A Framework For Implementing Just in Time in A Valve Manufacturing Industry
A Framework For Implementing Just in Time in A Valve Manufacturing Industry
A Framework For Implementing Just in Time in A Valve Manufacturing Industry
ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
1 April 2016
I. Introduction
lead time, less floor area for finished goods more than 20% on
average. Dr. Sanjay Kumar [5] also found that JIT
implementation reduces 275 minutes of operation time of
flow indicator. Mitsutoshi Kojima [6] performed evaluation
of supply chain in JIT environment and concluded that with
help of kanban and markov process, the uncertainty among
multi stage production with stochastic demand and
deterministic processing time could be handled. Akbar [7]
found that implementation of JIT reduces work in progress to
82%, space to 40%, shipments of company increases to 20%.
Halim [8] founded gravity flow rack method is useful in
improving material handling system for JIT and productivity
per man hour of line increased by 9.75%.Vikas Kumar[9]
formulated approach to tackle the barriers for implementation
of JIT. Linda [10] explored relationship among supplier
development and product capacities of firm. She also
provided some general strategy to develop suppliers in terms
of productivity. Mishra [12] found out equation to use for
comparison between different suppliers with various factors
involved. Rajeev [13] found out different factors to be
considered for improving supplier development program.
doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5s4/419
Flow Diagram1.0
Page 303
Averag %
% of
e profit Profit COQ
/ton
A
8
22,351
21.6
13.6
B
5
18,319
17.8
8.5
C
11
12,194
11.2
18.6
D
6
5,676
5.5
10.2
E
3
8,983
8.7
5.1
F
7
10,509
10.2
11.9
G
5
5,574
5.4
8.5
Table 1.0
.Step 2 Defining key Product: After identification of key
customer, the focus will be given to finding key order from
him. The Datas are again gathered from finance department
and tabulated in Table 2.0. From the table, it can be concluded
that is key product of key customer.
Order No.
Type of Valve
Valve
Number of
Size
Quantity
R04100226
VTCS
3/4"
1378
R04100229
Small Forged
1/2"
476
R04100201
Bonnet less
4"
46
R04100248
Cast Steel
12"
4
R04100265
Pressure Seal
7"
6
R04100213
Bellow Seal
1"
54
Table 2.0
Step 3 ABC Analysis of Bill of material (3/4 valve): The
Next step is to collect Bill of material data and conduct ABC
Analysis for determining the critical cost constituent of valve.
The Datas are gathered from engineering department and
shown in Table3.0
Customers
Name
BNNT-04--2-W-040
BODY-04--2
STEM-04--2
WDGE-04--8
WDGE-04--3 CAST
SEAT-04--4
PFLG-05--2
PKRG 0406"X X1
PKRG 0406"X
STUDO B6 O 312
NUTS 2H 3125
GSKT B2 000" X 1.5"
YKBG 05 2
HBNT 05 3
HDWH 3.5"
HHCS B7 0.375"X
IJER@2016
Cost of
quality
(lakhs)
Net
Quantity
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
Cost
10.00
15.00
0.40
8.00
0.60
4.00
5.00
0.50
0.45
0.47
2.00
0.70
3.00
3.50
0.60
6.00
ABC
Analysis
A
A
C
A
C
B
B
C
C
C
B
C
B
B
C
B
ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
1 April 2016
WSHRX1.071"X0.050"
WSHR X0.050"
WSHR CS 0.625"
YKNT-04--3
4
1
1
1
0.40
0.47
0.50
4.00
C
C
C
B
Table3.0
From the table, it is understood that we need to target A
subcategory of ABC Analysis, particularly Body part in the
valve as it is consuming maximum cost among others.
Step 4 Valves Body suppliers: The next step is to
determine the suppliers of body part as those are the suppliers
among which we need to target for making best key supplier.
The datas are collected from purchase department and
tabulated in Table 4.
Rejections
Variation
in
Supplier Name
Involved/100
Delivery Dates
components
S1
10
2.4
S2
7
3.0
S3
4
6.2
S4
13
0.8
Table 4.0
From the table, it can be inferred that currently S2 is key
supplier for body, if delivery dates is not a problem means S4
is having finest quality product.
Step 5 Current supplier ranking system: The case company
is considering only two factors of supply chain i.e. quality and
on time delivery. By only considering, these two factors, they
neglect some important factors like quantity fulfilment, price
level fluctuation and organizational abilities. As per now, S2
is key supplier.
Step 6 Supplier Development strategies (SDS): The
Supplier development strategies are defined as collaboration
of different managing philosophy through which an industrial
buying firm puts its effort to improve its vendors capacities.
It consists sorting of different proposals for supplier
development, fixation of firms priority factors, and
development of model to evaluate suppliers on priority factors
of supply chain.
The SDS starts with brainstorming session consisting of plant
manager, engineers from different departments, suppliers
representatives and lean consultant. The different solutions
generated during diversion phase (where quantity of solution
are encouraged despite of its quality) of brainstorming are
feedback process, standard parts, supplier ranking( scorecard
method),visiting plants (for verification about development ),
awards for suppliers performance, supplier participation,
supplier certification program, supplier training, experts help
(problem solving), supplier collaboration (for new product ),
information flow exchange with suppliers.
The different parameters, along with its scores, are also
determined in brainstorming session to evaluate proposals.
The parameters selected are Potential cost Benefit (1- Very
low saving 4- Minor saving 7-Major saving 10- Very high
saving), Cost of development (1- Very high cost 4- Major
cost 7-Affordable cost 10- Minimum cost), Time required
doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5s4/419
Page 304
ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
1 April 2016
Proposals
Potential
Time required
Cost of
Probability of State Total
cost
for
development
implementation of art Score
Benefit
implementation
Table 6.2
Feedback process
36
Standard Parts
18
Supplier ranking
43
Visiting plants
25
Awards
40
Supplier Participation
22
Supplier certification
39
Suppliers Training
22
Parameters
Quantity
Fulfillment
Quality
Experts help
23
Delivery Date
Supplier Collaboration
22
Information Flow
19
Price Level
Deviation
Organizational
ability
Table 5.0
Total
42
59
31
16
22
Comparison
point
Final
score
Share
%
70
42
112
22.4
90
59
149
29.8
80
31
111
22.2
40
16
56
11.2
50
22
72
14.4
Table 6.3
The brainstorming session has provided four major proposals
i.e. supplier ranking, awards, feedback process and supplier
certification.
Step 6.1 Suppliers Ranking: The supplier ranking system has
considered three more factors to evaluate supplier performance
i.e. quantity fulfilment, price level deviation and organizational
ability. Predetermined minimum method is used to find out
priority of factors from firms perspective. The factors are
denoted by variables. Quantity fulfilment (A), Quality (B),
Delivery date (C), Price level deviation (D), Organizational
ability (E). The Predetermined minimum method (PMM) kickoffs with allocation of points on each factor on a scale of
100.The initial table of PMM is shown in Table 6.1
Parameters
Quantity
Fulfillment
Quality
Delivery Date
Price Level
Deviation
Organizational
ability
Letters
Minimum
point
Remaining
point
100
70
30
100
90
10
100
80
20
100
40
60
100
50
50
22.2
11.2
14.4
E(5)
S1
F(2)
Total
Rank
347.4
362.2
321.6
407.6
G(3)
P(1)
Total
44.8
119.2
66.6
44.8
E(5)
G(3)
72
VG(4)
67.2
89.4
F(2)
P(1)
Total
E(5)
VG(4)
S3
88.8
44.8
72
G(3)
F(2)
P(1)
Total
89.6
E(5)
VG(4)
Table 6.1
B
29.8
VG(4)
S2
Maximum
point
A
22.4
S4
29.8
111
33.6
57.6
G(3)
F(2)
P(1)
Total
89.6
149
66.6
44.8
57.6
Table 7.0
IJER@2016
doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5s4/419
Page 305
ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
1 April 2016
Figure 1.0
Calculation: The CIR calculation originates with finding out
current supplier performance of key supplier. Before plan,
Supplier performance=362.2/500=72.44
1st removal: (10% reduction of difference of current
inventory and usage)
= .1*(452-115) = 33.7 or 34
So, New body inventory=452-34=418
(5 % increment in difference of ideal supplier performance
and current supplier performance)
= 0.05*(100-72.44)
=1.38
So, New supplier performance should be = 72.44+1.38=
73.82
Note 1: Reduction in inventory will only initiate when there is
more than 5% increment in difference of ideal supplier
performance and current supplier performance, otherwise it
will be not initiated.
Note 2: After reaching supplier performance of 100, only
factors matters are inventory usage and current inventory.
IV. Conclusion
The JIT implementation model has worked for low volume
high variety. The CIR plan takes care of inventory removal at
IJER@2016
doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5s4/419
Page 306
V. Future work
The CIR Plan had been implemented at one product model. It
need to evaluated against different product groups and found out
comparison chart for different products to validate its result in
every type of industries.
References
i.
Sandeep Phogat, Introduction to JIT: A Review, IJLRST
ISSN (Online):2278-5299 Volume 2, Issue 6: Page No.97-101,
November-December 2013
ii.
Hiroyuki hirano, JIT implementation manual, 2nd edition,
CRC Press
iii.
Bhupesh Lohar, JIT practices in Indian industries: a survey,
IJCCR India
iv.
Ahmad Naufal Bin Adnan, Implementation of Just in Time
Production through Kanban System, IISTE, Vol.3, No.6, 2013
v.
Dr. Sultan Singh, JIT System: Concepts, Benefits and
Motivation in Indian Industries,IJMBS Vol. 1, Issue 1, March 2011
vi.
Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Manufacturing Excellence through JIT
Approach, IJAIEM, Volume 2, Issue 7, July 2013
vii.
Mitsutoshi Kojima, Performance evaluation of SCM in JIT
environment, Int. J. Production Economics 115 (2008) 439 443
viii.
Akbar Javadian Kootanaee, Just-in-Time Manufacturing
System:From Introduction to Implement, IJEBF Vol. 1, No. 2, March
2013, PP: 07 25.
ix.
Nurul Hayati Abdul Halim, Gravity Flow Racks Material
Handling System for Just-In-Time (JIT) Production, IRIS, Procedia
Engineering 41 ( 2012 ) 1714 1720.
x.
Vikas kumar, JIT Based Quality Management: Concepts and
Implications in Indian Context, IJEST Vol.2 (1), 2010, 40-50.
IJER@2016
ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
1 April 2016
xi.
Linda Hendry, supplier, Development and literature
review and key future research areas, IJETI, vol. 2, no. 4, 2012, pp.
293-303.
xii.
R K Mishra, supplier development strategies: a data
envelopment analysis approach, BIJ 2009,99-110
xiii.
Rajendra chavhan, Supplier development: theories and
practices, IOSR-JMCE 2012,37-51
xiv.
Jorge Luis , A systematic review/survey for JIT
implementation: Mexican maquiladoras as case study, Elsevier,
computers in Industry 65 (2014) 761773
xv.
Kakuro Amasaka, Applying New JITToyotas global
production strategy: Epoch-making innovation of the work
environment, Science direct, robotics and Computer-integrated
Manufacturing 23 (2007) 285293.
xvi.
Rodolfo Rodrguez-Mndez, A case study: SMED & JIT
methodologies to develop continuous flow of stamped parts into AC
disconnect assembly line in Schneider Electric Tlaxcala Plant,
IFAC-Papers OnLine 48-3 (2015) 13991404. .
xvii.
A. Gunashekaran, Implementation of JIT in a small
company, production planning and control,1997,vol-8,no-4,406-412
xviii.
John F. Kros, Impact of just-in-time inventory systems on
OEM suppliers, Industrial Management & Data Systems Vol. 106
No. 2, 2006 pp. 224-241
xix.
Bo Hou, A Case Study of Just-In-Time System in the
Chinese Automotive Industry, PWCE 2011 Vol I WCE 2011, July 6 8, 2011, London, U.K.
xx.
A. S. Aradhye, A Case Study of Just-In-Time System in
Service Industry, Procedia Engineering 97 ( 2014 ) 2232 2237.
xxi.
Narath Bhusiri, Application of the Just-In-Time Concept in
Urban Freight Transport, Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 125 ( 2014 ) 171 185.
doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5s4/419
Page 307