An exploration of the links between just-in-time manufacturing and simultaneous new product development.
Innovation and speedy new product development is crucial for companies to gain competitive advantage in a global market. The main focus of this article is to demonstrate that the principles of just-in-time (JIT) in manufacturing can be used to improve simultaneous new product development (NPD) process. Comparison and analysis of several critical factors show high degree of similarities between JIT manufacturing and NPD. A number of hypotheses regarding similarities between JIT and NPD factors were developed. The hypotheses were tested using survey data from a sample of 500 manufacturing organizations. Survey data strongly supports the hypotheses regarding similarities between JIT and NPD factors. Statistical results indicate that organizations with successful JIT system are able to develop new products with 67 percent better quality, 61 percent less development time, 45 percent less development cost, and 36 percent less manufacturing cost. Also frequency of new product introduction is 71 percent faster for those organizations. The survey data also strongly support the hypotheses that NPD performances are significantly better after JIT implementation.
Key words: Simultaneous New Product Development, Just-in-Time
In a global market, rapid new product innovation, design, and introduction to the market is crucial for companies to gain competitive advantage. Introducing new products to the market early has several strategic and operational advantages. It often means charging premium prices, building name recognition, controlling a large market share, and enjoying the bottom line profit. Better competitive position in the market makes it also difficult for competition to enter the market (Blackburn, 1991; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1994; Zahra and Ellor, 1993).
Although the strategic role of NPD in the survival of businesses is well known, unfortunately, for many organizations managing NPD is a major challenge. However, manufacturing literature during the last two decades shows that world class JIT manufacturers have dominated their competitors not only in the areas of price, quality, and manufacturing speed but also in the areas of innovation, design, and new product development speed (Bebb, 1989; Dumaine, 1989a & b; Blackburn, 1991; Clark and Fujimoto, 1991; Ulrich and Eppinger, 2000). The question of interest in this article is to demonstrate if there is a link between JIT manufacturing and NPD speed.
Just-in-Time (JIT) production has been a great force in the world of manufacturing since the early 1980s. Some of the main benefits of JIT in the area of manufacturing such as inventory reduction, lead time reduction, quality improvement, and cost savings have been well documented (Cook and Rogowski, 1996; Hobbs, 1994; Billesbach, 1991; Payne, 1993; Temponi and Pandya, 1995; Deshpande and Golhar, 1995; Handfield, 1993; Lawrence and Hottenstein, 1995; Golhar, Stamm, and Smith, 1990; Moras and Dieck, 1992). In the simplest form, JIT requires production of the right parts in the right quantities and at the right times. Elimination of waste and respect for people are two fundamental principles of a JIT system (Hobbs, 1994; Payne, 1993: Wantuck, 1983). In a JIT system elimination of waste is achieved by adopting the following elements: total quality management, continuous quality improvement, focused factory, reducing setup times, flexible resources, group technology layout, and pull production system (Gargeya, and Thompson, 1994; Sohal, Ramsay, and Samson, 1993; Suzaki, 1987)). Respect for people includes elements such as team work, fair compensation, worker training, worker participation, and new attitude toward suppliers (Sohal, Ramsay, and Samson, 1993; Wantuck, 1983).
Unfortunately, since its beginning in Japan in the early 1980's, a narrow view of JIT, mainly inventory reduction and frequent deliveries, has been accepted and used in U.S. and European manufacturing organizations. Application of JIT to reduce inventory is only a small fraction of the full potential benefits of a JIT system (Blackburn, 1991; Gilbert, 1994; Towner, 1994). To take advantage of the full benefits of JIT, one needs to have a much broader view of JIT principles (Blackburn, 1991). Looking at JIT as a waste elimination and time compression process rather than as an inventory reduction method, its principles can be applied to other areas such as new product development, supply chain management, and even to service organizations in which there is no physical inventory.
The objective of this article is to show that the principles of JIT in manufacturing can be used to improve new product development (NPD) process. In earlier studies, Meybodi (2003 and 2004) showed the relationships between various components of JIT and NPD. In this article, the focus is to put various pieces together and show a complete picture of the links between JIT and NPD. Specifically, the article attempts to answer the following questions:
1. Are there similarities between JIT and simultaneous NPD practices?
2. Are there differences between NPD performances before and after JIT implementation?
3. Are successes in JIT transferable to NPD?
The remainder of the article is organized in the following manner: First, a brief review of traditional sequential and simultaneous NPD is presented. Second, the article compares and analyzes similarities between JIT manufacturing and simultaneous NPD for a number of critical factors and presents a set of sixteen hypotheses regarding similarities between these critical factors. Third, the article presents five hypotheses regarding NPD performances before and after JIT implementation. Fourth, overall managerial views of the impact of JIT on NPD are discussed. Research methodology and data collection, research results and analysis of the results, conclusion and managerial implications are final sections of the article.
NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT METHODS
New product development process is a sequence of inter-connected activities in which information regarding customer needs is translated into final product design. In a traditional sequential approach, the process typically involves the following phases: Idea generation and validation, preliminary design, final design, process design, pilot production, and ramp-up (Wheelwright, and Clark, 1992; Russell, and Taylor, 1998). In this approach, the design process is managed sequentially by personnel from various departments in the organization with very limited contacts. A major drawback of the sequential approach to NPD is that the output from one design stage is passed to the next stage with little or no communication. This lack of communication and feedback among sequential stages causes the process to be too slow, requiring too many design changes, too costly, and often poor quality. The final result is that the designs are often rejected because they are either outdated due to long development process or not feasible in term of manufacturing capability (Blackburn, 1991; Ulrich and Eppinger, 2000).
Close examination of traditional NPD shows the process contains problems very similar to traditional manufacturing where the system is organized into separate departments. Customer orders are processed sequentially with very limited communication. Often departmental objectives are maximized without consideration of its impacts on other departments and as a result overall company objectives may suffer. To solve problems associated with traditional NPD process, a complete change in design philosophies similar to the changes in JIT manufacturing are needed. In other words, total quality management, continuous improvement, reduced set-ups, employee involvement, employee empowerment, team work, effective use of technology, and other elements of JIT must also be applied to simultaneous N PD process. Unlike traditional approaches to NPD where functional units work sequentially and downstream functions are not involved until late in the process, simultaneous NPD requires early involvement of cross functional teams. It requires that designers, manufacturers, marketers, suppliers, and customers work jointly to design product and manufacturing process in parallel. The objective is to integrate product design and process planning into a common activity (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991; Donnellon, 1993; Millson, Ranj, and Wilemon, 1992; Shunk, 1992). Due to early cross-functional communication, simultaneous engineering enables an organization to be more innovative in terms of improving design quality, shortening development time, and reducing development and manufacturing costs (Blackburn, 1991; Ulrich, and Eppinger, 2000; Zirger and Hartley, 1996).
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN JIT MANUFACTURING AND SIMULTANEOUS NPD FACTORS
Based on the review of JIT and NPD literature, the factors shown in Table 1 were chosen to compare similarities between J IT manufacturing and simultaneous new product development (Blackburn, 1991; Spencer and Guide, 1995; Meybodi, 2003 and 2004). Following is a brief comparison and analysis of some important factors in Table 1:
The layout in JIT manufacturing is often in the form of product focus, group technology, or cellular manufacturing. This type of layout is necessary because small lot size production requires that the layout to be compact and efficient to ensure smooth flow of materials and close communication between work stations. Unlike traditional manufacturing, the flow in a JIT system is in two directions; material is pulled forward, but information flows backward to provide feedback on material requirements.
In simultaneous NPD, overlapping of a large number of activities requires a complete change in layout that facilitates communication and encourages team work. Instead of organizing by sequential functions, simultaneous NPD emphasizes cross-functional integration and the formation of a design team. The design team sits together in one location, creating a type of project layout. A project layout creates an environment for frequent, two-way communication between team members, which encourages concurrent development of a product and its associated processes.
In contrast to traditional manufacturing, JIT manufacturing requires production of small lot-sizes. Production of small lot-sizes is possible by drastically reducing set-up times. It is well documented that production of small lot-sizes in JIT manufacturing is closely associated with improved quality, reduced inventory, faster delivery, and is more responsive to market demands.
Similar to JIT, simultaneous NPD also utilizes small lot-sizes. The only difference is that in JIT manufacturing small lot sizes of goods are processed. However, simultaneous NPD requires early release of small batches of information (Blackburn, 1991; White, 1993). With the early release of small batches of information, downstream constituents can begin working on different phases of the design while final design is evolving. The early release of information reduces uncertainty and encourages early detection of problems, which enables organizations to avoid costly, time-consuming changes.
Employee and Supplier Involvement
In a JIT system, management encourages employee involvement and team work. The responsibility for job scheduling and quality are often passed to the teams at the shop floor. Due to small lot size production, delegation of authority to the teams at the shop floor is essential for smooth production flow.
Similar to JIT, in simultaneous engineering, the responsibility for scheduling of the activities pushed down to product development team at the lowest level. Passing responsibility down to NPD teams is essential to achieve a high level of activity coordination and information sharing among team members. JIT and simultaneous NPD suppliers also work closely with the organization to improve quality, shorten delivery time, and offer ideas toward new product design.
Under JIT manufacturing and simultaneous engineering, organizations are often proactive and quality means getting it right the first time. In JIT, since batch sizes are small quality at source and continuous improvement are the main foundations, shop floor workers are empowered to become their own inspectors responsible for the quality of their output. In simultaneous NPD, because of the teamwork and two-way flow of information between team members, quality problems are detected earlier and solved before they have a cumulative impact on the rest of the project.
In a JIT manufacturing system, technology often comes after process simplification and understanding of the entire system. Also, in JIT, technology is not viewed as a substitute, or shortcut to process improvement. Rather, technology has been utilized after process analysis and simplification has been performed. The role of technology in simultaneous NPD is enormous. Simultaneous NPD requires that the design team with diverse expertise makes a large number of interrelated decisions regarding the form, fit, function, cost, quality, and other aspects of the design (Karagozoglu and Brown, 1993). This requires supply and processing of relevant information from multiple sources in a coordinated manner. Successful organizations use technology in their NPD process similarly to the way they use technology in their JIT system. In simultaneous NPD, the design team utilizes appropriate technologies and tools at various stages of NPD process. Effective use of technologies and tools can dramatically shorten NPD time, reduce the number of prototypes, cut costs, and improve quality of the design (Karagozoglu and Brown, 1993). The key to the success of technology in simultaneous NPD is building an effective design team with open cross-functional communication lines.
Comparison and analysis of selected factors in Table I shows a high degree of similarities between JIT manufacturing and simultaneous NPD. To investigate further, in the first set of sixteen hypotheses (H1-H16), similarities between JIT and NPD for a set of critical factors in Table I will be statistically tested.
There is a high degree of similarities between JIT and simultaneous NPD factors.
NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCES
The following dimensions of quality, time, competency, development cost, and manufacturing cost are used to measure the performance of NPD (Ulrich and Eppinger, 2000; Wheelwright and Clark, 1992):
1. Quality: Quality is ultimately reflected in the price customers are willing to pay, the market share, and the bottom line profit. For this reason, customer inputs in defining the quality is extremely important. Quality problems are often the results of incomplete information and miscommunication among different functions. In NPD, quality often means a minimal number of redesign or rework. In this article, the number of design changes during the development process and the early manufacturing phase is used as a measure of design quality.
2. Development time: Development time is the length of time between initial idea generation until new product is ready for introduction to the market. Shorter development time raises the competitive value of new product in terms of premium price, larger market share, and higher profit margin.
3. Developing Competency: Development competency is the ability of the organization to develop future products better, faster, and cheaper. Competent workforce and effective use of technologies are important elements of organizational NPD competency. Frequency of new product introduction to the market is used as a measure of development competency.
4. Development cost: This is the total cost from the early idea generation until the product is ready for manufacturing. For most organizations, development cost is usually a significant portion of the budget and must be considered in light of budget realities and the timing of budget allocations.
5. Manufacturing cost: Manufacturing cost includes initial investment of equipments and tools as well as the incremental cost of manufacturing the product. There is a close relationship between manufacturing cost and the type of decisions made during the early design stage. Although early design decisions determine about 70 percent of future manufacturing costs, organizations often spend far too little time and resources during this stage (Huthwaite, B. 1991). To save future manufacturing cost, it is prudent for the companies to spend more time and resources during the early design phases of NPD process where critical design decisions are made.
In the second set of five hypotheses (H17-H21), NPD performances before and after J IT are tested.
H17: After successful implementation of JIT, organizations are able to design new products with fewer design changes (better quality).
H18: After successful implementation of JIT, organizations are able to design new products faster.
H19: After successful implementation of JIT, organizations are able to design new products more often (better development competency).
H20: After successful implementation of JIT, organizations are able to design new products with less development cost.
H21: After successful implementation of JIT, organizations are able to design new products with less manufacturing cost.
The target population for this study consisted of manufacturing firms in the Midwestern United States. A sample of 500 manufacturing firms with more than 50 employees were chosen from the 2002 manufacturers directory of the states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The sample covers organizations in a variety of industries ranging from fabricated metal, communication, electronics, automotive, toots, chemicals, rubber, and paper products. A comprehensive survey instrument based on examination of the literature and critical factors listed in Table I was developed. In addition to 13 general organization and managerial profile items, the survey contained 32 items (16 paired) regarding similarities between JIT and simultaneous NPD factors. These questionnaire items are shown in Table 2.
To test the performance hypotheses, the questionnaire contained five items that measure NPD performances before and after JIT implementation. The survey also contained two global statements regarding the overall impact of JIT principles on NPD process. A panel of three practitioners who had implemented JIT and simultaneous NPD and two JIT researchers was used to validate the survey. With the exception of five items that measure NPD performances before and after JIT, the respondents were asked to rate each statement according to relevance to their JIT and NPD practices. A five point Likert type scale was used, with 1 representing strongly disagree and 5 representing strongly agree. For performance items, the respondents need to answer the amount or percentage change in NPD performances after JIT implementation. Out of 91 completed surveys received, 84 survey were usable resulting in a response rate of 17 percent.
Analysis of survey data indicates that majority of respondents had various high level managerial positions from organization with less than 500 employees. Presidents and vice presidents accounted for 29 percent and plant managers accounted for 30 percent of the sample. About 35 percent of the sample had other managerial positions such as operations/production managers, quality managers, and the remaining 6 percent were production line supervisors. In terms of manufacturing and NPD experience, about 28 percent of the respondents had between 10 to 20 years and 60 percent had more than 20 years of manufacturing experience. About 72 percent of the sample had more than 10 years of JIT experience and close to 65 percent of the sample had more than 10 years of NPD experience.
As mentioned earlier, in the first set of hypotheses the objective was to examine similarities between JIT and NPD for a set of sixteen critical factors. For each factor, the null hypothesis was that the mean response for JIT is equal to the mean response for NPD. The differences between the mean responses for JIT and NPD were compared using the statistical t-test. Table 3 shows the results where respondents agreed between similarities of JIT and NPD as well as where they disagreed.
As shown in this table, overall the respondents strongly agreed with the statements regarding similarities between JIT and NPD factors. This is evident because for more than 70 percent of factors the mean ratings for JIT and NPD are above 3.80. Also the statistical t-tests clearly indicate that the respondents strongly agreed with the similarities between JIT and NPD for majority of the factors. Specifically, out of sixteen hypotheses only three were significant. This means that the respondents strongly agreed that there is a high degree of similarities between JIT and NPD for 13 factors and disagreed only with three hypotheses H3, H6, and H8.
For H3, the mean ratings for JIT and NPD were respectively 4.34 and 3.84. This means that although the respondents understood that short set-up and last transition time are the main requirements of successful JIT and NPD, the relationship between short set-up and JIT was much stronger. This result is a reasonable result because an average manufacturing manager has longer experience with JIT than NPD, and they clearly understood that successful JIT requires small lot-size and small lot-size requires short set-up time. However, since their experience with NPD is shorter and because NPD is primarily an information processing process, the links between small batches of information and fast transition time is not clear. H6 hypothesizes the relationships between small lot-sizes and quality improvement for both JIT and NPD. For this test, the mean ratings for JIT and NPD are respectively 3.39 and 3.89. This indicates that for an average manager, it is easier to recognize the relationship between simultaneous NPD and quality improvement than the relationship between JIT and quality improvement. The higher rating for simultaneous NPD is perhaps due to continuous and two way communication among design team members, which encourages early detection of the design problem. The JIT result is consistent with the literature because although total quality management and quality improvement are fundamental requirements of successful JIT, an average manufacturing manager has difficulty understanding this relationship. The relationships between small lot-size and reduced manufacturing cost in JIT and the relationship between small batches of information and reduced development cost in simultaneous NPD are examined in H8. The mean ratings for JIT and NPD are respectively 3.53 and 3.94. For the same reasons as H6, this means for an average manager it is easier to understand this relationship in NPD than JIT.
The performance hypotheses (H17-H21) state that after successful implementation of JIT, organizations are able to design new products better, faster, more often, with less development cost, and less manufacturing time. Statistical results of NPD performances before and after JIT implementation are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 provides useful information regarding NPD performances before and after JIT. The average number of design change before JIT is 5.28 while after JIT is 3.16, a quality improvement of 67 percent. The average development time prior to JIT is 39.25 months while after JIT is 24.38 months, an improvement of 61 percent. For development competency, the average time between introductions of new products is 54.20 months before JIT and 31.70 months after JIT, an improvement of 71 percent. Table 4 also indicates that after successful implementation of JIT, organizations enjoy a 45 percent reduction in NPD cost and 36 percent reduction in manufacturing cost. Since data on NPD performances cover organizations before and after JIT implementation, test of hypotheses with dependent samples were used to test the hypotheses. From Table 4, it is clear that all hypotheses are supported by the survey data. Hypothesis H17 stated that after successful implementation of JIT, organizations are able to design new products with better quality. This relationship is strongly supported by the data as indicated by the t-value of 4.19 and the P-value of less than 0.5 percent. The relationship between JIT and NPD time, hypothesis H18, is also strongly supported with the t-value of 6.50 and the P-value of less than 0.5 percent. The stated relationship between JIT and the frequency of new production introduction, hypothesis H19, is also strongly supported by the data with the t-value of 5.89 and the P-value of less than 0.5 percent. Finally, H20 and H21 state that after successful implementation of JIT, organizations are able to design new products with less development cost and less manufacturing cost. The t-values for the two hypotheses are respectively 6.52 and 5.94, and the P-values for both tests are less than 0.5 percent.
To understand the relationship between JIT and simultaneous NPD further, the survey instrument contained five statements regarding managerial views of JIT success on NPD performances and two global statements on the overall impact of JIT principles on NPD process. The questionnaire items along with statistical summaries are shown in Tables 5 and 6.
From Table 5, the mean ratings for the five statements are respectively 3.86, 4.42, 4.12, 4,32, and 3.88. In particular, the mean ratings for development time, development competency, and development cost are above 4 with relatively small standard deviations indicating managers' strong agreement with the statements that successful JIT organizations are able to design new products faster, more often, with less development cost. The mean ratings for development quality and manufacturing cost are slightly lower at 3.86 and 3.88. One possible explanation of such a result is, although total quality management and continuous quality improvement are fundamental requirements of successful JIT, an average manufacturing manager has difficulty understanding this relationship. Also reduced manufacturing costs in JIT is due to elimination of wastes, a fundamental principle of JIT, and this relationship is not clear to a typical manufacturing manager. Perhaps lack of a good understanding of the relationships between JIT and quality as well as JIT and manufacturing cost is the main reason behind relatively lower ratings for these statements
From Table 6, the mean ratings for the two global statements regarding the overall impact of JIT principles on NPD process are respectively 4.38 and 4.45 indicating strong agreement with the statements that the main principles of waste elimination and respect for people in JIT can also be used in NPD. The managers also strongly agreed with the statement that organizations that are successful in their JIT system are also successful in their NPD process.
Manufacturing literature since the early 1980s indicates organizations that have been successful in implementing their JIT system have also been successful in their NPD process. The purpose of this article was to demonstrate this statement by showing the comprehensive links between JIT and NPD. A series of hypotheses regarding the relationships between JIT and NPD was developed. The hypotheses were tested using survey data from a sample of 500 manufacturing organizations in Midwestern states of U.S. The article demonstrate the links between JIT and NPD through the following components:
First, comparison and analysis of a number of factors in Table 1 showed remarkable similarities between JIT manufacturing and simultaneous NPD. Second, a set of sixteen hypotheses was used to test similarities between JIT and NPD factors. Statistical results of survey data clearly indicate that the respondents strongly agreed with the hypotheses regarding similarities between JIT and NPD for majority of factors. Specifically, out of sixteen hypotheses, the respondents agreed that there are a high degree of similarities between JIT and NPD for thirteen factors and disagreed with three. The correlation coefficients between JIT and NPD factors also supported the same result.
Third, statistical results also indicate compared with the period prior to JIT adaptation, organizations who adopted JIT principles, develop new products with 67 percent better quality, 61 percent less development time, 45 percent less development cost, and 36 percent less manufacturing cost. Also frequency of new product introduction is 71 percent faster after JIT implementation. Five tests of hypotheses were conducted to test the statistical significant of NPD performances before and after JIT implementation. The survey data strongly support the hypotheses. The P-value for all five tests is less than 0.5 percent.
Fourth, the mean ratings for the five statements regarding the impact of JIT success on NPD performances are respectively 3.86, 4.42, 4.12, 4.32, and 3.88. This indicates that the respondents strongly agreed with the statements that successful JIT manufacturing organizations are able to design new products with better quality, less development time, better competency, less development cost, and less manufacturing cost. Also, the mean ratings for the two general statements regarding the impact of JIT principles on NPD process are respectively 4.38 and 4.45 indicating managers' strong agreement with the statements that the main principles of waste elimination and respect for people in JIT can also be used in NPD. The statement that organizations that are successful in their JIT system are also successful in their NPD process is also strongly supported by the survey data.
In sum, comprehensive evidences of this article clearly show strong links between JIT and NPD. The managerial implication of this research is that successful implementation of JIT principles goes much beyond inventory reduction and frequent deliveries. For JIT organizations, success in simultaneous NPD is the result of knowledge and technology transfer from their JIT system into their NPD process.
The author would like to thank Indiana University Kokomo for supporting this work through grants-in-aid of faculty research.
Bebb, H. B. (1989). Quality design engineering: The missing link to U.S. competitiveness. Kenote Address to the NSF Engineering Design Research Conference, Amherst, MA.
Billesbach, T. J. (1991). A study of implementation of just-in-time in the United States. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 32(3), 1-4.
Blackburn, J. D. (1991). Time-based competition, the next battleground in American manufacturing. Business one Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Clark, K. B. and Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product development performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cook, R. L. and Rogowski, R. A. (1996). Applying JIT principles to process manufacturing supply chains. Production and Inventory Management, 1st Quarter, 12-17.
Cooper, R. G., and Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1994). Determinants of timeliness in product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 381-396.
Deshpande, S. P., and Golhar, D. Y. (1995). HRM practices in unionized and non-unionized Canadian JIT manufacturing firms. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 1st Quarter, 15-19.
Donnellon, A. (1993). Cross functional teams in product development: Accomodating the structure to the process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, 377-392.
Dumaine, B. (1989a, February 13). How managers can succeed through speed. Fortune.
Dumaine, B. (1989b, November 6). P&G rewrites the marketing rules. Fortune.
Gargeya, V. B., and Thompson, J. P. (1994, July/August). Just-in-time production in small job shops. Industrial Management, 23-26.
Gilbert, J. T. ( 1994, August). Faster! Newer! Is not a strategy. Advanced Management Journal.
Golhar, D. Y., Stamm, C. L., and Smith, W. P. (1990). JIT implementation in manufacturing firms. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 31(2), 44-48.
Handfield, R. (1993). Distinguishing features of just-in-time systems in the make-to-order/assemble to order environment. Decision Sciences, 24(3), 581-602.
Hobbs, O. K. (1994). Application of JIT techniques in a discrete batch job shop. Production and Inventory Management, 1st Quarter, 43-47.
Huthwaite, B. (1991, January 14). Managing at the starting line: How to design competitive products. Workshop at the University/Southern California-Los Angeles, 3.
Karagozoglu, N., and Brown, W. B. (1993). Time-based management of the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, 204-215.
Lawrence, J. J., and Hottenstein, M. P.(1995). The relationship between JIT manufacturing and performance in Mexican plants affiliated U.S. companies. Journal of Operations Management, 13, 3-18.
Meybodi, M. Z. (2003). The impact of just-in-time practices on new product development: A managerial perspective. International Journal of Product Development (forthcoming).
Meybodi, M. Z. (2004). Similarities between just-in-time manufacturing and simultaneous new product development. Business Quest, Retrieved April 29, 2004 from URL <http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2004/just-in-time.htm>
Millson, M. R., Ranj, S. P., and Wilemon, D. A. (1992). A survey of major approaches for accelerating new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9(1), 53-69.
Moras, R. G., and Dieck, A. J.(1992). Industrial applications of just-in-time: Lessons to be learned. Production and Inventory Management, 3rd Quarter, 25-29.
Payne, T. E. (1993). Acme manufacturing: A case study in JIT implementation. Production and Inventory Management, 2nd Quarter, 82-86.
Russell, R. S. and Taylor, B. W. (1998). Production and operations management, focusing on quality and competitiveness. New York: Prentice Hall.
Shunk, D. L. (1992). Integrated process design and development. Irwin.
Sohal, A. S., Ramsay, L., and Samson, D. (1993). JIT manufacturing: Industry analysis and a methodology for implementation. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 13(7), 22-56.
Spencer, M. S., and Guide, V. D. (1995). An exploration of the components of JIT, case study and survey results. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15(5), 72-83.
Suzaki, K. (1987). The new manufacturing challenge: Techniques for continuous improvement. New York: Free Press.
Temponi, C., and Pandya, S. Y. (1995). Implementation of two JIT elements in small-sized manufacturing firms. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 3rd Quarter, 23-29.
Towner, S. J. (1994, April). Four ways to accelerate new product development. Long Range Planning.
Ulrich, K. T. and Eppinger, S. D. (2000). Product design and development. New York: McGraw Hill.
Wantuck, K. A. (1983). The Japanese approach to productivity. Southfield: Bendix Corporation.
Wheelwright, S.C., and Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizing product development. New York: Free Press.
White, R. E. (1993). An empirical assessment of JIT in U.S. manufacturers. Production and Inventory Management, 2nd Quarter, 38-42.
Zahra, S. A. and Ellor, D. (1993, Winter). Accelerating new product development and successful market introduction. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 9-15.
Zirger, B. J. and Hartley, L. (1996). The effect of acceleration techniques on product development time. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(2), 143-152.
Mohammad Z. Meybodi is Associate Professor of Operations Management in the School of Business at Indiana University Kokomo. He earned his Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Operations Research from the University of Oklahoma. His research areas of interest include aggregate production planning, production scheduling, stochastic modeling, total quality management, and just-in-time systems. He has published in journals such as Annals of Operations Research, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Mathematics Today, International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management, Advances in Competitiveness Research, Business Quest, and International Journal of Product Development.
TABLE 1 Comparison of JIT Manufacturing and Stimultaneous New Product Development Factor JIT Manufacturing Simultaneous New Product Development Layout GT/Cellular Project/Design teams manufacturing Process and Two way flow: Parallel activities: information flow material downward, Two way flow of information upward information among team members Set-up/Transition Short Short time Lot size Small Small (batches of information) Quality Quality at the Early detection of source, design continuous quality quality problems, improvement, continuous low rework design improvement, low redesign Inventory Low Low Manufact./Develop. Reduced Reduced Cost Lead time Fast delivery Short development time Customer Highly responsive Highly responsive focus/Market responsiveness Scheduling Localized team Localized team control, team control, team responsibility responsibility Decision making Manufacturing team Design team Employee High High involv./empow. and teamwork Supplier involvement High level of sharing High level of information, quality involvement in partners product development Technology Integrated systems, Integrated CAD, CAE, new technology after CAM process simplification Value added High High TABLE 2 Comparison of JIT Manufacturing ans Stimultaneous New Product Development (SNPD) Factors (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) 1.a. Under JIT, group technology 1.b. Under SNPD, project layout (GT) or cellular manufacturing formed by the design team allows layout allows smooth flow of frequent and two way flow of materials downward and information among team members. information flow backward. 2.a. In JIT, smooth flow of 2.b. In SNPD, frequent and materials downward and two-way flow of information has information flow backward has a great impact on reducing new a great impact on reducing product development time. manufacturing lead-time. 3.a. Successful JIT system 3.b. Successful SNPD requires requires short set-up time. fast transition (i.e. short set-up time from one art of the design to another. 4.a. Successful JIT system 4.b. In SNPD, continuous and requires production of small two-way flow of information lot-size. among team members is equivalent to early release of small batches of information. 5.a. In JIT, due to production 5.b. In SNPD, due to simultaneous of small lot-size, quality at development of product and source and continuous quality process, early detection of improvement are essential to design quality problems and the success of the system. continuous improvement of the design are essential to the success of NPD process. 6.a. In JIT, production of small 6.b. In SNPD, continuous and lot-size is associated with two-way communication among improving quality. team members encourages early detection of the design problems, which is associated with improving design quality. 7.a. In JIT, production of small 7.b. In SNPD, continuous and lot-size is associated with two-way communication among reducing inventory. team members is associated with reducing unnecessary amount of information among team members. 8.a. In JIT, production of small 8.b. In SNPD, continuous and lot-size is associated with two-way communication among reducing manufacturing cost. team members encourages early detection of the design problems, avoids costly design changes, which is associated with reducing development cost. 9.a. In JIT, production of small 9.b. In SNPD, continuous and lot-size is associated with two-way communication among faster delivery. team members encourages early detection of the design problems, avoids time consuming design changes, which is associated with reducing development time. 10.a. Organizations with 10.b. Organizations with successful JIT system are more successful SNPD program are more responsive to the market demand. responsive to the market demand 11.a. In JIT, management 11.b. In SNPD, management encourages employee involvement encourages employee involvement and teamwork. and teamwork. 12.a. In JIT, detailed shop floor 12.b. In SNPD, detailed design responsibilities such as job and development activities such and employee scheduling and as employee scheduling and quality decisions are often quality decisions are often passed to the manufacturing passed to the design and team members. development team members. 13.a. In JIT, due to production 13.b. In SNPD, passing of small lot-size, delegation responsibility down to the of authority to the manufacturing design and development team is team members is essential for essential to achieve a high smooth production flow. level of activity coordination and information sharing among team members. 14.a. In JIT, suppliers work 14.b. In SNPD, suppliers work closely with manufacturing teams. closely with the design and development teams. 15.a. In JIT, close relationship 15.b. In SNPD, close relationship between suppliers and between suppliers and design manufacturing teams is essential and development teams is in improving quality, reducing essential in improving design manufacturing cost, and quality, reducing design and shortening delivery time. development cost, and shortening design and development time. 16.a. In JIT, new technologies 16.b. In SNPD, new technologies such as robots are often such as IT and CAD are often integrated into the entire integrated into the entire manufacturing system after design and development process process analysis and after process analysis and simplification has been simplification has been performed. performed. TABLE 3 Comparison of JIT Manufacturing ans Stimultaneous New Product Development (NPD) Factors (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) JIT NPD Test Factor Mean SD * Mean SD * T-Test P-Value Correlation 1. Layout 3.84 0.85 3.62 1.08 1.47 0.140 0.74 2. Flow 3.99 1.03 4.06 0.96 -0.47 0.640 0.83 3. Set-up 4.34 0.70 3.84 0.96 3.04 0.003 0.47 4. Lot-size 3.80 0.88 3.55 1.03 1.65 0.100 0.65 5. Quality at sour. 4.16 0.77 4.28 0.74 -1.05 0.300 0.69 6. Quality Impr. 3.39 0.90 3.89 0.85 -3.67 0.000 0.32 7. Inventory 4.15 0.80 3.96 0.85 1.48 0.150 0.62 8. Manufat. cost 3.53 0.80 3.94 0.67 -3.55 0.001 0.45 9. Delivery 4.18 0.75 4.31 0.72 -1.09 0.280 0.75 10. Demand 4.17 0.73 4.24 0.70 -0.70 0.480 0.79 11. Team work 3.95 0.81 3.83 0.90 0.92 0.360 0.76 12. Team respon. 3.61 0.78 3.76 0.78 -1.17 0.240 0.82 13. Team autho. 3.84 0.72 3.96 0.77 -1.03 0.310 0.80 14. Suppliers 3.70 0.79 3.82 0.83 -0.93 0.350 0.77 15. Suppliers Ess. 4.12 0.72 4.02 0.70 0.87 0.390 0.73 16. Technology 3.41 0.96 3.68 0.94 -1.81 0.072 0.69 * SD = Standard deviation TABLE 4 NPD Performances Before and After JIT Sample Before JIT Impro- NPD Performance Size (n) vement (%) Average number of design changes 56 5.28 3.16 67 Average Development Time 64 39.25 24.38 61 (Months) Development Competency 54 55.20 31.70 74 (Months) Development Cost 51 144.50 * 100 * 45 * Manufacturing Cost 48 135.70 * 100 * 36 * ** *** NPD Performance d ** s ** t-value P-value Average number of design changes 2.12 3.79 4.19 <0.5% Average Development Time 14.87 18.30 6.50 <0.5% (Months) Development Competency 23.50 29.30 5.89 <0.5% (Months) Development Cost 44.5 48.74 6.52 <0.5% Manufacturing Cost 35.70 41.60 5.94 <0.5% * data reported in terms of percent improvement ** d = mean difference between before JIT and after JIT performance measures; s = standard deviation; t-value = computed t value; *** small P-value indicates the difference between two measures is statistically significant. TABLE 5 Managerial Views of The Impact of AT Success on NPD Performances (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) Statement Mean SD 1. Successful JIT manufacturing organizations will 3.86 0.89 design new products with better development quality. 2. Successful JIT manufacturing organizations will 4.42 0.83 design new products faster. 3. Successful JIT manufacturing organizations will 4.12 0.82 design new products more often. 4. Successful JIT manufacturing organizations will 4.32 0.84 design new products with less development cost. 5. Successful JIT manufacturing organizations will 3.88 0.82 design new products with less manufacturing cost. SD = standard deviation TABLE 6 General Impact of JIT on NPD (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) Statement Mean SD 6. Since the main principles of JIT is elimination of 4.38 0.60 wastes and respect for people, its principles can be applied to other areas such as NPD. 7. Organizations that are successful in their JIT 4.45 0.74 system are also successful in their NPD process. SD = standard deviation
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Meybodi, Mohammad Z.|
|Publication:||Advances in Competitiveness Research|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2005|
|Previous Article:||The effects of functional background experience, industry experience, generic executive management experience on perceived environmental uncertainty...|
|Next Article:||Does Porter's diamond hold in the global automotive industry?|