An empirical study of just-in-time and total quality management principles implementation in manufacturing firms in the USA

Loknath Sriparavastu
Futuramic Tool and Engineering Company, Warren, Michigan, USA, and

JIT and TQM in manufacturing firms in the USA 1215

Tarun Gupta
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
Introduction Gone are the days when US manufacturers used to sit in the ivory tower of past achievements. The competitive edge they had gained soon after the Second World War is gone. Huge inventories and work in process, once believed to be sound company practices, turned the large companies into white elephants. With no concept of quality and no consideration to the customers satisfaction, the US firms not only lost their competitive edge but even lost their domestic markets to the formidable quality conscious products of the Japanese. Taking the cue from Dr Deming, the father of quality, Japanese companies faithfully followed his doctrine that quality should be aimed at the needs of the customer. This doctrine helped them achieve world-class standards and huge sales. Kiichiro Toyoda, the first president of Toyota, invented the just-in-time (JIT) concept. The quality revolution is generally referred to by its cultic acronym TQM, or total quality management. TQM emerged as a generic title for the process of quality improvement (Ross, 1993). JIT and TQM strategies turned into a magic wand, converting factory after factory in Japan into goldeneggs-laying geese. In the last decade, US manufacturing firms woke up with a jolt from their deep slumber and realizing that Japanese and European industries had overtaken them in the quality race, re-entered the race with a renewed quality consciousness. In the USA, serious adoption of these approaches began only at the beginning of the 1980s (Vuppalapati et al., 1995). The continuously declining market shares of several US manufacturing giants in the seventies was a strong signal that the business operations had to be reviewed thoroughly before any

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 12, 1997, pp. 1215-1232. MCB University Press, 0144-3577

IJOPM 17,12

1216

possible solution to the crisis could be determined. Initially, the management in troubled US companies assumed that all problems of productivity and quality originated from the shop floor. However, a closer look at Japanese companies revealed that a holistic approach by the organizations to improving the efficiency and quality of products and processes was responsible for this excellence (Vuppalapati et al., 1995). There have been some attempts at defining the components of JIT programmes (Schonberger, 1982; Spencer and Guide, 1995) although little has been reported to define the components of an integrated JIT and TQM programme. Most research has focused on general principles or guidelines of JIT or TQM individually (Andrews, 1984). The purpose of this empirical study is to identify elements that are crucial to JIT and TQM programmes. Various books and numerous articles published in the last ten years indicate that the US firms baptized with the TQM philosophy and the JIT concepts are making a sincere attempt to recapture their lost glory. But how far are these statements true? The empirical research we conducted brings very important results, which help us reassess the competitive situation of US firms in the global marketplace. Objectives of the research One of our recent studies analysed the impacts of JIT and TQM implementation in US firms. The study concluded that a joint implementation of JIT and TQM resulted in significantly higher performance levels than the results of implementing either one. The study involved gathering first-hand data using a specially designed survey questionnaire about quality functions and manufacturing operations. Based on the analysis it was found that about twothirds of all companies surveyed were limited to pursue one of the two programmes. Based on this finding we formulated a hypothesis for the present research. We hypothesize that an organization may approach implementation of JIT and TQM concepts in one of several different ways. It may choose to start with JIT principles on the shop floor to eliminate waste, or it may start with TQM principles to enhance quality of products and services throughout the organization. In either case, the remaining set of principles, JIT or TQM, may be adopted at a suitable time in the future. The third option is to start both programmes concurrently, which would require significantly larger commitment in terms of resources than the other two options. The existing body of knowledge in the areas of JIT and TQM lacks in providing any guidelines for implementing a successful programme, which may provide answers to production and quality-related problems. This paper presents results of an empirical survey which aims at outlining simple-to-follow guidelines and practical considerations that a JIT/TQM programme coordinator can use during the selection and implementation phase of such a programme.

Research methodology JIT and TQM in To gain an insight into the actual quality management practices carried out in the manufacturing US industries, an empirical survey was conducted to gather qualified opinions firms in the USA concerning production and quality practices carried out in their companies. To get a national view of the industries using JIT and TQM principles, a survey of 600 companies across the USA was selected. The empirical survey is 1217 split into, first, a pilot survey comprising 100 companies across the USA covering all the States, and, second, a final survey comprising 500 companies across the USA. The purpose of the pilot survey was to study the responses and rectify, modify and redefine the questions for the purpose of the intended study. Blank questions with no responses and questions with inconsistent responses were studied with extra caution, in order to eliminate the problem of ambiguity. Since the study was extensive, covering the entire USA was thought to be an essential practice. Criteria for the study The study comprised the following two criteria: (1) For the purpose of the study, manufacturing companies under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), Division D, Range 20-39 (manufacturing) were selected. (2) Companies employing 50 or more people and fewer than 3,000. Questionnaire design The questionnaire was divided into two sections as Section I and Section II. Section I was divided into eight divisions. Questions in each division were dedicated to one particular aspect of the manufacturing facility. The divisions were: (1A) production related; (1B) production-related strategies; (2) employee related; (3) management related; (4) supplier related; (5) cost related; (6) quality related; (7) computer-related tools; and (8) ISO 9000 certification. Section II was mainly dedicated to the JIT and TQM programme implementation. A special emphasis was made to first identify and categorize companies into: non JIT/non TQM; JIT and TQM started but abandoned;

IJOPM 17,12

1218

pilot programme in; implementing JIT and TQM strategies for less than two years; and initial implementation successfully completed and the JIT and TQM programme in use for more than two years. Questions pertaining to the respondents job title, number of employees in the firm and the nature of their business, appear at the conclusion of the questionnaire. Based on sample observations for time to answer all questions, it was estimated that a typical respondent would take an average of half-an-hour to complete the questionnaire. The questions in the first six of the eight divisions are based on several factors, which are listed as follows: (1) Production: productivity; stable production scheduling; product design; line balancing; minimum lot size (for manufacturing); inventory turnaround (number of cycles); predictive maintenance; work cell concept (formation/identification of part families and work cells); uniform work load; group technology; focused factory concept; kanban/pull system; over production (producing more than the scheduled quantity); machines waiting for repairs; work in process; stock of finished goods; material handling distances; rejection rate; lead times (manufacturing cycle); machine set-up times and tool/die exchange time. (2) Employee: production workers support; office staff support; multifunctional employees; employee absenteeism; employee turnover; employee training; recognition and rewards; empowerment/involvement; quick implementation of employees suggestions on quality and line stop (empowerment of workers to stop the production line if line problems occur). (3) Management: top management support; middle management support; inter-disciplinary team approach to project management; customer focus; communication (interdepartmental/ interfunctional); product design review before production and marketing; response time to customers (time between order receipt and delivery) and computer resources. (4) Supplier: just-in-time purchasing; number of suppliers per item; supplier development; blanket orders/firm orders; long-term partnership relationship (vendor as a business partner); supplier performance; periodic review of supplier performance; standardized containers; small, frequent deliveries; exact quantities from suppliers and inspection of incoming materials. (5) Costs: decrease in the inventory costs; unit product cost; scrap/rework costs; inspection costs; administrative costs and inbound freight (from suppliers). (6) Quality : specification of product quality; continuous improvement; parts/components standardization; quality circles (group approach

towards quality); total quality control; availability of quality data and JIT and TQM in SPC chart. manufacturing The respondents were asked to choose answers to survey questions on a five- firms in the USA point Likert scale from 1 representing decreased considerably to 5 increased considerably. In order to perform statistical analysis the individual responses were coded 1 through 5 accordingly. Based on the scale used, an average score of 1219 more than 4 for a question was interpreted as increased considerably whereas, an average score less than 2 was interpreted as decreased considerably. Analysis of data The pilot survey was conducted to perform a test run of the survey tool developed and the results were used to modify it. The important findings of the pilot survey and the final survey are discussed in the following sections below. Pilot survey One hundred questionnaires were mailed to all 50 States in the USA. Follow-up letters were sent after one month and 29 responses were received (29 per cent response rate). The pilot survey questionnaires were addressed to different individuals in the manufacturing industry, ranging from vice-president to the factory managers level. After a careful review of the respondents answers to the questionnaire, four questions were modified to convey their intended meaning, and a few more questions were added as per the suggestions received from the respondents. Final survey Five hundred questionnaires were mailed all over the USA. A total of 154 responses (30.8 per cent response rate) were received. Since the response rate had reached the anticipated mark and due to limited financial resources, no reminder letters were sent. As mentioned earlier, estimated time to complete the questionnaire was half an hour. However, surprisingly all the respondents had fully answered all the questions. A few had marked N/A (not applicable) on certain questions, which did not pertain to their current manufacturing system. None of the questions were left blank in any of the returned questionnaires. Preliminary analysis . Preliminary analysis included determination of description statistics on size and type of responding companies and also on the rank of the respondent. The respondents. Though the questionnaires were addressed to the plant managers, 48 respondents (31 per cent) were from the top management ranks, ranging from presidents to the general managers. One hundred and five respondents (69 per cent) were from middle management. Managers were from various departments such as manufacturing, materials, project and quality. The job title of each respondent is shown in Table I.

IJOPM 17,12

Job title Top management President Chief executive officer Vice-presidents Controller Directors General managers Total Middle management Plant managers Manufacturing managers Managers-operations Factory managers Foundry managers Project managers Quality control managers Plant superintendent Total

No. of respondents 4 1 17 1 5 20 48 57 6 9 5 2 2 14 1 96 1 1 6 1 9

1220

Others Senior plant engineer Plant engineer QA and QC R&D Table I. Job titles of respondents Total

Employees range . From the responses, it was classified that 22 manufacturing firms had the employees in the range of 50-100. Sixty of them had 251-500 employees range. Twenty companies had 501-1,000 employees and eight companies had 1,001-3,000 employees. The results are shown in Figure 1. Nature of business. The highest percentage of business in high volume high variety is indicated by 82 respondents followed by low volume high variety with 40 respondents. High volume low variety type of business is carried out by 17 and low volume low variety by 9. Four have responded with low volume high variety and high volume high variety type of business and two of them with low volume high variety and high volume low variety. The break-down is shown in Figure 2. JIT programme . Fifty-two respondents (34.0 per cent) had not implemented the JIT programme (see Table II). Nine (5.9 per cent) had implemented but now abandoned. Forty-one (26.8 per cent) were in the pilot stage of implementation. Thirty-one (22.9 per cent) had implemented and 16 (10.5 per cent) had fully implemented the programme.

Number of Firms 70 60 50 43 40 30 22 20 10 0 50-100 Employee Range 101-250 251-500 501-1000 1001-3000 20 60

JIT and TQM in manufacturing firms in the USA 1221

8 Figure 1. Manufacturing firms and employees

Low Volume Low Variety 7%

Low Volume High Variety 27% High Volume High Variety 54%

High Volume Low Variety 12%

Figure 2. Nature of business

IJOPM 17,12

1222

TQM programme . Forty-nine respondents (32.0 per cent) had not implemented the TQM programme (see Table II). Eight (5.2 per cent) had implemented but now abandoned. Thirty-four (22.2 per cent) were in the pilot stage of implementation. Forty-eight (31.4 per cent) had implemented and 14 (9.2 per cent) had fully implemented the programme. The JIT and TQM programme implementation details are shown in Table II and Figure 3.

Status Not implemented Implemented but now abandoned Pilot stage Implemented Fully implemented

Frequency JIT TQM 52 9 41 35 16 49 8 34 48 14

Percentage JIT TQM 34.0 5.9 26.8 22.9 10.5 32.0 5.2 22.2 31.4 9.2

Cumulative frequency JIT TQM 52 61 102 137 153 49 57 91 139 153

Cumulative percentage JIT TQM 34.0 39.9 66.7 89.5 100 32.0 37.3 59.5 90.8 100

Table II. JIT and TQM implementation details

Note: Empirical survey results

40.0%

35.0%

34.0% 32.0% 31.4%

30.0% 26.8% 25.0% 22.2% 20.0% 22.8%

15.0% 10.5% 10.0% 5.9% 5.2% 5.0% 9.2%

0.0%

Figure 3. JIT and TQM implementation programme details

Not Implemented

Implemented but Abnormal

Pilot Stage

Implemented

Fully Implemented

JIT

TQM

Secondary analysis. Secondary analysis included the following:

JIT and TQM in manufacturing Status-grouping. For the purpose of the statistical analysis, based on the questions on JIT and TQM programmes, the respondents were classified firms in the USA
into: None: the respondents not implementing either JIT or TQM practices answered NI (not implemented) or IA (implemented but now abandoned discontinued) for JIT; and answered NI or IA for TQM in the questionnaire. Both: the respondents implementing both JIT and TQM practices answered PS (pilot stage, i.e. experimental stage) or I (implemented) or FI (fully implemented) for JIT; and PS or I or FI for TQM. JIT: the respondents using only JIT practices answered PS or I or FI for JIT; and NI or IA for TQM. TQM: the respondents using only TQM practices answered NI or IA for JIT; and PS or I or FI for TQM.

1223

The results of the classification from 153 responses received is shown in Table III and Figure 4. A one-third rule applies very well to this data if the three categories are identified as: (1) implemented fully; (2) did not implement; and (3) pilot stage or implemented but abandoned. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results Improved quality and productivity measures were classified in six areas: (1) production related; (2) employee related; (3) management related; (4) supplier related; (5) cost related; and (6) quality related.
Frequency None Both (JIT and TQM) JIT only TQM only 42.0 77.0 15.0 19.0 Per cent 27.05 50.03 9.8 12.4 Cumulative 42 119 134 153 Cumulative % 27.5 77.8 87.6 100

Table III. Classification of JIT and TQM implementation

IJOPM 17,12
None 28%

1224
Both JIT and TQM 50% TQM 12% Figure 4. Classification of JIT and TQM implementation JIT 10%

These six categories were classified as variable I. Manufacturing companies that responded were classified into four groups. The first group were the companies implementing JIT, the second group consisted of companies implementing TQM, Companies implementing both JIT and TQM were classified as group three and companies not implementing any of the two programmes were classified as group four. t-test results for JIT, and JIT and TQM groups ANOVA results for all six categories or blocks, productivity, employees, management, supplier, cost and quality-related measures are shown in Table IV. There were significant differences in the means with p = 0.0001 for production, employees, management, suppliers, costs and quality. The results indicate significant differences at = 0.05 for each of these factors between the pairwise groups as Pr > F was less than 0.05. Furthermore, pair-wise comparisons for the six categories are shown in Tables V-X. The results of pair-wise comparison showed significant differences among the four groups. Table XI summarizes t-test results for six categories between groups 1 (JIT) and 3 (JIT and TQM). Out of the six categories, the p values for employees (0.0418), supplier (0.0017), and quality (0.0208) indicate significant differences at = 0.05 between group 1 and group 3. However, the results for production-, management- and cost-related blocks indicated that there were no significant differences between the two groups. Thus it can be concluded that employeerelated factors such as empowerment, involvement, motivation and satisfaction have significant differences between the two groups. The significant differences for supplier- and quality-related factors between group 1 (JIT) and group 3 (JIT and TQM) tend to indicate that TQM principles address all aspects of quality

Division and source Productivity Model Error Corrected Employees Model Error Corrected Management Model Error Corrected Supplier Model Error Corrected Cost Model Error Corrected Quality Model Error Corrected

DF 3 149 152 3 149 152 3 149 152 3 149 152 3 149 152 3 149 152

Sum of squares 4,556.05 7,207.92 11,763.97 1,495.32 2,960.22 4,455.54 1,049.13 1,757.81 2,806.94 1,841.43 2,788.69 4,630.12 570.07 1,523.48 2,093.54 3,574.30 6,065.82 9,640.12

Mean square 1,518.68 48.38

F value 31.39

Pr > F 0.0001

JIT and TQM in manufacturing firms in the USA 1225

498.44 19.87

25.09

0.0001

349.70 11.79

29.64

0.0001

613.81 18.72

32.80

0.0001

190.02 10.22

18.58

0.0001

1191.43 40.72

29.27

0.0001

Table IV. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

starting from vendor development to customer satisfaction. However, no significant difference between the two groups for production and cost-related factors suggests that improvement in these factors are observed in the JIT programme alone as well. Similarly, management support and commitment is absolutely necessary for the success of a JIT programme as much as it would be if the two programmes were implemented simultaneously.

JIT and TQM High 64.2

JIT 61.6

TQM 60.7

None 51.4 Low Table V. Pair-wise comparison: production related block 1 (averages)

IJOPM 17,12

1226

t-test results for TQM, and JIT and TQM groups Table XII summarizes the t-test results for group 2 (TQM) and group 3 (JIT and TQM) with each of the six categories or blocks. The six categories are production, employees, management, suppliers, costs and quality as defined earlier. The results show that there was a significant difference between the firms implementing TQM and JIT and the firms implementing JIT only =

JIT and TQM High Table VI. Pair-wise comparison: employee related block 2 (averages) 38.6

TQM 37.6

JIT 36.0

None 31.3 Low

TQM Table VII. Pair-wise comparison: management related block 3 (averages) High 24.8

JIT and TQM 24.3

JIT 23.0

None 18.4 Low

JIT and TQM High Table VIII. Pair-wise comparison: supplier related block 4 (averages) 41.3

TQM 39.5

JIT 37.4

None 33.1 Low

JIT and TQM Table IX. Pair-wise comparison: costs related block 5 (averages) High 18.3

JIT 17.5

TQM 17.1

None 13.7 Low

0.05. From the test results it was also evident that there was no significant JIT and TQM in difference between the firms implementing TQM and JIT and the firms manufacturing implementing only TQM with regard to employee-, management-, supplier-, firms in the USA cost- and quality-related blocks. t-test results for pilot stage and full implementation How does level of implementation influence the performance indicators as defined earlier in six blocks? A programme implementation was identified at two levels: pilot stage and full implementation. An implementation was categorized as pilot stage in the first two years of its start, and programmes in place for a period more than two years were classified as full implementation. In this section were the results of t-test for the two programme implementation phases with the same six categories. Table XIII shows the p values of 0.0072 for
JIT and TQM High 59.2 TQM 57.4 JIT 55.0 None 47.8 Low Table X. Pair-wise comparison: quality related block 6 (averages)

1227

Block and group Production JIT JIT and TQM Employees JIT JIT and TQM Management JIT JIT and TQM Suppliers JIT JIT and TQM Costs JIT JIT and TQM Quality JIT JIT and TQM

Frequency (No.) 15 77 15 77 15 77 15 77 15 77 15 77

Average 61.60 64.25 36.07 38.65 23.00 24.32 37.40 41.31 17.53 18.32 55.00 59.20

p value

0.1796

0.0418*

0.1738

0.0017*

0.3820

0.0208*

Note: *Significance at = 0.05 level

Table XI. t-test results for JIT group

IJOPM 17,12

Block and group Production TQM JIT and TQM

Frequency (No.) 19 77 19 77 19 77 19 77 19 77 19 77

Average 60.68 64.25 37.63 38.65 24.84 24.32 39.53 41.31 17.11 18.32 57.47 59.20

p value

0.0474*

1228

Employees TQM JIT and TQM Management TQM JIT and TQM Suppliers TQM JIT and TQM Costs TQM JIT and TQM Quality TQM JIT and TQM

0.3742

0.5574

0.1093

0.1387

Table XII. t-test results for TQM group

0.2904

Note: *Significance at = 0.05 level

Block and group Production Pilot Implemented Employees Pilot Implemented Management Pilot Implemented Suppliers Pilot Implemented Costs Pilot Implemented Quality Pilot Implemented

Frequency (No.) 38 57 38 57 38 57 38 57 38 57 38 57

Average 62.37 64.98 37.98 38.43 23.76 24.39 39.68 41.47 17.19 19.00 56.53 60.11

p value

0.0522

0.6152

0.3658

0.0663

0.0072*

Table XIII. t-test results for pilot stage

0.0115*

Note: *Significance at = 0.05 level

cost-related and 0.0115 for quality-related blocks. The results show that there JIT and TQM in was a significant difference between the pilot stage and full implementation. manufacturing The values are significant at = 0.05. This suggests that the two factors firms in the USA continue to improve over a long period of time. Pilot stage implementation may not be sufficient to tell the benefits of the programmes. It was also evident from the test results that there was no significant difference between the pilot stage and the fully implemented stage with regard to production-, employee-, 1229 management- and supplier-related blocks. These results suggest that while substantial improvements in production-related aspects can be observed in the very early stages of a JIT/TQM programme, employee-, management- and supplier-related factors are required to be addressed very early during the implementation process. Some important conclusions and recommendations The objective of this research was to provide some guidelines that might be of importance to a programme co-ordinator planning to implement JIT and/or TQM programmes. Based on the results of analysis, the following are the main conclusions drawn: (1) The manufacturing units implementing JIT and TQM strategies had significant increase in quality and productivity levels, employee involvement, management commitment, suppliers participation, and reduction in costs when compared to manufacturing units not implementing such strategies. (2) The manufacturing units implementing JIT and TQM strategies have increased quality standards when compared to manufacturing units implementing only JIT strategies. The difference in quality standards improvements can be attributed to TQM strategies. (3) The manufacturing units implementing JIT and TQM strategies observe increased productivity level when compared to manufacturing units implementing only TQM strategies. The difference in productivity level improvements can be attributed to JIT strategies. (4) The manufacturing units implementing JIT and TQM strategies observe increased employee involvement and suppliers participation compared to manufacturing units implementing only JIT strategies.. (5) Results from the analysis of the production-related section are as follows: The average score of responses in this section ranged from a high of 4.02 for productivity to a low of 2.73 for minimum lot size. From these scores we conclude that companies which implemented JIT observed significant improvements in quality and productivity without changing the production lot size. Specifically, companies observed significant improvements in lead time, delivery cycles and rejection rates. A substantial reduction in stocks of finished goods and WIP as well as a reduction in set-up time were also reported. These positive results are attributed to the use of work-cell concepts such as uniform workload,

IJOPM 17,12
(6)

1230

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

kanban, and group technology principles, which are very important for a successful implementation of JIT. Results from the analysis of the employee-related section are as follows: The average score of responses in this section ranged from a high of 3.89 for employee training to a low of 3.30 for employee turnover. Multifunctional employees, quick implementation of employees suggestion on quality, production worker supports and recognition and awards were rated favourably. All these factors were attributed to the implementation of TQM strategies. A plausible interpretation from the result of this section is that although there is no measurable decrease in employee turnover and absenteeism, yet there is a significant improvement in quality and productivity. Results from the analysis of the management-related section are as follows: The average score of responses in this section ranged from a high of 4.00 for customer focus to a low of 3.71 for top management support. Inter-disciplinary team approach, communication, product design review before production and marketing scored well above 3.5 inferring significance of TQM strategies in the ultimate improvements in quality and productivity. Results from the analysis of the supplier-related section are as follows: The average score of responses in this section ranged from a high of 3.71 for just-in-time purchasing to a low of 2.35 for periodic review of supplier performance. Long-term partnership relationship, supplier development, supplier performance, supplier certification, small frequent deliveries and blanket orders were rated to be substantially improved. A low score for periodic review of supplier performance and inspection of incoming materials may be attributed to long-term partnership relationship with suppliers. This is an important aspect of successful implementation of JIT. Results from the analysis of the cost-related section are as follows:The average score of responses in this section ranged from a high of 3.51 for inbound freight to a low of 2.25 for scrap/rework cost. Inventory cost, unit product cost, inspection cost and administrative cost have been indicated to reduce significantly. Increase in in-bound cost may be associated with small and frequent deliveries. On the other hand, a substantial decrease in scrap/rework costs is directly related to a definite improvement in overall quality. Results from the analysis of the cost-related section are as follows: The average score of responses in this section ranged from a high of 3.98 for specification of product quality to a low of 3.51 for quality circle. Continuous improvement, availability of quality data, SPC charts, total quality control and parts and components standardization received very high scores. While specification of product quality clearly appears to be

the focus, the quality circles started gaining recognition as part of TQM JIT and TQM in philosophy for tackling quality-related problems. manufacturing (11) Another interesting observation was made regarding access to and use firms in the USA of computer resources. This seems to be indicating that computer technology is becoming more accessible as well as recognized as an important tool. Furthermore, based on the summary results, JIT 1231 companies seem to have an edge over the rest in the use of various computer tools. (12) From the results of the survey it is evident that companies adopting both JIT and TQM had 40 per cent higher number of quality certifications than the rest. This seems to indicate that JIT and TQM implementation plays an important role in obtaining quality system certifications. (13) The research results answered another important question: Were there any significant differences from adopting only JIT or only TQM or both strategies simultaneously for a continual improvement in overall quality and productivity? It is interesting to note that for production-related practices, there was no significant difference between the firms that implemented only JIT or both. For quality-, employee- and supplierrelated practices, implementing only TQM or both made no difference. Management- and cost-related practices indicated no difference in any of three categories. This seems to indicate with respect to managementand quality-related practices, respondents were indifferent in identifying the actual source of these improvements. Adopting JIT or TQM or both programmes showed significant difference in all the six manufacturing practices compared to the manufacturing firms not implementing any of these programmes. The above discussion leads to an important conclusion that most production systems can benefit from certain aspects of JIT implementation without having TQM in place first, which is contrary to earlier findings. The results of the survey clearly indicate that factors identified under the production-related section can register significant improvements from the implementation of JIT even without TQM. The survey results also emphatically support that the remaining aspects as identified in the other five sections (employee, management, supplier, costs and quality) are found to be of significant value if a good TQM system is in place first, both at the company and at the suppliers end. Limitations of the study Regional-wide analysis of manufacturing industries could not be carried out in this survey due to HSIRBs directive to maintain the anonymity of the respondents. The survey was limited to manufacturing industries and firms employing 50-3,000 employees. Firms employing more than 3,000 employees were not considered for this empirical survey.

IJOPM 17,12

Another question that was not addressed in this empirical study is return on investment (ROI) associated with the implementation of these programmes. Directions for future research Manufacturing managers and vice-presidents are confronted daily with tasks of reducing costs and improving quality of products and services to remain competitive in todays global market. TQM and JIT, as manufacturing strategies, have been proposed to do both. In Japan, implementation of TQM practices preceded adoption of JIT approach in general. However, in the West the process of change began with the adoption of JIT followed by a TQM programme. This was probably the single most important reason why so much backlash still exists in Western industries about the benefits of such programmes. Since the sample used in this empirical research represented US industry to a great extent, the results also represent the entire population. More studies can be undertaken specially in some of the following areas : (1) The present survey results indicated that management and employee involvement in implementing JIT and TQM were important. Further research may be carried out in this direction. (2) Since JIT and TQM strategies are not limited to the manufacturing industries, further research needs to be conducted in other types of operations, such as transportation, construction, communication, wholesale trade, finance, insurance, real estate and services. (3) Our research was not specific to any particular manufacturing industry. Hence, further research could be carried out with regard to specific types of manufacturing industry. (4) Sample data collected from personal interviews at different industries and locations would help eliminate the potential for biased responses.
References and further reading Andrews, C.G. (1984), Implementing JIT/TQC, Readings in Zero Inventory , American Production and Inventory Control Society, Falls Church, VA, pp. 53-6. Deming, W.E. (1981), Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering, Cambridge, MA. Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the Crisis, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering, Cambridge, MA. Ross, J. (1993), TQM: Text, Cases and Readings, St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL. Schein, L. (1991), The culture of service quality, Total Quality Management, The Conference Board, New York, NY. Schonberger, R.J. (1982), Japanese Manufacturing Techniques, MacMillan, New York, NY. Schonberger, R.J. and Gilbert, J.P. (1983), Just-in-time purchasing: a challenge for US industry, California Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, Fall, pp. 54-68. Spencer, M.S. and Guide, V.D. (1995), An exploration of the components of JIT case study and survey results, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 72-83. Vuppalapati, K., Ahire, S. and Gupta, T. (1995), JIT and TQM: a case for joint implementation, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 84-94.

1232