pyramid specimens were built during a period spanning approximately 380 years. The more general characteristics of the Bronze Age are as follows: The simplest stage of the Bronze Age required using copper ore rich in arsenic or antimony (Ozment, 1999). Antimony is a brittle silvery-white crystalline metal that can be added to alloys to increase strength and hardness (Barraclough, 1982). However, unlike iron, copper and bronze could be smelted in the primitive furnaces the ancient Egyptians used. They used charcoal to attain higher temperatures to heat the metal. To reach the necessary temperatures blow pipes, were tipped with ceramic heads to prevent their burning up (Lucas and Harris, 1962). In this example there is a jump into a world of rich exchange of skilled crafts. This species is about project management as it satisfies theSlack et al (2003) and Hill’s (1983) definitions; a set of activities with a defined start point and end point. There is a functional organisation of work. The product is large and cannot easily be moved. It is therefore characterised by a fixed position layout, and there is a low product variety made to order. The order volume is suited to custom. The customization is unique. There is a discrete production for market represented to the demand of the Pharaoh. However, the stone quarries were along the Nile, and sometimes as far off as 1000km from the project sites. On land, blocks were dragged on carts to the pyramids by teams of men (Roberts, 1995). The material handling is thus manual / mechanised. There are multiple operators.

13 The significant species is represented by more characters and also more advanced character states than the two previous species. This has given rise to more radical change. In Darwinian (1859) terms the “mutation” that has taken place is irreversible. In other words, the environment has favoured the mutations that have increased the fitness of the individual specimen (project) within the environment itself. They could build on the experience of 6 successive projects. This species is an illustration of a fully developed activity system. There is a very clear division of labour based on skilled competencies. With regard to the next two species presented, significant mutations just to a few character states defines them as new species, and not as varieties of the Ancient Egyptian project management. 5.4 Ancient batch production – a transitional Bronze to Iron Age example The examples used to illustrate Ancient Chinese batch production visit the archaeological findings regarding terra-cotta soldiers in the mausoleums of the Chinese emperors Ch’in Shi Huang Ti (from 221 BC) and Jing Di (Ti) (from 157 BC) (Mazzatenta, 1992). In the case of the Ch’in mausoleums, archaeological discovery revealed an army of 6000 six-foot-tall terra-cotta warriors carrying bronze swords and having iron farm tools (Topping, 1978). This puts these specimens of ancient batch producers into the transitional period between Chinese Bronze Age and Chinese Iron Age. Like in the Egyptian ancient project production case, the emperors are in total power to order people to participate in the project that has a defined object. They are the sole market. However, it could be assumed that the skilled artisans making the terra-cotta figures were in a more highly regarded position. This species is about batch manufacturing as it satisfies the Slack et al (2003) definition; not as high variety as job manufacturing. But there are similar items in large volumes (Hill, 1983). And to make another product the process would have to be stopped. The batch manufacturing of soldiers, weapons and tools are taking place in a fixed layout position. There is a clearly defined division of labour between the individuals in the activity community. With the apparent orderliness of the production, there would be shared social rules of work conduct. Standard tools would have been used. And there was a defined purpose, a collective object, giving the set of activities a direction to follow. The collective purpose facilitated learning, and adaptive improvements and practices (Rose-Anderssen et al, 2011). The mass manufacturing is taking place in a fixed position layout. 5.5 Ancient mass manufacturing – An Iron Age example The Ancient Etruscan mass manufacturing in this section is based on the archaeological findings of the Etruscan settlements in Italy, more precisely covering at least today’s region of Tuscany. The Etruscans are likely to have evolved from an indigenous population of Iron Age farmers of the Villanovan culture (Gore, 1988). Rome developed into a city under Etruscan domination during the sixth century BC (Collins, 2000). This species is about mass manufacturing as it satisfies the Slack et al (2003) definition; high volume with narrow variety. The richest nearby source of iron ore was shipped across the sea from the island of Elba. There are skilled workers processing the material. The iron ore was then put into rows of smelting furnaces at the shore of Populonia. The spongy mass of wrought iron was hammered to drive out slag and then made into bars of iron. The bars were subsequently taken by oxcarts to warehouses in town (Gore, 1988). The order type is therefore to make to stock, and made available for the market. This simple form of mass production is characterised by large quantities of simple items using simple facilities (Wild, 1984). Thus there is no product variety. The example belongs clearly to the European Iron Age period.

14 6 Cladogram of ancient manufacturing species Each of these ancient manufacturing species represent a group of organisation that are similar in competence needed to sustain in their environment (McKelvey, 1982). Each example represents a species as they are not based on just one individual specimen. The relationships between them are based on the character states they share and not on geographical relationships. Based on the text in section 5 of this paper a list of character states have been identified for the clade of ancient manufacturing species (see table 5). Table 5 - Character states of ancient manufacturing species CS No Character states 1.0 1.1 2.0 2.2 3.1 4.1 4.2 5.1 7.3 7.4 8.1 8.2 8.3

Main production type – Character not present Main production type – Discrete production for market General layout – Character not present General layout – Fixed position Primary material handling – Manual/mechanised Skill level – Skilled Skill level – Deskilled Process technology type – Manual/hand-tool Product mix – Single product Product mix – Mixed product models General manufacturing process – Project General manufacturing process – Jobbing General manufacturing process – Batch

CS No 8.4 9.1 10.2 10.3 11.0 11.4 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 13.1 20.1 20.2

Character states General manufacturing process – Mass Project organisation – Functionally organised Order type – Make to order Order volume – Make to stock Order volume – Character not present Order volume – High Product variety/uniqueness – Character not present Product variety/uniqueness – High product variety Product variety/uniqueness - Medium Product variety/uniqueness – Low Customization – Unique Number of operatives – Single Number of operatives – Multiple

15 Thus in Darwinian (1859) terms, the ancient manufacturing species can be classified into a pedigree or evolutionary tree, the cladogram in figure 8. The tree is based on the degree of similarities between the species. Out-group: Mesolithic tool making

1.0 2.0 4.2 5.1 7.3 8.2 12. 0 20.1

7.4 11.0 12.3 11.2 12.2 1.1 2.2 4.1 8.1 9.1 12.3 3.1 10.2 11.1 20.2 13.1 8.3 8.4 10.3 12.0

Ancient Inuit job-shop (Neolithic) Neolithic job manufacturing

Ancient Egyptian project management Ancient Chinese batch production

Ancient Etruscan mass manufacturing

Figure 8 Cladogram of ancient manufacturing species

16 7 Discussions and conclusions The Ancient Inuit job manufacturer (Neolithic) comes about as CS 7.3 (single product) evolves into mixed product models (CS 7.4), and a mutation takes place as CS 12.0 (character not present) evolves into low (CS 12.3) product variety. The next step into becoming Neolithic job manufacturing south of the ice edge habitat occurs as CS 12.3 (low product variety) evolves into medium (CS 12.2) product variety. Simultaneously, there is a mutation as CS 1.0 (character not present) or no production type is replaced by the introduction of discrete production for market (CS 1.1). In the case of Ancient Egyptian project management this represents a “revolution” compared to Neolithic job management in terms of number of CSs introduced. In real terms this “revolution” is characterised by several evolutions of CSs and mutations. The clear mutation takes place as CS 2.0 (character present) evolves into fixed position (CS 2.2) layout. The evolution is represented by CS 4.2 (deskilled) evolving into skilled (CS 4.1), CS 8.2 (jobbing) evolving into project (CS 8.1), CS 12.2 (medium product variety) evolving into low product variety (CS 12.3), and CS 20.1 (single) evolving into multiple (CS 20.2) number of operatives. There are, however, five new characters in the evolution within the cladogram. These are represented by functionally organised (CS 9.1), manual/mechanised (CS 3.1), make to order (CS 10.2), custom (CS 11.1) order volume and unique (CS 13.1). We do not know how they came into being for the Ancient Egyptian project management. But for comparative reasons we can call them mutations. As CS 8.1 (project) evolves into batch (CS 8.3), Ancient Chinese batch production occurs. The evolution of CS 8.3 into mass (CS 8.4) production, and the evolution of CS 10.2 into make to stock (CS 10.3) produce Ancient Etruscan mass manufacturers. The Neolithic Stone Age culture represented by the Inuit culture at the remaining ice edge was protected from outside interests and influences. It is therefore a very clear and extreme example of lack of manufacturing transformation. It is only subject to local technology transfer. In other words, it was not challenged by environmental change. It, therefore, illustrates a ‘frozen’ early Neolithic culture of the High Arctic. Its variant species or sister species to the south, Neolithic job production, because of its denser village culture has a medium product variety and there is an exchange of goods. This is a more advanced form developing as the climate became milder and allowed domestication of animals and plants. The Mediterranean examples were within an area of frequent exchange of ideas, customs and practices where the sea itself facilitated the transport of these exchanges. There were major trade routes between the Nile delta and other shores prior to the building of the pyramids. Frequent routes went from the delta to Crete and Syria. The expansive Egyptian dynasty from 1570 to 1320 BC controlled the Levant which included the areas of Palestine and Syria. The Roman Empire (264 BC – AD 565), of which the Etruscans were part of from 90 BC, spread out all around the Mediterranean to Armenia in the East and including Celtic Britain after AD 14 (Barraclough, 1982). This can be argued to have assisted in spreading ancient mass production of iron as the Romans went about Britain in a big way. The cases of the Chinese tombs were not for everyone to see after they were concealed. However, there is no reason not to believe that the experiences from producing large batches of terra-cotta products during the building of the mausoleums assisted, in Darwinian (1859) terms through slight variety of many specimens, to fine-tune the perfection of clay products. After the Ch’in and Jing dynasties, Chinese pottery production went through an amazing evolution. This made the Chinese the World’s greatest potters (Crow, 1925). Terra-cotta products are unglazed and usually brownish-red. However, during the earlier part of the Han dynasty (206 BC – AD 92), it was discovered that at a high temperature pottery with powdered felsparic rock mixed with limestone or marble could be glazed. The next major step coincides with the Ming dynasty (AD 368 – 1644) when the most glorious porcelain products were made. Getting there was a slow evolutionary process where it was experimented with a combination of constant

17 use of high temperatures, great care in selection and preparation of the clays used. This means a learning at three levels; firstly, the adaptive learning by the apprentices from their masters. Secondly, reactive learning caused by corrective actions taken in improving practices built on established experience. And thirdly, there is expansive learning through the experimentation into new practices for producing innovative porcelain products. The four examples show that ancient manufacturing species may be represented by several character states. Their relationships are based on the character states they share and not on geographical relationships. At the most primitive level, Mesolithic tool making, there is no kind of production type nor is there any general layout. Man produces for himself. Moving from the Ancient Inuit job-shop into the “true” Neolithic culture, there is a division of labour, and thereby a discrete production for a local market. With an increased complexity and sophistication of the production, there is a need for a defined layout. This takes place when moving into the Ancient project, batch and mass manufacturing examples. These are all, as it happens, of a fixed position layout. A clear definition of layout is needed to facilitate these three specific manufacturing processes. The learning from the cases and the benefits to present manufacturing organisations are in Darwinian terms that natural selection favours the species that adapt to their different ecological niches. Similarly, the interventions for change we are trying to do in our research are in reality small like in the Inuit case. They are about improving a variety of a species to resemble the ideal one shown in our cladogram of Discrete manufacturing systems. The first generation of this conceptual cladogram is shown if figure 9 below. This cladogram is based on the character states shown in table 1.

18

Figure 9 Cladogram of Discrete manufacturing layout systems

The ancient data and our understanding of it mainly assisted in clarifying our out-group in the cladogram. The out-group is the representation of ancient character states. The data also assisted in our exploration into defining the different species of shops, projects, and the line system species of mass manufacturing. The first generation cladogram has since been developed into a second generation cladogram, and has now arrived at the level of a third generation cladogram. References Ayala, F.J., Coluzzoi, M., 2005. Chromosome speciation: Humans, drosophila, and mosquitos. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 65356542. Baldwin, J.S., Allen, P.M., Winder, B., Ridgway, K., 2003. Simulating the Cladistic Evolution of Manufacturing. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice 5 (2-3), 144-156. Baldwin, J.S., Allen, P.M., Winder, B., Ridgway, K., 2004. Modelling Manufacturing Evolution: Thoughts of Sustainable Industrial Development. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (9), 887-902. Baldwin, J. S. Allen, P. M., Ridgway, K., 2010. An Evolutionary Complex Systems Decision-Support Tool for the Management of Operations. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 30, 7, 700-720. Barraclough, G., (1982): The Times Concise Atlas of World History. Birket-Smith, K., (1971): Eskimos, Crown Publishers Inc., New York.

19 Collins English Dictionary, (2000): 21st Century Edition, Collins, An Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, Glasgow. Darwin, C., (1859): The Origin of Species, Oxford’s World’s Classics Paperback 1998, New York. De Queiroz, K., (2005): Ernst Mayer and the modern concept of species, in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol.102, No. 2, pp. 6600-6607. Engeström, Y., 1987. Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research, Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y., 2001. Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization, Journal of Education at Work, 14, 133-156. Gore, R., (1988): The Eternal Etruscans, in: National Geographic, June 1988, Vol. 173, No. 6, pp. 697743. Haeckel, E., 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organism, Jena. Hasu, M., and Engeström, Y., 2000. Measurement in action: An activity-theoretical perspective on producer – user interaction, International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 53, 61-89. Hennig, W., (1950): Grundzuge einer Teorie der phylogenetischen Sytematic, Deutsche Zentralverlag, Berlin. Hennig, W., 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Chicago. Jensen, U.J., 1981. Introduction; Preconditions for evolutionary thinking, in Jensen, U.J., and Harre, R. (Eds.), The philosophy of evolution, The Harvester Press, Brighton, p. 1-22. Kroeber, A.L., and Chretien, C.J., (1937): Quantitative classification of Indo-European Languages, in: Language, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 83-103. Slack, N, Chambers, S., Johnston, R., and Betts, A., (2006): Operations and Process Management – Principles and Practice for strategic impact, FT Prentice Hall, Harlow, UK. Lektorsky, V.A., (1977). The Dialectic of Subject and Object and some Problems of the Methodology of Science, Progress Publishers, Moscow. Leseure, M.J., (2000): Manufacturing strategies in the hand-tool industry, in: International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 1475-1487. Leseure, M.J., (2002): Cladistic as historiography: part I – introduction to cladistics, in: Management Lucas, A., and Harris, J.R., (1962): Ancient Egyptian Materials and Cultures, reprinted by Histories and Mysteries of Man Ltd, London, 1989. Mazzatenta, O.L., (1992): A Chinese Emperor’s Army for Eternity, in: National Geographic, August 1992, Vol. 182, (2), pp. 114-130. McCarthy, I., 1995. Manufacturing classification: Lessons from organizational systematics and biological taxonomy. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 6 (6), 37-48. McCarthy, I., Leseure, M., Ridgway, K., Fieller, N., 1997. Building a manufacturing cladogram. International Journal of Technology Management 13 (3), 269-286. McCarthy, I., Ridgway, K., 2000 Cladistics: a taxonomy for manufacturing organizations. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 11 (1), 16-29. McKelvey, B., (1982): Organizational Systematics – Taxonomy, Evolution, Classification, University of California Press, Berkley. Ozment, K., (1999): Journey to the Copper Age, in: National Geographic, April 1999, Vol. 195, No. 4, pp. 70-79. Quammen, D., (2004): Was Darwin Wrong? No. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, in: National Geographic, November 2004, pp. 4-35. Roberts, D., (1995): Age of Pyramids – Egypt’s Old Kingdom, in: National Geograhic, January 1995, Vol. 187, No. 1, pp. 2-42.

20 Rose-Anderssen, C., Baldwin, J.S., Ridgway, K., Allen, P.M., Varga, L., Strathern, M., (2009a): A cladistic classification of commercial aerospace supply chain evolution, in: Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 235-257. Rose-Anderssen, C., Badwin, J.S., Ridgway, K., Allen, P.M., and Varga, L., (2009b), Knowledge Transformation, Learning and Changes Giving Competitive Advantage in Aerospace Supply Chains, E:CO, 11, 2, 15-29. Rose-Anderssen, C., Baldwin, J., and Ridgway, K., (2011): Commercial aerospace supply chains: the empirical validation of an evolutionary classification scheme, in: Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 66-89. Saphir, E., (1916): Time perspective in aboriginal American culture, a study in method, in: Government Printing Bureau, Ottawa, Ca. Snodgrass, A.M., (1967): Arms and Armour of the Greeks, Thames and Hudson, London. Snodgrass, A.M., (1971): The Dark Age of Greece, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburg. Spoerl, J.S., (2007): A Brief History of Iron and Steel Production, Saint Anselm College. Topping, A., (1978): The First Emperor’s Army – China’s Incredible Find, in: National Geographic, April 1978, Vol. 153, No. 4, pp. 440-459. Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Wild, R., 1984. Production and Operations Management – Principles and Techniques, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Eastbourne. Woese, C., Kandler, O., Wheelis, M., 1990. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domain Archaca, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87, 12, 4576-4579.