International Journal of Engineering Research

Volume No.5, Issue No.4, pp : 303-307

ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
1 April 2016

A framework for implementing Just in Time in a Valve manufacturing industry

Brajesh kumar kanchan1, a, Guddakesh kumar chandan 2, b, Dr. D. Rajenthirakumar 3, c
1,3
Department of Mechanical engineering, PSG College of Technology
2
Department of Mechanical engineering, Sri Krishna College of Engineering and Technology
a
brajeshlean@gmail.com, barayans252@gmail.com, crajentkumar@gmail.com
Abstract In the competitive market scenario, the companies
are facing difficulties in making profit. The lean concepts are
like solution tools for them. It mainly focuses on eliminating
wastes from the process followed in the industries and
creating valuable product to the customer with less capital
investment. The Just in time (JIT) is an ideology originated in
Toyota as like other lean concepts but it focuses on providing
a pathway for the industries to reach a state where inventories
requirement on the shop floor will be fulfilled by the suppliers
at real time. The case study conducted in valve manufacturing
industry where the raw material inventories have a larger pie
of investment. The Sole purpose of this paper is to identify
gaps present in supply chain process and replace it with JIT
Approach. For identify the supply chain, understanding of
procurement cycle is important. So, The Pathway starts with
identification of key customer along with its key product. The
key product is thoroughly analysed with ABC Analysis to
determine the targeted part. The part suppliers are compared
with their delivery date and quality produced by them in
current process. The supplier development strategy generates
different proposals, among which best four are selected.
Among these four, supplier ranking need to be reformulated
with increased number of factors for evaluating suppliers
than Continuous inventory removal (CIR) Plan has
formulated based on Continuous sampling plan used in
sampling inspection and datas are analysed on cost aspect
for this method. As the conclusion, the JIT implementation
brings several favourable factors like reduction in inventory
level, less investment required for running business.
Keywords Just in Time, Continuous inventory removal,
Predetermined minimum method

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.

II. Research Methodology

The objective of the paper is to provide a unique pathway
through which the industries could attain JIT concept. The
flow diagram is drawn to understand connection among the
steps and have focus on particular area of research. The
inventories at factory are caused due to inefficiency among
any state of production process. For that we need to know the
Key customer, Key product ordered, and costliest part among
product, their suppliers and their efficiency. The techniques
used in research are predetermined minimum method and
Brainstorming. The process flow chart is shown in Flow
Diagram 1.0.

The JIT concept was discovered by Toyota industry in 1970s

and after having a successful record, it was followed by western
industries. Just in Time manufacturing is an ideology mainly
focuses to reduce inventories involved in the manufacturing by
providing right quantity of materials at right time in right
condition [1]. Hiroyuki hirano [2] defined JIT as time required
for the production flow; raw materials are delivered to shop
floor as per required for the production in correct time and
quantities. By the evolvement of lean manufacturing in 1990s,
the JIT concept was one of core objective set for it .The JIT
implementations have several advantages but still the
implementation of JIT is very much limited due to traditional
mind set of doing business with having a bulk of inventories
[3].Bin Adnan [4] found that with help of kanban, JIT
production system improved in terms of reduction in inventory,
IJER@2016

doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5s4/419

Flow Diagram1.0

Page 303

International Journal of Engineering Research

Volume No.5, Issue No.4, pp : 303-307
Step 1 Defining key customer: The JIT implementation starts
with identification of key customer since as a manufacturer we
need to satisfy him mostly. The datas are taken from finance
department and key customer is identified with maximum profit
% and least cost of quality (COQ) %( based on complexity of
operation). The Datas are tabulated in Table 1.0. From the
Table, it is inferred that A is key customer.
Net
sales
(lakhs)
214
47
59
85
40
24
34

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

International Journal of Engineering Research

Volume No.5, Issue No.4, pp : 303-307

ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
1 April 2016

for implementation (1- Very long time 4- High time 7-Less

time 10- Very short time), Probability of Removal (1- No
chance 4- Low chance 7-High chance 10- Excellent chance),
State of art(Technology used) (1- Very high technology 4imported from other countries 7-locally available 10- off the
shelf). The scorecard system is developed such a way that
priority of proposal will be higher if having high score. The
sorting table is tabulated in Table 5.0.

The remaining points are added at last and divided with

number of possibilities to allocate mark. Here, in our case 170
points remained undistributed, we have 5 factors and each
factor will be compared against each other. So, 5C2=10
possibilities are there. Therefore, we can have 170/10= 17
points to be distributed in each comparison cell. The initial
table of PMM is shown in Table 6.2
B
C
D
E
A=5 B=12 A=10 C=7 A=14 D=3 A=13 E=4
B
B=15 C=2 B=17 D=0 B=15 E=2
C
C=12 D=5 C=10 E=7
D
D=8 E=9
E

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

After allocation of all points, it is added and compared for

their share in firms priority. The PMM summary table is
tabulated in Table 6.3
Predetermined
points

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

After finding out share of each factor, a comparison table of

same suppliers will be plotted with 5 priority factors and
finding of best supplier among it. The supplier comparison
table is tabulated in Table 7.0.

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

International Journal of Engineering Research

Volume No.5, Issue No.4, pp : 303-307

ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
1 April 2016

It is clearly inferred from table that Supplier S4 is having high

score in evaluation matrix means it has maximum chance to
satisfy its customers. The key supplier of case company S2 has
45.4 less score than S4. So, it is time to give more trust on
supplier S4.
Step 6.2 Awards: The award plan should be based on the score
attained by suppliers in score card method. The maximum their
score will be, the maximum chance of winning of awards. The
Frequency of award should be monthly on commodity wise.
The case company categorizes its line items in 7 commodities
and then decided best supplier among them
Step 6.3 Certificates: The certificate plan should be based on
the score attained in supplier ranking in each commodity. The
certificates provide a highly positive motivational flow that
keeps suppliers move in improvement path. The certificates
also provide creditability to suppliers in market and provide a
critical factor in improving its brand value. The Frequency of
certificates must be year wise. The supplier should attain lesser
performance certificate if they performed badly in financial
year.
Step 6.4 Feedback process: The feedback process comprises
of giving suggestion for corrective action for suppliers
problems. The suppliers may not educated to go for root cause
of problems, in that case buying firms management should
allocate some brainstorming session with suppliers
representatives to identification of root cause of problem and
help in eliminating that problem. This type of interaction makes
supplier closely linked with firm and both combined can
achieve supplier development targets.
Step 7 Continuous inventory removal (CIR) Plan: The CIR
plan is integrated approach where at one hand we tried to
reduce inventory level of selected part and in other hand we
tried to increase supplier performance. The idea of formulating
this plan originates from Continuous sampling plan T model.
The plan is tabulated in Figure 1.0

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.

III. Results and Tables

The framework of JIT implementation had been developed
and implementation for 1 part is completed in valve
manufacturing industry and it was found that reduction of
1152 INR is achieved after 3rd inventory removal without
affecting on time delivery for customers. The inventory
comparison chart is tabulated in Figure 2.0
Figure 2.0

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

International Journal of Engineering Research

Volume No.5, Issue No.4, pp : 303-307
one hand and supplier performance at other. The framework
gives path through which JIT could be achieved.

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