Professional Documents
Culture Documents
b
c
Abstract
Despite abundant information explaining the expected benefits from successful just-in-time (JIT) implementation, only
tenuous validation of the linkage between financial performance and JIT exists. Managers act rationally in implementing
JIT if they are convinced that JIT enhances firm performance. From both a cross-sectional and longitudinal perspective, this
survey study of 253 US manufacturing firms finds significant statistical relationships between measures of profitability and
the degree of specific JIT practices used. The evidence provides empirical support to the premise that firms that implement
and maintain JIT manufacturing systems will reap sustainable rewards as measured by improved financial performance.
2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Just-in-time/kanban; Empirical research methods; Accounting/operations interface
1. Introduction
Over the last two decades, just-in-time (JIT) and
other world-class manufacturing (WCM) practices
have been scrutinized and championed around the
globe, as firms seek to attain and sustain competitive
advantage. The economic benefits of these techniques
must be real and long lasting to warrant their application, given the costs and challenges in their implementation. Lower production costs, higher and faster
throughput, better product quality, and on-time delivery of finished goods are benefits from successful
implementation of a JIT system that are documented
in the literature (e.g. Goyal and Deshmukh, 1992;
Nakamura et al., 1998; Norris, 1992; Orth et al.,
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-435-797-2332;
fax: +1-435-797-1475.
E-mail address: rfullerton@b202.usu.edu (R.R. Fullerton).
0272-6963/03/$ see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(03)00002-0
384
tudinal setting that allows time for conventional profitability indicators to reflect more fully adjustments by
firms that formally have implemented a JIT strategy.
Second, the current study further resolves the differing results of Balakrishnan et al. (1996) and Kinney
and Wempe (2002). Both of these studies classified
their sample firms as either JIT or non-JIT and focused on the impact of JIT adoption on return on
assets (ROA). The current study presents additional
evidence of JITs positive influence on ROA. In contrast to these prior studies, this research examines the
degree of JIT implementation by capturing the extent to which sample firms have adopted a combination of JIT elements. These data allow for a more
comprehensive assessment of JIT implementation and
its effect on financial performance. Third, the study
uses publicly reported financial data to test the association between financial performance and the degree of JIT implementation. This approach extends the
work of Inman and Mehra (1993), which relied upon
survey respondents self-evaluation of financial success. Finally, firm-specific responses are collated with
their publicly available financial information from the
COMPUSTAT database. Balakrishnan et al. (1996)
and Kinney and Wempe (2002) relied solely on publicly available data. Callen et al. (2000), which classified its sample as either JIT or non-JIT adopters, is the
only other known study to combine both public and
private data to assess the financial benefits achieved
from implementing JIT.
2. JIT adoption and financial performance
2.1. Definition and benefits of JIT
Manufacturing capabilities can be used as a strategic, competitive weapon (Hayes and Wheelwright,
1984). Voss (1995) discussed three major manufacturing strategic paradigms, one of which is best
practices. This paradigm is supported by the concept of WCM. Embodied within WCM is the JIT
manufacturing philosophy, which emphasizes excellence through the continuous elimination of waste
and improvement in productivity. Much more than the
narrow notion of reduced inventory and optimal batch
size (Blackburn, 1991; White and Prybutok, 2001;
Yasin et al., 1997), JIT is the genesis of time-based
competition that provides manufacturing with flexibility and speed essential to meet global competition
(Blackburn, 1991). For JIT to be most beneficial, it
must be accepted as an organizational philosophy
(Yasin et al., 1997, p. 462), and be aligned with a
firms key success factors.
The lack of a universal definition of JIT reflects
some remaining confusion over what exactly it comprises (Mia, 2000). This inability to explain systematically and theoretically JIT manufacturing methods
may be due to JITs emphasis on practice and implementation (Monden, 1998, p. 458). Descriptions
in the literature generally include a broad-based production system that incorporates the manufacturing
practices of efficient material flow, improved quality,
and increased employment involvement (White and
Prybutok, 2001, p. 113). Mehra and Inman (1992,
p. 172) proposed that JIT was both a vendor strategy
and a production strategy . . . that strives to achieve
excellence in manufacturing by reducing setup times
. . . through the use of group technology, cross-training
of employees, and sound preventive maintenance.
Most published research over the past two decades
has been field studies or anecdotal evidence gleaned
from surveys with small samples that attempt to validate empirically the benefits of JIT adoption. The most
consistent benefit from JIT adoption found in the empirical studies is a reduction in inventory levels and/or
an increase in inventory turns (Balakrishnan et al.,
1996; Billesbach, 1991; Billesbach and Hayen, 1994;
Crawford and Cox, 1990; Droge and Germain, 1998;
Fullerton and McWatters, 2001; Gilbert, 1990; Huson
and Nanda, 1995; Im and Lee, 1989; Norris et al.,
1994). Other evidence purports improvements in productivity, customer response time, and product quality,
along with decreases in scrap and rework, production
costs, lead times, setup times, and space requirements.
Monden (1998, p. 13) stated that the main purpose for
the continuous improvement efforts of JIT was to increase profits by reducing costs through completely
eliminating waste. Thus, implementing the lean principles of JIT is an increasingly important competitive
tool (Conner, 2001).
2.2. JIT and profitability
The result by which any business in a market
economy must be measured is the ability to make
385
386
3. Research method
3.1. Survey and sample design
To test the research hypotheses, a five-page survey instrument was designed to collect specific information about the manufacturing operations, product
387
Table 1
Distribution of two-digit SIC codes for sample firms
Industry
20:
22:
25:
26:
27:
28:
30:
33:
34:
35:
36:
37:
38:
39:
1
2
5
1
1
4
3
3
7
17
24
6
20
1
6
3
1
1
0
20
2
12
7
24
37
5
35
5
7
5
6
2
1
24
5
15
14
41
61
11
55
6
2.8
2.0
2.4
0.8
0.4
9.5
2.0
5.9
5.5
16.2
24.1
4.3
21.7
2.3
95
158
253
100.0
food
textiles
furniture & fixtures
paper & allied products
printing/publishing
chemicals & allied products
rubber products
primary metals
fabricated metals
industrial machinery
electronics
motor vehicles & accessories
instrumentation
other manufacturing
Total
Sample frequency
Sample percent
388
industries: chemicals and allied products (SIC-28), industrial machinery (SIC-35), electronics (SIC-36), and
instrumentation (SIC-38). This distribution was similar to the total sample distribution. Ninety-five out of
the 253 firms in the cross-sectional sample identified
themselves as JIT firms and supplied their year of JIT
adoption.
To be included in the JIT sample used for the pooled
data analysis required to evaluate hypothesis H2 , a
firm had to first self-identify itself as having formally
implemented JIT, and then have financial (COMPUSTAT) data available for 2 years prior to the JIT adoption year and 3 years post-adoption. This time frame
is consistent with the prior research of Balakrishnan
et al. (1996) and Kinney and Wempe (2002). Their
work suggested that the majority of any direct effects
from JIT implementation would be captured in the 3
years following a firms adoption year. Therefore, only
firms that had implemented JIT before 1995 could be
included in this sample, reducing the number of firms
in the pooled analysis to 54, for a total of 324 observations (54 firms 6 years).
3.2. Measures of firm profitability
Three variants of profitability measures are obtained
from the COMPUSTAT database and used as the dependent variable for hypotheses testing: return on assets, return on sales, and cash flow margin (CFL),
which is measured as the ratio of income net of extraordinary items, depreciation, and amortization, to
sales.
3.3. Measures of the degree of JIT
implementation
In order to determine if JIT processes affect firm
profitability, the JIT independent variables are constructed to measure the extent to which a firm adopted
specific JIT practices. The prior literature suggests
that unsatisfactory results from JIT are associated with
incomplete and ineffective implementations (Clode,
1993; Daniel and Reitsperger, 1991; Gilbert, 1990;
Goyal and Deshmukh, 1992; Milgrom and Roberts,
1995). The potential synergic benefits are not fully realized until all elements of a JIT system are integrated
(White and Prybutok, 2001, p. 114). Often companies
identify themselves as JIT firms without a full un-
389
Table 2
JIT practices defined with literature support
JIT element
Definition
Referencesa
Focused factory
Group technology
18, 1018
Reduction of the time and costs involved in changing tooling and other
aspects required in moving from producing one product to another. This
reduces lot sizes and the need for buffer inventories.
15, 718
17, 9, 1116, 18
Multi-function employees
Uniform workload
Kanban
JIT purchasing
2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 1215, 17
14, 6, 8, 1217
Quality circles
Small groups are formed from employees doing similar tasks. The
groups are created to encourage employee participation in problem
solving and decision making.
2, 7, 8, 1316
The following references are examples of literature that identify the specified element as part of a JIT production system: 1. Conner,
2001; 2. Davy et al., 1992; 3. Fullerton and McWatters, 2001; 4. Fullerton and McWatters, 2002; 5. Jusko, 1999; 6. Koufteros et al., 1998;
7. Mehra and Inman, 1992; 8. Monden, 1998; 9. Moshavi, 1990; 10. Sahin, 2000; 11. Sakakibara et al., 1993; 12. Spencer and Guide,
1995; 13. White and Ruch, 1990; 14. White, 1993; 15. White et al., 1999; 16. White and Prybutok, 2001; 17. Womack and Jones, 1996;
18. Yasin et al., 1997.
390
Table 3
Factor analysis (VARIMAX rotation), factor loadings for JIT variablesa
Cronbachs alpha
correlation coefficients
Focused factory
Group technology
Reduced setup times
Productive maintenance
Multi-function employees
Uniform work load
Product quality improvement
Process quality improvement
Kanban system
JIT purchasing
0.740
0.770
0.706
0.668
0.501
0.731
Factor 2 (Q)
JIT quality
0.898b
0.917
0.902
0.820
0.825
Note: n = 253.
a All loadings in excess of 0.300 are shown.
b Significant at P < 0.001.
391
et al., 1998; Yasukata and Kobayashi, 2001). To determine the PLC of the respondent firms, the survey
instrument asked the respondents to select in which
stage of the PLC, based on their main products, would
they classify their firm: introductory, growth, maturity,
or other. The responses were coded as 1 if the respondent firm answered maturity stage, and 0 if otherwise (introductory, growth, or other). This dummy
variable was used as a control variable for PLC.
Innovation is critical to the strategy of successful
organizations. Entrepreneurial actions, if supported by
top management and implemented effectively, help
firms to create wealth by staying ahead of the competition (Ireland et al., 2001). By effectively evaluating
and understanding their market place, technologically
adept and innovative firms have increased sales and
profits (Judd, 2000; Sivadas and Dwyer, 2000). Ittner
and Larcker (1997) reported that innovation had a significant effect on profitability. However, the impact
was industry specific. Innovation (IN) is measured by a
firms response to the five-point Likert-scaled question
on the survey instrument as to whether the firm was
a leader or a follower in product technology, product
design, and process design (Ittner and Larcker, 1997).
Organizational structure also can influence a
firms ability to be flexible and make major operational changes. Decentralization refers to the level
of decision-making authority that is found in a firm
(Aiken and Hage, 1968). If a firm is highly centralized, employees will be much less involved in decision making and organizational changes than if it is
more decentralized. Decentralization allows firms to
take better advantage of and respond more quickly to
opportunities and events through decision making at
the level of day-to-day activities (Sabath et al., 2001).
Woodwards (1980) seminal work demonstrated that
organizational success was contingent upon the right
combination of organizational structure and manufacturing technology. More recent studies have reported
inconclusive results as to the relationships among JIT,
decentralization, and firm performance (Claycomb
et al., 1999; Germain et al., 1994). Kalagnanam
and Lindsay (1998) showed how adapting more organic (decentralized) organizational structures led
to greater performance benefits from JIT adoption.
Additionally, Alles et al. (1995) displayed how JIT
adoption and changes in the organizational structure
have complementary effects, especially as JIT makes
392
Table 4
Factor analysis (VARIMAX rotation) factor loadings for control
variablesa
Cronbachs alpha
Organizational structure
Overall company
Individual operations
Individual departments
Factor 1 (S)
organizational
structure
0.793
Factor 2 (IN)
innovation
0.677
0.703
0.877
0.844
0.763
0.604
0.815
Note: n = 253.
a All loadings in excess of 0.300 are shown.
Table 5
Descriptive statistics for model variables and comparison of means between JIT firms and non-JIT firms
Full sample means
ANOVA F-value
Significant F
measuresa
Profitability
Return on sales (ROS)
Return on assets (ROA)
Cash flow margin (CFL)
JIT variablesb
JIT manufacturing (M)
JIT quality (Q)
JIT unique (U)
Control variables
Organizational structure (S)c
Innovation (IN)d
Product life cycle stage (P)e
Inventory margin (IY)a
Firm size (net sales)a
5.071
1.490
0.801
1.294
6.212
5.051
8.907
1.357
4.351
3.287
4.310
3.264
0.071
0.039
0.072
3.412
4.665
3.233
4.055
5.026
4.263
3.020
4.446
2.606
54.975
17.809
114.106
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.860
3.694
0.494
17.649
3.075
3.940
0.473
14.483
2.731
3.543
0.506
19.570
7.391
14.467
0.257
11.115
0.007
0.000
0.613
0.001
465.276
800.109
264.489
19.801
0.000
Notes: n = 253.
a Information provided from COMPUSTAT database.
b Possible responses: no intention = 1; considering = 2; beginning = 3; partially = 4; substantially = 5; fully = 6.
c Possible responses: highly centralized = 1, . . . , 2, . . . , 3, . . . , 4, . . . , 5 = highly decentralized.
d Possible responses: follower = 1, . . . , 2, . . . , 3, . . . , 4, . . . , 5 = leader.
e Possible responses: 1 = mature; 0 = introductory, growth, and other.
393
394
Table 6
Regression results for the relationship between JIT practices and
firm profitability
ROS (j = 1)
ROA (j = 2)
CFL (j = 3)
Constant: t
0.449
0.266
0.493
Step 1
R2
F
0.118
7.659
0.090
5.650
0.125
8.164
4.290
2.312
6.799
3.082
Organizational structure
C
7.089
S: 1,j
S: t
2.960
Innovation strategy
C
5.873
IN: 2,j
IN: t
2.004
2.009
0.885
5.119
1.902
10.383
2.179
8.579
2.324
9.790
2.232
Inventory margin
C
IY: 4,j
IY: t
0.470
2.718
0.354
2.642
0.463
2.913
Step 2
R2
Change in R2
F
0.157
0.039
3.480
0.128
0.038
3.325
0.162
0.037
3.308
4.545
2.409
5.943
2.661
4.018
2.260
4.454
2.088
1.358
0.992
1.029
0.634
0.101
4.752
0.136
6.224
1.509
0.855
5
0,k,j Dk +
k=0
5
5
JIT
1,k,j
Mi Dk
k=0
JIT
2,k,j
Qi Dk +
k=0
Dk +
5
JIT
3,k,j
Ui
k=0
5
k=0
JIT
4,k,j
Mi2 Dk +
5
k=0
JIT
5,k,j
Q2i Dk +
+
C
2,j
INi
5
395
JIT
C
6,k,j
Ui2 Dk + 1,j
Si
k=0
C
+ 3,j Pi
C
C
+ 4,j
IYi,t + 5,j
Ci + i,t
396
397
Table 7
Pooled cross-section time-series regression results for the relationship between JIT practices and return on sales
Control
variables
Constant
Constant: 0,k,1
Constant: t
JIT manufacturing practices
JIT
JIT
Ma : 1,0,1
+ 1,k,1
M: t
JIT
JIT
M2 a : 4,0,1
+ 4,k,1
M2 : t
Turning point
JIT quality practices
JIT
JIT
Qa : 2,0,1
+ 2,k,1
Q: t
JIT
JIT
+ 5,k,1
Q2 a : 5,0,1
Q2 : t
Pre 2 (k = 1)
Turning point
Organizational structure
C
S: 1,1
S: t
0.22
0.47
Innovation strategy
C
IN: 2,1
IN: t
0.27
0.49
0.57
0.64
Inventory margin
C
IY: 4,1
IY: t
0.69
2.24
Adopt (k = 3)
Post 1 (k = 4)
Post 2 (k = 5)
Post 3 (k = 0)
8.79
0.46
7.80
0.43
6.61
0.39
3.47
0.23
6.75
0.56
7.42
0.47
0.73
0.09
2.11
0.28
2.90
0.39
1.10
0.16
3.86
0.60
2.90
0.61
0.11
0.18
0.28
0.53
0.22
0.42
0.11
0.20
0.48
0.88
0.25
0.43
3.39
3.73
6.50
5.11
4.05
5.73
11.00
1.99
7.04
1.37
8.30
1.75
3.84
0.84
4.57
0.97
4.07
0.80
0.79
1.42
0.91
1.65
0.43
0.78
0.46
0.83
0.48
0.84
1.11
1.95
Turning point
Pre 1 (k = 2)
4.95
4.46
4.54
4.44
4.95
4.28
6.87
1.11
6.59
1.09
6.68
1.17
5.01
0.95
0.26
0.06
5.84
1.57
0.81
1.86
0.76
1.81
0.79
1.90
0.66
1.58
0.20
0.47
0.79
1.84
4.26
4.35
4.23
3.80
0.66
3.68
398
Table 8
Pooled cross-section time-series regression results for the relationship between JIT practices and return on assets
Control
variables
Constant
Constant: 0,k,2
Constant: t
JIT manufacturing practices
JIT
JIT
+ 1,k,2
Ma : 1,0,2
M: t
JIT
JIT
+ 4,k,2
M2 a : 4,0,2
M2 : t
58.07
2.98
0.34
0.02
36.00
2.02
7.05
0.42
14.46
1.04
22.59
1.52
0.50
0.10
10.6
2.29
0.13
0.03
2.40
0.52
1.36
0.29
3.95
0.82
0.05
0.08
0.35
0.63
0.19
0.33
0.48
0.82
3.39
3.66
4.08
0.15
0.28
Turning point
1.61
Turning point
JIT unique practices
JIT
JIT
Ua : 3,0,2
+ 3,k,2
U: t
JIT
JIT
U2 a : 6,0,2
+ 6,k,2
2
U :t
Turning point
Organizational structure
C
S: 1,2
S: t
0.96
2.23
Innovation strategy
C
IN: 2,2
IN: t
0.09
0.16
0.34
0.41
Inventory margin
C
IY: 4,2
IY: t
12.79
3.6
1.41
2.50
3.77
N/A
19.09
4.71
9.45
2.35
11.38
2.87
1.53
0.39
4.70
1.18
0.22
0.05
2.00
4.44
1.17
2.65
1.32
3.04
0.02
0.04
0.33
0.76
0.29
0.64
4.76
4.02
4.30
7.12
0.38
4.62
1.25
11.12
3.33
5.85
1.76
2.72
0.82
2.63
0.79
5.19
1.41
0.61
1.43
1.29
3.33
0.70
1.82
0.39
1.02
0.10
0.26
0.76
1.80
3.77
4.30
4.18
3.46
13.09
3.40
0.73
1.79
1.63
0.620
9.64
Note: n = 324 (number of firms = 54; number of years for each firm = 6).
a For k = 0, the reported estimate is solely JIT , m = 1, . . . , 6.
m,0,2
P < 0.1.
P < 0.05.
P < 0.01.
N/A
399
Table 9
Pooled cross-section time-series regression results for the relationship between JIT practices and cash flow
Control
variables
Constant
Constant: 0,k,3
Constant: t
JIT manufacturing practices
JIT
JIT
Ma : 1,0,3
+ 1,k,3
M: t
JIT
JIT
M2 a : 4,0,3
+ 4,k,3
M2 : t
Turning point
JIT quality practices
JIT
JIT
Qa : 2,0,3
+ 2,k,3
Q: t
JIT
JIT
+ 5,k,3
Q2 a : 5,0,3
Q2 : t
Turning point
19.50
1.00
6.74
0.37
18.86
1.08
4.15
0.26
1.12
0.87
15.73
1.03
2.28
0.26
1.78
0.21
1.70
0.21
2.07
0.27
0.81
0.12
3.55
0.69
0.34
0.54
0.32
0.55
0.09
0.16
0.31
0.54
0.07
0.12
0.60
0.96
3.32
2.78
9.21
3.37
5.73
2.99
11.18
2.47
6.72
1.60
6.01
1.62
2.58
0.74
6.15
1.60
2.40
0.52
1.21
2.37
0.82
1.64
0.70
1.41
0.35
0.71
0.57
1.14
0.37
0.74
4.09
4.26
3.63
5.38
3.22
8.03
1.50
7.38
1.46
3.67
0.80
8.30
2.26
4.61
9.32
1.66
JIT
JIT
U2 a : 6,0,3
+ 6,k,3
2
U :t
Turning point
Organizational structure
C
S: 1,3
S: t
Innovation strategy
C
IN: 2,3
IN: t
10.44
1.89
1.08
2.49
1.23
2.94
0.98
2.37
0.96
2.32
0.64
1.52
1.09
2.52
4.32
4.23
4.08
3.83
2.89
3.82
0.25
0.63
0.76
1.34
0.46
0.50
Inventory margin
C
IY: 4,3
IY: t
1.92
0.53
400
5. Summary
According to its proponents, JITs global management philosophy of waste elimination and continu-
components of JIT processes and their degree of implementation provides insights into which specific JIT
techniques affect firm financial performance.
The results of hypothesis H2 indicate increasing
marginal returns to long-term JIT investment, especially for unique JIT practices such as kanban and JIT
purchasing. In contrast, the insignificant association in
the full cross-sectional, static model suggests that the
benefits of these JIT practices are realized only over
time due to their higher implementation costs. Evidence from hypothesis H2 also suggests caution when
implementing product- and process-quality improvements, as potential trade-offs between cost and quality
can affect financial performance negatively. Reduced
firm profitability can ensue when those responsible for
quality costs are not accountable for overall production costs and the costs that they impose on other activities.
Specific limitations might reduce the generalizability and applicability of the research findings. First, a
necessary assumption in survey research is that the
respondents had sufficient knowledge to answer the
items, and that they answered the questions conscientiously and truthfully. Respondents might have been
unfamiliar with questionnaire terms used to describe
JIT methods, and reluctant to take the necessary time
to examine the attached glossary explaining the JIT
terminology. Second, an important element of this survey instrument is capturing the degree of JIT implementation. The 11 JIT indicators on the survey were
supported through a thorough study of JIT literature;
yet, they might not have been completely indicative of
actual company practices. Finally, while the majority
of the sample firms were selected through a random
process, as in Balakrishnan et al. (1996) and Kinney
and Wempe (2002), the identification of the JIT sample firms precluded random selection. The diversion
from completely random sample selection might make
the test sample non-representative of other US manufacturing firms.
This study explains a small subset of factors affecting financial performance. Future research extending the time-series to include additional years of
post-adoption data would provide fresh insights into
the sustainability of financial performance in a JIT
environment. Research is also necessary to capture
more fully the complementarities that exist amongst
JIT implementation and other organizational policies
401
and procedures, including the economic and environmental contexts that influence both the choice of different manufacturing strategies and their subsequent
impact on financial performance.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on a portion of the first authors
doctoral dissertation completed at the University of
Utah. The valuable input from graduate committee faculty is gratefully acknowledged, as well as the comments from colleagues, reviewers, discussants, and
participants at the Management Accounting Research
Conference (January 2000) and the ASAC-ISAM Conference (July 2000).
Appendix A. Survey items measuring JIT
implementation factors and control variables
JIT manufacturinga
Indicate the extent to which your firm has
implemented the following techniques:
Focused factory
Group technology
Action plan to reduce setup times
Total productive maintenance
Multi-function employees
Uniform work load
JIT qualitya
Indicate the extent to which your firm has
implemented the following techniques:
Product quality improvement
Process quality improvement
JIT uniquea
Indicate the extent to which your firm has
implemented the following techniques:
Kanban system
JIT purchasing
Innovation strategyb
What most closely matches your firms
strategy related to innovation in:
Product technology?
Process design?
Product design?
402
Appendix A. (Continued )
structurec
Organizational
What is the organizational structure
of your firms:
Overall company?
Individual operations?
Individual departments?
Possible responses: no intention = 1; considering = 2; beginning = 3; partially = 4; substantially
= 5; fully = 6.
b Possible responses: follower = 1, . . . , 2, . . . ,
3, . . . , 4, . . . , 5 = leader.
c Possible responses: highly centralized = 1, . . . ,
2, . . . , 3, . . . , 4, . . . , 5 = highly decentralized.
a
References
Ahmed, N.U., Runc, E.A., Montagno, R.V., 1991. A comparative
study of US manufacturing firms at various stages of
just-in-time implementation. International Journal of Production
Research 29 (4), 787802.
Aiken, M., Hage, J., 1968. Organizational independence and intraorganizational structure. American Sociological Review 33,
912930.
Alles, M., Datar, S.M., Lambert, R.A., 1995. Moral hazard
and management control in just-in-time settings. Journal of
Accounting Research 33 (Suppl.), 177204.
Anderson, R.H., Needles Jr., B.E., Caldwell, J.C.J., 1989.
Management Accounting. Houghton Miffin Co.
Ansari, A., Modarress, B., 1986. Just-in-time purchasing: problems
and solutions. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management
Summer, 1115.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation
models. Journal of Academy Marketing Science 16 (1), 7494.
Balakrishnan, R., Linsmeier, T.J., Venkatachalam, M., 1996.
Financial benefits from JIT adoption: effects of customer
concentration and cost structure. The Accounting Review 71 (2),
183205.
Banker, R., Potter, G., Schroeder, R., 1993. Reporting manufacturing performance measures to workers: an empirical study.
Journal of Management Accounting Research 5 (Fall), 3353.
Bernhardt, K.L., Donthu, N., Kennett, P.A., 2000. A longitudinal
analysis of satisfaction and profitability. Journal of Business
Research 47 (2), 161171.
Billesbach, T.J., 1991. A study of the implementation of justin-time in the United States. Production and Inventory
Management Journal 3, 14.
Billesbach, T.J., Hayen, R., 1994. Long-term impact of just-in-time
on inventory performance measures. Production and Inventory
Management Journal 1, 6267.
Blackburn, J.D., 1991. Time-Based Competition: The Next
Battleground in American Manufacturing. Business One Irwin,
Homewood, IL, p. 25.
403
Jusko, J., 1999. A look at lean. Industry Week 248 (22), 8892.
Kalagnanam, S.S., Lindsay, R.M., 1998. The use of organic models
of control in JIT firms: generalising Woodwards findings
to modern manufacturing practices. Accounting, Organizations
and Society 24 (1), 130.
Kaplan, R.S., Atkinson, A., 1989. Advanced Management
Accounting. Prentice-Hall, London.
Kashlak, R.J., Chandran, R., Di Benedetto, C.A., 1998. Reciprocity
in international business: a study of telecommunications alliances and contracts. Journal of International Business Studies
29 (2), 281304.
Kinney, M.R., Wempe, W.F., 2002. Further evidence on the extent
and origins of JITs profitability effects. The Accounting Review
77 (1), 203225.
Kmenta, J., 1986. Elements of Econometrics. Macmillan, New
York.
Koufteros, X.A., Vonderembse, M.A., Doll, W.J., 1998. Developing
measures of time-based manufacturing. Journal of Operations
Management 16, 2141.
Krishnan, G.V., Largay, J.A., 2000. The predictive ability of direct
method cash flow information. Journal of Business, Finance,
and Accounting 27 (1/2), 215245.
Lee, C.Y., 1997. JIT adoption by small manufacturing firms in
Korea. Journal of Small Business Management 35 (7), 98107.
Mehra, S., Inman, R.A., 1992. Determining the critical elements
of just-in-time implementation. Decision Sciences 23, 160174.
Mia, L., 2000. Just-in-time manufacturing. Accounting and
Business Research 30 (2), 137151.
Milgrom, P., Roberts, J., 1995. Complementarities and fit: strategy,
structure and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal
of Accounting and Economics 19, 179208.
Monden, Y., 1998. Toyota Production System: An Integrated
Approach to Just-In-Time. Engineering and Management Press,
Norcross, GA.
Moshavi, S., 1990. Well Made in America: Lessons from
Harley-Davidson on Being the Best. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nakamura, M., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R., 1998. Adoption of
just-in-time manufacturing methods at US- and Japanese-owned
plants: some empirical evidence. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management 45, 230240.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., Kutner, M., 1983. Applied Regression
Models, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Nevens, T.M., Guiniven, J.R., Paulsen, A.B., 1998. The key to
success in electronics: shifting the balance between profit and
growth. The McKinsey Quarterly 2, 140147.
Norris, D.M., 1992. A study of JIT implementation techniques
using the analytic hierarchy process model. Production and
Inventory Management Journal 3, 4953.
Norris, D.M., Swanson, R.D., Chu, Y., 1994. Just-in-time
production systems: a survey of managers. Production and
Inventory Management Journal 2, 6366.
Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Orth, D., Hybil, R., Korzan, D., 1990. Analysis of a JIT
implementation at Dover Corporation. Production and Inventory
Management Journal 31 (3), 7982.
Ransom, C., 2001. Lean manufacturing provides big investment
fun with solid returns. Manufacturing News 8 (16 April), 510.
404