{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027726432532347505, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010166358595194085, 'mean_word_length': 5.446428571428571, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
LEARNING AT WORK IN TRADITIONAL MANUFACTURING : ANALYSING ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING PROCESSES IN A TYRE FACTORY ( NO . 142 )

Teamworking has become a key issue in efforts to develop working life and workplaces. In the research literature, several approaches to teamworking have been introduced. A major line of research strategy has been to compare two alternatives, the Japanese model vs. the Swedish model (Berggren 1993), for example. The literature represents various theoretical angles, including the sociotechnical systems perspective, labour process studies as well as research on high-performance work systems. Occasionally the teamworking theme is closely connected to a broader analysis of new production models, including lean production (see Womack 1990). In the following these research traditions are captured under the rubric of ”post-Taylorist” debate. One of the most important questions stated is whether workplaces tend to increasingly adopt Japanese, or lean production, forms of teamworking or whether the Swedish, or sociotechnical, model will become prevalent.