This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]

On: 05 January 2015, At: 10:38

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

Evaluation of Just-In-Time
alternatives in the electric
wire-harness industry
F. Estrada , J.R. Villalobos & L. Roderick
Published online: 15 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: F. Estrada , J.R. Villalobos & L. Roderick (1997)

Evaluation of Just-In-Time alternatives in the electric wire-harness industry,
International Journal of Production Research, 35:7, 1993-2008, DOI:
10.1080/002075497195038

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002075497195038

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
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015
 int. j. prod. res., 1997, vol. 35, no. 7, 1993± 2008

Evaluation of Just-In-Time alternatives in the electric wire-harness

industry

F. ESTRADA ² , J. R. VILLALOBOS² and L. RODERICK² ³

This paper investigates some of the theoretical and practical issues for the
introduction of Just-in-Time (JIT) techniques into an automotive wire-harness
assembly line. Some of the issues explored include the number of production
kanbans and the unit load size to be used for every air of subassembly-
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015

assembly stations in a production line. An associated probability of stockout

for di€ erent combinations is also determined. Simulation is used to validate the
results obtained through an analytical method and to compare two commonly
used strategies: the `on-line’ strategy which uses the subassembly operations
adjacent to the assembly stations and the `o€ -line’ strategy which has the
subassembly operation at some distance from the assembly line. Four
performance criteria are used to evaluate the strategies: throughput, work-in-
process inventory, lead time, and subassembly equipment utilization.

1. Problem de® nition

Just-in-Time (JIT) manufacturing environments have been proposed to maintain
a reduced WIP while meeting production requirements. Excessive work in process
(WIP) is a costly burden to any plant, tying up capital ¯ oor space and equipment.
Too little WIP, on the other hand, can cause material shortages at critical work
stations, lengthening lead times and delaying deliveries. Therefore to minimize total
costs, it is necessary to weigh the cost of carrying enough inventory, as protection
from rare uncontrollable detrimental events, against the savings achieved by main-
taining lean inventories for normal operating conditions (Tompkins and Goddard
1992). The proper determination of the manufacturing system parameters can make
a di€ erence between a highly competitive process and a barely acceptable one.
A large number of theoretical studies about JIT are available in the open litera-
ture. However, there is a gap between theory and implementation in speci® c industry
segments. This paper addresses this problem by identifying and addressing the most
important issues associated with the implementation of JIT in the wire-harness
industry. In particular, a procedure to calculate the most important parameters of
a JIT manufacturing system will be presented. This study is based on the working
environment of a major wire-harness manufacturer with plants in the US, Mexico,
Honduras and the Philippines. All references in this paper apply to this speci® c
manufacturer and its environment. The environment here described is typical of
any major wire-harness manufacturer. A representative harness is selected to as an
example serve for all the calculations from the analysis of the production require-
ments. Exact customer demand may vary somewhat throughout the year.

Received November 1996.

Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, The University of Texas at El
²
Paso, El Paso, TX 79968-0521, USA.
³ To whom correspondence should be addressed.

0020± 7543/97 $12. 00 Ñ 1997 Taylor & Francis Ltd.

 1994 F. Estrada et al.

A wire harness is usually composed of a number of electrical wires (called cir-

cuits) with terminals housed in connectors. The circuits are bound together with tape
or plastic tubing. Other components include plastic throughs, retainers, and moulds
of di€ erent shapes and sizes. These additional components help in shaping the
harness so as to facilitate its installation at its ® nal point of use. The main purpose
of the harness is to conduct electrical or optical signals from one location of an
automobile to another. A typical car has nearly 2000 feet of wire (Martin 1993).
Figure 1 shows a diagram of a typical harness and its components.
Harnesses are commonly grouped in families to be manufactured. The families
are usually formed by combining harnesses that perform the same function or belong
to the same brand of car. For instance, all the instrument-panel harnesses used for
one type of car are grouped in a family. The most common di€ erences found among
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015

harnesses of the same family are additional branches or circuits, position of con-
nectors, and di€ erent connectors or other components. Di€ erences arise from cars
having more features than others; thus requiring additional wiring. To distinguish
one harness from another within the same family, harnesses are referred to as `levels’
and are identi® ed by a letter. Production requirements for each level vary according
to individual car sales. The harness assembly line must be ¯ exible enough to change
swiftly from one level to another as requirements change. Sometimes more than one
line is required to produce the total volume for a given family. Then, the volume is
divided into the number of lines necessary, but each manufacturing line must be
capable of building all the levels. When considerable di€ erences between levels exist,
and it is not feasible to build all of them on the same line, families are separated into
sub-families.
The typical medium-size harness family selected to serve as an example through-
out this paper has an average of 120 circuits per unit, ® ve di€ erent levels, and a total
of 17 subassemblies. Subassemblies considered for the present study include basically
the fabrication process of `splices’. This operation joins two or more circuits by one
end using ultrasonic heat into a single unit called `splice’. The intention of the splice
is to send an electrical signal to more than one place at the same time. The joined
area is covered afterwards by a vinyl tube. Figures 2a and 2b show a diagram of
a splice. The subassemblies are then incorporated into the harness at the assembly
line.
For manufacturing purposes, the 17 subassemblies are grouped in seven work-
stations. Some levels use all the subassemblies while other levels do not. The manu-
facturing time for each subassembly is di€ erent among levels. Table 1 shows time
values for subassembly fabrication for di€ erent levels. The time to complete the
subassembly operations was found to follow an exponential distribution pattern.
This table also shows the assembly stations mean times and the typical production
requirements for the di€ erent harness levels. These production requirements are
customer driven and normally change from one month to another.
Before World Class Manufacturing philosophy gained popularity among harness
manufacturers, most of their plants used a process-oriented layout to set the work
areas. That is, all the machines of one type were grouped in one area, and operated
under a batch production system. Typical unit lot sizes range from two to ten days of
production. Typically a component travels approximately 2500 ft before being incor-
porated into the ® nal assembly. Long manufacturing lead times and large ® nish
product inventories were standard practices. Once exposed to the bene® ts of a
JIT type of system, wire-harness manufacturers started to change their production
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015

Figure 1. Finish harness schematic.

Evaluating JIT in the electric wire-harness industry
1995
 1996 F. Estrada et al.

Assy.
work after Daily
Job Sub-assembly stations stat’ n assy load/line

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 avg avg pc %

1 0. 2280 0. 2730 0. 2280 0. 0667 0. 0667 0. 0667 0. 0667 0. 4258 0. 2177 30 7

2 0. 2166 0. 2639 0. 4726 0. 2203 0. 0667 0. 0667 0. 1538 0. 6606 0. 3180 73 17
3 0. 4788 0. 3822 0. 6950 0. 3192 0. 7644 0. 8064 0. 2526 0. 654 0. 3285 206 48
4 0. 2508 0. 3003 0. 3614 0. 2546 0. 2246 0. 3168 0. 1842 0. 4167 0. 2652 52 12
5 0. 5700 0. 4306 0. 5421 0. 3800 0. 9100 0. 9600 0. 3134 0. 7610 0. 3602 69 16
T 1. 7442 1. 6500 2. 5645 1. 4021 2. 0324 2. 2166 0. 9707 2. 9181 430 100
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015

Table 1. Workstations operation mean times.

Figure 2a. Splice speci® cation schematic.

Figure 2b. Splice drawing.

system. They started to reorganize production areas using a product-oriented layout

style. That is, the machinery formerly grouped in cost centres, was split to form
families according to the process ¯ ow of products. They also started to move sub-
assembly machinery close to the assembly lines to reduce lead times. The need for
additional machines was immediately evident. Smaller machines, capable of produ-
cing di€ erent subassemblies without incurring long setup times were also seen as
necessary. For economic reasons, it is not feasible to acquire all new machinery and
equipment during the initial conversion stages to respond to these needs. Therefore
provision must be made to achieve the change to the JIT strategy using the existing
machinery.
For a medium-size harness with high production requirements, a rotary conveyor
is usually the production method selected. This method normally runs one level at a
time long enough to cover the weekly demand of each level. The assembly process
starts at station 1 with an empty assembly board (see Figs 3 and 4). This board is
moved from station to station by a continuous conveyor. Each station incorporates
material into the assembly part in process until it is completed at the last station. The
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015 Evaluating JIT in the electric wire-harness industry 1997

Figure 3. Subassembly on-line model.

material added includes circuits, connectors, retainers, subassemblies, tape, and

others. This method commonly uses two strategies to deliver subassemblies to the
assembly area:

(1) In the ® rst scenario, subassemblies are withdrawn from an arrangement of

cells located just next to the assembly lines. This strategy dedicates a com-
plete set of subassembly machinery per assembly line. The link between the
assembly and subassembly operations is accomplished by a visual kanban
system. For this study, this model is called `subassembly on-line’. A sche-
matic diagram for this arrangement is shown in Fig. 3. For the present study
the bu€ er of circuits and components shown in this diagram is taken as a
`raw material source’ and is not part of the analysis of the present study,
although it could easily be analysed using the same basic approach.
(2) In the second scenario, subassemblies are withdrawn from an arrangement of
cells located at some distance from the assembly lines. The intention of this
strategy is to use a single set of subassembly machinery for more than one
production line. The machine utilization parameter will determine the
number of assembly lines it may feed without interruptions. The assembly
and subassembly processes are linked by a physical kanban system (card).
This model is referred to as `subassembly o€ -line’. A schematic diagram for
this arrangement is show in Fig. 4.

Plant managers usually make decisions on what system to use based on common-
sense rather than on an analytical study of the alternatives. For instance, since plant
managers usually consider it a waste rather than an investment to replace the current
machinery with the more appropriate smaller capacity equipment, the o€ -line model
has become a very common approach. The present study tries to ® ll the void of lack
of analytical methods by presenting a method that the decision maker can use to
determine the best con® guration (on-line, o€ -line) and the corresponding parameters
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015 1998 F. Estrada et al.

Figure 4. Subassembly o€ -line model.

(UL S and NPK). The study analyses the two arrangements mentioned above to
compare and contrast their e€ ectiveness under di€ erent scenarios.
The fundamental production parameters to be determined for a JIT manufactur-
ing system include:
•the capacity of the assembly process ( ¹ 1 ), (given for the present study),
•the capacity of the subassembly ( ¹ 2 ), (given for the present study),
•the unit load size (UL S ), and lot size ( L S ) for subassemblies, and
•the number of production kanbans for subassemblies (NPK).
These parameters constitute the essence of a pull system and the determination of
their values is one of the main objectives of this paper. L S is de® ned as the quantity
of parts produced every time a production kanban is received. UL S is the number of
parts moved as a unit between workstations. For the present study case UL S equals
L S. That is, every time a production kanban is received, a UL S is produced and
moved as a unit, when required.

2. Previous work
Several authors have investigated the theoretical and practical implications of a
JIT system. This section presents an overview of the relevant works in both areas.
Karmarkar et al. (1985 ), analysed the lot sizing e€ ect on the lead time perfor-
mance in a manufacturing cell. They described the use of a GPSS simulation model
and an analytical model that they called Q-LOTS. These models were used to ana-
lyse the e€ ect of the lot-size policy on a manufacturing cell at Eastman Kodak’s
Apparatus Division. A comparison of the results obtained from the Q-LOTS and the
simulation models was presented. They concluded that at large lot sizes, similar
results were obtained with both models. In contrast, when small lot sizes were
used the results obtained with both models did not correspond. They suggested
 Evaluating JIT in the electric wire-harness industry 1999

that the models have potential uses in devising optimal lot size policies and in
predicting the performance of a facility for a given policy. An equally important
use of the model was to predict the lead times required to produce an order.
Mehra and Inman (1992), analysed the critical elements of JIT implementation.
Enough evidence supported the statement that a relationship between a successful
JIT application and a JIT production strategy existed. There were also enough data
to sustain evidence of a relationship between successful JIT application and a JIT
vendor strategy. As a conclusion, they said that a JIT production strategy is the most
critical factor, with the JIT vendor strategy showing less signi® cance. They recom-
mend that managers seeking to implement a JIT system should direct their e€ orts
and resources to the elements contained in the JIT production strategy. The present
study used their recommendation to concentrate on determining the design
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015

parameters and production strategy that best suit a speci® c real life industrial
environment.
Mejabi and Wasserman (1992), presented a simulation model for JIT environ-
ments. Although the system was designed solely for demonstration purposes, and did
not re¯ ect more complex industrial applications, they made some valid recommen-
dations. The objective of their study was to enhance the ability of companies to
perform detailed analyses and detect the e€ ects of various JIT con® gurations on
manufacturing operations.
Lisy and LeBeau (1991) analysed the supply chain management for Eastman
Kodak Co. and presented a technique they call the Flowrate. The Flowrate
showed one supply demand relationship at a time and estimated how they ® tted
together. This was accomplished by using standard waste and conversion factors,
that is, the ratio of production divided by sales. Moving-averages of Flowrate ratios
were plotted on a run chart. The result was a time series visually measuring how well
production rates were synchronized with each other. Where rates were not synchro-
nized, this measure allowed one to evaluate alternate, more competitive, production
and inventory strategies.
TrevinÄo-Uribe (1986) explored the possibility of determining the relevant para-
meters for a JIT production system using an analytical or design approach. He
analysed the relationship between two workstations by using a customer± supplier
analogy. In this analogy, he identi® ed the assembly operation as the supplier and the
fabricating operation as the customer. His procedure is based on the elimination of
assembly interruptions due to component stockouts, the achievement of the assem-
bly daily requirements, and the minimization of an annual total cost. In other words,
design combinations that eliminate stockouts and achieve the frozen schedule were
identi® ed and the design combination that minimized the annual total cost function
was selected. His annual total cost function included the inventory carrying cost,
storage cost, production equipment cost, handling cost, operator and handler idling
cost, and stockout cost. Some parameters required by the cost elements of the design
procedure and the probability of stockout were estimated using a continuous-time
Markov chain model and probabilistic and queuing analysis. Simulation was used to
corroborate the validity of the estimate. He used two methods to solve the design
problem. The ® rst method enumerated feasible design combinations, using a series of
steps, and selected the optimal design. The second method was based on a non-linear
programming algorithm that computed the optimal design combination through a
search procedure. As an innovation, he introduced the concept of probability of
stock (PS ), that is, the probability that a workstation would run out of parts. He
 2000 F. Estrada et al.

suggested that it could be used to identify those workstations with a high probability
of causing line stoppages.

3. Analytical determination of system parameters

The work presented in this paper uses part of TrevinÄo-Uribe’s model (1986) to
calculate the number of production kanbans (NPK) and the unit load sizes (UL S )
used to control the ¯ ow of materials between workstations. Our study considers the
probability of stockout (PS ) as the primary factor for determining the combination
of NPK and UL S that results in the lowest PS. The reason for using this approach
was that it was considered that the paramount objective in a wire-harness plant is to
meet customer demands at the time and in the quantities needed. The cost for not
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015

meeting customer demands, i.e. stopping the car assembly plant, was considered so
high that the penalty associated was considered to be in® nite.
Every pair of assembly-subassembly stations was evaluated according to this
model, as described in the next section, considering the subassembly station as the
supplying process and the assembly station as the consuming process. The bu€ er
required between stations is determined by the product of the UL S times the NPK.
The determination of parameters for the on-line and o€ -line scenarios are pre-
sented next.

3.1. On-line subassembly

To determine the optimal values of UL S and NPK to achieve the daily produc-
tion requirement, the problem was formulated as a minimization problem. The
problem consisted in ® nding the values of UL S and NPK such that a total cost
was minimized. The problem was stated as follows:
Minimize TC
subject to:
(1) PS £ PSC
(2) a £ UL S £ CCa
(3) ¹ 2 > ( ¸) ( a )
(4) ¹1 > ¸
(5) NPK > 0
where:
TC= total cost (being able to comply with customer requirement)
PC= probability of stockout
PSC= probability of stockout target
a = number of subassemblies to incorporate into each harness
UL S= unit load size.
CCa = subassembly container capacity
¹ 1 = production capacity of assembly process
¹ 2 = production capacity of subassembly process.
¸= demand
NPK= number of production kanbans
The solution of the problem can be summarized in six steps
(1) The set of feasible unit load sizes that complied with constraint (2) was
found.
 Evaluating JIT in the electric wire-harness industry 2001

(2) The corresponding production capacities for the supplying process, ¹ 2 were
determined.
(3) Constraint three was evaluated. The values of ¹ 2 that complied with it were
determined.
(4) For each feasible combination of UL S-¹ 2 the minimum number of produc-
tion kanbans that satis® ed constraint (1) was determined.
MNA
PS = 1 -
å n= 0
Pn

where:
PS= probability of stockout
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015

Pn= limiting probability of the state n for the M / Mk /1 model

MNA= maximum number of sets of a subassemblies to maintain the assem-
bly and the subassembly processes.
(5) For the minimum number of production kanbans and UL S-¹ 2 combinations
from (4), the AWIPP was computed:
AWIPP = ( MNA - L SAL )( a )
where
¸

L SAL =
å n= 1
nPn

AWIPP= Average WIP of subassemblies (in parts)

L SAL = Average number of sets of a subassemblies retrieved from stock
(bu€ er+ component container).
(6) The design combination (UL S , NPK, and ¹ 2 ) that minimized the PS and the
WIP was selected.

3.2. O€ -line subassembly

Here the consuming and supplying processes were not located next to each other.
Therefore a handling system was required to withdraw containers of parts from the
output bu€ er or the supplying process every time a withdrawal kanban was released.
When a container of parts was withdrawn from the output bu€ er of the supplying
process, a production kanban was released. This kanban authorized the production
of more parts by the supplying process.
For this type of scenario, TrevinÄo-Uribe (1986) suggested the use of a two-step
procedure to determine the design parameters. The ® rst step was concerned with the
fabrication cycle while the second part of the procedure was concerned with material
handling. For the fabrication case, the model can be stated as the one for the on-line
model. With the slight modi® cation that NPK > 1, the same basic solution proce-
dure was followed to determine the relevant parameters. The objective of the second
step of the procedure was to make sure that the capacity of the handling process was
su cient to move all the subassemblies without causing stockouts. In this case, the
on-line model was also used with the slight modi® cations that NPK > 1, and
[ ]
¹ h > ( ¸) ( a ) /UL S .
The combined problem, fabrication and handling, was solved using the following
procedure:
 2002 F. Estrada et al.

(1) For the feasible UL S and ¹ 2 , the minimum NPK that satis® ed PSC was
selected.
(2) For the feasible UL S and ¹ h , the minimum NPK that satis® ed PSC was
selected. Where ¹ h was the capacity of the handling process.
(3) The design combination (UL S , ¹ 2 , ¹ h , and NPK) that minimized the PS and
the WIP was selected.

3.3. Production parameters

Table 1 gives the requirements data for the harness that was used for this study.
The total production required is 430 pieces per day. The line works two eight-hour
shifts. Each set of subassembly-assembly (identi® ed as SA and ASS Y ) stations was
analysed using computer programs adapted from those provided by TrevinÄo-Uribe
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015

(1986 ). They were evaluated using ® ve di€ erent UL S values (1, 27, 108, 215 and 430)
to determine the critical design decisions mentioned above. These UL S values repre-
sent the movement of a single piece at a time, one hour, four hours, half say and full
day production, respectively. This evaluation was performed for the on and o€ -line
strategies. Wire-harness manufacturers consider that the highest cost they can incur
is to shut down the car assembly plant due to a late delivery. This is because of the
high penalties imposed by the car manufacturers. Therefore the ability to comply
with the daily production requirement is the most important evaluation factor to
consider for developing a system of this type. From the results obtained above and
considering PS (which limits compliance to daily production) followed by bu€ er
requirements (NPK * UL S ) as the two most important factors, the working para-
meters for each workstation were selected. They were classi® ed as `best’ and `second
best’, so that two values could be used in the simulation program for sensitivity
analysis. Tables 2 and 3 show the results grouped at best and second best combina-
tions for the on-line and o€ -line models respectively. The seven subassembly-assem-
bly stations with their corresponding values for evaluation factors are shown. The
reader is also referred to Figs 3 and 4 to visualize the relationship between the
assembly-subassembly stations.
Tables 2 and 3 are interpreted as follows. For SA1-ASS Y 1 on Table 3 (o€ -line
model) the UL S recommended as the `best’ option or ® rst choice is 27. A total of six
NPK of size 27 are to be kept between the subassembly and the assembly stations to
avoid production stoppages. The total WIP necessary to keep between these two
stations may be calculated by multiplying the UL S times the NPK, which gives 162
pieces. With these UL S and NPK values this workstation has a PS of 0. 01. The
second best option for this station, has UL S = 27, NPK= 3, and a PS of 0. 06. For
sensitivity analysis purposes a UL S = 108 is also included.
The data obtained in this section is used to develop the simulation models. The
simulation models and the results obtained are described in the next section.

4. Simulation analysis
This section describes the simulation models that were used for the strategy
analysis. In § 3 the recommended design parameters for these arrangements were
calculated by using an analytical method. These parameters included the assembly
process capacity, the subassembly process capacity, the number of production
kanbans, and the unit load sizes for subassemblies. They were chosen based on
the capability to comply with the daily production requirement, the probability of
stockout, and the WIP inventory required.
 Evaluating JIT in the electric wire-harness industry 2003

Operating parameters data

Best Second best

# Station ULS NPK PS ULS NPK PS ULS NPK PS ULS NPK PS

1 SA1-ASSY1 1 6 0. 01 27 6 0. 01 1 4 0. 06 27 3 0. 06
2 SA2-ASSY3 1 6 0. 01 27 5 0. 01 1 3 0. 06 27 3 0. 07
3 SA3-ASSY5 1 6 0. 01 27 6 0. 01 1 3 0. 06 27 3 0. 09
4 SA4-ASSY6 1 4 0. 01 27 4 0. 01 1 2 0. 04 27 2 0. 04
5 SA5-ASSY7 1 22 0. 01 27 11 0. 09 1 11 0. 09 27 5 0. 29
6 SA6-ASSY8 1 30 0. 01 27 6 0. 34 1 6 0. 34 27 4 0. 47
7 SA7-ASSY9 1 3 0. 01 27 3 0. 06 1 2 0. 02 27 2 0. 03
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015

Table 2. Recommended operating parameters for the `on-line’ model.

Operating parameters data

Best Second best

# Station ULS NPK PS ULS NPK PS ULS NPK PS ULS NPK PS

1 SA1-ASSY1 27 6 0. 01 108 3 0. 07 27 3 0. 06 108 2 0. 13

2 SA2-ASSY3 27 5 0. 01 108 3 0. 06 27 3 0. 07 108 2 0. 13
3 SA3-ASSY5 27 6 0. 09 108 3 0. 09 27 3 0. 16 108 2 0. 16
4 SA4-ASSY6 27 4 0. 01 108 3 0. 06 27 2 0. 04 108 2 0. 12
5 SA5-ASSY7 27 11 0. 09 108 3 0. 44 27 5 0. 29 108 2 0. 54
6 SA6-ASSY8 27 6 0. 34 108 3 0. 54 27 4 0. 47 108 2 0. 63
7 SA7-ASSY9 27 4 0. 01 108 3 0. 03 27 2 0. 03 108 2 0. 02

Table 3. Recommended operating parameters for the `o€ -line’ model.

The objective of this section is twofold. First, it seeks corroboration that the
results obtained by the analytical procedure allowed the assembly process to meet
customer requirements. Second, it seeks evidence to recommend one strategy over
the other. A secondary objective is to obtain sensitivity information on the design
parameters. The experimental design used is presented in § 4.1 and the results
obtained in § 4.2.
The simulation package chosen for this research was ProModelPC. All simula-
tions were performed on a 486DX/66 IBM compatible PC.
4.1. Experimental design
The experimental design used to simulate the models corresponds to a fractional
factorial design identi® ed as 2 - . A ® xed-e€ ects model was used with a de® ning
5 1

relation for the design of I= ABCDE. This gives a design resolution type V. Table
4 shows the factors considered for the experimental design as well as the levels at
which the experiment was run. For the `number of kanbans’ factor, the levels are
identi® ed as best and second best. By that it is meant that for each subassembly
station the number of kanbans that yields the lowest PS and achieves the daily
requirements is used for the + level. The second best `number of kanbans’ is that
number that also achieves the daily requirements, but with a higher probability of
stockout. The UL S values are obtained from § 3. The `number of ASS Y stations’
factor is included to analyse the e€ ect caused to the assembly line when it is balanced
 2004 F. Estrada et al.

Coding chart On-model O€ -model

No Factor - + - +

A No. of kanbans 2nd best best 2nd best best

B ULS 1 27 27 108
C No. of ASSY stations 20 24 20 24
D No. of SA stations 5 7 5 7
E No. of jobs 1 5 1 5

Table 4. Factors and levels for the experimental design.

Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015

to a lower number of stations due to workers’ absenteeism (for maquiladoras in the

US-Mexico border this is an important concern). The `number of SA stations’ is
varied to determine what is the impact of loading those stations when higher
machine utilization is desired. The `number of jobs’ factor refers to the number of
levels that form a harness and are run in the same assembly line. It is important to
notice that harness levels with lower work content pull subassemblies faster. The
production requirements used represent a typical load for a line running a typical
medium size harness. The work content value is the approximate number of hours
that a manufacturing plant gets credit for assembling each job. These values are
known as standard hours. See Table 5.
The assumptions made are summarized as follows:

(1) Product demand is stable once it is established.

(2) Product mix is stable once it is established.
(3) Two unit load sizes are used for each model (as determined in § 3). One and
27 for the on-line model, and 27 and 108 for the o€ -line model
(4) The number of kanbans for each subassembly station is used (as determined
in § 3).
(5) Machine failure and repair times can be neglected. Preventive maintenance is
performed during non-productive hours (third shift, breaks).
(6) Total assembly time may be equally distributed among the assembly stations.
This assumption is valid when the line has 24 and 20 stations.

Production requirements

Work content Req. with 5 jobs Req. with 1 job

Job no. hrs pcs hrs pcs hrs

1 0. 6483 150 97. 245 0 0

2 1. 2887 365 470. 375 0 0
3 1. 5177 1030 1563. 231 2150 3263. 06
4 0. 6862 260 178. 412 0 0
5 1. 8490 345 637. 905 0 0
Total 2150 2947. 169 2150 3263. 06

Table 5. Values for factor `E’ no. of jobs.

 Evaluating JIT in the electric wire-harness industry 2005

(7) Total subassembly time may be distributed among the subassembly stations.
To go from seven to ® ve stations the corresponding time from the eliminated
stations is equally distributed among the remaining ® ve.
(8) Only 5% of the pieces require rework at the quality control inspection
station.
Both models were run for a period of 320 simulated hours, which represents a full
month of production with two shifts per day. To reduce the e€ ect of initial condi-
tions, a warm-up period of 40 hours was used before the collection of statistical data.
Also to reduce this same e€ ect, the system started with all the kanbans full. Only the
assembly stations started without partial assemblies. That is, with the maximum
recommended number of kanbans located in front of each assembly station, but
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015

without partial assemblies in the assembly stations. Tables 6 and 7 summarize the
results of the simulation experiment. To evaluate compliance to daily production
requirements, the models were allowed to run without material restrictions during
the complete simulation period. That is, raw material was provided constantly
throughout the simulation.

4.2. Results
From Tables 6 and 7, one can see that only one combination (number 13 in Table
7) of the experimental factors failed to meet the minimum production requirement.
This was expected since the calculated PS value associated with this combination was
known in advance. Additionally, by observing Table 3 which gives the analytical
results calculated in § 3, it can be seen that the combination failing to meet the
minimum production uses the second best NPK and UL S. This combination also
uses the highest number of assembly and subassembly stations and the highest
number of jobs. The simulation results in Tables 6 and 7 gives evidence of the
adequacy of the analytical method proposed in this paper for the determination of
the design parameters.

No. of No. of No. % WIP

Desg. ASSY SA of Throughput Lead-time SA of
point NPK ULS stations stations jobs hr. minutes util SA pcs

1 2 1 20 5 5 12 959. 94 43. 2 30. 25 16. 9

2 1 1 20 5 1 13 679. 33 49. 69 35. 1 36. 7
3 2 27 20 5 1 13 688. 74 225. 05 35. 03 401. 04
4 1 27 20 5 5 13 035. 72 374. 38 30. 29 837. 64
5 2 1 24 5 1 14 956. 02 49. 31 38. 35 16. 5
6 1 1 24 5 5 14 202. 52 50. 5 32. 6 36. 78
7 2 27 24 5 5 14 209. 5 203. 12 32. 61 399. 22
8 1 27 24 5 1 15 000. 94 366. 44 38. 34 830. 02
9 2 1 20 7 1 13 646. 85 45. 66 26. 48 23. 08
10 1 1 20 7 5 13 000. 22 47. 36 23. 04 68. 30
11 2 27 20 7 5 12 987. 8 217 23. 04 559. 10
12 1 27 20 7 1 13 637. 14 396. 93 26. 43 1072. 40
13 2 1 24 7 5 14 189. 16 46. 94 24. 91 23. 2
14 1 1 24 7 1 14 965. 73 53. 29 28. 88 42. 78
15 2 27 24 7 1 14 963 215. 45 28. 9 556. 54
16 1 27 24 7 5 14 189. 47 351. 6 24. 86 1071. 48

Table 6. Results of experiment for on-line scenario.

 2006 F. Estrada et al.

No. of No. of No. % WIP

Desg. ASSY SA of Throughput Lead-time SA of
point NPK ULS stations stations jobs hr. minutes util SA pcs

1 2 27 20 5 5 12 497. 29 217. 73 29. 12 374. 54

2 1 27 20 5 1 13 678. 12 389. 92 34. 99 813. 60
3 2 108 20 5 1 13 689. 05 557. 21 34. 97 935. 26
4 1 108 20 5 5 13 033. 1 739. 19 30. 02 1479. 46
5 2 27 24 5 1 15 014. 91 207. 74 38. 4 370. 52
6 1 27 24 5 5 14 214. 66 341. 13 32. 92 797. 4
7 2 108 24 5 5 14 214. 06 491. 01 32. 32 939. 84
8 1 108 24 5 1 15 021. 28 173. 41 38. 37 1462. 62
9 2 27 20 7 1 12 307. 33 230. 35 23. 74 464. 74
12 311. 37 370. 57 21. 87 939. 10
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015

10 1 27 20 7 5
11 2 108 20 7 5 12 989. 57 540. 09 22. 86 1363. 58
12 1 108 20 7 1 13 630. 77 789. 43 26. 28 2097. 48
13 2 27 24 7 5 11 025. 17 28. 91 19. 3 471. 54
14 1 27 24 7 1 14 177. 14 356. 7 27. 38 918. 86
15 2 108 24 7 1 15 001. 86 523. 63 28. 9 1331. 08
16 1 108 24 7 5 14 218. 91 689. 92 24. 65 2084. 38

Table 7. Results of experiment for o€ -line scenario.

Additionally, analysis of variance for data in Tables 6 and 7 was performed for the
following performance measures: mean total throughput, mean lead time, mean
work in process and utilization rate for subassembly equipment.
Four performance measures are used in this study to evaluate the models. They
are: throughput, lead time, work in process (WIP), and subassembly process utiliza-
tion.
The mean total throughput is determined by,

å
m
k= 1 Jk
mean total throughput =
mr
Where Jk is the total number of complete pieces for the kth simulation, m is the
number of replicated simulations, and r is number of days simulated. To avoid
misinterpreting the results obtained, the throughput value is calculated in hours of
work content, and not in pieces.
The mean lead time is determined by,

å
m
Tik
k= 1
mean lead time =
mrqi
Where Tik is the total accumulated time spent in the system by part i for the kth
simulation, m is the number of replicated simulations, r is the number of days
simulated, and qi is total quantity of parts i that enter the system.
The mean work in process is determined by,

å
m
k= 1 W ik
mean wip =
mr
Where W ik is the total pieces contained in a queue station i for the kth simulation, m
is the number of replicated simulations, and r is number of days simulated.
Statistical tests of total mean throughput criteria showed the on-line strategy not
to be statistically di€ erent from that of the o€ -line strategy. This was expected since
 Evaluating JIT in the electric wire-harness industry 2007

the critical parameters were designed as discussed in § 3, so that both models will
comply with the assembly requirements. The factors that seemed to have the greatest
in¯ uence were: number of assembly stations and number of jobs.
Results of hypothesis tests for lead-time suggested the on-line strategy to have a
superior performance to the o€ -line strategy. The factors that seemed to have the
greatest impact over this performance criterion were: number of kanbans and unit
load size. This was expected since the on-line strategy used smaller UL S’s than the
o€ -line stategy that had to wait longer to complete each UL S and be able to move
parts.
Statistical tests for the SA equipment utilization criterion showed the on-line
strategy to be statistically equal to that of the o€ -line strategy. The factors that
seemed to have the greatest impact on this criterion were the number of subassembly
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015

stations and the number of jobs.

Results of hypothesis tests for WIP suggested the on-line strategy to have a
superior performance to the o€ -line strategy. The factors that seemed to have the
greatest in¯ uence on this criterion were the number of kanbans, the unit load size
and the number of subassembly stations. This was expected since the o€ -line strategy
used larger UL S’s than the on-line.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

There are two primary conclusions:
(1) The methodology used to calculate the number of kanbans and unit load size
is suitable for use on the wire-harness application. If for any reason the
system should fail to meet production requirements, the PS value is a
good indicator of where the problem may occur. If a situation where a
high PS value is known to exist at a workstation, at least two things should
be kept in mind: (1) a lower UL S value would increase the response cap-
ability, lowering the lead time, (2) a higher number of kanbans will imme-
diately bene® t the parts available, though this will also increase the WIP in
the system. It is recommended that all stations known to have a high PS
value should have at least two concrete alternate actions to control the situa-
tion whenever it occurs. In other words, if UL S is to be lowered, it must be
clear to what speci® c level it must be lowered. If the number of kanbans is to
be increased, it must also be clear to what level. All the alternative actions
have to be proven and tested in advance using a similar simulation analysis to
the one presented in this paper.
(2) There is a signi® cant di€ erence in performance between the on-line and o€ -
line models regarding lead time and WIP. No statistically signi® cant di€ er-
ences between these models were found regarding throughput and SA utili-
zation. In other words, the bene® t of using one system over the other will be
re¯ ected in two ways: shorter delivery dates for partial shipments to the
customer, and smaller work in process inventory. Another possible di€ er-
ence, not tested in this paper, may be feasible if the SA utilization value is
analysed. Since this value is under 50% it may represent a bene® t if one set of
SA machinery could be oriented to feed two identical lines. This option may
represent saving a complete set of machinery.
A study of this kind o€ ers exciting new areas in which future research can be
conducted. Various alternate studies can be performed by varying the operating
 2008 Evaluating JIT in the electric wire-harness industry

conditions and the assumptions used in this paper. One assumption is that 5% of the
pieces require rework at the quality control inspection station. Two di€ erent oper-
ating times are used at this station to ® t this assumed situation. Though it is not very
far from reality, the exact scenario may be reproduced. The quality control area
o€ ers a wide opportunity for research in this environment.
Another assumption made in this paper is that repair and maintenance activities
were performed during non-productive hours. This could be modi® ed and include a
more precise scenario. One goal of this study was to develop a computer model that
can be used in future research. Improvements can be made to the model to make it
more versatile, to suit di€ erent operating conditions.
Also a more comprehensive study of the economic tradeo€ between an o€ -line
subassembly arrangement shared by two or more lines and an on-line arrangement
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 10:38 05 January 2015

may be investigated.
The present study answered some questions of interest to its authors. At the same
time, it also set the basis for calculating and comparing other scenarios that may be
of interest in the wire-harness manufacturing industry.

References
Harrell , C. R., Bateman, R. E., Gogg Thomas, J. and Mott , J. R. A., 1992, System
Improvement Using Simulation (Orem Utah: JMI Consulting Group and
PROMODEL Corporation).
Karmark ar , U. S., Kekre, S., Kekre, S., Freeman , S. 1985, Lot sizing and lead-time
performance in a manufacturing cell. Interfaces, 15 (2), 1± 9.
Law , A. M. and Kelton , W. D., 1982, Simulation Modeling Analysis, (New York: McGraw-
Hill).
Lisy , G. and LeBeau , J. M., 1991, Flow rate process: how to improve supply chain manage-
ment. American Production and Inventory Control Society, 34th International
Conference Proceedings, pp. 580± 582, October 20± 25, Seattle, WA.
Ma rtin , N., 1993, Fast track. Automotive Industries, September.
Mehra , S. and Inman , R. A., 1992, Determining the critical elements of Just-In-Time imple-
mentation, Decision Sciences, 23, 160± 174.
Meja bi, O. and Wasserman , G. S., 1992, Simulation constructs for JIT modelling.
International Journal of Production Research, 30 (5), 1119± 1135.
ProModel PC, User Manual, Version 5.01, 1991, Promodel Co., Provo, Utah.
Su z a ki, K., 1987, The New Manufacturing Challenge. Techniques for Continuous Improvement
(New York: Free Press).
Tompkins, J. and God da rd , W., 1992, Strike at GM points up JIT’s risks rewards. Modern
Materials Handling, November, pp. 14± 15.
Trev in˜o-Uribe, J. , 1986, Design Procedures for Pull Production System. PhD thesis, Georgia
Institute of Technology.