Learning to learn and productivity growth: Evidence from a new car-assembly plant
Highlights
► Total factor productivity as a result of generalized learning. ► Learning to learn as a driver of productivity growth. ► Acceleration and deceleration of productivity growth in new car-assembly plant. ► Revision and extension of the learning curve.
Introduction
Productivity, or the rate at which input quantities are turned into outputs, has received much attention at the macro (as determinant of differences in the per capita income of countries [43]), at the firm (as explanatory of differences in competitiveness and profitability of firms [6]), and at the operational level (explaining differences in efficiency and costs across production units [35]). The bulk of recent productivity research has concentrated on explaining the observed differences in productivity levels across firms within and between industries and countries (Syverson [42], for a review). Much less is known, however, on what determines the time path of productivity for an individual production unit, even though macro productivity growth comes from the aggregation of efficiency gains at the production unit level.
There are two primary explanations of productivity gains at the micro level. One considers productivity growth as the consequence of a general time trend of technological progress that continuously expands output at rates faster than the growth in inputs.1 The other explanation is rooted in the learning curve, where the rate of productivity growth is positive but decreases over time (Zangwill and Kandor [48], for a formal generalization of the learning curve). The first explanation implicitly assumes “Schumpeterian” innovation, constantly reinventing the production technology as well as the products and services sold in the market. The second takes the production technology and product attributes as constant, seeing productivity gains as the result of continuous and gradual improvements in the way things are done in the production process.
This paper advances the explanation of productivity growth, proposing a general model of learning by experience. The model includes unlimited technical progress and the learning curve as particular cases, but it covers two additional forms of “deterministic” learning. The model is formulated at the level of an operating unit, i.e. a production plant, and it is applied to the learning process underlying the observed productivity growth in a car-assembly plant in the first years of operations. The measure of productivity used in the analysis is invariant to the intensity of capital and labor inputs used in production, i.e. it captures the total factor productivity (TFP) of the plant. We do not observe the specific actions taken by managers and workers to improve the efficiency of the production process; rather, we postulate a relationship between the underlying process of discovery and application of better ways of doing things, and the observed track of improvement in terms of measured TFP. In addition, our paper includes a comparison between the proposed class of deterministic models with the “stochastic” learning model of Jovanovic and Nyarko [26].
We find that the learning model that best fits the empirical data is what we call mixed learning, i.e., workers and managers of the plant combine a fixed rate of learning with a “learning to learn” capability as more knowledge is acquired. The mixed learning model implies that the results of learning translate into a first period of accelerated productivity growth, followed by another period of decelerated growth, until the maximum level of operating efficiency is attained. This is precisely what we observe in the data. Other learning models, such as the exponential version of the learning curve, and Jovanovic and Nyarko's [26] stochastic learning model, do not capture the S shape in the evolution of TFP over time. Although the evidence is obtained from a single plant, the results of the paper suggest that existing explanations of TFP growth, such as generalized technical progress and the learning curve, are incomplete, and other forms of deterministic learning such as learning to learn or mixed learning should also be considered.
As for the relation of the paper to the existing literature, the theory section of the paper is in line with Zangwill and Kandor [48], who model the process of continuous improvement compatible with the learning curve [4], [47] as evidence of such improvement. Our paper is different in that we model the process of learning without limiting the results of the process to those compatible with the evidence of the learning curve. In fact, as mentioned earlier, the pattern of performance improvement of the learning curve is one of four possible results in the class of “deterministic” learning models.
The learning curve, and in general, learning by doing, has been applied to units of varying complexity, from single machines (especially scheduling problems, [9], [24], [45]) to plants [1], [5], [39] and firms [46], [31], [32], [6]. The performance measures considered in prior research include cost [47], [48], [39], productivity [1], [6], [21], and quality [15], as well as complex measures such as overall equipment effectiveness [46].
This paper is unique in that the learning unit is a start-up assembly plant, enabling us to study learning at the moment in time when it can be expected to be particularly important. The plant produces a homogeneous output and we have monthly data on the number of cars assembled. The time interval between measurements of performance is short and the effects of learning on performance are observed shortly after management decisions, spurred by what has been learned, are implemented. The monthly frequency of observations assures sufficient observations to estimate the learning model for a total time period when the car model assembled in the plant remained unchanged, as well as the main parameters of the production function different from the TFP parameter. The parameters of the production function are estimated jointly with those that capture the features of the learning process, using the Error Correction Mechanisms [17], which is another innovation of the paper. TFP has been used before as an indicator of the results of the learning process at the firm and industry level, but not often, if at all, at the plant level.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a description of the theories of learning and their respective analytical formulations for empirical estimation purposes. Section 3 contains the application of the theory to the case study of the assembly plant. Finally, in Section 4, we present the discussion of our results and the main conclusions of our paper.
Section snippets
A brief review of the literature
There are three main learning mechanisms identified in the extensive literature on this topic [2]. In one, individuals and groups learn from their own experience, refining the procedures previously set as the most effective way to perform the assigned tasks. This mechanism is known as learning-by-experience [4], [47], [3]. In another mechanism, individuals combine repetition with trial and error experimentation, intending to extract information about individual or group capabilities and about
Empirical application: operational learning in an automobile assembly plant in the early months of operation
In this section, we estimate the time evolution of the TFP of a car-assembly plant in the first five years of operation, and we explain this evolution as the result of the learning processes modeled above. The plant belongs to a multi-national car manufacturer and began assembling cars regularly in 1984. Our interest is in responding to the question of what is the model of learning – deterministic or stochastic, exogenous learning, learning to learn, or mixed learning – that best explains the
Discussion and conclusion
Productivity growth (increasing output produced, at a higher rate than the rate of increase in the quantity of inputs used in production) is viewed as the main driver of economic prosperity, so there is much ongoing research seeking a better understanding of the sources of productivity growth over time. Solow's [41] ground-breaking paper, pointing to evidence that the aggregate output of an economy tends to grow at a higher rate than growth in aggregated inputs, identified the difference
Acknowledgment
The authors thank two anonymous referees and Professor Adenso Díaz for their comments on an early version of the paper. They also thank the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Project ECO2009-13158, for financial support.
References (48)
A state-of-the-art review on scheduling with learning effects
European Journal of Operational Research
(2008)- et al.
Labour productivity change: drivers, business impact and macroeconomic moderators
International Journal of Production Economics
(2011) - et al.
Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance
Omega
(2008) - et al.
A note on a makespan minimization problem with a multi-ability learning effect
Omega
(2010) Technology adoption, learning by doing, and economic growth
Journal of Economic Theory
(1994)- et al.
Organizational learning culture—the missing link between business process change and organizational performance
International Journal of Production Economics
(2007) Single-machine scheduling problems with the effects of learning and deterioration
Omega
(2007)- et al.
Learning curve analysis in total productive maintenance
Omega
(2001) - et al.
Behind the learning curve: a sketch of the learning process
Management Science
(1991) Organizational learning: creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge
(1999)
Learning curves in manufacturing
Science
The economics implications of learning by doing
Review of Economic Studies
Decomposing learning by doing in new plants
Journal of Political Economy
Industry learning environments and the heterogeneity of firm performance
Strategic Management Journal
Learning and forgetting: the dynamics of aircraft production
American Economic Review
Learning: what and how? An empirical study of adjustments in workplace organization structure
Industrial Relations
Why do management practices differ across firms and countries?
Journal of Economic Perspective
Change at Work
Do “high performance” work practices improve establishment-level outcomes?
Industrial and Labor Relations Review
Knowledge transfer and organizational learning in is offshore sourcing
Omega
Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation
Administrative Science Quarterly
Improving quality through the concept of learning curves
Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing
Econometrica
A cross-level units-of-analysis approach to individual differences in skill acquisition
Journal of Applied Psychology
Cited by (27)
Authoritarianism versus participation in innovation decisions
2023, TechnovationSingle-machine scheduling with product category-based learning and forgetting effects
2023, Omega (United Kingdom)Measuring project resilience – Learning from the past to enhance decision making in the face of disruption
2022, Decision Support SystemsCitation Excerpt :The literature commonly refers to resilience as a set of capabilities required to assist projects in a reliable recovery process from disruptions. Such capabilities can be achieved by “learning to learn capability as more knowledge is acquired” ([48], p. 337). In this context, we argue that the outcomes of a project are often produced by those who manage it.
A decision model for investment analysis in CNC centers and CAM technology
2019, Computers and Industrial EngineeringCitation Excerpt :However, multivariate models are less popular since their mathematical form is more complex and robust data is required for the determination of parameters. Exponential and S-curve are frequently used for cost estimation (Blancett, 2002; Sáenz-Royo & Salas-Fumás, 2013). For example, (Plaza, 2017; Sade, Naz, & Plaza, 2012) used the exponential curve to calculate the efficiency improvements during the production of Audio Description (AD).
Applications of learning curves in production and operations management: A systematic literature review
2019, Computers and Industrial Engineering