JIT Manufacturing: A Survey of Implementations in Small and Large U.S.

Manufacturers
Author(s): Richard E. White, John N. Pearson and Jeffrey R. Wilson
Source: Management Science, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Jan., 1999), pp. 1-15
Published by: INFORMS
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2634918
Accessed: 05-12-2018 05:23 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2634918?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

INFORMS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Management
Science

This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JIT Manufacturing: A Survey of
Implementations in Small and Large
U.S. Manufacturers

Richard E. White * John N. Pearson * Jeffrey R. Wilson

College of Business Administration, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas 76203-1160
Department of Business Administration, College of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-3706
Department of Economics, College of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-3806

Since the early 1980s, the diffusion of Just-In-Time (JIT) manufacturing from Japanese
manufacturers to U.S. manufacturers has progressed at an accelerated rate. At this stage
of the diffusion process, JIT implementations are more common and more advanced in large
U.S. manufacturers than in small; consequently, U.S. businessmen's understanding of issues
associated with JIT implementations in large manufacturers is more developed than that of
small manufacturers. VVhen small manufacturers represent about 96 percent of all U.S.
manufacturers, investigation of JIT implementations in small, as well as large, manufacturers
is warranted.
This survey study investigates JIT implementation differences between small and large U.S.
manufacturers. Ten management practices that constitute the JIT concept are used to examine
implementation of JIT manufacturing systems. Odds ratio were constructed to determine if an
association exists between implemented versus not implemented and manufacturer size for
each JIT practice. Ten changes in performance attributed to JIT implementation are also
assessed and examined in the study. Logistic regression models are used to examine the
relationships between implementation status of each of the JIT practices and of each of the
changes in performance in small and large manufacturers. The results of the study show that
the frequencies of the 10 JIT management practices implemented differ between the two
groups of manufacturer size, and an association exists between the JIT practices implemented
and manufacturer size. Moreover, the changes in performance attributed to JIT implementa-
tion vary, depending on implementation status of specific JIT management practices and
manufacturer size.
(Empirical Study; Just-in-time Manufacturing; Performance; Manufacturer Size; Logistic Regression)

1. Introduction turing system known as Just-In-Time (JIT) manufac-

Toyota's effort to continuously improve their produc-
tion system during the last 40-plus years, along with
diffusion of their improved production system to
other Japanese companies and a dedicated effort to
pursue perfection by participating Japanese compa-
nies, has resulted in the efficient, integrated, manufac-
turing. This improved manufacturing system has
been, in part, responsible for the competitive edge that
Japanese manufacturers have demonstrated in world
markets (Abernathy et al. 1981, Berger et al. 1989,
Womack et al. 1991). Womack et al. (1991) suggest that
diffusion of JIT manufacturing (lean production) is

0025-1909/99/4501/0001$05.00
Copyright ? 1999, Institute for Operations Research
and the Management Sciences MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol. 45, No. 1, January 1999

This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHITE, PEARSON, AND WILSON
JIT Manufacturing

one of the most important issues facing the world 2. JIT Manufacturing and
economy in the 1990s. Even though diffusion of JIT
Associated Implementation
manufacturing to U.S. firms began in the early 1980s
Issues
(AIAG 1983, Celley et al. 1986) and has progressed at
The variety of descriptions used for JIT throughout the
an accelerated rate since, the diffusion of JIT to this
1980s created confusion among U.S. business people
country is still in its infancy. Moreover, JIT implemen-
(Goyal and Deshmukh 1992, Vokurka and Davis
tations have been primarily in large manufacturers
1996). Subsequently, the amount of confusion about
(Schonberger 1987, Suzaki 1987).
JIT manufacturing among U.S. business people has
Based on a review of JIT research, Golhar and
decreased (Vokurka and Davis 1996), in part because
Stamm (1991) suggest that one of the most critical
writers developed a better understanding of JIT. In a
areas to research involves JIT implementations in
recent survey of JIT literature, Goyal and Deshmukh
small manufacturers. Published reports provide addi-
(1992) found that most writers agree that understand-
tional support for the value of investigating JIT imple-
ing the concept of JIT requires a systems perspective;
mentations in small U.S. manufacturers. For example,
however, because descriptions for JIT still vary and
manufacturers with fewer than 250 employees cur-
are often case specific, the researchers suggested a
rently account for approximately 96 percent of all
functional definition of JIT was needed.
manufacturing establishments in the United States
and more than half of all U.S. manufacturing employ- 2.1. JIT Manufacturing
ees (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992). Some research- Based on a comprehensive survey of JIT literature

ers, however, suggest that small firms are not the (articles, books, and/or studies that address JIT from a

dominant players in the U.S. economy. Based on a broad-based perspective), White and Ruch (1990) syn-

synthesis of relevant research in the area, Harrison thesized the literature and identified 10 management

(1994) argues that lean production plus mutually practices typically associated with JIT manufacturing

beneficial production networks (interorganizational) systems and feasible for implementation in U.S. man-

are, in part, necessary for achieving a strong economy ufacturers. The 10 practices are: quality circles, total

and world class competitiveness. He suggests the quality control, focused factory, total productive

emerging production networks are driven primarily
by the large firms, but recognizes that small firms are
an important part of these networks. Regardless, both
large and small U.S. manufacturers must continually
improve their performance; this will contribute to an
improved economy and allow the United States to be
more effective in world class competition.
This study involves the collection of data from U.S.
manufacturers to investigate JIT implementation dif-
ferences between small and large manufacturers. It
examines the extent that JIT manufacturing systems
have been implemented, and the relationships be-
tween implementation status of specific Japanese
management practices and associated changes in per-
formance in the two groups of manufacturer size. The
findings of the study are discussed to increase our
understanding about JIT manufacturing and associ-
ated implementation issues with respect to manufac-
turer size.
maintenance, reduced setup times, group technology,
uniform workload, multifunction employees, Kanban,
and just-in-time purchasing. White and Ruch pro-
posed that the individual JIT management practices be
introduced into U.S. manufacturers as separate pro-
grams for improving performance; however, the re-
searchers suggested that the greatest gains achieved
by organizations implementing JIT may be the syner-
gistic benefits derived from the JIT management prac-
tices operating as an integrated system.
2.2. JIT Implementation
Overall, results of research about JIT implementation
in U.S. manufacturers indicate that improved perfor-
mance is achieved by the adopters (Celley et al. 1986,
Im and Lee 1989, Gilbert 1990, White 1993). The results
also indicate that all organizations do not implement
the same JIT management practices (Dilworth 1987a
and 1987b, Baldwin 1989, Im and Lee 1989, Gilbert
1990). In addition, research findings in this area

2 MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol. 45, No. 1, January 1999

This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHITE, PEARSON, AND WILSON
JIT Manufacturing
suggest that the specific JIT management practices
adopted are based on organizational characteristics
(Shingo 1981, Sohal et al. 1989, Harber et al. 1990).
Researchers studying JIT implementations in U.S.
manufacturers suggest that effective implementation
requires that all employees be involved in the system
improvement process (Lee and Ebrahimpour 1984,
Helms et al. 1990, Bandyopadhyay and Jayaram 1995,
Germain and Droge 1997, McLachlin 1997). The in-
creased interdependencies created among organiza-
tional subareas with implementation of JIT in U.S.
manufacturers require more open communication and
decision-making among employees; therefore, sub-
stantial training could be required to develop the
necessary employee skills, such as communication,
problem solving, conflict resolution, negotiation, etc.
(Lee and Ebrahimpour 1984, Crawford and Blackstone
1988). In addition, decision-making authority must be
moved down the organizational levels in traditional
U.S. manufacturers; thus, new integrative organiza-
tional mechanisms (coordination policies and actions)
must be created to allow for cooperative work rela-
tionships across functional areas and levels of man-
agement hierarchy (Harber et al. 1990, Helms et al.
1990, Ahmed et al. 1991, Safayeni and Purdy 1991).
Manufacturer Size. The results of research in this
area indicate that JIT implementations are more ad-
vanced in large U.S. manufacturers than small (Im and
Lee 1989, Gilbert 1990, Ahmed et al. 1991, White 1993),
and manufacturer size influences the number of JIT
practices adopted (Im and Lee 1989, Baldwin 1989,
Gilbert 1990, Ahmed et al. 1991). Researchers suggest
that small U.S. manufacturers encounter different
problems when implementing JIT than those encoun-
tered by large manufacturers (Finch and Cox 1986,
Fawcett and Pearson 1990, Temponi and Pandya
1995). Lack of clout with suppliers (Finch and Cox
1986, Golhar et al. 1990) and production schedule
instability (Golhar et al. 1990, Stamm and Golhar 1991)
create problems for small manufacturers when they
implement the purchasing aspects of JIT. Based on the
findings of their study, Inman and Mehra (1990)
suggest that small businesses require extensive train-
ing for JIT implementation, but lack the financial
resources to assure proper implementation.
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol.
This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Mintzberg's (1979) research provides additional
support for the premise that manufacturer size influ-
ences the implementation of JIT management prac-
tices. In his condensation of research about organiza-
tional structure, he hypothesized that greater task
specialization, more elaborate organizational struc-
tures (more levels in the hierarchy with sharper ad-
ministrative division of labor), and more formalization
of behavior (more operating policies for decision-
makers, rules, procedures, norms of behavior, job
descriptions, etc.) exist with larger organizations; thus,
large manufacturers may face different deterrents
when implementing JIT than those faced by small
manufacturers.
Changes in Performance. Implementation of JIT in
U.S. manufacturers provides improved performance
in the following areas: lead times, quality levels, labor
productivity, employee relations, inventory levels,
and manufacturing costs (Celley et al. 1986, Schon-
berger 1987, Im and Lee 1989, Gilbert 1990, Huson and
Nanda 1995). Research studies also indicate that im-
plementation of JIT in U.S. manufacturers may involve
costs associated with capital equipment, employee
training, and administration (Lee and Ebrahimpour
1984, Golhar et al. 1990, Helms et al. 1990, Billesbach
1991, Huson and Nanda 1995). Overall, findings of
pertinent research suggest that implementation of JIT
is beneficial for the adopters; however, implementa-
tion of JIT may be more beneficial for large U.S.
manufacturers than small (Dilworth 1987a and 1987b,
Im and Lee 1989, Goyal and Deshmukh 1992).
In this study we investigate JIT implementation
differences between small and large U.S. manufactur-
ers, and the changes in performance attributed to JIT
implementation in the two groups of manufacturer
size. Thus, the hypotheses offered for testing are:
HYPOTHESIS Hol. Manufacturer size has no effect on
JIT practices implemented.
HYPOTHESIS H02. Changes in performance attributed
to implementation status of JIT practices are the same
whether the manufacturer is small or large.
These hypotheses are tested using data from U.S.
manufacturers described in the methodology section.
Researchers suggest that the usefulness of survey
45, No. 1, January 1999 3
 WHITE, PEARSON, AND WILSON
JIT Manufacturing
studies in this area, to date, is limited because sample
sizes are generally small and data collected are often
in a particular geographic area (Ahmed et al. 1991,
Golhar and Stamm 1991). In this study, survey data
were obtained from a large sample of U.S. manufac-
turers across various industries and geographic re-
gions; thus, the findings provide new information
about JIT implementations and associated issues.
3. Methodology
A cross-sectional design was used to obtain data for
the research study. The Dillman (1978) Total Design
Method was followed where possible for development
of the questionnaire used for data collection and for
the data collection process. The data collected were
reviewed and classified into two groups: small and
large manufacturers. The data were also recorded to
provide for testing hypotheses H01; odds ratio (imple-
mented versus not implemented) were used for these
tests. Additional information were derived from the
data collected to allow for better understanding im-
plementation differences. Logistic regression models
were used to test the second hypothesis (HO2).
3.1. Questionnaire
The items used in the questionnaire to collect data
about key variables were initially derived from the
literature. Moreover, definitions of the 10 JIT manage-
ment practices were developed to minimize potential
misunderstandings about the JIT concept. Then, focus
groups (experts in the area of JIT literature and
practitioners experienced in JIT implementations) dis-
cussed and evaluated the accuracy of the definitions
for capturing each practice, and the set of 10 JIT
management practices for capturing the completeness
of the JIT concept. After several iterations, consensus
was reached in the groups on accuracy and complete-
ness of the definitions and the 10 JIT practices repre-
senting a holistic understanding of JIT (see Table 1).
Implementation Status. An item with an ordinal
scale was developed to assess implementation status
(the length of time since implementation began) for
each of the 10 JIT management practices. The items
were scored based on the midpoint of the assessment
scale: not implemented (scored "O"), implementation
4 MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol.
This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
started 0-1 years ago (scored "0.5"), implementation
started 1-3 years ago (scored "2"), implementation
started 3-5 years ago (scored "4"), and implementa-
tion started more than 5 years ago (scored "6").
Changes in Performance. Ten changes in perfor-
mance attributed to JIT implementation were assessed
with items scored on a nominal scale. Five were scored
as better or not better: throughput time (lead time),
internal quality level (defects, rework, etc.), external
quality level (warranties, returns, etc.), labor produc-
tivity, and employee behavior (turnover, absenteeism,
etc.). Five changes in performance were scored as
lower or not lower: inventory levels (raw materials,
WIP, and finished goods), unit cost, cost of equipment
(modification and purchase), cost of employee train-
ing, and administrative costs (supervision, record
keeping, etc.).
Validation. Validation of the questionnaire con-
sisted of pretests by a panel of JIT experts consisting of
officers and board of directors for the Association for
Manufacturing Excellence (AME), which included se-
nior executives from major corporations implement-
ing JIT manufacturing systems and two academicians
considered JIT experts, and a pilot study of eight
individuals representing firms with a variety of man-
ufacturing environments. The pretests and pilot study,
performed prior to data collection, also provided
additional validation for the definitions of the 10 JIT
practices as well as their completeness in capturing the
JIT concept.
3.2. Data
Data Collection and Review. The population used
in this study consists of all organizations represented
by members of AME. These organizations are consid-
ered leaders among major U.S. manufacturers in
adopting new manufacturing technologies. AME
members represent a cross-section of functional areas,
companies, and industries from all geographic regions
of the United States.
The mailing activities consisted of two mailings of
questionnaires. The initial mailing consisted of an
introductory letter, a questionnaire, general instruc-
tions for completing the questionnaire, a self-
addressed envelope, and a definition sheet of the 10
45, No. 1, January 1999
 WHITE, PEARSON, AND WILSON

JIT Manufacturing

Table 1 JIT Practices

QUALITY CIRCLES (QC): This is an employee participation program. This program would attempt to involve employees in problem solving
activities. Through the use of a facilitator and extensive training, small groups of employees would meet routinely on common problem
interest and make recommendations to management. The scope of this program would also include cross-functional employee participat
management employee participation groups.
TOTAL QUALITY CONTROL (TQC): This program would establish quality as the top priority of the organization's business objectives. This
the quality effort by all functions, employees, and suppliers. Implementation of statistical quality control methods for defect prevention
program.
FOCUSED FACTORY (FF): This program would attempt to reduce the complexities of the manufacturing process. This may include any or all of the following:
simplifying the organizational structure, reducing the numbers of products or processes, and minimizing the complexities of physical constraints.
TOTAL PRODUCTIVE MAINTENANCE (TPM): This program would attempt to establish and refine routine preventive maintenance and replacement programs. This
also involves getting the machine operator actively participating in the minor machine maintenance functions.
REDUCED SETUP TIMES (SU): This program would attempt to reduce the time and costs involved in changing from the tooling, layout, etc. required to produce one
product to that required to produce other products. Reducing the setup times will allow for reduced economic lot sizes produced and reduced need for buffer
inventories.

GROUP TECHNOLOGY (GT): This program would attempt to improve scheduling efficiencies through grouping families of parts to minimize duplication of effort and
problem solving situations. This program may also involve changes of physical facilities, i.e., cellular arrangement, in the improvement effort.
UNIFORM WORKLOAD (UW): This program would attempt to stabilize and smooth the production workload (level schedule). The product/unit mix each day would
be the same. Variations to the demand would be handled through varying frequency of the product/unit mix.
MULTIFUNCTION EMPLOYEES (MFE): This program would attempt to formally cross train employees on several different machines and in several different
functions.
KANBAN (KAN): This program would attempt to eliminate the "PUSH" system of material flow and develop a "PULL" system which is dependent upon the
operators at downstream workstations to initiate material movement and control the pace of material flow for upstream work stations versus the traditional
management control of the initiation of material movement.
JUST-IN-TIME PURCHASING (JITP): This is a supplier participation and partnership program. This program would involve suppliers in long-range mutually rewarding
cost-reduction efforts, such as value analysis and the implementation of JIT management practices. The objective is to improve quality, flexibility and levels of
service from suppliers by increasing the quantity of orders, reducing the number of suppliers and developing a long term relationship based on trust.

Source: White, R.E., Post Implementation Evaluation of Just-In-Time Manufacturing, University Microfilms International, 1990.

JIT practices to be used by the informants when
completing the questionnaire. The introductory letter,
printed on AME letterhead, described the purpose of
the study, discussed AME's support of the study
(AME sponsored the research study), and guaranteed
confidentiality of individual responses. Identification
of respondents completing and returning question-
naires (respondents were asked to enclose their busi-
ness card) provided guidance for the second mailing.
Approximately five weeks after the first mailing a
second mailing was sent. The first mailing consisted of
2640 questionnaires and yielded 805 responses; the
second mailing yielded an additional 360 responses
for an overall response rate of 44.1 percent.
Completed questionnaires were reviewed to iden-
tify and omit (1) responses that were incomplete for
any of the key variables assessed and (2) multiple
responses from the same business unit. Responses for
organizations with annual sales generated primarily
from providing a service (organizations with more
than 25 percent of their annual sales generated from
providing a service) and responses from academicians
and consultants were omitted from the study. Because
assessment of JIT systems was operationalized
through JIT management practices, responses for
manufacturers that had not implemented any of the
JIT practices were also omitted from the study.
Data Classification and Recoding. In this study,
manufacturer size was defined by number of employ-
ees. According to Longenecker and Moore (1991), a
variety of definitions exist for small businesses be-
cause writers adopt different standards for different
purposes. Adams and Ponthieu (1978) indicate a small
manufacturer is defined by a manufacturer that em-
ploys fewer than 250 employees and "If employment
is between 250 and 1000, a size standard for the
particular industry is used" (p. 2). Thus, manufactur-
ers that employ between 250 and 1000 employees

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol. 45, No. 1, January 1999 5

This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHITE, PEARSON, AND WILSON
JIT Manufacturing
across industries may have a mixture of organiza-
tional characteristics (pertinent to this study) from
both small and large manufacturers.
Only manufacturers with fewer than 250 employees
(classified as small manufacturers) and manufacturers
with more than 1000 employees (classified as large
manufacturers) are included in the sample; thus, the
effective sample for this study consists of 454 re-
sponses, 174 small manufacturers, and 280 large man-
ufacturers. Throughout the remainder of this paper,
the terms "small" and "large" manufacturers refer to
the manufacturers classified as described and in-
cluded in the sample.
To provide data for testing association between
manufacturer size and implemented JIT practices, and
comparing results of this study with those of other
survey studies, implementation status data were re-
corded with a score of "1" if the respondent checked
implementation started 0-1, 1-3, 3-5, or more than
five years ago. The results of this recoding, number of
manufacturers with JIT practices implemented/not
implemented, are presented in Table 2.
A mean time since adoption for each JIT practice
was derived from the data collected; this was accom-
plished by omitting all cases where the JIT practice
was not implemented (scored "0") and calculating the
mean of the scored values (i.e., "0.5", "2", "4", or "6")
of the remaining cases for each practice implemented.
These means represent a relative measure for the
average time in years since adoption for each practice
(see Table 2).
3.3. The Sample
The data included in the sample indicate that the
respondents had an average of 20.8 years of business
experience and had been with the same organization
for an average of 11.4 years. Eighty-seven percent
(87.0) of the respondents held middle to top manage-
ment positions in their organizations, and 86.1 percent
of the respondents had obtained at least a college
degree. Manufacturing was the functional position
most frequently held (41.7 percent) by the respon-
dents. Materials/management and engineering were
the second and third most frequently held functional
positions by the respondents, with 17.4 and 9.3 per-
cent, respectively.
6 MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol.
This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A majority (57.0 percent) of the manufacturers
included in the sample had a nonunion production
environment. More than a third (36.4 percent) of the
manufacturers had a union environment and 6.6
percent had both nonunion and union production
environments. A wide variety of industries was
represented by the manufacturers included in the
sample data. The response profile by industry for
the sample indicated that the electronics/electric
industry was the industry most frequently (36.5
percent of the responses) represented in the sample.
The next most frequently represented industries in
the sample were metals (9.1 percent), transportation
equipment (7.1 percent), health and medical equip-
ment/components (4.4 percent), furniture (4.0 per-
cent), machinery except electric (3.3), and rubber/
plastics (3.1 percent). A miscellaneous industry
category that represents many different industries,
each with minor sample representation, accounted
for 26.7 percent of the sample overall.
All the manufacturers included in the sample had
implemented at least one of the JIT practices, and 96.5
percent had implemented at least three of the JIT
practices. More than 19% (19.8) had implemented all
10 JIT practices. The average number of JIT practices
implemented by the manufacturers included in the
sample was approximately 7.
4. Results
Sample statistics for implemented JIT practices by
manufacturer size are shown in Table 2. Total quality
control and reduced setup times were practices most
frequently implemented in large manufacturers with
91.4 and 90.7 percent, respectively, and uniform work-
load and total productive maintenance were least
frequently implemented practices with 59.3 and 65.7
percent, respectively (see Table 2). In small manufac-
turers, multifunction employees and reduced setup
times were practices most frequently implemented
with 86.8 and 82.8 percent, respectively, and total
productive maintenance and uniform workload were
the practices least frequently implemented, with 51.7
and 52.3 percent, respectively.
The results from deriving the mean time since adop-
tion for each JIT by manufacturer size are also presented
45, No. 1, January 1999
 WHITE, PEARSON, AND WILSON

JIT Manufacturing

Table 2 Number of Manufacturers With JIT Practices Implemented and Mean Time Since Adoption

Number of Manufacturers with Practices % Mfgrs Time Since Adoption

W/Practice
JIT Practices Mfgr Size Implemented Not Implemented Implemented Mean SD

Quality Circles sm 98 76 56.3 1.97 yrs. 1.63

Ig 197 83 70.4 3.99 1.99
Total Quality Control sm 143 31 82.2 1.73 1.46
Ig 256 24 91.4 2.68 1.80
Focused Factory sm 110 64 63.2 1.54 1.19
Ig 215 65 76.8 2.52 1.75
Total Productive Maintenance sm 90 84 51.7 1.54 1.33
Ig 184 96 65.7 1.86 1.52
Reduced Setup Times sm 144 30 82.8 1.60 1.11
Ig 254 26 90.7 2.58 1.63
Group Technology sm 116 58 66.7 1.79 1.35
Ig 195 85 69.6 2.63 1.66
Uniform Workload sm 91 83 52.3 1.65 1.33
Ig 166 114 59.3 2.43 1.79
Multifunction Employees sm 151 23 86.8 2.06 1.64
Ig 222 58 79.3 2.37 1.71
Kanban sm 93 81 53.4 1.49 1.20
Ig 193 87 68.9 2.55 1.68
JIT Purchasing sm 115 59 66.1 1.46 1.20
Ig 229 51 81.8 2.05 1.58

sm = Small Mfgrs (N= 174).

Ig = Large Mfgrs (N = 280).

in Table 2. This information indicates that the time in
years since adoption is longer for all JIT practices in large
manufacturers compared to that in small manufacturers.
Multifunction employees is the practice that has been
implemented the longest in small manufacturers (2.06
years) and quality circles the second longest (1.97 years).
Just-in-time purchasing is the practice that has been in
operation the shortest time (1.46 years), and Kanban the
second shortest (1.49 years), in small manufacturers. In
large manufacturers, quality circles has been imple-
mented the longest (3.99 years) and total quality control
the second longest (2.68 years). Total productive main-
tenance is the practice that has been in operation the
shortest time (1.86 years), and just-in-time purchasing
the second shortest (2.05 years) in large manufacturers.
Sample statistics for changes in performance attrib-
uted to JIT implementation are presented in Table 3.
Better throughput time was the most frequently cited
improvement in performance in both small and large
manufacturers with 82.8 and 88.9 percent, respec-
tively. The second most frequently cited improvement
in performance was lower inventory levels in small
manufacturers and better internal quality in large
manufacturers, with 80.5 and 84.6 percent, respec-
tively. Lower cost of employee training was the least
frequently cited improvement in both small and large
manufacturers with 2.9 and 4.3 percent, respectively.
The second least frequently cited improvement in
performance was lower cost of equipment in small
and large manufacturers with 12.6 and 15.4 percent,
respectively.
4.1. Odds Ratio for Implemented JIT Practices
As a measure of association the odds ratio (cross-
product ratio) is often used with cross-sectional data
to examine the relationship between binary variables.
The strength of the association (negative, positive, or
no association) is determined through the confidence

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol. 45, No. 1, January 1999 7

This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHITE, PEARSON, AND WILSON

JIT Manufacturing

Table 3 Frequencies of Changes in Performance Attributed to JIT <1.000) was indicated between small manufacturers
Implementation
and implemented for seven of the JIT practices (qual-
ity circles, total quality control, focused factory, total
Manufacturers Manufacturers
Performance Mfgr Indicating Not Indicating Percent
productive maintenance, reduced setup times, Kan-
Measures Size Better Better Better ban, and JIT purchasing); this suggests that small
manufacturers are less likely to implement these seven
Throughput Time sm 30 144 82.8 practices than large manufacturers. In addition, a
Ig 31 249 88.9
significant positive relationship (odds ratio >1.000)
Internal Quality Level sm 35 139 79.9
was indicated for multifunction employees. This sug-
Ig 43 237 84.6
External Quality Level sm 62 112 64.4 gests that for multifunction employees, small manu-
Ig 83 197 70.4 facturers are more likely to implement than large
Labor Productivity sm 42 132 75.9 manufacturers. No statistically significant relationship
Ig 77 203 72.5
was indicated between manufacturer size and
Employee Behavior sm 85 89 51.1
practices implemented with group technology and
Ig 141 139 49.6

Manufacturers Manufacturers
Indicating Not Indicating Percent Table 4 Odds Ratio for JIT Practices Implemented vs. Not
Lower Lower Lower Implemented in Small and Large Manufacturers

Inventory Levels sm 34 140 80.5

95%
Ig 48 232 82.9
Mfgr Odds Confidence
Unit Cost sm 66 108 62.1
JIT Practices Size Ratio Interval Significant
Ig 99 181 64.6
Cost of Equipment sm 152 22 12.6
Quality Circles sm 0.543 (0.366, 0.806) yes
Ig 237 43 15.4
Ig
Cost of Employee sm 169 5 2.9
Training Ig 268 12 4.3 Total Quality Control sm 0.432 (0.244, 0.765) yes
Administrative Costs sm 101 73 42.0 Ig
Ig 170 110 39.3

Focused Factory sm 0.520 (0.343, 0.787) yes

sm = Small Manufacturers (N= 174). Ig
Ig = Large Manufacturers (N = 280).
Total Productive sm 0.559 (0.380, 0.823) yes
Maintenance Ig
intervals. As the distribution of the odds ratio is not
symmetric, the confidence interval is obtained Reduced Setup Times sm 0.491 (0.280, 0.863) yes
Ig
through the logarithmic transformation and its as-
ymptotic normality, then converted back to the origi-
Group Technology sm 0.872 (0.581,1.307) no
nal scale through exponentiation (Agresti 1996). The
Ig

odds ratio take on values between zero and infinity

Uniform Workload sm 0.753 (0.514,1.102) no
where zero to one denotes a negative association and
Ig
one to infinity denotes positive association. When Multifunction sm 1.715 (1.014, 2.901) yes
1.000 is included in the confidence interval it signifies Employees Ig
no significant association between the binary vari-
Kanban sm 0.518 (0.350, 0.765) yes
ables.
Ig

The odds ratio of JIT practices (implemented vs. not

JIT Purchasing sm 0.434 (0.281, 0.672) yes
implemented) were constructed to examine if manu-
Ig
facturer size has an effect on JIT practices imple-
mented for each of the 10 JIT practices (Table 4). A sm = Small Manufacturers (N= 174).
statistically significant negative association (odds ratio Ig = Large Manufacturers (N = 280).

8 MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol. 45, No. 1, January 1999

This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHITE, PEARSON, AND WILSON
JIT Manufacturing
uniform workload. The results show that manufac-
turer size does have an effect on the JIT practices
implemented with eight of the ten practices examined;
thus, the results do not support the first hypothesis
quality with small manufacturers (one of the models
(Hj1). Large manufacturers are more likely to imple-
ment 7 of the 10 JIT practices investigated and less
likely to implement multifunction employees than
small manufacturers.
4.2. Logistic Regression Models for Changes in
Performance
The following logistic regression model was postu-
lated to assess the impact of the 10 JIT practices on
each of the 10 performance measures. This is done
separately for the large and small manufacturing
firms. Let Ykn = 1, if firm n achieved better perfor-
mance with respect to measure k, and 0 otherwise. The
Ykn variables are assumed to be independent with:
Pkn =Pr [Ykn = 1]
exp[fok + E I3jkXjn]
= j , ~~~~~~~~~(1)
1 + exp[fok + E I1jkXjn]
where Xjn denotes the value of the implementation
status of practice j for manufacturer n. Equation (1) is
equivalent to:
l1g(Pkn/l(l - Pkn)) = f3ok + E 13jkXjn. (2)
For each measure k, we determine the coefficients of
fjk as the maximum likelihood estimators, i.e., by
maximizing the likelihood functions. See Fienberg
(1983) for more details. A positive sign for f3jk means
ers.
that increasing the implementation status for JIT prac-
tice j tends to increase the probability of achieving
better performance in measure k. Thus, there are 10
models for small firms and 10 models for large firms.
Each of the 10 models has 11 parameters.
The results obtained from the fit of these logistic
regression models for small (N = 174) and large (N
= 280) are summarized in Tables 5 and 6, respec-
tively. A column represents information from one of
these models. The columns in each table contain the
coefficients for each logistic model for the implemen-
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol.
This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
tation status of the indicated JIT practice. All nonsig-
nificant parameter estimates (?0.05) in the fitted mod-
els were omitted from the reported tables.
In the logistic regression model for better internal
in Table 5), implementation status of quality circles
(QC) and just-in-time purchasing (JITP) were signifi-
cant predictors. The coefficient of QC (+0.512) is
positive and significant at the 0.01 level, suggesting
that as the implementation status for quality circles
increases internal quality will more likely be better. A
negative relationship was obtained between the im-
plementation status for JIT purchasing (-0.380
' 0.05), suggesting that as the implementation status
for JIT purchasing increases internal quality will less
likely to be better.
In the logistic regression model for better through-
put time with large manufacturers (one of the models
in Table 6), the implementation status for reduced
setup times (SU) and Kanban (KAN) were significant
positive predictors.
Overall, the results of the logistic regression models
show that differences exist in the relationships be-
tween the independent variables and the response
variable in the logistic models for small manufacturers
compared to those for large manufacturers. Moreover,
the results indicate that the implementation status of
three JIT practices, reduced setup times (SU), multi-
function employees (MFE), and Kanban (KAN), have
similar relationships (significant and positive) in three
of the logistic regression models (reduced setup times
and better throughput times, multifunction employees
and better labor productivity, and Kanban and lower
cost of training) in both small and large manufactur-
The results of the fitted logistic models suggest that
changes in performance are affected differently by
implementation status of the JIT practices in small
versus large manufacturers for seven of the ten prac-
tices. Thus, the results do not provide support for
Hypothesis Ho2.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
The survey data for this study were collected from
knowledgeable informants in a natural setting;
45, No. 1, January 1999 9
 WHITE, PEARSON, AND WILSON

JIT Manufacturing

Table 5 Fitted Logistic Regression Models for the Likelihood of Achieving Better Performance with JIT in Small Manufacturers

Independent Response Variables

Variables
Better Better Better Better Better
Coefficients (S.E.) Throughput Time Internal Quality External Quality Labor Productivity Employee Behavior

Constant 1.337** 0.604*

(.269) (.256)
QC 0.512**
(.197)
TPM 0.346*
(.167)
SU 0.969** 0.385**
(.306) (.139)
MFE 0.352*
(.138
JITP 1.006** -0.380* 0.332*
(.384) (.171) (.166)
-2 log likelihood 128.281 163.223 214.909 184.292 232.915

Lower Lower Lower Lower Cost of Lower

Inventory Levels Unit Cost Cost of Equipment Employee Training Administrative Costs

Constant 0.865** -2.484** -4.272** -1.289**

(.239) (.320) (.672) (.274)
SU 0.572** 0.468**
(.161) (.160)
GT 0.276*
(.133)
KAN 0.521** 0.579*
(.167) (.253)
JITP 0.792**
(.277)
-2 log likelihood 159.841 216.118 122.448 41.019 213.664

Note: Implementation Status: QC = quality circles, TQC = to

times, GT = group technology, UW = uniform workload, MF
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, N = 174.

therefore, external validity was enhanced. Except for
the higher concentration of the electronic/electric in-
dustry, the response profile by industry for this sam-
ple is not unlike those for other similar studies of U.S.
manufacturers using non-AME populations (Im and
Lee 1989, Gilbert 1990, Billesbach 1991).
To test for possibility of an industry effect on JIT
implementation, statistical analyses were conducted
with a reduced sample that omitted the electronic/
electric industry. The results were not appreciably
different; therefore, the sample analyzed included the
data for the electronic/electric industry. Furthermore,
the frequencies of implementations for the JIT prac-
tices by the organizations included in the sample are
similar to those of other survey studies of U.S. manu-
facturers using non-AME populations (Im and Lee
1989, Baldwin 1989, Fawcett and Pearson 1990, Gilbert
1990, Inman and Mehra 1990). The other survey stud-
ies did not always assess the same 10 JIT practices or
use the same measurement for the practices; however,
based on content interpretation, the results appear
similar.
Generalizations from this study to all manufactur-
ing firms should be treated cautiously. The respon-

10 MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol. 45, No. 1, January 1999

This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHITE, PEARSON, AND WILSON

JIT Manufacturing

Table 6 Fitted Logistic Regression Models for the Likelihood of Achieving Better Performance with JIT in Large Manufacturers

Independent Response Variables

Variables
Better Better Better Better Better
Coefficients (S.E.) Throughput Time Internal Quality External Quality Labor Productivity Employee Behavior

Constant 0.749* 1.041 ** 0.498** -0.461**

(.296) (.208) (.188) (.171)
TQC 0.267**
(.086)
SU 0.347*
(.169)
MFE 0.283**
(.089)
KAN 0.832** 0.540** 0.201* 0.257**
(.273) (.143) (.089) (.070)
-2 log likelihood 160.255 219.666 316.754 317.652 373.760

Lower Lower Lower Lower Cost of Lower

Inventory Levels Unit Cost Cost of Equipment Employee Training Administrative Costs

Constant 0.905** -1.951** -4.096** -1.102**

(.201) (.269) (.669) (.196)
FF 0.202*
(.084)
SU -0.535*
(.234)
GT -0.252*
(.114)
UW 0.149*
(.
MFE 0.327** 0.411*
(.103) (.182)
KAN 0.534** 0.364** 0.520** 0.243**
(.135) (.094) (.188) (.074)
-2 log likelihood 234.218 327.228 229.509 83.736 352.482

Note: Implementation Status: QC = quality circles, TQC = to

times, GT = group technology, UW = uniform workload, MF
p < .05, ** p < .01, N = 280.

dents were not randomly chosen for inclusion in this
study. The ability to randomize the selection process
was eliminated because of AME's concern (and rightly
so) for their members and their control of the mem-
bership list; therefore, certain biases might exist. The
organizations included in the sample had frequencies
of implementations that exceeded 50 percent for all
practices assessed in both groups of manufacturer
size. Considering the fact that the population used in
this study is viewed as leaders in the United States in
adopting new manufacturing technologies, and since
the sample included only those organizations that had
implemented at least one of the practices assessed,
these results are not unrealistic.
Overall, the results show that large U.S. manufac-
turers are more advanced in implementation of JIT
systems than are small U.S. manufacturers. The per-
cent of manufacturers with implementations of
each JIT practice is higher for large rather than
small manufacturers, except for the multifunction

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol. 45, No. 1, January 1999 11

This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHITE, PEARSON, AND WILSON
JIT Manufacturing
employees practice. Also, the mean time since adop-
tion for each JIT management practice is longer in
large manufacturers than that in small manufacturers.
The findings of this study support our understanding
of the diffusion of JIT to U.S. manufacturers, at this
point.
The findings support the proposition that JIT sys-
tems are adaptable and suggest that large U.S. manu-
facturers are more likely to implement JIT systems
than small manufacturers. The statistical models
showed that the degrees by which JIT practices are
implemented depend on manufacturer size. For exam-
ple, small manufacturers are more likely to implement
multifunction employees than large manufacturers.
The results of the study also show that both small and
large manufacturers have significantly improved perfor-
mance as a result of implementing JIT systems. The
frequencies of changes in performance attributed to JIT
were similar in both groups of manufacturer size. The
majority of both groups indicated that costs (cost of
equipment, cost of employee training and administrative
costs) were not lower because of JIT implementations.
The statistical models showed that the relationships
between implementation status of specific JIT prac-
tices and the changes in performance attributed to JIT
implementation differed depending on manufacturer
size. An explanation for the different relationships
identified in these analyses may exist in the organiza-
tional mechanisms characteristic of manufacturer size.
The organizational mechanisms associated with small
manufacturers may provide for easier implementation
of selected JIT practices when compared to large
manufacturers, but may not provide for the same
potential for improvement. For example, JIT practices
such as multifunction employees may be very com-
patible with the existing organizational mechanisms
of a small manufacturer (less division of work, less
specialized workers, etc.); consequently, small manu-
facturers may not require the extensive changes that a
similar implementation requires in large manufactur-
ers. Since little change occurs with implementation of
multifunction employees in a small manufacturer, the
relative potential for improvement may not be as great
as that in a large manufacturer; thus, over time, with
the implementation of multifunction employees (in-
12 MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol.
This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
creasing implementation status) in a small manufac-
turer, the effect on costs attributed to JIT implementa-
tion (e.g., cost of training and cost of equipment)
might be inconsequential; whereas with large manu-
facturers the traditional organizational mechanisms
may provide for a more difficult implementation,
thus, the costs (cost of employee training and cost of
equipment) attributed to JIT implementation are sig-
nificantly affected as the implementation status in-
creases.
Quality circles and total productive maintenance
may be other examples that allow for a better under-
standing of how organizational size influences JIT
implementation. Even though more of the large man-
ufacturers have implemented quality circles and total
productive maintenance practices and the times since
adoption are longer compared to those in small man-
ufacturers, the improvements associated with increas-
ing implementation status appear inconsequential.
The bureaucratic-type mechanisms (more levels of
hierarchy with sharper administrative division of la-
bor) associated with large manufacturers could repre-
sent a major hurdle to reap the benefits of quality
circles and total productive maintenance. Also, when
downsizing and eliminating middle management lay-
ers are commonplace for large U.S. manufacturers, it
might be more difficult for middle managers to enthu-
siastically develop and empower their employees.
Unless middle managers are protected in the large
manufacturers, they may even sabotage the imple-
mentation of practices that provide for more employee
empowerment. Changing the orientation of workers
and managers in large manufacturers might require
substantially more time and effort for successful im-
plementation of selected JIT practices compared to
similar implementations in small manufacturers.
Another explanation for the different relationships
identified in the study could involve the wholeness of
the JIT systems implemented. Research indicates that the
length of time since implementation began and the
extent of the implementation will influence the success
of systems implementations. In this sample, the time
since adoption is longer for all JIT practices in large
manufacturers than in small manufacturers. Moreover,
the average number of practices implemented by large
45, No. 1, January 1999
 WHITE, PEARSON, AND WILSON
JIT Manufacturing
manufacturers was 7.5 practices and the average number
implemented in small manufacturers was 6.6 practices.
Almost double the relative number of large manufactur-
ers (23.6 percent) had implemented all ten of the JIT
practices compared to that of the small manufacturers
(13.8 percent). The synergistic benefits derived from the
interrelated JIT practices operating as a system in the
large manufacturers can also contribute to the differ-
ences in relationships identified in the study. Additional
studies in this area might be required to provide addi-
tional insight into these findings.
The negative relationships found in the statistical
models for small manufacturers (between just-in-time
purchasing and better internal quality) and large man-
ufacturers (between reduced setup times and lower
cost of employee training, and group technology and
lower cost of equipment) were unexpected. However,
after further consideration, these findings were easier
to understand.
Adoption of just-in-time purchasing by a manufac-
turer places an additional burden on the relationship
between the manufacturer and supplier. With just-in-
time purchasing, the interdependence between man-
ufacturer and supplier increases; this requires improv-
ing communication and quality (this should be a
cooperative effort between manufacturer and sup-
plier) as inventories are decreased. If small manufac-
turers lack clout with suppliers and the instability of a
small manufacturer's schedule with increased deliv-
ery requirements are imposed on the supplier, the
supplier has little incentive to provide the total effort
for improving quality. Implementation of JIT purchas-
ing in small manufacturers could result in a situation
where the supplier is less concerned about delivery
and quality; consequently, as inventory is reduced,
existing quality problems become more apparent, and
manufacturers might attribute these exposed prob-
lems to the JIT purchasing effort, whereas the greater
purchasing power associated with large manufactur-
ers might cause the supplier to improve quality and
meet the additional delivery requirements without
cooperative effort from the manufacturer. Moreover,
the time since adoption for just-in-time purchasing is
less than that of all the other JIT practices in small
manufacturers; more time might be required to work
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol.
This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
through the traditional adversarial relationship be-
tween buyer and supplier and accrue associated im-
provements.
The negative relationships between reduced setup
times and lower cost of employee training, and be-
tween group technology and lower cost of equipment
are more easily understood if the characteristics of
large manufacturers are considered. If the reduced
setup times practice is adopted by large manufactur-
ers where higher volumes and longer production runs
are more common, the result is more setups and
smaller production runs; thus, an increase in quantity
of technical skills is required to perform the increased
number of setups. If effective results have not been
achieved for cross-training direct employees (multi-
function employees) to perform the increased number
of setups, then more setup technicians are required. In
this situation, the increase in training costs for setup
technicians would be attributed directly to the imple-
mentation of reduced setup times. Also, as large
manufacturers try to make their production process
more flexible through the application of group tech-
nology, the costs associated with changing higher
volume production processes increase. Reduced setup
times and total productive maintenance are required
to offset the additional capacity required as smaller
production runs are scheduled. However, if these
practices (reduced setup times and total productive
maintenance) have not achieved effective results, then
investment in additional equipment may be the easiest
alternative to begin the improved material flow sys-
tem. Concomitantly, the time since adoption for total
productive maintenance is less than that of all other
JIT practices assessed in large manufacturers.
Only three of the JIT management practices (re-
duced setup times, multifunction employees, and
Kanban) have a similar impact on some of the
changes in performance attributed to JIT implemen-
tation in both small and large manufacturers. These
findings suggest that the importance of these three
practices for achieving better performance remains
relatively constant regardless of manufacturer size.
The importance of the other JIT practices (quality
circles, total quality control, focused factory, to-
tal productive maintenance, group technology,
45, No. 1, January 1999 13
 WHITE, PEARSON, AND WILSON
JIT Manufacturing
uniform workload, and just-in-time purchasing) for
achieving better performance differ significantly
depending on manufacturer size.
Small manufacturing firms constitute a significant
part of the U.S. economy and contribute in many
important ways to growth and improvement. Re-
searchers should investigate phenomena that help all
U.S. manufacturers improve productivity and com-
pete more successfully. This study involved data
about JIT implementations collected from a large
number of U.S. manufacturers. It provides generaliz-
able evidence about JIT implementations in small and
large manufacturers. Overall, the findings suggest that
specific JIT management practices might be more
appropriate for implementation depending on manu-
facturer size. Understanding the relationships identi-
fied in this study and other relationships associated
with JIT implementations can allow for a more effi-
cient and effective JIT implementation process, thus
enabling business people to more effectively manage
and control their organizations for success. Future
studies should replicate this effort in specific indus-
tries while examining the differences between small
and large firms.
As few survey research studies have been under-
taken investigating the impact of JIT manufacturing in
U.S. manufacturing firms, additional research that
identifies and documents the applicability of JIT prac-
tices to firms with different characteristics is clearly
warranted. These characteristics might include vol-
ume of sales, types of production processes, make-to-
order/make-to-schedule environments, union /
nonunion environments, manufacturing/service envi-
ronments, types of products, and age of firm. Because
of the diversity of U.S. firms and the potential benefits
to be achieved, an opportunity for significant research
exists in this area.
References
Abernathy, W.J., K.B. Clark, A.M. Kantrow. 1981. The new indus-
trial competition. Harvard Business Rev. 59(5) 68-81.
Adams, S., L.D. Ponthieu. 1978. Administrative Policy and Strategy: A
Casebook. 2nd. ed. Grid Inc., Columbus, OH.
Agresti, A. 1996. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
14 MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol.
This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Ahmed, N.U., E.A. Tunc, R.V. Montagno. 1991. A comparative
study of U.S. manufacturing firms at various stages of just-in-
time implementation. Internat. J. Production Res. 29 787-802.
Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG). 1983. The Japanese
Approach to Productivity. Videotape Series.
Baldwin, R.E. 1989. Adaptive effects on purchaser-vendor relation-
ships resulting from Japanese management technology. Pro-
ceedings of the National Purchasing and Materials Management
Research Symposium 42-54.
Bandyopadhyay, J.K., M. J. Jayaram. 1995. Implementing just-in-
time production and procurement strategies. Internat. J. Man-
agement 12(1) 83-90.
Berger, S., M.L. Dertouzos, R.K. Lester, R.M. Solow, L.C. Thurow.
1989. Toward a new industrial America. Scientific Amer. 260(6)
39-47.
Billesbach, T.J. 1991. A study of the implementation of just-in-time in
the United States. Production and Inventory Management J. 32(3) 1-4.
Celley, A.F., W.H. Clegg, A.W. Smith, M.A. Vonderembse. 1986.
Implementation of JIT in the United States. J. Purchasing an
Materials Management 22(4) 9-15.
Crawford, K.M., J.H. Blackstone. 1988. A study of JIT implementation
and operating problems. Internat. J. Production Res. 26 1561-1568.
Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design
Method. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Dilworth, J.B. 1987a. AME research report: a view of JIT status in
North American factories. Target 3(1) 17-18.
. 1987b. Comparison of factories with different degrees of JIT.
Proceedings of 1987 Annual Meeting of Decision Sciences Institute
697-699.
Fawcett, S.E., J.N. Pearson. 1990. Requirements and benefits of
implementing just-in-time manufacturing for small-
manufacturers. J. Small Business Strategy 1(2) 10-26.
Fienberg, S.E. 1983. The Analysis of Cross-Classified Categorical Data.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Finch, B.J. and J.F. Cox. 1986. An examination of just-in-time
management for the small manufacturer: with an illustration.
Internat. J. Production Res. 24 329-342.
Germain, R., C. Droge. 1997. An empirical study of the impact of
just-in-time task scope versus just-in-time workflow integration
on organizational design. Decision Sci. 28(3) 615-635.
Gilbert, J.P. 1990. The state of JIT implementation and development
in the USA. Internat. J. Production Res. 28 1099-1109.
Golhar, D.Y., C.L. Stamm, W.P. Smith. 1990. JIT implementation in
small manufacturing firms. Production and Inventory Manage-
ment J. 31(2) 44-47.
1991. The Just-In-Time philosophy: A Literature Review,
Internat. J. Production Res. 29 657-676.
Goyal, S.K., S.G. Deshmukh. 1992. A critique of the literature on
just-in-time manufacturing. Internat. J. Oper. & Production Man-
agement 12(1) 18-28.
Harber, D., D.A. Samson, A.S. Sohal, A. Wirth. .1990. Just-in-time:
the issue of implementation. Internat. J. Oper. & Production
Management 10(1) 21-30.
45, No. 1, January 1999
 WHITE, PEARSON, AND WILSON
JIT Manufacturing

Harrison, B. 1994. Lean and Mean: The Changing Landscape of Corporate
Power. Basic Books, A Division of Harper Collins, NY.
Helms, M.M., G.M. Thibadoux, P.J. Haynes, P. Pauley. 1990. Meet-
ing the human resource challenges of JIT through management
development. J. Management Development 9(3) 28-34.
Hosmer, D.W., S. Lemeshow. 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Huson, M., D. Nanda. 1995. The Impact of Just-In-Time Manufac-
turing on Firm Performance in the U.S. J. Oper. Management 12(3K. 1987. The New Manufacturing Challenge: Techniques for
Suzaki,
& 4) 297-310.
Im, J.H., S.M. Lee. 1989. Implementation of just-in-time systems in
in small-sized manufacturing firms. Production and Inventory
U.S. manufacturing firms. Internat. J. Oper. & Production Man-
agement 9(1) 5-14.
Inman, R.A., S. Mehra. 1990. The transferability of just-in-time
concepts to American small business. Interfaces 20(2) 30-37.
Lee, S.M., M. Ebrahimpour. 1984. Just-in-time production system:
some requirements for implementation. Internat. J. Oper. &
Production 4(4) 3-15.
Longenecker, J.G., C.W. Moore. 1991. Small Business Management: An
Entrepreneurial Emphasis, 8th ed. South-Western Publishing Co.,
Cincinnati, OH.
McLachlin, R. 1997. Management initiatives and just-in-time man-
ufacturing. J. Oper. Management 15 271-292.
Mintzberg, H. 1979. The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of
the Research. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Safayeni, F., L. Purdy. 1991. A behavioral case study of just-in-time
implementation. J. Oper. Management 10 213-228.
Schonberger, R.J. 1986. World Class Manufacturing: The Lessons of
Simplicity Applied. The Free Press, New York.
. 1987. World Class Manufacturing Casebook. The Free Press, New
York.
Shingo, S. 1981. Study of Toyota Production System From Industrial Engineer-
ing Viewpoint. Japan Management Association, Tokyo, Japan.
Sohal, A.S., A.Z. Keller, R.H. Fouad. 1989. A review of literature relating to
JIT. Internat. J. Oper. & Production Management 9(3) 15-25.
Stamm, C., D. Golhar. 1991. Customer and supplier linkages for small
JIT manufacturing firms. J. Small Business Management 29(3) 43-49.
Continuous Improvement. The Free Press, New York.
Temponi, C., S.Y. Pandya. 1995. Implementation of two JIT elements
Management J. 36(3) 23-29.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1992. County Business Patterns 1990. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Vokurka, R.J., R.A. Davis. 1996. Just-in-time: the evolution of a
philosophy. Production and Inventory Management J. 37(2) 56-59.
White, R.E. 1990. Post Implementation Evaluation of Just-In-Time
Manufacturing. Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University.
University Microfilms International, 1990.
. 1993. An empirical assessment of JIT in U.S. manufacturers.
Production and Invenstory Management J. 34(2) 38-42.
, W.A. Ruch. 1990. The composition and scope of JIT. Oper.
Management Rev. 7(3 & 4) 9-18.
Womack, J.P., D.T. Jones, D. Roos. 1991. The Machine That Changed
the World. Harper Perennial, New York.
Young, S.M. 1992. A framework for successful adoption and perfor-
mance of Japanese manufacturing practices in the United
States. Acad. of Management Rev. 17 677-700.

Accepted by Awi Federgruen; received April 14, 1992. This paper has been with the authors 3 years for 5 revisions.

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE/Vol. 45, No. 1, January 1999 15

This content downloaded from 103.251.183.2 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:23:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms