Commencing its work in february 1999 the pmi team was

Commencing its work in February 1999, the PMI-team was divided into five
multi-functional teams responsible for the following 5 working areas: "Human In-
frastructure, Standardisation, Quality Focus and Robust Processes and Products,

136 4 The case of the Mercedes Benz Production System
Just-in-time, Continuous Improvement" (DCPS 2000:4). Each team drew on a bo-
dy of experts from the departments of Change Management, Logistics, Human
Resources, Planning, Work Policy, and the Chrysler Continuous Improvement
Group (DaimlerChrysler - DCPS 2000:5). The goal of the PMI team was defined
as to find the definition and description of one common DaimlerChrysler Produc-
tionsystem based on the Operating Principles Framework of Chrysler and the
Mercedes-Benz Production System (which yet had not been defined) (ibid.:3).
The topics covered by the five working teams represent the so-called five sub-
systems of the DaimlerChrysler Operating Model. These elements are identical
with the core elements of the Chrysler Operating System. Both production systems
also share the same four goals: safety, quality, delivery, cost, moral/motivation.
The obvious link between the Chrysler Operating Model and the DaimlerChrysler
Operating Model is also evoked by the similarity of the two names. Interestingly
though, the name DaimlerChrysler Operating Model was used only during the post
merger integration phase. Thereafter, the name was changed to DaimlerChrysler
Production System. This seemingly insignificant formal change in my opinion has
nevertheless a several relevant implications.
The fact that the Chrysler Operating System had been modelled upon the TPS
was a known fact within the automotive industry. Particularly for the German IG-
Metal union, work councils and union representatives at Mercedes-Benz, the TPS
was like a red rag for a bull. One key argument they raised was that the introduc-
tion of Toyota-based production system would result in a reduction of working
cycles, job content, and an increase in repetitive work and physical and psycho-
logical strain: in short, a revival of Taylorism. As the COS had been modelled
upon the TPS, to some extent it was also imbued with this image.
Although it is difficult to determine how far the problem of "image" played a
role in the renaming of the DaimlerChrysler Operating Model to the Daimler-
Chrysler Production System and to what extent a deliberate strategy was pursued
in this process, in my opinion though, there are nevertheless two possible causes
which might have affected this change. For one, either the name was changed to
signal that the two systems, the Chrysler Operating System and the DaimlerChrys-
ler Production System are (at least by name) different. At least formally on the
outset, this distinguished the two systems, thus appearing to give the Daimler-
Chrysler Production System a less "contagious" image; or, the name was changed
to signal that, equally to Toyota, the newly emerged DaimlerChrysler corporation
had its own company-specific production system.