Search results

Two distinct models of delivery reliability versus delivery speed are tested. On the basis of data from a survey of 193 manufacturing firms, factors associated with the “planning” systems of firms, such as production‐plan goals achieved, inventory goals achieved, and master schedule performance, were found to have a significant effect on delivery reliability. In follow‐up interviews with 13 plant managers; it was found that “process”‐related factors were associated with delivery speed capabilities. Specifically, the biggest inroads to be made into delivery speed are first on the design/manufacturing interface, secondly on the subsequent “translation” of these designs to supplier requirements, and lastly on the production floor in terms of process layout.

The manager who moves from manufacturing to services or the professor who wishes to research and teach service operations must recognise the key differences for developing an appropriate operations management strategy in a service business. For this process to be successful, the operations manager must participate assertively in the strategy debate. In manufacturing it is important that the functional strategy supports the corporate strategy in the marketplace and is co‐ordinated with other functional strategies. There is sufficient buffering between the manufacturing system and the customer that functional strategies can be developed within corporate strategies and then be co‐ordinated. In services, however, there are many issues where co‐ordination is not an adequate response. Virtually all strategic issues involving customer contact and front‐office operations must be the result of joint decision making involving marketing, operations, finance, and human resources. What little buffering there is occurs between the front office and the back room. This interface then becomes the locus for interfunctional co‐ordination on strategic issues. Consequently, planning for the front‐office operation differs in many ways from the manufacturing strategy development, while the back‐room strategy differs little from the manufacturing strategy model. This article outlines and contrasts the processes for both manufacturing and services, paralleling the models of Wheelwright and Hayes and Hill. The observed process differences have major implications for both teaching and research in service operations. The new and interesting issues are predominantly interfunctional and, given the intellectual backgrounds of the various functional areas, interdisciplinary.

To examine the changes in just‐in‐time (JIT) purchasing practices over time.

The evaluation of changes in JIT purchasing practices was done through a longitudinal study. The first study was performed in 1989. The second study was performed almost a decade later. The empirical studies measured the managerial perceptions of the importance of nine different areas of JIT purchasing activities. Regression and bootstrapping were used for comparison between time periods.

The study found similar results from a decade earlier on all but 17 out of a total of 103 JIT purchasing practices. The only significantly more important item was the contract provision for delivery frequency. It appears that purchasing professionals have learned and are more familiar with JIT purchasing practices. As a result four problem areas were significantly lower and 12 other practices deemed less important.

Sample size is a limitation for the study. The analysis suggested certain influences of SCM on JIT practices. More rigorous measurement of SCM needs to be undertaken to explore the degree of integration of JIT with SCM philosophy.

The study identifies best JIT practices from a decade of practice.

This is a longitudinal study. It tracks the changes in practices and identifies best practices for managers.