著者

佐藤 達男

出版者

経営史学会

雑誌

経営史学 (ISSN:03869113)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.50, no.3, pp.26-51, 2015 (Released:2018-03-30)

---

This study aims to investigate Nakajima Aircraft Company's airframe business and its production efficiency during WW II in comparison with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.During the Pacific War, Japanese aircraft production was essentially based on job shop system for parts fabrication and sub-assembly. Nakajima Aircraft Company the largest aircraft manufacturer of war-time Japan and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries the second largest utilized both job shop and production line systems for their airframe final assembly lines depending on each plant situations. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reports evaluated that Nakajima's airframe production system was more developed than that of Mitsubishi, which adhered to original, old-fashioned job shop system. This was substantiated from the fact that Nakajima expanded its production by 1944 to more than eight times of its 1941 production, and Mitsubishi produced only three times for the same period.However, in production efficiency measured by airframe weight produced per month per employee, Mitsubishi was predominant until August to October 1944. A positive correlation was observed between production efficiency and monthly number of airframe production. Mitsubishi's improvement degree of production efficiency agreed well with the estimation by learning curve theory, but Nakajima's improvement of production efficiency far exceeded the estimation. This is considered to be the effect that Nakajima's labor utilization rate, which was approximately half of that of Mitsubishi in September 1943, might have increased rapidly as the monthly airframe production increased. The difference of the final assembly line did not have decisive influence on the production efficiency, but the increase in the number of monthly airframe production was influential.The production efficiency continuously increased as the monthly airframe production increased, and then dropped sharply from the end of 1944 and after due to the rapid decline of monthly production, which was caused by shortages of essential materials and engines, US air raids from November 1944 and after, factory evacuation, and labor shortage.

著者

佐藤 達男 サトウ タツオ Tatsuo Sato

雑誌

立教經濟學研究

巻号頁・発行日

vol.67, no.1, pp.107-140, 2013-07-19

著者

佐藤 達男

出版者

日本産業技術史学会

雑誌

技術と文明 : 日本産業技術史学会会誌 (ISSN:09113525)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.17, no.1, pp.47-78, 2012-05-30

著者

佐藤 達男

出版者

経営史学会

雑誌

経営史学 (ISSN:03869113)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.50, no.3, pp.26-51, 2015-12

著者

佐藤 達男 サトウ タツオ Tatsuo Sato

出版者

立教大学経済学研究会

雑誌

立教経済学研究 (ISSN:00355356)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.67, no.1, pp.107-140, 2013-07

著者

佐藤 達男

出版者

経営史学会

雑誌

経営史学 (ISSN:03869113)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.50, no.3, pp.26-51, 2015

---

<p>This study aims to investigate Nakajima Aircraft Company's airframe business and its production efficiency during WW II in comparison with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.</p><p>During the Pacific War, Japanese aircraft production was essentially based on job shop system for parts fabrication and sub-assembly. Nakajima Aircraft Company the largest aircraft manufacturer of war-time Japan and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries the second largest utilized both job shop and production line systems for their airframe final assembly lines depending on each plant situations. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reports evaluated that Nakajima's airframe production system was more developed than that of Mitsubishi, which adhered to original, old-fashioned job shop system. This was substantiated from the fact that Nakajima expanded its production by 1944 to more than eight times of its 1941 production, and Mitsubishi produced only three times for the same period.</p><p>However, in production efficiency measured by airframe weight produced per month per employee, Mitsubishi was predominant until August to October 1944. A positive correlation was observed between production efficiency and monthly number of airframe production. Mitsubishi's improvement degree of production efficiency agreed well with the estimation by learning curve theory, but Nakajima's improvement of production efficiency far exceeded the estimation. This is considered to be the effect that Nakajima's labor utilization rate, which was approximately half of that of Mitsubishi in September 1943, might have increased rapidly as the monthly airframe production increased. The difference of the final assembly line did not have decisive influence on the production efficiency, but the increase in the number of monthly airframe production was influential.</p><p>The production efficiency continuously increased as the monthly airframe production increased, and then dropped sharply from the end of 1944 and after due to the rapid decline of monthly production, which was caused by shortages of essential materials and engines, US air raids from November 1944 and after, factory evacuation, and labor shortage.</p>

著者

佐藤 達男 亀山 秀雄

出版者

一般社団法人国際P2M学会

雑誌

研究発表大会予稿集

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2012, pp.26-35, 2012-09-15

---

世界市場において大量生産、大量消費の時代が終焉し、かつてのように技術力や生産力が競争の源泉とならなくなった状況下では、顧客にとって価値のある新しい製品やサービスを創り出していくことが最も重要であり、イノベーションを起こすことができる企業でなければ生き残っていくことは難しい。P2M は不確実性が高く環境変化が激しい今の時代の流れに対応して新たな顧客価値を創造するためのプロジェクトマネジメントの手法を提供しているが、本稿ではさらに継続的にイノベーションを創出する観点を強化するために、アジャイル、リーン製品開発、デザイン思考などの新しい考え方を取り入れた仕組みの構築を検討する。