This paper looks into the Just-In-Time system of production, its applicability at various levels of production and also in businesses. A mechanism for the improvement of a new paradigm for creation control was developed by Schonberger and Just-In-Time advocates. The proclamation that inventory was not necessary when conducting business attracted the attention of many people.
The argument claimed that inventory caused evil and that by its removal, production would improve. According to Schonberger, inventory needs to be removed deliberately with only a small part after a while to accomplish the Just-In-Time system of inventory.
The General Motors have adopted the system where the company struggles to ensure that glitches do not cause the system to halt bearing in mind that it is a complex industry. The Just-In Time system of inventory was meant to minimize the inventory design at one time while at the same time improving the manufacturing process in the General Motors Company.
There was another automobile assembling industry in the United States that did installation of only one buffer station and there were no any other following suit. This meant that when one unit of production did not complete, the entire system would halt. This caused bottlenecks in the company resulting low and poor productions as manpower was wasted. The production plant was constrained and there were frequent overtimes. Thus it appeared that eliminating inventory in such a system wasted the manpower. They had thought that by eliminating the buffer system, production problems would be eliminated.
It proved that the production system was variable where the station could sometimes run well and increase production while in some instances it ran poorly. When the parts were available and there was space to put the output, there was the stand-alone throughput. The station would produce this whenever it was not starved or locked.
When the system was put in a production system that had no buffer, it starved since it lacked input jobs. Hence, with the absence of the output and input buffers the system could not work ahead of the rate of line. It proved that the buffers helped to maintain a balance between the bad and good times at the station. It is thus clear that inventory is not a good practice and that when inventory is cut and the production problems are not solved, a solution is not drawn.
Edward Hay suggested that the first practice was to improve the system then reduce the inventory. In other words the problems within the production line had to be removed first. Reducing stock should not bean end since when it is cut blindly, it results in delays in delivery and the operating rates of the machines would drop significantly. It suggested that led to the production of stock would be corrected to reduce it in rational manner. It is thus clear that inventories can be eliminated once the hidden conditions that cause them are eliminated.
Toyota Company has adopted the system where it considers the need for stock as opposed to previously where defects and failures of the machine resulted in instability and uncertainty in the production process. In some instances, the Just-In Time proponents encourage the removal of the Just-In Time system of technique in an effort to improve the system of production. They argue that they remove the inventories to expose the production problems easing their removal. This argument can be applied in a wide range of setting including shops. When the production problems are known, production problems will be brought to the lime light for solving.
In some production lines, the problems can be easily identified by simply identifying where the inventories have piled up. In addition to that, many of the manufacturing industries have automated their systems of data collection where such information is vital in the identification of the bottlenecks thus making prioritization an easier task. Thus, it can be argued that reduction of inventory may not be necessary in all production systems.
Workers may develop innovative ways of hiding inventory when there is pressure from outside requiring them to improve. Workers may resent the management and cut corners on the quality. According to Brandon and Ian, the removal of inventory without having first to solve the problem that resulted to stress among the workers did not solve the problems in a firm. Whenever the management dictates on the removal of inventories, before the problems are solved, the responsibility is put on the workers.
It is unfortunate that when such a situation happens, the management does not give the workers the authority to solve the problem. The workers are left without any power to address those problems that are rooted within the system resulting to stress and loss of morale. In other cases, managers might opt to remove inventory as technique of assuming responsibility rather than a technique that is aimed at improving production.
When an inventory is removed before problems are solved causes reduced production according to Duclos-Wilson and Lummus. It is that managers get to understand the production system so that they apply the Just-In-Time technique correctly. It can be argued that inventory is the flower and not the root to evil where it should only be removed after the production problems are solved.