'Just-in-Time Production and Total Quality Management\r'

'JUST-IN-TIME Production and TOTAL QUALITY precaution Introduction In today’s private-enterprise(a) world shorter product life speech rhythms, guests rapid demands and quickly c bring uping transaction environment is putting serve up of pressures on manufacturers for quicker response and shorter cycle clock snip. directly the manufacturers put pressures on their suppliers. One way to look quick about-face is by holding inventory, just now inventory be can easily convey prohibitive. A wiser approach is to take a leak your payoff agile, adequate to adapt to changing node demands.\r\nThis can l atomic number 53some(prenominal) be d bingle by JUST IN TIME (JIT) philosophy. JIT is twain a philosophy and separate of attention constantitys and techniques utilise to exit waste ( dissimilariateicularly inventory). licentiousness results from any activity that adds cost without adding value, such as moving and storing. bonny-in- m (JIT) is a forethought philosophy that strives to eliminate sources of such manufacturing waste by producing the in effect(p) part in the right d stronging at the right metre. Features\r\nJIT ( in like manner known as lean turnout or stockless return) should correct profits and rec exclusively on enthronement by cut inventory levels (increasing the inventory swage rate), reducing variability, improving product property, reducing production and deli rattling consort generation, and reducing some other costs (such as those associated with machine setup and equipment break pig). The basic constituents of JIT manufacturing be people involvement, set ups, and system. People involvement deal with maintaining a good support and agreement with the people snarled in the production.\r\nThis is non hardly to reduce the time and movement of implementation of JIT, exactly similarly to denigrate the chance of creating implementation problems. The plant itself in addition has indisputable requi rements that be come to awayed to implement the JIT, and those are plant layout, demand give production, Kanban, self-inspection, and un deepening advancement. The plant layout nously foc engagements on maximizing subject fielding flexibility. It requires the use of multi-function workers”. take aim pull production is where you produce when the order is received. This allows for go heavy(p) focus of quantity and time much bookly.\r\nKanban is a lacquerese term for motorcard or tag. This is where particular(prenominal) inventory and wreak information are indite on the card. This garters in tying and linking the do to a greater extent high-octanely. Self-inspection is where the workers on the logical argument inspect products as they remind along, this helps in catching mistakes immediately. Lastly continuous improvement which is the nearly essential apprehension of the JIT system. This simply asks the establishment to improve its productivity, assi st, operation, and guest suffice in an on-going basis.\r\nIn a JIT system, underutilized (excess) susceptibility is used instead of pi smoke film inventories to hedge against problems that may arise. The target of JIT is to speed up node response while minimizing inventories at the identical time. Inventories help to response quickly to changing node demands, but inevitably cost money and ontogeny the needed working capital. JIT requires precision, as the right move must arrive â€Å"just-in-time” at the right set up (work station at the assembly linage). It is used to begin with for gamey-vPolume instant proceed manufacturing fulfiles. History\r\nThe technique was primary used by the Ford Motor order as described explicitly by henry Ford’s My Life and Work (1922): â€Å"We allow found in buying materials that it is not worth(predicate) while to buy for other than immediate call for. ” They bought scarcely enough to fit into the plan of pr oduction, taking into shape the state of transportation at the time. If transportation were entire and an even run for of materials could be assured, it would not be necessary to carry any stock whatsoever. The carloads of young materials would arrive on schedule and in the mean order and occurs, and go from the railway cars into production.\r\nThat would save a great deal of money, for it would give a very rapid turnoer and thusly decrease the amount of money connexiond up in materials. With bad transportation one has to carry monolithicr stocks. They followed the concept of â€Å"dock to pulverisation floor” in which entering materials are not even stored or storage warehoused onward going into production. This paragraph excessively shows the need for an stiff freight management system (FMS) and Ford’s Today and Tomorrow (1926) describes one. The technique was subsequently adopt and publicised by Toyota Motor Corporation of Japan as part of its Toyota Production System (TPS).\r\nJapanese corporations could afford elephantine amounts of land to warehouse terminate products and part. Before the 1950s, this was thought to be a loss because it reduce the economical lot size. (An economic lot size is the number of identical products that should be produced, attached the cost of changing the production parade everywhere to other product. ) The undesirable result was poor return on investment for a factory. besides at that time, Japanese companies had a bad character as far as feeling of manufacturing and car manufacturing in particular was refer.\r\nOne motivated reason for growth JIT and some other better production techniques was that by and by World War II, Japanese people had a very strong incentive to develop a good manufacturing technique which would help them rebuild their economy. They also had a strong working ethic which was difficult on work rather than on leisure, and this considerate of motivation was wh at drove Japanese economy to succeed. on that pointfore Japan’s wish to improve the feature of its production led to the worldwide launch of JIT method of inventory Toyota Motors\r\nThe basic elements of JIT were developed by Toyota in the 1950’s, and became known as the Toyota Production System (TPS). The chief engineer Taiichi Ohno, a former shop four-in- give way and eventually vice president of Toyota Motor smart set at Toyota in the 1950s examined report assumptions and cognise that another method was possible. The factory could be make more flexible, reducing the overhead costs of retooling and reducing the economic lot size to the available warehouse space. Over a period of several years, Toyota engineers re externalizeed car baffles for commonality of tooling for such production touches as paint-spraying and welding.\r\nToyota was one of the first to apply flexible robotic systems for these tasks. Some of the pitchs were as open as standardizing the hole sizes used to hang move on hooks. The number and types of fasteners were reduced in order to standardize assembly steps and tools. In some field of studys, identical subassemblies could be used in several models. Toyota engineers then determined that the remaining deprecative bottleneck in the retooling process was the time inevitable to diversify the stamping dies used for body parts. These were adjusted by hand, development crowbars and wrenches.\r\nIt some clock took as long as several age to install a large (multiton) die set and adjust it for acceptable quality. Further, these were normally installed one at a time by a team of experts, so that the line was trim back for several weeks. Toyota implemented a class called hotshot Minute Exchange of Die (SMED). With very simple fixtures, measurements were substituted for adjustments. Almost immediately, die change times beastly to about half an hour. At the same time, quality of the stampings became checkled by a w ritten recipe, reducing the adroitness required for the change.\r\nAnalysis showed that the remaining time was used to search for hand tools and move dies. Procedural changes (such as moving the in the buff die in place with the line in operation) and dedicated tool-racks reduced the die-change times to as little as 40 seconds. Dies were changed in a ripple through the factory as a impertinently product began flowing. After SMED, economic lot sizes fell to as little as one vehicle in some Toyota plants. Carrying the process into parts-storage made it possible to store as little as one part in all(prenominal) assembly station. When a part disappeared, that was used as a signal to produce or order a replacement.\r\nJIT was firmly in place in numerous Japanese plants by the early 1970’s. JIT began to be adopted in the U. S. in the 1980’s. Requirements JIT applies primarily to repetitive manufacturing processes in which the same products and components are produced ov er and over again For Example Cars, Fast Food set up The requirements for a proper just-in-time management are: calibration: Where the supplies are standardized and the suppliers are tru persistent and close to the plant. As there is little buffer inventory amongst the workstations, so the quality must be high and efforts are made to prevent machine break gobble ups.\r\nThose governings that need to respond to customer demands regularly this system is also being able to respond to changes in customer demands. SOFTWARE: For JIT to work efficiently Supply kitchen stove Planning software, companies have in the mean time extended Just-in-time manufacturing externally, by demanding from their suppliers to deliver inventory to the factory only when it’s needed for assembly, making JIT manufacturing, gild and speech processes even speedier, more flexible and more efficient. MULTI-FUNCTIONALITY In JIT workers are multifunctional and are required to exertion unlike tasks.\r\nM achines are also multifunction and are lay in small U-shaped work cells that enable parts to processed in a continuous flow through the cell. Workers produce pars one at a time within cells and transport those parts in the midst of cells in small lots. CLEANLINESS Environment is kept overbold and free of waste so that any odd occurrence are visible. SCHEDULES: Schedules are prepared only for the final assembly line, in which several contrastive models are assembled at the same line. Requirements for the component parts and subassemblies are then pulled through the system.\r\nThe â€Å"PULL” element of JIT result not work unless production is akin and lot sizes are low. Pull system is also used to order material from suppliers (fewer in add up usually). They make be requested to make seven-fold deliveries of the same item in the same day, so the manufacturing system must be flexible. QUALITY: spirit within JIT manufacturing is necessary, because without a quality pro gram in JIT, the JIT go forth fail. Here we think about quality at the source and the Plan, Do, Check, Action with its statistical process control. Furthermore, techniques are also very important.\r\nThe JIT technique is a pull system rather than a pull system, based on not producing things until they are needed. The well known Kanban card is used as a signal to produce. Moreover, integration also plays a backbone role in JIT systems. JIT integration can be found in four points of the manufacturing firm. The Accounting side, applied science side, Customer side and Supplier side. At the accounting side, JIT has concern for WIP, utilization and overhead allocation and at the engineering side of JIT focuses on simultaneously and participative design of products and processes.\r\nJust-In- quantify Total timber way Just-In-Time Total superior Management is the mean of market and factory management within a humanistic environment of inveterate improvement. Moreover, it means contin uing improvement in hearty life, and working life. When applied to the factory, Kaizen means continual improvement involving managers and workers alike. When it comes to Total Quality Management, Japans strong industrial reputation is well-known around the world. Total quality control is the system, which Japan has developed to implement Kaizen or continuous improvement.\r\nThe traditional description of Just-In-Time is a system for manufacturing and tot goods that are needed. There are several important tools that are important for total quality management control, but there are seven that are even more important. These are relations diagram, chemical attraction diagram, systematic diagram or tree diagram, ground substance diagram, matrix data analysis, process decision program chart, and arrow diagram. When used properly, these seven tools go forth help the total quality management system by eliminating defective products.\r\nMoreover, they will help in assisting to improve p roductivity, complete tasks on time, eliminate waste, and reduce lead time and inventory cost. Pros and Cons of Just-in-Time Pros of Just-In-Time: Goals of JIT can vary, but there are a few that should be perpetual in any JIT system:  1. Increasing the organization’s ability to compete with others and remain warlike over the long run is very important. 2. The fight of the firms is increase by the use of JIT manufacturing process as they can develop a more optimum process for their firms. . The see is to identify and respond to consumers needs. Customers’ needs and wants should be the most important focus for business today. This objective will help the firm on what is demanded from customers, and what is required of production. 4. Moreover, the optimal quality and cost consanguinity is also important. The organization should focus on zero-defect production process. Although it seems to be unrealistic in the long run, it will eliminate a huge amount of resources and effort in inspecting, and reworking defected goods. 5.\r\nAnother important final stage should be to develop a reliable relationship betwixt the suppliers. A good and long-term relationship amid an organization and its suppliers helps to manage a more efficient process in inventory management, material management, and delivery system. It will also assure that the supply is stable and available when needed. 6. Moreover, adopt the idea of continuous improvement. If connected to a long-term continuous improvement idea, it will help the organization to remain competitive in the future. Cons of Just-In-Time: Regardless of the great benefits of JIT, it has its limitations: 1.\r\nFor example cultural differences. The organizations cultures vary from firm to firm. There are some cultures that tie to JIT’s success, but it is difficult for an organization to change its cultures within a short time. 2. Also manufacturers that use the traditional approach which relies on storing up large amounts of inventory for backing up during bad times may have problems with getting use to the JIT system. 3. Also JIT is quite different for workers, in the brain that receivable to the shorter cycle time, lots of pressure and stress is added on the workers. 4.\r\nAlso the JIT system throws workers off in the sense that if a problem occurs, they cannot use their own method of fixing the problem, but use methods that have been previously defined. 5. Moreover, the JIT system only works best for mass medium to high range of production volume manufacturers, thus leaving a question to whether it might work for low volume companies. Case in which JIT has failed Just in Time production allows companies to reduce both inventory and the entire production chain. It encourages the removal of all surplus, including surplus factories.\r\nUnder normal business conditions this is not a problem. However, if there is any disruption at any devoted point in the supply chain, then all p roduction grinds to a halt. narrate of the problem with Just in Time production became clear in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, both of which bear on the US Gulf coast in 2005. At that time, no fresh rock oil refineries had been built in the US since 1976. During that time period, companies actually turf out down several refineries to reduce capacity.\r\nThe old refineries lull operating(a) ran at full capacity, so no new refineries were needed according to Just in Time theory since they would only produce surplus gaseous state. However, most of these refineries were clustered around the Gulf coast. When the Katrina hit, 15 oil refineries in Mississippi and Louisiana representing 20% of US refining capacity was shut down. Rita damaged another 16 refineries in Texas, accounting for 2. 3 million barrels per day of capacity shut down. The want of surplus in oil refining caused a shock to the United States. Gasoline prices surged.\r\nHad companies not shut down refineries in order to reduce capacity according to Just in Time theory, particularly refineries on the west coast, then it is likely that gas prices would have remained stable. US regular grade gasoline prices were $2. 154 per gallon on November 28, 2005, down from a head of $3. 09 on September 19, 2005 in the immediate airstream of the hurricane Katrina disaster Case-Study The work described in this case study was undertaken in a young, rapidly expanding community in the financial services sector with no previous friendship with Total Quality Management (TQM).\r\nThe quality figure began with a twain-day introductory knowingness program covering concepts, cases, implementation strategies and imperatives of TQM. The program was conducted for the elderly management team of the company. This program used interactional exercises and real life case studies to explain the concepts of TQM and to hobby them in committing resources for a demonstration project. step 1. lim n the Problem 1. 1 Selecting the theme: A collision of the senior management of the company was held. Brainstorming produced a list of around 10 problems.\r\nThe list was prioritized exploitation the weighted fair table, followed by a merged discussion to arrive at a consensus on the twain most important themes †customer service and sales productivity. Under the customer service theme, â€Å" lessen the Turnaround Time from an Insurance Proposal to form _or_ system of government” was selected as the most obvious and urgent problem. The company was young, and therefore had few claims to process so far. The proposal-to-insurance process therefore impacted the grea try out number of customers. An appropriate cross functional sort out was set up to tackle this problem. . 2 Problem = customer lust †new status. Current status: What did the individual company members think the turnaround is currently? As all(prenominal) member began thinking questions came up. â€Å"What type of policies do we dispense? ” Medical policies or non-medical? The latter are take longer because of the medical examination of the client required. â€Å" betwixt what demonstrates do we consider turnaround? ” Perceptions varied, with to each one soulfulness thinking about the turnaround within their department. The key process branchs were mapped: [pic]\r\nSeveral sales branches in different parts of the country sent proposals into the Central touch on Center. After considerable debate it was concord at first to consider turnaround between debut into the computer system at the Company gross revenue Branch and dispatch to the customer from the Central affect Center (CPC). Later the entire cycle could be included. The experience of the length of turnaround by different members of the team was recorded. It was found that on an average Non-Medical Policies took 17 long time and Medical Policies took 35 days. Customer desire: What was the tur naround desired by the customer?\r\nSince a customer survey was not available, individual group members were asked to think as customers †imagine they had just given a completed proposal form to a sales agent. When would they carry the policy in hand? From the customer’s point of view they cognise that they did not differentiate between medical and non-medical policies. Their perception averaged out six days for the required turnaround. â€Å"Is this the average time or maximum time that you expect? ” they were asked. â€Å"Maximum,” they responded. It was clear therefore that the average must be less than six days. The importance of â€Å"variability” had struck home.\r\nFor 99. 7 percent delivery within the customer limit the metric was defined. then the average customer desire was less than 6 days and the current status was that of 64 days for non-medical policies and for medical policies it was 118 days. so the problem was to reduce the non- medical policies from 64 to 6 days and medical policies from 118 to 6 days. The performance requirement appeared daunting. Therefore the initial target taken in the committal Sheet (project charter) was to reduce the turnaround by 50 percent †to 32 and 59 days respectively. pervert 2. Analysis of the Problem\r\nIn a school term the factors causing large turnaround times from the principles of JIT were explained. These were enter arrival patterns • Waiting times in process. o Batching of work. o Imbalanced processing line. o alike many handovers. o Non-value added activities, etc. • Processing times • Scheduling • Transport times • Deployment of manpower typically it was found that waiting times constitute the pot of processing turnaround times. Process Mapping (Value blow Mapping in Lean) was undertaken. The aggregate results are summarized under: Number of operations 84 Number of handovers 13\r\nIn-house processing time ( imagined) 126 man -mins. Range of individual stage time 2 to 13 mins. To check this estimate it was decided to collect data †run two policies without waiting and record the time at each stage. The trial results amazed everyone: Policy No. 1 took 100 minutes and Policy No. 2 took 97 minutes. Almost instantly the brain changed from interrogative to desire: â€Å"Why can’t we process every proposal in this way? ” flavour 3. Generating Ideas In the introductory program of TQM during the JIT session the advantages of flow versus mess hall processing had been dramatically demonstrated using a simple exercise.\r\nUsing that background a balanced flow line was designed as follows: 1. Determine the station with the maximum time cycle which cannot be split up by reapportionment 8 minutes. 2. Balance the line to make the time taken at each stage relate 8 minutes as far as possible. 3. Reduce the stages and handovers †13 to 8. 4. Eliminate non-value added activities †transport †make personnel gravel next to each other. 5. see to it processing to be done in batch of one proposal. Changing the mindset of the employees so they will accept and welcome change is critical to structure a self-sustaining culture of improvement.\r\nIn this case, the line personnel were involved in a Quality Mindset Program so that they understood the reasons for change and the concepts behind them and are keen to experiment with new methods of working. The line was ready for a test run. Step 4. Testing the Idea Testing in stages is a critical stage. It allows modification of ideas based upon practical experience and equally importantly ensures acceptance of the new methods piecemeal by the operating personnel. Stage 1: affiliate five proposals flowing through the system and actualize results. The test produced the following results: Average turnaround time: < 1 day\r\nIn-house processing time: 76 mins. There was jubilation in the team. The productivity had increased by 24 percent. Stage 2: It was concur to run the new system for five days †and compute the average turnaround to measure the improvement. It was agreed that only in-house processing was covered at this stage and that the test would involve all policies at the CPC but only one branch as a model. This model, once proved, could be replicated at other branches. The test results showed a significant reduction in turnaround: 1. For all non-medical policies from 64 to 42 days or 34% 2.\r\nFor policies of the model branch from 64 to 27 days of 60% The Mission Sheet goal of 50 percent reduction had been bettered for the combined model branch and CPC. Further analysis of the data revealed other measures which could reduce the turnaround further. Overall reduction reached an horrendous 75 percent. Turnaround, which had been pegged at 64 days, was now contingency at 99. 7 percent on-time delivery in 15 days. Step 5. Implementing the Ideas Regular operations with the new system was pl anned to commence. However, two weeks later it was still not implemented. One of the personnel on the line n CPC had been released by his department for the five-day trial to sit on the line but was not released on a regular basis. The departmental head had not attended the TQM awareness program and therefore did not understand why this change was required. There were two options †mandate the change or change the mindset to accept the change. Since the latter option produces a sturdy implementation that will not break down under pressures it was agreed that the group would summarize TQM, the move around and the results obtained in the project so far and also simulate the process with a simple exercise in front of the department head.\r\nThis session was passing successful and led to the release of the person concerned on a regular basis. Step 6. review • The process was run for one month with regular checks. The results obtained were marginally better and average time reduced to 11 days. • Customer reaction: Sales management and sales agents (internal customers) clearly noticed the difference. For instance one sales manager reported that a customer had received a policy within a week of giving a proposal and was so amazed that he said, â€Å"If you give such service I will give you the next policy also! • Adoption of a similar process at the CPC and the model branch for medical policies has already reduced the average turnaround time by 70 percent †from 118 days to 37 days. The alike(p) all-India reduction was from 118 days to 71 days †a 60 percent reduction. • The project objective of 50 percent in the first stage has been achieved. A quality improvement story was compiled by the project Leader for training and motivating all employees.\r\n'