This article was downloaded by: [University of Sussex Library]

On: 14 January 2015, At: 19:29

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Production Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

A comparative study of US manufacturing firms at

various stages of just-in-time implementation
a a a
NAZIM U. AHMED , ENAR A. TUNC & RAY V. MONTAGNO
a
Management Science Department , Ball State University , Muncie, IN, 47306-0350, U.S.A
Published online: 27 Apr 2007.

To cite this article: NAZIM U. AHMED , ENAR A. TUNC & RAY V. MONTAGNO (1991) A comparative study of US manufacturing
firms at various stages of just-in-time implementation, International Journal of Production Research, 29:4, 787-802, DOI:
10.1080/00207549108930102

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207549108930102

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 INT. J. PROD. RES., 1991, VOL. 29, No.4, 787-802

A comparative study of US manufacturing firms at

various stages of just-in-time implementation

NAZIM u. AHMEDt, ENAR A. TUNCt and

RAY V. MONTAGNOt

This study explores whether there are differences among the companies at various
stages of just-in-time (JIT) implementation based on factors which were considered
relevant in the literature. The factors are categorized as internal and external.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

Internal factors relate to questions involving product, equipment and process,

work-force and top management commitment. External factors deal with supplier
and customer issues. Responding firms were categorized into five groups based on
their status of lIT implementation, ranging from totally non-JIT to partial and full
implementation. The findings of this study suggest that some of the issues such as
supplier proximity and the lead-time of the supplier, which have been traditionally
considered to be important, are not major impediments to JIT implementation.
However, there are some issues such as top management commitment which may
facilitate or inhibit the move toward JIT implementation.

1. Introduction
The just-in-time (JIT) philosophy of manufacturing management has received a
great deal of attention in the past decade. The major thrust of this current research is to
explore whether there are differences on various dimensions between the companies
who have moved toward JIT implementation and those who have not. Several books
(Schonberger 1982, Hall 1983, Mortimer 1985, Richard 1985, O'Grady 1988, Sandras
1989) and articles have been written on the definition of JIT (Manoochehri 1985,
Schonberger and Saipe 1984, Green 1989), its benefits (Manoochehri 1984, Ansari and
Modarres 1986, 1987, 1988, Jones 1988, Ashton 1989, O'Neal 1989 a), and guidelines
for its successful implementation (Connell 1984, Lee and Ebrahimpour 1984, Ritzmann
et al. 1984, Ansari 1986b, Ansari and Modarres 1988, Duncan 1988, Giunipero and
O'Neal 1988). Moreover, several articles reporting the results of surveys of manufactur-
ing firms can be found in the literature (Ansari 1986 a, Celley et al. 1986, Ansari and
Modarres 1987, Crawford et al. 1988, 1m and Lee 1989, O'Neal 1989 a, b). Some success
stories have also been reported (Sepehri 1987, Holl and Trevor 1988, Richmond and
Blackstone 1988, Villeda et al. 1988, Westbrook 1988, Wildemann 1988).
The impact of JIT philosophy on several functions within an organization, such as
marketing and purchasing (Ansari and Modarres 1987, O'Neal 1989 a, b), accounting
(Ferguson 1988) and human resources (Myers 1988, Klein 1989, Wehrenberg 1989)
have also been discussed. Several studies have been reported dealing with analytical
models investigating more efficient ways of implementing JIT (Fallon and Browne
1988, Lee and Seah 1988, Wu 1989). Sohal et al. (1989) present an extensive review of
literature related to JIT.
The production and operations management literature discuss several factors
affecting the implementation of JIT and its attendant benefits. Some of the factors

Revision received May 1990.

t Management Science Department, Ball State University , Muncie, IN 47306-0350, U.S.A.
002G-7543/91 $3-00 © 1991 Ta ylor & Francis Ltd.
 788 N. U. Ahmed et al.

affecting implementation are top management commitment, the number of suppliers

and relationships with suppliers, employee readiness, labour-union support, reliable
equipment and technical support. The benefits of JIT are reduced inventory, decreased
lead-time and improved quality and productivity.
The status of JIT implementation in the USA is not very clear as different studies
present statistics which are significantly different. Although Celley et at. (1986) reported
that over 95% of major automobile manufacturers and their suppliers have implemen-
ted JIT or are considering its implementation, a recent survey of Indiana manufactur-
ing firms (Firenze and Montagno 1988) revealed that only 37% of companies surveyed
have reported actual use of JIT in some form or other. Stamm et al. (1989) reported that
44% of medium-sized midwestern manufacturing companies were not interested in JIT,
while Green (1989) reported in a 1987 survey that only 25% of manufacturing firms in
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

the USA use JIT, although he suggested that this figure will increase to 55% by 1992.
Walleigh (1986) lists several reasons given by managers for not using JIT. These are
problems with suppliers, late production, need for new software, loss of control of
inventory, low-volume operation, batch orientation and management complacency.
Among these reasons, management complacency is considered by Walleigh to be the
most serious and widespread. Bockerstette (1988) believes that misunderstandings by
managers have led to scepticism concerning the benefits of JIT.
In summary, the literature related to JIT can be classified into three categories
(Sohal et ai. 1989). Studies in the first category investigate implementation problems
and attempt to identify the guidelines for successful implementation by analysing
companies who are in the process of JIT implementation. Articles in the second
category concentrate on improving JIT techniques, which involves mathematical
modelling. The third category of articles concentrate on the relationships between
suppliers and buyers in a JIT environment. Most of these studies report the surveys of
companies who have implemented JIT purchasing.
In brief, it can be concluded that most of the studies on JIT have been conducted
among companies who already have moved toward JIT implementation. In this study
an attempt is made to explore whether there are differences on various dimensions
between the companies who have moved toward JIT implementation and those who
have not. Also, differences between companies at various stages of JIT implementation
were investigated based on factors considered relevant in the literature. In the next
section these factors are described. Then, following the methodology, the results of the
survey are presented, and conclusions are drawn about the significance of these factors
on switching to a lIT system.

2. Factors affecting JIT implementation

JIT requires complex changes within an organization. Therefore, the factors
affecting JIT implementation require careful scrutiny to ensure success. These factors
can be divided into two general categories: internal factors and external factors.
Internal factors are composed of activities within the organization, while external
factors are those which are important to the company but relate to entities outside the
company. These two types of factors are explained in detail below.

2.1. I nternal factors

The internal factors identified to have potential impacts on lIT implementation can
be divided into four categories: (a) product, (b) equipment and process, (c) work-force,
and (d) top management commitment.
 JIT in US manufacturing firms 789

2.1.1. Product
It may be possible that certain characteristics ofthe product may be suitable to JIT
implementation. Forecasting accuracy was one ofthe items investigated under product
category. According to Aggarwal (1985), for JIT to work there should be minimum
changes in the master production schedule. Also Ansari (1986 a) stated that, for JIT
implementation, the suppliers should have a firm monthly schedule of requirements.
This leads us to believe that companies moving toward JIT should have an accurate
forecasting system. Also, inventory positioning policy, i.e. if the products are made-to-
order or made-to-stock, may influence JIT implementation.
As purchasing is the most affected function within an organization, vertical
integration is an important issue. This could be measured by the ratio of semi-finished
products or parts purchased from outside the organization to the total number of
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

components in the final product.

2.1.2. Equipment and process

The factors deemed to be important are type of production process, i.e. job shop
(Ashton 1989),flow shop, assembly, continuous (Walleigh 1986, Giunipero and O'Neal
1988, 1m and Lee 1989), cost of set-up reduction (Ritzman et al. 1984), frequency of
machine breakdowns, preventive maintenance (Crawford et al. 1988), ease of adjust-
ment to design changes and technical support (Ansari and Modarres 1986). It is
believed that the above-mentioned factors influence the movement toward JTT
implementation.

2.1.3. Workforce
It is presumed that the characteristics of employees in the firm may positively or
negatively influence JIT implementation. The factors considered in this category are
employee turnover rate, flexibility of the work-force (Lee and Ebrahimpour 1984,
Manoochehri 1984,1m and Lee 1989),cost of training employees to be flexible, union's
attitude toward flexibility (Lee and Ebrahimpour 1984, Ansari 1986a, b), skill
requirements of jobs and firm size. It is generally believed that a higher turnover rate
and a less flexible work-force may be barriers to JIT implementation. It is also assumed
that firms moving toward JIT need their work-force to be more flexible and the union
to be supportive of job flexibility. Moreover, higher skill requirements may keep some
companies from moving toward lIT. So far, research has not established size as a
determining factor. However, it may be worthwhile to investigate the effect of size on
JIT implementation.

2.1.4. Top management commitment

Top management commitment is one of the essential ingredients for successful
implementation of any new philosophy or technology, especially a JIT system
(Manoochehri 1985, Ansari 1986 a, b, Crawford et al. 1988, 1m and Lee 1989). However,
it is difficult to define and measure top management commitment precisely.
Top management commitment involves action and support for planning, imple-
mentation and follow-up of any major technological change. It is generally believed
that a company whose top management is actively involved in these three areas is more
committed to bring about technological changes than others. Furthermore, it is
presumed that a company where top management has historically demonstrated
commitment to changes is more likely to implement JIT than other companies.
 790 N. U. Ahmed et al.

2.2. External factors

The external factors considered to be important for JIT implementation are those
relating to suppliers and customers.

2.2.1. Suppliers
Traditionally, JIT implies that the suppliers are to belocated within close proximity
(Crawford et al. 1988, Giunipero and O'Neal 1988) which helps reduce lead-time for
delivery. Companies also generally have a small number of suppliers for their major
parts (Ansari 1986 a, b, Crawford et al. 1988, Duncan 1988). They are also involved in
an ongoing relationship with suppliers for improving quality (Connell 1984). In
addition, suppliers should be evaluated based on reliability, product flexibility and
product quality (Macbeth 1987, Ansari and Modarres 1988).
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

2.2.2. Customers
The status of customers in terms of implementing JIT is a major factor. As
manufacturing companies switch to the JIT system, they also require their vendors to
support JIT. This means that JIT is no longer an alternative for supplying companies,
but it is the only way for them to remain competitive (Balsmeier 1988, Duncan 1988,
Jones 1988).

3. Research question
The preceding discussion leads us to a number of research questions which may
facilitate a better understanding of the implementation of JIT in manufacturing
organizations. As mentioned earlier, these questions focus on internal and external
factors.
The first set of questions relates to whether the firms who have moved toward JIT
differ from those who have not on important internal factors belonging to the
categories associated with product, equipment and process, work-force and top
management commitment. The second set of questions relates to external factors, such
as supplier characteristics and customers.
The significance of these questions relates to organizational willingness to pursue
JlT seriously. For example, if a manager believes that supplier proximity is a critical
issue in using JIT, he or she may decide not to investigate the process further because
primary suppliers are located at what is believed to be prohibitive distances.
The results of this study should shed some light on these popularly held tenets of
JlT. In addition, they will provide managers with information to assist them in the
decision-making process with regard to JIT.

4. Method
4.1. Sample
The sample used in this study consisted of manufacturing firms located in all
geographical regions in the USA. One thousand surveys were sent out, 48 of which were
returned because of incorrect addresses. Of the remaining 952, the number of firms
responding was 177 (18'7%). Firms in the sample were identified using the Standard's &
Poor's Register of Corporations, Directors and Executives. The average size of
responding firms was 675 employees. The number of employees ranged from fewer than
100 to more than 1500. The products ranged from wood products to automotive parts
representing two-digit SIC codes between 20 and 39. Among the responding managers,
12'3% identified themselves as operations managers, 12'3% were production managers
 J IT in US manufacturing firms 791

and 37'4% were vice presidents,of manufacturing. The remainder of the respondents
had designations different from the above three categories, but their managerial
responsibilities were similar. Among the job titles indicated were' Vice President of
Manufacturing, Director of Operations, Director of Manufacturing, Vice President of
Operations, and so on.
Of the responding firms, 30·8%described their operation as flow shops, 33·1%asjob
shops, 8·1% as continuous processing and 15·7% as assembly operations. The
remaining 12·2% of the firms identified themselves in categories different from the
above.

4.2. Survey instrument

4.2.1. Design and validation
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

The instrument was designed and validated in several steps. An extensive literature
review was conducted to identify the factors important for JIT implementation. A
preliminary survey instrument was then developed consisting of questions concerning
these issues. This preliminary instrument was given to 25 MBA (Masters Degree of
Business Administration) students. Most of them were part-time students holding jobs
in manufacturing organizations. Based on their inputs, a second version was prepared.
This version was sent to 20 companies, ranging from large automotive and appliances
manufacturing firms to medium size parts manufacturing firms. After mailing the
surveys to these companies, the managers were personally contacted, to of whom
agreed to discuss the instrument in detail. Eight were interviewed in person and two on
the phone. Based on these interviews and comments, the final version ofthe instrument
was constructed.

4.2.2. The instrument

The survey instrument itself was broken down into eight sections:
(1) demographics and products-job title, size of firms, type of operation, mode of
production and major products;
(2) materials, parts and subassemblies-forecasting accuracy, sources of raw
materials, location of suppliers and lead-time of purchased parts and raw
materials;
(3) production equipment-set-up times, frequency of breakdowns and preventive
maintenance;
(4) suppliers-number of suppliers, quality of suppliers and relationship with
suppliers;
(5) technical and computer support-areas of support, adaptability and quality of
support;
(6) human resources-turnover rate, cost of training employees to be flexible,
union 's attitude and skill requirements;
(7) technological and organizational changes-types of changes, resource al-
located for planning and implementation and follow-up of those changes; and
(8) status of JIT implementation-stages of JIT and factors affecting JIT
implementation.
Within each section, the questions were primarily closed ended. Many of the
questions were single-response items except for questions such as 'What percentage of
parts do you purchase within 50 miles?' Other questions were on a five-point scale such
as 'What is the skill requirement of manufacturing jobs in your company?' with I being
 792 N. U. Ahmed et al.

very low and 5 being very high. The final version of the survey was eight pages long,
with a total of 29 separate questions.

4.3. Procedures
A packet containing a cover letter, a copy of the survey instrument and a business
reply envelope was mailed to each manager in the sample. The letter briefly explained
the survey instrument and the purpose and significance of the survey. To encourage
response the managers were also asked if they were interested in receiving a report on
the survey results.

4.3.1. Groupings based on stages of lIT

The analysis was done by grouping the firms according to the stages of JIT
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

implementation. In order to distinguish factors influencing JIT usage it was necessary

to categorize firms on the basis of stages. Respondents were asked to indicate their
status in terms of the following: (a) JIT not considered, (b) JIT considered but not found
feasible, (c) learning process, (d) pilot programme, (e) partial implementation, or (f) full
implementation.
The first two categories, i.e, companies not considering JIT and the companies who
found JIT to be unfeasible were combined into group 1. These are categorized as non-
JIT firms. Those firms in the learning stage are designated as group 2. These firms are
different from group 1in the sense that they may have some inclination to move toward
JIT. Firms belonging to group 3 are those who have at least a pilot programme in place.
These are the firms who have an understanding of JIT as a potential competitive
manufacturing strategy. There is a chance that in the future they may move toward
partial.or full implementation. Group 4 includes those firms which have either partially
or fully implemented JIT. The original intention was to separate group 4 into two
groups, i.e. partial and full implementation. Since there were only four firms in the
sample of 177 who claimed to have fully implemented JIT, it was decided to combine
this group with partial implementation for analysis purposes.
Table 1 shows the responses of the firms in terms of JIT implementation. Of all the
valid respondents, 13'6% said that they have not considered JIT and 6'8% had
considered JIT but found it unfeasible for their operations. The percentage of firms
identifying themselves as being in the learning stage was 28·2% and 14'1% had some

Number %
Group 1 (n = 36)
JIT not considered 24 13-6
JIT considered but found infeasible 12 6·8
Group 2 (n = 50)
Learning process 50 28·2
Group 3 (n = 25)
Pilot programme 25 14·1
Group 4 (n = 60)
Partial implementation 56 31-6
Full implementation 4 2-3
No answer 6 3·4
Total 177 100·0

Table l. Stages of JIT implementation.

 J I T in US manufacturing firms 793

form of pilot programme in place. In addition, 31'6% had partially implemented JIT
and 2'3% said that they had fully implemented JIT. About 3-4% (six firms) did not
answer this question. These firms were excluded from the analyses. It can be seen from
Table 1 that the number of firms belonging to groups 1,2,3 and 4 are 36, 50, 25 and 60,
respectively. Earlier it was stated that our sample comprised firms belonging to SIC
codes between 20 to 39. A statistical test revealed that the SIC code is independent of
the stage of JIT implementation.

5. Results
In this section the results of the analyses based on groupings in terms of stages of
JIT implementation are described.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

5.1. Internal factors

The results of the analyses involving factors in the categories of product, equipment
and processes, work-force and top management commitment are presented below.

5.1.1. Product
Table 2 shows the distribution of the groups based on inventory policy, i.e. make-
to-order only, make-to-stock only and both make-to-order and make-to-stock. The X2
test (Table 2) showed that inventory policy is independent of the groups in terms of
stages of JIT implementation.
Table 3 shows the averages and standard deviations of responses and also the
ANOVA results for internal factors . It can be seen from Table 3 that, with regard to
short-term-forecasting accuracy, there are no significant differences among the groups.
Responding companies were asked about the percentages of parts processed within
the plant, purchased externally as individual parts, and purchased as subassemblies. It
can be seen from Table 3 that there are no significant differences among the groups on
these parts-procurement strategies.

5.1.2. Equipment and process

Table 4 shows the distribution of the firms according to the type of production
process, specificallyflow shop,job shop, continuous and others. The X2 test reveals that
the type of production process employed was not related to JIT implementation status.
Cost of set-up reduction-sample firms were asked whether they thought that it
would be expensive to reduce significantly the set-up time for machines in their
operations. From the results in Table ..3, it can be seen that there were no differences
across the stages of JIT implementation.

Nature of production

Make-to-order Make-to-stock Both make-to-order

Group n only only and make-to-stock

1 36 30·6 0-0 69'4

2 50 33-3 10'4 56·3
3 25 28·0 12·0 60-0
4 60 18·7 10-2 71·1
2
X = 12·327; 0·05 <p<O'IO; df=6

Table 2. X2 analysis (%) of production process by stages of JIT implementation.

 794 N . U. Ahmed et al.

Mean ± SD of groups"

1 2 3 4
Survey items (n=36) (n=50) (n=25) (n=60) F value

Product
1. Short-term-forecasting accuracy" 3'08± 1·02 3·20 ± (}78 2·59±0·85 2-37± 1·10 1·30
2. Percentage of in-plant processed
materials in the final product" HO± 1·58 3-35± 1-36 3'50± 1·25 3·22± 1·41 (}99
3. Percentage of purchased individual
parts in the final product" 2'22± 1'34 2'31 ± 1·44 2-14± 1·39 1'96± 1·11 (}39
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

4. Percentage of purchased subassemblies

in the final product" 1'22±0'68 H>9±(}38 1·00 ± (}OO H5±0'43 (}38
Equipment and process
1. Cost of significant reduction in set-up
time' 2'52±H2 2'78±(}83 2'59±0'85 2-37±H2 1·41
2. Frequency of major machine
breakdowns" 2'48±(}82 2·80±(}80 2-88±0'72 2'73±0'79 1·77
3. Percentage of equipments on which
preventive maintenance is done" 3·21 ± 1·36 Bl ± 1-41 3'12± 1'33 3·62± 1·37 0·77
4. Ease of adjustment to design changes' 2-48± 0·74 2'82±(}69 2-84±(}68 2'76±(}80 1-89
Work-force
1. Annual employee turnover rate! 2-36± 1-67 1-68±0·91 1·60±0·96 2·03±1·236 3-01*
2. Benefits from flexible work force" 4·61 ±0'64 4'59±(}57 4'92±0'57 4'68±0'65 1-83
3. Cost of training for flexible workforce" 3·08±0·73 3·18±0·73 3·52±0·71 3-40±0-67 2,79*
4. Union's attitude toward flexibility' H5± 1-63 3-19±1'65 3·21 ± 1·86 3'15± 1·53 0'14
5. Skill requirement for manufacturing
jobs" 3'00±0'70 3·18±0·60 3'58±(}77 H6±(}68 5'U*'"
6. Size of the firm) 2·02±1·05 2'72±1-61 3-20± 1-29 2-98± 1·32 6'09*'"
Top management commitment
Time and resource allocated by top
management for major technological and/or
organizational changes for:
1. Planning stage' 3·06±0·85 3·64±0·86 3'80± 1·04 3-96±0-85 8'32*"'*
2. Implementation stage' B8 t 1·01 3·85±0·77 4·00tO·64 3-96±0·70 4·24*·
3. Evaluation and follow-up stage" 2'56±0-92 3'14± 1·03 H4± 1·00 3-54tO·80 8·02*"'·

• p<0'05; ··p<O·OI ; ••• p<O·ool.

D I, Always inaccurate; 2, mostly inaccurate; 3, sometimes accurate; 4, mostly accurate; 5, always accurate.
b 1,0-20%; 2, 21--40%; 3, 41-60% ; 4, 61-80%; 5, 81-100% .
'1, Not very costly; 2, somewhat costly; 3, costly; 4, very costly; 5, cost prohibitive.
"1, Very rarely; 2, rarely; 3, sometimes; 4, frequently; 5, very frequently.
e I, Very easy; 2, easy; 3, somewhat difficult; 4, difficult; 5, very difficult.
'1 ,0-4-9%; 2, 5-9'9%; 3, 10-14'9%; 4, 15-19'9%; 5, >20%.
9 1, None; 2, very little; 3, not sure; 4, some; 5, a lot.
~ I, Very low; 2, low; 3, moderate; 4, high; 5, very high.
'1, Negative; 2, indifferent; 3, cooperative; 4, very cooperative; 5, no union .
) I, 1-99; 2, 100--499; 3, 500-999; 4, 1000-1499; 5, > 1500.
1 l, Very little; 2, little; 3, moderate; 4, substantial; 5, very substantial.

Table 3. ANDV A results of internal factors for different states of lIT implementation .
 lIT in US manufacturing firms 795

Type of production process

Group n Flow shop Job shop Assembly Continuous Other

1 36 27·8 44·4 8·3 5·6 13-9

2 50 32·0 32·0 12·0 12·0 12·0
3 25 32·0 28·0 12·0 12·0 9·2
4 60 34'5 23·6 27-2 5·5 9-2
x2 = 12'64; 0'05<p<0'10; df= 12
Table 4. X2 analysis (%) of production process by stages ?f JIT implementation.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

Table 3 also presents the analysis of variance results for the frequency of major
machine breakdowns, percentage of equipment on which preventive maintenance is
done and ease of adjustment to design changes. There are no significant differences
for any of these items among the groups belonging to various stages of lIT
implementation.

5.1.3. Work-force
The questions involving work-force centred around: employee turnover rate,
benefits from a flexible work-force, cost of training employees to be flexible, union
attitudes toward flexibility, skill requirements for manufacturing jobs and number of
employees.
From Table 3, it may be observed that the groups differed on turnover rate, cost of
training employees to be flexible, skill requirements for manufacturing jobs and firm
size. On items such as benefits from flexibility and union's attitude toward flexibility,
there were no significant differences.
For variables having significant differences between groups. Tukey's test was
conducted to examine the nature of these differences. Table 5 summarizes the results of
this test. For turnover rate, it can be seen that significant differences exist between
groups 1 and 2 and groups 1 and 3.
The pair-wise comparison shows that groups 1and 3 differ with regard to the cost of
training the employees to be flexible. This difference suggests that firms experimenting
with JIT see the cost of training as high but are apparently willing to bear the cost.
With regard to the skill requirements for manufacturing jobs, there were significant
differences between groups 1 and 3 and groups 1 and 4. This finding suggests that firms
not considering JIT may be characterized by jobs of lesser skill than those of the firms
who have moved toward JIT.
Table 3 shows the average scores for the size of the firms. The score ranges from 2·02
for group 1 to 3·20for group 3, where 1 means a firm has between 1and 99 employees, 2
means between 100 and 499, 3 means between 500 and 999, 4 between 1000 and 1499
and 5 means 1500 employees. From Tukey's test (Table 5) it may be seen that group I
differed with groups 3 and 4. This suggests that small firms are less likely to implement
JIT than larger firms.

5.1.4. Top management commitment

Responding managers were asked about their perception of the top management
commitment for major technological and/or organizational changes. The questions
centred around the time and resources allocated by top management for planning,
implementation and follow-up and evaluation of the changes . Significant differences
 796 N. U. Ahmed et al.

Items on which there are Groups' which are

significant difference Significance different
based on ANOY A level (Tukey's test)

1. Annual employee turnover" rate • (1-2), (1-3)

2. Cost of training for making employees
flexible" • (1-3)
3. Skill requirements for manufacturing jobs" •• (1-3),(1-4)
4. Size of the firms in terms of number of
employees" • (1-3),(1-4)
5. Amount of time and resources allocated for
major technological and organizational
changes for"
(a) planning, ••• (1-2), (1-3), (1-4)
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

(b) implementation, •• (1-2), (1-3) , (1-4)

(c) evaluation and follow-up ••• (1-2), (1-3), (1-4)
6. Ongoing programme with the supplier to
improve product quality" •• (1-4),(2-4)
7. Percentage of customers using JITb ••• (1-4), (2-4), (3-4)

• p<O'05; .. p<O'OI; ... p<O·OOI.

" Mean ±SO values are given in Table 3.
b Mean ± SO values are given in Table 6.
' See Table I.

Table 5. Pair-wise comparison for items which were found significant in Table 3.

were found among the groups on all three items related to top management
commitment.
From Table 5, it may be seen that there are significant differences between group 1
and the rest of the groups on all three items. However, the differences among groups 2, 3
and 4 are not significant. This implies that top management of a non-JIT company is
less committed to technological and organizational changes than that of a company
who has moved toward JIT.

5.2. External factors

The external factors considered relate to suppliers and customers. The supplier
questions centred around: (a) number of suppliers, (b) proximity of suppliers, (c)
delivery lead-time, (d) ratings of supplier reliability and flexibility, and (e) ongoing
programmes with suppliers to improve product quality. The question about the
customers relates to the proportion of customers who are using JIT. The results of the
analyses for external factors are presented in the following sections.

5.2.1 . Supplier
Responding firms were asked to provide the number of suppliers for three of their
major items purchased. From Table 6 it may be seen that, while the average number of
suppliers ranged from 2·24 to 2·85, there were no significant differences among the
groups.
With regard to supplier proximity, the average distance ranged from 305 miles for
group 4, to 416 miles for group 2. From Table 6 it may be observed that these
differences were not statistically significant. So, it appears that for US firms, supplier
proximity does not seem to be an issue. Th is is somewhat surprising given the
 Jl T in US manufacturing firms 797

Mean±SD of groups

I 2 3 4
Survey item (n=36) (n=50) (n = 25) (n=60) F value

Suppliers
I. Number of suppliers for major
item I 2-85± 1·77 2·78±2·1Q 2·91 ±2'02 2'85±2-30 0·27
Number of suppliers for major
item 2 2·50± 1-16 2-43± 1'78 2·67±2·15 2'73±2'03 0·30
Number of suppliers for major
item 3 2·47± 1·38 2·24± 1·61 2·65± 1·98 2'54± 1·99 0·55
2. Supplier ratings based on": maintaining
delivery schedule 2·13±0·63 1·99±0·61 H4±0·81 2·13±0·73 0·82
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

Maintaining product quality 2·00±0·58 1·97±0·70 1·97±0·55 1·96±O·55 0'11

flexibility to schedule and production
changes 2·87±0·86 2·74±O·89 2·68± 1·00 2-61 ±O·91 0·85
3. Supplier proximity in miles 360±216 416±201 345±208 305±216 2·00
4. Supplier delivery lead-time (days) 24'6± 12-6 25'6± 11·5 30'5± 12-3 26·2± 11 ·9 1·15
5. Extent of ongoing programme with
suppliers to improve product quality" 3'08±0'77 3'18±0'90 3'52±0'96 3-64±0'78 3·94**
Customer
I. Percentage of customers using JITt 1·96±0·80 2·23±0·78 2'14± 1·01 2'78± 1·09 5,93**

** p<O·Ol.
"I, Excellent; 2, good; 3, fair; 4, acceptable; 5, poor.
b I, None; 2, little; 3, moderate; 4, high; 5, very high.
c I, 0%; 2, 1-25%; 3, 26-50%; 4, 51-75%; 5, 76-100%.

Table 6. ANOV A results of external factors for different stages of lIT implementation.

traditional model of JIT which prescribes that suppliers should be in situated close to
firms.
The average supplier delivery lead-times for respondents were 24·6 days for group 1,
25·6 days for group 2, 30'5 days for group 3, and 26·2 days for group 4. The ANOVA
results (Table 6) suggest that there are no significant differences between the groups.
This again suggests that the conventional wisdom about short lead-times for JIT may
not be a real barrier.
With regard to maintaining delivery schedule, product quality and flexibility to
schedule changes, it can be seen from the statistics reported in Table 6 that the firms are
generally satisfied with delivery schedule and product quality. However, the perception
of flexibility to schedule changes is relatively less strong. Again from ANOVA, no
significant differences were found among the groups on these three items.
All firms reported at least moderate cooperation with the suppliers in their on-
going programme for improving product quality. However, there were significant
differences between the firms who had moved toward JIT and those who had not.
Tukey's test (Table 5) shows that groups 1 and 4 and groups 2 and 4 differ significantly .
This implies that quality is an important issue for the firms using JlT. As a result, there
is more involvement with suppliers for quality improvement.

5.2.2. Customers
Table 6 shows the average scores for percentage of customers using JlT. The
ANOVA result shows significant differences between the groups. From Tukey's test
(Table 5) it may be seen that groups I and 4, groups 2 and 4 and groups 3 and 4 differ
 798 N. U. Ahmed et al.

significantly. This implies that firms who are at highest level of JIT implementation
have a greater proportion of customers using JIT. This may be an indirect pressure, as
the companies themselves do not want to become the last link in JIT implementation.
Without JIT, those firms may find themselves with increased inventory costs for their
own raw materials as well as the finished products to be supplied to the customers. This
in turn may make them less competitive with other suppliers who are on JIT.

6. Discussion
The intent of this paper was to try and test some of the assumptions that are
commonly held about JIT. The motivation for this stems from the fact that there is a
large body of literature that proposes many untested hypotheses about JIT.
The results provide mixed findings for what might be regarded as conventional
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

wisdom about users of JIT. There are some issues which clearly distinguish JIT users
from non-Jl'T users, and other issues which do not make such a distinction. Some of the
concerns that typical non-users cite, such as supplier proximity, cost of set-up time
reduction, type of production process and frequency of machine breakdowns among
other issues, do not appear to be associated with JIT.
On the other hand, there are a number of factors that do seem to relate to JIT usage.
Factors such as work-force, employee turnover rate, top management commitment
and an ongoing relationship with suppliers are significant. Table 7 identifies those
items which appear to be associated with firms using JIT as well as those items which do
not appear to be related to JIT usage.
It seems appropriate to discuss several of these variables and attempt to interpret
their meaning further. To begin, the work-force represents a set of variables including
turnover, cost of training for flexibility and skill requirements. As expected, the firms
with a lower turnover rate are more likely to use JIT. Additionally, firms who perceive
the cost of training to be high and the skill requirements ofjobs to be high are also more
likely to use lIT.
The picture that emerges from these data is that human resource issues are not
barriers to JIT implementation. Low turnover is often associated with higher levels of
job satisfaction (Carsten and Spector 1987), thus it might be speculated that JIT firms
have instituted human resource policies that reflect higher consideration for workers.
Similarly, JIT firms are aware of the skill requirements and training costs associated
with organizational change and appear to be willing to meet these costs.

Items not related to JIT usage Items related to JIT usage"

Type of production process Employee turnover rate

Nature of production Perceived cost of training for flexibility
Forecasting accuracy Skill requirements for jobs
Supplier issues Firm size
Percentage of purchased parts Top management commitment to resource
allocation in planning, implementation,
Frequency of major breakdown and evaluation of changes
Preventative maintenance Programme with suppliers to improve quality
Union's attitude about work-force flexibility Percentage of customers using JIT
Cost of set-up time reduction

" Each of these factors was found to be significantly related to JIT usage.
Table 7. Summary of organizational factors and their relationship to just-in-time usage.
 lIT in US manufacturing firms 799

The results concerning suppliers are also interesting. The notion that JIT only
works when suppliers are in close proximity appears to be a fallacy. The beliefmay be a
result of the 'imported' model of JIT and the fact that it does not hold for our sample
may confirm the assertion that US purchasing relationships and/or transportation
systems are substantially different from those in other settings. From a decision-
making standpoint, this finding leads to the conclusion that some of these supplier
factors may not be major barriers to JIT implementation.
A similar conclusion arises from consideration of the fact that different types of
production processes did not seem to be associated with JIT use. For managers who
have believed that JIT is not for the job shop, these data suggest that a re-evaluation of
this position may be necessary. While the nature of accommodations to be made in
manufacturing procedures in different settings is not obvious, the message is clear that
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

the method of manufacture of a product does not preclude the use of JIT. Furthermore,
those organizations which regard cost of set-up time reduction as a barrier may also
need to reconsider the applicability of JIT.
Further consideration of the items listed in Table 7 suggests that the factors
associated with JIT appear to be the ones over which the firm can exercise some
influence. For example, top management support results from an awareness that
change may originate from many sources. However, top management must be involved
in supplying resources if change is to be implemented successfully. The fact that non-
JIT firms had lower top management commitment supports Walleigh's (1986)
contention that management complacency is a serious and widespread obstacle to JIT
implementation.
Issues like distance to suppliers are, in a real sense, outside the control of the firm.
But such issues appear to be relatively unimportant as a constraint to JIT usage. Thus,
one of the important conclusions drawn from this study is that JIT implementation is a
result of conscious management choices to structure behaviour patterns in the firm
rather than the limitations and biases of the physical environment which have been
presumed to limit positive change.
This is not to suggest that the questions of manufacturing process and distance do
not pose real problems. What it does suggest is that in order to be successful,
management must commit itself to solving these problems. This is illustrated by the fact
that those firms that are using JIT have ongoing programmes with their suppliers to
improve quality. This certainly provides evidence that these firms have decided to make
JIT work rather than concluding that it cannot.

7. Conclusions and directions for future research

Manufacturing managers are confronted daily with the tasks of reducing costs and
improving productivity. JIT as a manufacturing strategy has been proposed to do both.
Unfortunately, since the JIT concept is so broad it is fraught with misunderstandings
and untested assumptions.
In this paper we have attempted to examine a number of these assumptions to
determine whether they do, in fact, reflect the reality of manufacturing experience with
respect to JIT. While it would be impossible to test every assertion regarding JIT, an
attempt has been made to examine a number of those regarded as barriers to JIT
implementation.
From a managerial perspective, it is clear that many of the 'facts' concerning JIT are
open to question. It appears that many firms are using JIT under conditions that
conventional wisdom would suggest as inappropriate. Managers need to examine their
 800 N. U. Ahmed et al.

assumptions about why they may not be considering the use of JIT. The data suggest
that the process is, in fact, quite robust and that many of the commonly held limitations
of JIT may be incorrect.
We did not, of course, attempt to identify solutions to specific implementation
problems. The main purpose of the study was to profile firms using JIT and to try to
identify those characteristics that seem to be associated with JIT. The results highlight
the fact that JIT as a management approach appears to be limited only by
management's will to succeed.
There are, of course, many unanswered questions arising from this research. This
study was cross -sectioned in nature and did not distinguish between different
industries. There may be unique differences within a specific industry that would lead to
different conclusions. It should be noted, however, that an analysis was conducted
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

which indicated that, among respondents, there were no differences across industries in
the proportion using JIT. Further exploration of cross-industry differences is, however ,
needed.
More research needs to be done on individual firms in an attempt to determine how
they overcame specific problems that were encountered with JIT. Finally, a critical
research need is an evaluation of the decision processes used by organizations when
evaluating major changes such as JIT. It is clear that this issue may be the most
important determining factor in the decision to implement new strategies such as JIT.

References
AGGARWAL, S. c., 1985, MRP, JIT, OPT, FMS? Making sense of production operation systems.
Harvard Business Review, 63, 7-16.
ANSARI, A., 1986 a, Survey identifies critical factors in successful implementation ofjust-in-time
purchasing techniques. Industrial Engineering, 18,44-46.
ANSARI, A., 1986 b, Strategies for the implementation of JIT purchasing. International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Materials Management, 16, 5-12.
ANSARI, A., and MODARRES. B., 1986, Just-in-time purchasing: problems and solutions. Journal of
Purchasing and Materials Management , 22, 11-15.
ANSARI, A., and MODARRES, B., 1987, The potential benefits of just-in-time purchasing for US
manufacturing. Production and Inventory Management, 28, 30-36.
ANSARI, A., and MODARRES, 8., 1988, JIT purchasing as a quality and productivity centre.
International Journal of Production Research, 26, 19-26.
ASHTON, J . E., 1989, Time to reform job shop manufacturing. Harvard Business Review, 67,106-
111.
BALSMEIER, P. W., 1988, Just-in-time: imp lica tio ns and applications for purchasing. Arkansas
Business and Economic Review, 21, 28-33.
Bocxessrerrs, J. A., 1988, Misconceptions abound concerning just-in-time operating philo-
sophy. Industrial Engineering, 20, 54-58.
CARSTEN, J. M., and SPECTOR, R. E., 1987, Unemployment job satisfaction and employee
turnover: a meta-analytic text of the Muchnisky model. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 72,
374-381.
CELLEY, A. F., CLEGG, W:H., SMITH, A. W., and VONDEREMBSE, M. A., 1986, Implementation of
JIT in the United States. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 22, 9-15.
CONNELL, G. W., 1984, Quality at the source: the first step in just-in-time production. Quality
Progress, 17,44-45.
CRAWFORD, K. M., BLACKTONE, J. H., and Cox, 1. F ., 1988, A study of JIT implementation and
operating problems. International Journal of Production Research, 26, 1561-1568 .
DEAKIN, E. B., 1988, Supplier management in a just-in-time inventory system. Journal of
Accountancy, 166, 128-133.
DUNCAN, W. L., 1988, Making JIT attractive to suppliers. Manufacturing Systems, 6, 54-55.
 JIT in US manufacturing firms 801

FALLON, D., and BROWNE, J., 1988, Simulating just-in-time systems. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 8, 30-45.
FERGUSON, P., 1988, From Japan, not before time. Accountancy, 102, 154-i57.
FIRENZE, R. J., and MONTAGNO, R., 1988, Indiana Manufacturing Strategiesfor Improving Total
Performance: Survey Results 1988 (Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Labor and Management
Council).
GIUNIPERO, L. C, and O'NEAL, C., 1988, Obstacles to lIT procurement. Industrial Marketing
Management, 17, 35-41.
GREEN, F. E., 1989, When just-in-time breaks down on the line. Industrial Management, 31,
26-29.
HALL, R. W., 1983, Zero-Inventories (Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin).
HOLL, U., and TREVOR, M. (Eds), 1988, Just-in- Time Systems and Euro-Japanese Industrial
Collaborations (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
1M, J. H., and LEE, S. M., 1989, Implementation of just-in-time systems in US manufacturing
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015

firms. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 9, 5-14.

JONES, K., 1988, The just-in-time challenge. Industrial Management , 12, 20-26.
KLEIN, J. A., 1989, The human costs of manufacturing reform. Harvard Business Review, 67,
60-66.
LEE, L. c., and SEAH, K. H. W., 1988, lIT and the effects of varying process and set-up times.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 8, 19-29.
LEE, S. M., and EBRAHIMPOUR, M., 1984, Just-in-time production systems: some requirements for
implementation. International Journal ofOperations and Production Management, 4, 3-15.
MACBETH, D. K., 1987, Supplies management in support of JIT activity; a research agenda.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 7, 53--63.
MANOOCHEHRI, G. H., 1984, Suppliers and the just-in-time concept. Journal of Purchasing and
Materials Management, 20, 16-21.
MANOOCHEHRI, G. H., 1985, Improving productivity with the just-in-time systems. Journal of
Systems Management, 36, 23-26.
MORTIMER, J., 1985, Just-in- Time-An Executive Briefing (Bedford: IFS Publications).
MYERS, M. S., 1988, Let JIT mend your split culture. Industrial Management, 30, 11-18.
O'GRADY, P. J., 1988, Putting The Just-in-Time Philosophy Into Practice (London: Nichols
Publishing Co.).
O'NEAL, C. R., 1989a, The buyer-seller linkage in a just-in-time environment. Journal of
Purchasing and Materials Management, 27, 7-13.
O'NEAL, C. R., 1989 b, JIT procurement and relationship marketing. Industrial Marketing
Management, 18, 55--63.
RICHARD, L. J., 1985, The Principles of Just-in- Time (Warrendale, PA: SAW).
RICHMOND, L. E., and BLACKSTONE, JR, J. H., 1988, Just-in-time in the plastics processing
industry. International Journal of Production Research, 26, 27-34.
RITZMAN, L. P., KING, B. E., and KRAJEWSKI, L. J., 1984, Manufacturing performance-pulling
the right levers. Harvard Business Review, 62, 143-152.
SANDRAS, JR, W. A., 1989, Just-in-Time: Making it Happen-Understanding the Power of
Continuous Improvement (Essex Junction, VT: Oliver Wight).
SCHONBERGER, R. J., 1982, Japanese Manufacturing Te chniques: More Hidden Lessons in
Simplicity (New York : The Free Press).
SCHONBERGER, R. 1., and SAIPE, A. C, 1984, Don't ignore just-in-time production. Business
Quarterly, 49, 60-66.
SEPEHRI, M., 1987, Manufacturing revitalization at Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Industrial
Engineering, 19, 87-93.
SOHAL, A. S., KELLER, A. Z., and FONAD, R. H., 1989, A review of literature relating to liT.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 9,15-25.
STAMM, C. L., GOLHAR, D. Y., and SMITH, W. P., 1989, Inventory control practices in
manufacturing firms. Mid-American Journal of Business, 4, 53-56.
VILLEDA, R., DUDEK, R., and SMITH, M., 1988, Increasing the production rate of just-in-time
production system with variable operation times. International Journal of Production
Research, 26, 1749-1768.
WALLEIGH, R. c., 1986, What's your excuse for not using JIT? Harvard Business Review, 64,
38-54.
WEHRENBERG, S. B., 1989, The future just-in-time work force. Personnel Journal , 68,36-44.
 802 JIT in US manufacturing firms

WESTBROOK, R., 1988, Time to forget 'just-in-time'? Observations on a visit to Japan.

International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 8, 5-2l.
WILDEMANN, H., 1988, JIT production in West Germany. International Journal of Production
Research, 26, 521-538.
Wu , N. L., 1989, Understanding production systems through human simulation: experiencing
JIC (just-in-case); JIT (just-in-time) and OPTC (optirnized-production-technology)
production systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 9,
27-34.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 19:29 14 January 2015