Quick communication of the consumption of old stock which triggers new stock to be ordered is key to JIT and inventory reduction. This saves warehouse space and costs. However since stock levels are determined by historical demand any sudden demand rises above the historical average demand, the firm will deplete inventory faster than usual and cause customer service issues. Some have suggested that recycling Kanban faster can also help flex the system by as much as 10-30%. In recent years manufacturers have touted a trailing 13 week average as a better predictor for JIT planning than most forecastors could provide.
The technique was subsequently adopted and publicized by Toyota Motor Corporation of Japan as part of its Toyota Production System (TPS). However, Toyota famously did not adopt the procedure from Ford, but from Piggly Wiggly. Although Toyota visited Ford as part of its tour of American businesses, Ford had not fully adopted the Just-In-Time system, and Toyota executives were appalled at the piles of inventory laying around and the uneven work schedule of the employees of Ford. Toyota also visited Piggly Wiggly, and it was there that Toyota executives first observed a fully functioning and successful Just-In-Time system, and modeled TPS after it.
It is hard for Japanese corporations to warehouse finished products and parts, due to the limited amount of land available for them. Before the 1950s, this was thought to be a disadvantage because it forced the production lot size below the economic lot size. (An economic lot size is the number of identical products that should be produced, given the cost of changing the production process over to another product.) The undesirable result was poor return on investment for a factory.
The chief engineer at Toyota in the 1950s, , examined accounting assumptions and realized that another method was possible. The factory could implement JIT which would require it to be made more flexible and reduce the overhead costs of retooling and thereby reduce the economic lot size to fit the available warehouse space. JIT is now regarded by Ohno as one of the two 'pillars' of the Toyota Production System.
Therefore over a period of several years, Toyota engineers redesigned car models for commonality of tooling for such production processes as paint-spraying and welding. Toyota was one of the first to apply flexible robotic systems for these tasks. Some of the changes were as simple as standardizing the hole sizes used to hang parts on hooks. The number and types of fasteners were reduced in order to standardize assembly steps and tools. In some cases, identical sub-assemblies could be used in several models.
Toyota engineers then determined that the remaining critical bottleneck in the retooling process was the time required to change the stamping dies used for body parts. These were adjusted by hand, using crowbars and wrenches. It sometimes took as long as several days to install a large, multi-ton die set and adjust it for acceptable quality. Further, these were usually installed one at a time by a team of experts, so that the line was down for several weeks.
So Toyota implemented a strategy now called Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED), developed with . With very simple fixtures, measurements were substituted for adjustments. Almost immediately, die change times fell to hours instead of days. At the same time, quality of the stampings became controlled by a written recipe, reducing the skill level required for the change. Further analysis showed that a lot of the remaining time was used to search for hand tools and move dies. Procedural changes (such as moving the new die in place with the line in operation) and dedicated tool-racks reduced the die-change times to as little as 40 seconds. Today dies are changed in a ripple through the factory as a new product begins 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 each assembly station. When a part disappeared, that was used as a signal (Kanban) to produce or order a replacement.
Inventory is seen as incurring costs, or waste, instead of adding and storing value, contrary to traditional accounting. This does not mean to say JIT is implemented without an awareness that removing inventory exposes pre-existing manufacturing issues. With this way of working, businesses are encouraged to eliminate inventory that does not compensate for manufacturing process issues, and then to constantly improve those processes so that less inventory can be kept. Secondly, allowing any stock habituates the management to stock keeping and it can then be a bit like a narcotic. Management are then tempted to keep stock there to hide problems within the production system. These problems include backups at work centres, machine reliability, process variability, lack of flexibility of employees and equipment, and inadequate capacity among other things.
In short, the just-in-time inventory system is all about having “the right material, at the right time, at the right place, and in the exact amount”, without the safety net of inventory. The JIT system has implications of which are broad for the implementors.
- F Redesign/relayout for flow
- L Reduce lot sizes
- O Link operations
- W Balance workstation capacity
- M Preventative maintenance
- S Reduce Setup Times
- C worker compliance
- I Automatic inspection
- M quality measures
- M fail-safe methods
- W Worker participation
- S Level Schedule
- W establish freeze windows
- UC Underutilize Capacity
- D Demand pull
- B Backflush
- L Reduce lot sizes
- L Reduce lead time
- D Frequent deliveries
- U Project usage requirements
- Q Quality Expectations
- S Stores
- T Transit
- C Implement Carroussel to reduce motion waste
- C Implement Conveyor belts to reduce motion waste
- P Standard Production Configuration
- P Standardize and reduce the number of parts
- P Process design with product design
- Q Quality Expectations
Another surprising effect was that the response time of the factory fell to about a day. This improved customer satisfaction by providing vehicles usually within a day or two of the minimum economic shipping delay.
Also, many vehicles began to be built to order, completely eliminating the risk they would not be sold. This dramatically improved the company's return on equity by eliminating a major source of risk.
Since assemblers no longer had a choice of which part to use, every part had to fit perfectly. The result was a severe quality assurance crisis, and a dramatic improvement in product quality. Eventually, Toyota redesigned every part of its vehicles to eliminate or widen tolerances, while simultaneously implementing careful statistical controls for quality control. Toyota had to test and train suppliers of parts in order to assure quality and delivery. In some cases, the company eliminated multiple suppliers.
When a process problem or bad parts surfaced on the production line, the entire production line had to be slowed or even stopped. No inventory meant that a line could not operate from in-process inventory while a production problem was fixed. Many people in Toyota confidently predicted that the initiative would be abandoned for this reason. In the first week, line stops occurred almost hourly. But by the end of the first month, the rate had fallen to a few line stops per day. After six months, line stops had so little economic effect that Toyota installed an overhead pull-line, similar to a bus bell-pull, that permitted any worker on the production line to order a line stop for a process or quality problem. Even with this, line stops fell to a few per week.
The result was a factory that eventually became the envy of the industrialized world, and has since been widely emulated.
The just-in-time philosophy was also applied to other segments of the supply chain in several types of industries. In the commercial sector, it meant eliminating one or all of the warehouses in the link between a factory and a retail establishment.
With very low stock levels meaning that there are shipments of the same part coming in sometimes several times per day, Toyota is especially susceptible to an interruption in the flow. For that reason, Toyota is careful to use two suppliers for most assemblies. As noted in Liker (2003), there was an exception to this rule that put the entire company at risk by the 1997 Aisin fire. However, since Toyota also makes a point of maintaining high quality relations with its entire supplier network, several other suppliers immediately took up production of the Aisin-built parts by using existing capability and documentation. Thus, a strong, long-term relationship with a few suppliers is preferred to short-term, price-based relationships with competing suppliers. This long-term relationship has also been used by Toyota to send Toyota staff into their suppliers to improve their suppliers' processes. These interventions have now been going on for twenty years and result in improved margins for Toyota and the supplier as well as lower final customer costs and a more reliable supply chain. Toyota encourages their suppliers to duplicate this work with their own suppliers.
It is because of this almost all value chains are split into a part which makes-to-forecast and a part which could, by using JIT, become make-to-order. Often, historically, the make-to-order part has been within the retailer portion of the value chain. Toyota's revolutionary step has been to take Piggly Wiggly's supermarket replenishment system and drive it back to at least half way through their automobile factories. Their challenge today is to drive it all the way back to their goods-inwards dock. Of course, the mining of iron and making of steel is still not done specifically because somebody orders a particular car. Recognising JIT could be driven back up the supply chain has reaped Toyota huge benefits and a world dominating position in the auto industry.
It should be noted that the advent of the mini mill steelmaking facility is starting to challenge how far back JIT can be implemented, as the electric arc furnaces at the heart of many mini-mills can be started and stopped quickly, and steel grades changed rapidly.
The argument is presented as follows:
Beside the obvious point that prices went up because of the reduction in supply and not for anything to do with the practice of JIT, JIT students and even oil & gas industry analysts question whether JIT as it has been developed by Ohno, Goldratt, and others is used by the petroleum industry. Companies routinely shut down facilities for reasons other than the application of JIT. One of those reasons may be economic rationalization: when the benefits of operating no longer outweigh the costs, including opportunity costs, the plant may be economically inefficient. JIT has never subscribed to such considerations directly; following Waddel and Bodek (2005), this ROI-based thinking conforms more to Brown-style accounting and Sloan management. Further, and more significantly, JIT calls for a reduction in inventory capacity, not production capacity. From 1975 to 1990 to 2005, the annual average stocks of gasoline have fallen by only 8.5% from 228,331 to 222,903 bbls to 208,986 (Energy Information Administration data). Stocks fluctuate seasonally by as much as 20,000 bbls. During the 2005 hurricane season, stocks never fell below 194,000 thousand bbls, while the low for the period 1990 to 2006 was 187,017 thousand bbls in 1997. This shows that while industry storage capacity has decreased in the last 30 years, it hasn't been drastically reduced as JIT practitioners would prefer.
Finally, as shown in a pair of articles in the Oil & Gas Journal, JIT does not seem to have been a goal of the industry. In Waguespack and Cantor (1996), the authors point out that JIT would require a significant change in the supplier/refiner relationship, but the changes in inventories in the oil industry exhibit none of those tendencies. Specifically, the relationships remain cost-driven among many competing suppliers rather than quality-based among a select few long-term relationships. They find that a large part of the shift came about because of the availability of short-haul crudes from Latin America. In the follow-up editorial, the Oil & Gas Journal claimed that "casually adopting popular business terminology that doesn't apply" had provided a "rhetorical bogey" to industry critics. Confessing that they had been as guilty as other media sources, they confirmed that "It also happens not to be accurate."
Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI)
VMI employs the same principles as those of JIT inventory however the responsibilities of managing inventory is placed with the vendor in a vendor/customer relationship. Whether it’s a manufacturer who is managing inventory for a distributor, or a distributor managing inventory for their customers; the role of managing inventory is given to the vendor. (see VMI)
The primary advantage of this business model is that the vendor has industry experience and expertise which enables them to better anticipate demand and inventory needs. The inventory planning and controlling is facilitated by the use of applications that allow vendors to have access to the inventory picture of its customer.
Third party applications offer vendors the benefit afforded by a quick implementation time. Further, such companies hold valuable inventory management knowledge and expertise that helps organizations immensely.
Customer Managed Inventory (CMI)
With CMI, the customer as opposed to the vendor in a VMI model is given the responsibility of making all inventory decisions. This is similar to the concepts employed by JIT inventory. With a clear picture of their inventory and that of their supplier’s, the customer is able to anticipate fluctuations in demand and make inventory replenishment decisions accordingly.