RE-ENGINEERING OPERATIONAL PRACTICES AND PROCESSES TO IMPROVE THE CUSTOMER FOCUS OF A MARKETING ORGANIZATION

7/27/2019 RE-ENGINEERING OPERATIONAL PRACTICES AND PROCESSES TO IMPROVE THE CUSTOMER FOCUS OF A MARKETING ORGANIZATION

1/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

RE-ENGINEERING OPERATIONAL PRACTICES AND PROCESSES TO IMPROVETHE CUSTOMER FOCUS OF A MARKETING ORGANIZATION

Mahmoud M. Yasin, Andrew J. Czuchry, Rani A. Kady

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objective of this field study is to examine the applicability and potential advantages of pull operational practicesin a mid-size manufacturing organization. The results derived based on this field study point to both operationalgains and customer-related benefits which can be attributed to pull operational practices.

Keywords: Re-engineering, Pull Practices, Mid-size Manufacturing, Marketing

INTRODUCTION

The framework depicted in Figure 1 was used to examine the current operational practices in a mid-size, welded stainless steel pipe firm. It was also used to identify areas of improvement in the existing operational system.Concepts related to the Theory of Constraints (TOC) and Business Re-engineering (BR) were used to modify theexisting system. The modified system is designed to enhance operational efficiencies as well as the customer orientation of the firm.

The studied firm (XYZ Company) has been in business for more than 50 years. The Company is currently using a push operational system to produce products for inventory. The purpose of this study was to determine the overall benefits to XYZ Company resulting from re-engineering its operational system from traditional manufacturingsystem to a pull system, driven by customer demand. In the process, the impact of changes in customer requirementson the production line was evaluated. Finally, the TOC principles were used to determine the potential of acompetitive advantage to XYZ Company due to the modified operational system.

BACKGROUND

Traditional concepts of effective manufacturing are based on mass production and are often referred to as a pushsystem. In many such manufacturing environments when the output of a product doubles, the real value-added unitcost of manufacturing that product is reduced by a constant percentage (Pearson & Wisner, 1993). Thisimprovement is often called a learning curve, or more precisely a price improvement curve. The objective of the

push system is to efficiently use production resources. Such orientation, works well in industries where there is predictable high customer demand and quick product turnaround times such as electrical and automobiles industries.Altiok and Ranjan (1995) note that in a push system, the production schedules are generally based on the demand

47


2/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

forecast. Under a push system, each stage runs at maximum capacity pushing material downstream. Kenward (1992)recognizes that a traditional push system is based on maximizing not only capacity, but also labor efficiency. In a

push system, it is relatively easy to determine which operations are running at full capacity. Buffer stocks are oftenused to account for uncertainty in customers demand and supply variations. Although this work-in-process appearsas an asset on the balance sheet, it is really a liability because the operation must incur costs to carry the work-in

process.

FIGURE 1Study Framework

Push System(Existing System)

OperationalSystem

Analysis of ExistingSystem:

-Subsystems-Processes-System Constraints-Inputs-Outputs-Products

Identify Areas of Improvemet

Utilize BusinessRe-engineeringand Theory of

Constraints.Modify Existing

System

Pull System(Proposed System)

PerformanceComparison

Customer Orientation and

Marketing

Krishnamurthy, Suri, and Vernon (2000) studied the performance of a flexible manufacturing line. They compared the throughput and average inventory characteristics under a pure push system with other manufacturing strategies.

48


3/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

Results indicated that the pure push strategy has a higher throughput for a given level of inventory than other strategies. However, the push system advantages in terms of operational efficiency may be at the expense of thecustomer focus. Maximizing the throughput of individual manufacturing subprocesses often creates large work-in-

process inventories throughout the plant.

The objective of the pull system is to link the production process to customer demands and to enable manufacturingfirms to meet changes in demand with minimal production costs and minimal waste. Implementation of Just-in-Time (JIT) techniques have been reported in the literature. Hancock and Zayko (1998) note that the implementationof JIT in the U.S. is proceeding slowly. However, JIT improves quality, increases productivity, and reduces deliverytime. Using an empirical study, Wafa and Yasin (1998) examined the effective implementation of JIT philosophy inmanufacturing environments. They identified factors that hinder JIT success. Such factors are technology,

procedures, people, and organizational culture. They also suggest that for JIT to be successful, it has to be anorganizational-wide philosophy where open communication between management and workers is the norm rather than the exception.

Kupanhy (1995) states that practical implementation of JIT can be fruitful when implementation steps are reduced as may be the case when resources are limited. Although JIT is often implemented in manufacturing under the nameof a pull system, Yasin, Wafa, and Small (2001) examined the effectiveness of JIT in the U.S. public sector. Theyinvestigated the relationships between organizational modification efforts prior to JIT implementation, problemsencountered during implementation, and JIT success. Results support the finding that JIT has the potential toincrease the operational efficiency, service quality, and organizational effectiveness of public sector organizations.

A physicist by education, Eliyahu Goldratt, wrote The Goal , which leads the reader through scheduling concepts based upon the TOC. Manufacturing practices using The Goal have, in many cases, produced results that exceeded expectations. Holmen (1995) underlined eight assumptions to implement the TOC. Ruhl (1997) provided a detailed explanation of the TOC as well as a simple example of how profit can be maximized in a manufacturingenvironment by following the TOC principles. Since the first step in applying the TOC is to identify the constraint,Bushong and Talbott (1999) studied several manufacturing systems in applying the TOC. They found that for manufacturing concerns, the constraint is often, but not always, the time available on a certain machine or process.For companies that employ skilled workers and for many service organizations, the constraint is often the time of one or a few key employees. They also concluded that the use of the TOC as a management philosophy is a dynamic

process. Once the constraint is identified, management should examine whether it can be relaxed or removed. If thisis possible, some other factors may become new constraints. Therefore, the analysis should be revised conducted ona total system basis.

Many researchers and managers have applied the TOC to a wide range of industries and products. Draman and Salhus (1998) significantly improved the production processes at a paint factory by implementing the TOC. Activity

based costing (ABC) and TOC were integrated in order to analyze a manufacturing system (Cooper & Slagmulder,1999). The researchers concluded that although the TOC is a tactical cost management technique and the ABC is astrategic-oriented method, both methods are complementary, cost management techniques. The TOC and ABC canalso be used together to identify the best short-term and long-term product mixes.

Ogan and Heitger (1999) studied the TOC in combination with JIT, total quality management (TQM), computer integrated manufacturing (CIM), electronic data interchange (EDI), and ABC. The authors concluded that thisfamily of alternatives could help corporate managers evaluate new business practices that are best suited to their

business models. It is important to note that specific practices have varying results depending on the nature of the business.

Preventive maintenance programs, like many continuous improvement projects, are often selected using ParetoAnalysis by focusing on the resource with the most unscheduled down time. However, Chakravorty and Atwater (1994) used the TOC to direct preventive maintenance. The study did not focus on reducing the cost like many other improvement programs but instead on increasing the level of manufacturing. The TOC has been also applied in a

49


4/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

small business that requires skilled workers. In their study, Bushhong and Talbott (1999) added a quality aspect tothe analysis. It has been found that the faster the production process, the more profitable the product.

Hales and Savoie (1994) suggested a foundation for successful Business Process Re-engineering. The authors listed four key phases Business Re-engineering will pass through. These key phases are orientation, overall planning,detailed design, and implementation. McCloud (1994) introduced a business-reengineering program to improvethroughput, customer relations and productivity, as well as to reduce operational costs. Business Re-engineering wasalso implemented in a supply chain management approach.

Business Process Re-engineering has also been used to re-engineer manufacturing and service operational systems.Czuchry, Yasin, and Norris (2000) examined the applicability of process re-engineering in a healthcare operationalenvironment. The intake process was analyzed systematically to identify process-related problems. In their study,the systematic redesign of the intake process resulted in performance improvements in terms of cost, quality,service, and timing.

Cause-and-effect analysis (root cause analysis) uses diagramming techniques to identify the relationship betweenan effect and its causes. Cause-and-effect diagrams are also known as fishbone diagrams. Kerzner (1998) established six-step process to perform a cause-and-effect diagram.

Root cause analysis has been applied in different industries. Eli (2001) applied root cause analysis in a petrochemical industry. This study was conducted by a team of qualified engineers using innovation techniques,established performance, and well-designed analysis procedures. Root cause analysis has also been implemented inthe service industry. Beyea and Nicoll (1999) applied cause root analysis in healthcare. The results of their study

provided information that could significantly contribute to the clinical decision-making process. Root cause analysiswas used as a framework for analyzing financial and business performance (Grundy, 1997).

FIELD STUDY

The business research conducted at XYZ Company falls under the category of applied research. The main goal of applied research is to answer questions about specific problems or to make decisions about a particular course of

action or policy decision (Zikmund, 2000). In this study, the problem was clearly defined and was focused on theneed to re-engineer the operational system to become more customer oriented. The technical tools of TOC, BR, and cause-and-effect analysis were used to conduct the analyses, draw conclusions, and make recommendations for improvements.

Study Setting

Dedicated to being a world-class producer of welded stainless steel pipe, XYZ Company has become America'sleader in stainless steel piping. Since 1946, XYZ has produced welded stainless steel pipe for use in the chemical,

petro-chemical, paper, and food processing industries as well as other industries requiring corrosion resistant piping.The Company is considered the largest producer of stainless steel welded pipe in the U.S.A.

The Companys operations consist of several departments that work together to turn raw material in form of coilsand sheets into welded pipes to be used in different applications. These departments are sales and customer satisfaction, purchasing, production control, manufacturing, quality control, pickling, inventory and shipping.

The production process starts at the sales and customer satisfaction department where orders are received. Figure 2illustrates the production process in further detail. Orders are classified as regular or special; the inventory has most,if not all, of the items required for regular orders which represent about 80 % of the total orders. On the other hand,special orders need special raw material, length, size, wall thickness, or x-ray test.

50


5/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

FIGURE 2Production Process Flow Chart

Sales and Customer

Satisfaction

Purchasing

WeldingProduction

Control

Designrequirement

for x-ray

Raw materialavailable

Yes

No

PicklingPass

X-Ray

HoldingYes

Pass No

FinishingRework

Pass

No

No

Straightening

Sizing

Annealing

Beveling

Plasma cut

No

Yes

Visual

EddyTest

Finishing

YesGrinding

Hand Welding

Rework

Inventory

Shipping

Marking Yes

FinalInspection

Raw material that is not available for a specific production job is requested through the purchasing department.Then, the production department schedules and manages every production job according to the due date which isusually determined by the customer. The production department also sets up the production lines based on thecustomer specifications such as length and diameter.

The manufacturing process starts with loading metal sheets in the mills that roll and shape them to the desired size.Under high temperature, the pipes are welded, annealed, and cut to the required length. If required, the batch will besent to the x-ray department where the pipes are tested. When defects are detected in the welded part, the pipe isforwarded to the rework area where grinding and hand welding processes are performed. Then the reworked material is sent back to the x-ray department. Pipes that pass the x-ray test are moved to the finishing unit wheredifferent operations such as straightening, off-line annealing, plasma cutting, sizing, and beveling are performed.

After the finishing process, pipes are cleaned chemically in the pickling area where a final inspection is also run; pipes will be inspected by two different tests. In the visual test, an inspector checks length, size, wall thickness, heatnumber, and material type. The non-destructive electrical eddy test, which is only run on six-inch diameter pipe or less, examines the internal quality of the welds. Pipes that fail final inspection are sent back to the rework area or welding depending on the type of defect identified. Pipes that pass the quality inspection are transferred to themarking process so that important parameters such as, type of raw material, length, size, and heat number, can be

51


6/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

marked on the pipe. Finally, pipes are stored in the inventory and classified according to certain categories, loaded on trucks, and shipped to the customer.

The current production system at XYZ Company is a traditional push system as shown in Figure 2. Eachdepartment or work station receives its load work directly from the preceding station. Although the production flowstarts at sales, XYZ Company currently makes pipes to fulfill customer orders, to maintain the inventory level, or toreplace nonconforming parts for previous orders.

Historical data reflecting the business results for the push system were analyzed. Findings regarding raw material,scheduling, production, sales and customer satisfaction, information flow, and inventory were discussed withmanagement. Based upon these reviews with management collected data were determined to be accurate and representative of XYZ Companys production system. These data were also compared with initial results after the

production system was modified to reflect the recommended improvements.

The major steel producers in the United States are important suppliers to XYZ Company. Under the current pushsystem, raw material is ordered in pounds rather than units. The production department determines order quantitiesto maintain inventory at certain levels. In spite of the huge volume of raw material, changes in customer requirements often cause production disruptions.

Delivery and Inventory Practices

The baseline production principle strives to minimize the production cost by running high volumes that will be sold or sent to inventory. Products are made to fill customer orders or to stock in inventory. As a result of running near

production capacities, a dramatic increase in inventory level occurred. The root cause of these increases in inventorylevels can be traced to the metrics of pounds run per man-hour which governs the current production strategy.Scheduling is also based on the same strategy. Although schedule changes, tooling changes, and machines cyclingare less frequent, they are time consuming. Currently, small size pipes require 4 to 8 hours and 1 or 2 workers tochange over, while large size pipes need 24 to 48 hours and 3 to 5 workers.

Sales and Customer Satisfaction

The current push system has a significant, often negative, impact on delivery date. Because the production decisionis based on productivity and instant customer orders, many orders have been shipped late or even canceled resultingin a decrease in customer satisfaction and delivery credibility. Customer satisfaction is measured only by deliverydate with production providing information to all other departments. XYZ Companys current information does not

provide customer satisfaction feedback for analysis or corrective action.

The inventory is divided into two main areas, based upon small and large pipe sizes. Due to the high volume production, inventory level is high. Inventory is annually evaluated in order to measure several factors such as turnover for small and large size products, inventory level, and asset value. Shipping depends directly on the availabilityof specified orders. Many orders have been shipped after their delivery date mainly because of production delays.

The production flow chart in Figure 2 shows a holding area between the welding and the x-ray processes. Analysisof this process flow reveals that the x-ray process, which cannot keep up with other production processes, becomesthe first bottleneck (constraint) in the system. The Vice President of Manufacturing at XYZ Company, states,About 10 percent of our production requires x-ray. Three main factors that are relevant to the x-ray department arecustomer requirements, applications, and design requirements. The x-ray process is part of the quality controldepartment that examines pipes in two main categories; 1) the welded area examined by the x-ray process, 2) and other specifications such as size, length, heat number, and straightness, that are tested in final inspection. The x-ray

process data were collected and analyzed resulting in Tables 1 and 2.

52


7/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

TABLE 1X-Ray Rejection in Footage per Defect

Total footage x-rayed between April and August: 42100

Type of defect Rejection (ft) % of totalIncomplete penetration 106 0.25%Porosity 365 0.87%Crack 0 0.00%Holes 0 0.00%Undercut 2,068 4.91%Slag 158 0.38%Burn through 27 0.06%Lack of fusion 113 0.27%Other 1,198 2.85%Total 4,035 9.59%

TABLE 2Cost and Productivity for the X-Ray Department

CostLabor cost $ 35/hr.Material cost $ 1.30/ft.Maintenance cost $ 19000

ProductivityX-ray time 0.25 min./ft.Set up time 1.1 min./ft.Handling time 0.5 min./ft.

To modify the current production system, meetings were held with company management. The entire system wasstudied and analyzed. During the course of these investigations XYZ Company recognized the need for improved communication between departments and created a new department called marketing and strategic planning to

partially fill this need. The purpose of this new department is to link several departments together and to follow upon future plans in terms of investment and marketing.

The department of marketing and strategic planning has developed a forecasting production model that integratesraw material, scheduling and production, sales, inventory and shipping. Study results are summarized below.

RESULTS

Guided by the Framework shown in Figure 1, collected data were analyzed in terms of cost and productivity. Theconcepts of the pull system in conjunction with TOC and BR were used to evaluate and compare findings.Production constraints were studied using cause-and-effect analysis. Then the results of this study were used todesign and recommend an improved production system. Anticipated benefits of the improved system include thosediscussed briefly below. Since the philosophy of JIT is to produce what is needed when it is needed, the modified system will be more customer oriented linking production to customer demands thereby meeting changes in demand with minimal production cost. Simplified scheduling also results. The operational efficiency of other departmentsimproves leading to a positive impact on the performance of the entire system. Figure 3 presents the information

53


8/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

flow chart in the modified system which shows the improved interface between departments. The modified production flow chart is illustrated in Figure 4.

FIGURE 3Information Flow Chart in the Modified System

S h i p p i n g

M ar k e t in g an d S t r a t eg i c P l an n in g( F o r ecas t i n g M o d e l )

P i ck l in g

X - R a y

M a r k i n gI n v en to r y

C u s t o m e r

S a l e s

S u p p l i e r

P r o d u c t io n( M an u f ac tu r in g )

S ch ed u l in gR aw M ate r i a l

FIGURE 4The Modified Production Flow Chart

S a l e s a n d C u s t o m e r

Sat i s fact ion

P u r c h a s i n g

We l d i n g

P r o d u c t i o nC o n t r o l

D e s i g nr e q u i r e m e n t

for x-rayR a w m a t e r ia lavai l able

Y es

N o

P ickl ingP a s s

X - R a y

H o l d i n gY es

P a s s N o

F i n i s h i n gR e w o r k

P a s s

N o

N o

St raightening

S i z i n g

A n n e a l i n g

B e v e l i n g

P l a s m a c u t

N o

Y es

Vi s u a l

E d d yTe s t

F i n i s h i n g

Y esG r i n d i n g

H a n d We l d i n g

R e w o r k

I n v e n t o r y

S h i p p i n g

M a r k i n g Y es

F i n a lInspect ion

M a r k e t i n g a n d S t rategic P lanning

The improved system adds supplier and customer information to the current system. All departments are nowlinked through the forecasting model that manages the production process. Information flows backward, forward,and in a closed loop starting in shipping and ending in sales. As a result, communication between departments isimproved and tracking customer, supplier and business information is simplified. Customers and suppliers now havea significant impact on strategic effectiveness.

The modified production flow chart suggests that material flow is stimulated when a customer order pulls finished products from inventory. It also pulls workload upstream to produce more units and the process continues.

54


9/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

Production is always triggered by demand from the next workstation. These modifications have already beenimplemented in raw material, scheduling, production, and inventory. Results of these improvements are beginningto be quantified.

Although raw material is still ordered in pounds, the quantity ordered has dropped significantly. Through improved communication with raw material suppliers, XYZ Company provides a two-week scheduling plan which helpssuppliers adjust their schedule accordingly. Another input to the raw material plan comes from customers who now

provide XYZ Company with improved forecasts of their needs. The result of these two inputs makes the rawmaterial department more efficient in fulfilling customer requirements.

The two-week schedule plan accommodates more frequent schedule changes, tooling changes, and machinescycles. Information flow between raw material, scheduling, and production is based on kanban cards. The modified system and database allows the production department to measure additional parameters that help to evaluate

production efficiency. These parameters are calendar asset utilization, operational asset utilization, welding speed efficiency, productivity and percent of scrap. Production is now designed to fulfill customer requirements and targetinventory.

The modified system has been partially implemented in the sales department. The sales department is now able tocoordinate with customers to better forecast future customer requirements. Customer satisfaction is still measured using delivery date; however, suggestions have been made to gather other measures of customer satisfaction and toidentify improved methods for anticipating future customer requirements.

Operational goals have been established to reduce small size pipes inventory to about half its current level and toeliminate the inventory for large size pipes. The improved measurement system captures turn over, inventory level,and asset value. Based on the literature review and feedback from management, Table 3 summarizes comparisons

between historical information and results obtained after implementing the modified system.

The productivity analysis of the x-ray department for the period under study indicates that the efficiency of the x-ray process for that period is about 36.1 percent. Many causes can affect the productivity of the x-ray process. Thesix-step process established by Kerzner (1998) was used to analyze the causes of the x-ray process. Figure 5represents the cause-and-effect diagram for the x-ray process.

One of the main internal causes in delaying schedules is developing scratched films. The cost analysis for thetracked production job fits into Figure 6 which breaks down the costs of poor quality into re-x-ray and scratch films.The welding process is the main cause that affects the x-ray process. The high ratio of the rejected pipes reduces thethroughput, slows the x-ray productivity, and adds more cost and reduces profitability. Cost and productivityanalysis for defective pipes were also conducted. The rework cost analysis indicated that most of the rework cost istraceable to poor welding quality. Therefore, the welding process was analyzed further. Figure 7 addresses some of the causes of the welding quality in a cause-and-effect diagram. Using this analysis as a guide, management wasable to take appropriate corrective action and implement process changes to improve welding quality and processthroughout.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the literature review, the field study, and the results of this study, the following conclusions, which have both theoretical and practical implications, are suggested:

1. This field study provided operational and customer related benefits. The quantity of raw materialordered has been reduced. The organization has enjoyed improved operational efficiency, and scheduling and production have become more responsive to customers requirements. Inventory levelhas dramatically declined resulting in reduced costs of having unnecessary inventoried items.

55


10/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

2. A pull orientation for the operation system tends to enhance the customer focus of the organization.3. Business Re-engineering, cause effect analysis, and principles of Theory of Constraints, were found to

be of practical value when used appropriately. The primary benefits in the cited field study wereimproved operational efficiency and enhanced strategic effectiveness as measured by customer satisfaction.

4. Applications of innovative managerial philosophies and tools such as Just-in-Time, Business Re-engineering, and Theory of Constraints are not restricted to large firms. Small and mid-size firms can

benefit from these applications without exhausting their resources.

The findings of this study have several managerial implications that are discussed briefly below.

1. Management, especially of small to medium sized manufacturing organizations, should analyzeimprovements in the context of the total system as opposed to piece-meal. This approach capitalizes onthe synergy that exists among the subsystems, processes, and tasks of the proposed system whileavoiding improvements in one area at the expense of reduced efficiency in another. Small to mediumsized organizations may be especially venerable to this threat.

2. A systematic approach to implementation is beneficial. In this context, a project management approachwill prove to be very useful. Through out the implementation process, the need for documentation,training, and testing are underscored.

3. In order to prepare the organization for the new operational environment consistent with the proposed system, management should use proven change management techniques and philosophies.

4. Benchmarking and continuous improvement should be utilized to assess the performance of theimplemented system to identify opportunities for additional learning and improvement.

Finally, the results realized from this study suggest that other small to medium sized manufacturing businessesmay benefit from a similar undertaking. Additional applied research of this type may serve to bridge the gap

between theory and practice of operational management with mutually beneficial outcomes for industry and academia.

56


11/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

TABLE 3A Comparison Between Current and Modified System

Aspect Push System Modified System

Scheduling Depends on production forecast Depends on information comes from differentdepartment

Production Stock Less stock

Lead time Long Short

Batch size Large- batch and queue Not available

Inspection Sampling Not investigated

Layout Functional Not investigated

Empowerment Low High

Inventory turns Less frequent More frequent

Flexibility Low High

Set-up time Long Short

Information flow Forward direction Forward, backward, and closed loop directions

Percent of reject 30% in average Less than 10% in average

Productivity Low High

Scrap High Low

Inventory level Very high Reduced

Welding speed Below standard Not changed

Working attitude Negative Positive

57


12/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

FIGURE 5Cause-and-Effect Diagram for the X-Ray Process

Delay inschedule

EnvironmentTool

MaterialMachine

Defectivefilms

Broken downx-ray machine

Handling

Weather

Method

Developingscratched films

Personnel

Poor training

Bad attitude

Cause

Effect

Slow performance

Poor motivation

Poor maintenance

Speed of x-ray machine

Voltage

Current

Set upthe film

Vendor

Readingthe film

Unclear specifications

Humidity

RainShortage

in people

Brokendown door

Slowmaintenance

Vendor set uptime

Film deliverytime

Processor

58


13/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

FIGURE 6Costs of Poor Quality

C o s t s o f P o o r Q u a l i t y

P o o r x - ra y s c h r a t c h e d f il m sC o s tD e f e c t iv e P i p e s

R e w o r k C o s t

R e - x ra y C o s t

FIGURE 7Cause-and-Effect Diagram for the Welding Process

The WeldingQuality

Environment

MaterialMachine

Gas

Torch

Gas

WledingSpeed

Voltage

Current

Scheduling

Lack of Experience

Temperature

Humidity

ElectrodeSize

Personnel

Gas Cup Size

WireDiameter

Wire Feed Speed

Torch Diameter

Steel Supplier

59


14/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

REFERENCES

Altiok, T., & Ranjan, R. (1995). Multi-stage, pull-type production/inventory systems. IIE Transactions, 27, 190-200.Ardhaldjian, R., & Fahner, M. (1994, July). Using simulation in the business process re-engineering effort.

Industrial Engineering, 60-61.Beyea, S., C., & Nicoll, L., H. (1999, October). When an adverse sentinel event is the cause for action. Aorn

Journal, 70(4), 703-704.Bradley, P., Gooley, T., & Cooke, J. (2000, January 31). Study finds inventory turnover on the rise. Logistics

management & distribution report , 39(1), 17.Burger, A. (2001). Root cause analysis. Retrieved March, 2002, from

http://www.key3media.com/interop/atlanta2001/online_pre/downloads/interop_conf/C60_A_Burger.pdf Bushong, J.G., & Talbott, J. C. (1999). An application of the theory of constraints. The CPA Journal , 69(4), 53-55.Chakravorty, S. S., & Atwater, J. B. (1994). How theory of constraints can be used to direct preventive maintenance.

Journal of Industrial Management , 36(6), 10-18.Cooper, R., & Slagmulder, R. (1999). Integrating activity-based costing and the theory of constraints. Management

Accounting, February, 80(8). 20-22.Czuchry, A. J., Yasin, M. M., & Norris, J. (2000). An open system approach to process re-engineering in a

healthcare operational environment. Health Marketing Quarterly, 17(3), 77-88.Draman, R. H., & Salhus, V. (1998, November-December). Painting a better process: Implementing the theory of

constraints in the batch process industry. Industrial Management, 40(6), 4-7.Eli, G. (2001). Operating deflection shape analysis: A powerful tool to increase plant reliability. Hydrocarbon

Processing, October, 80(10), 59-63.Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (1992). The goal . Great Barrington, MA: The North River Press.Grundy, T. (1997, December). Management accounting for strategic performance. Management Accounting

(British), 75(11), 63-64. Hales, H. L., & Savoie, B. J. (1994, September). Building a foundation for successful business process re-

engineering. Industrial Engineering, 26(9), 17-19.Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Re-engineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. New

York: Harper Business.Hancock, W. M., & Zayko, M. J. (1998, June, 30). Lean production: Implementation problems. IIE Solutions, 30(6),

38-43.

Holmen, J. S. (1995, January). Its a matter of time: Activity-based costing and the theory of constraints can work together. Management accounting , 37-40.Juran, J. M. (1989). Juran on leadership for quality: An executive handbook . New York: The Free Press.Kenward, M. (1992). The fine art of mass production. New Scientist, 135(1830), 24-26.Kerzner, H. (1998). Project management: A systems approach to planning . New York: John Willy & Sons.Krishnamurthy, A., Suri, R., & Vernon, M. (2000). Push can perform better than pull for flexible manufacturing

systems with multiple products. Retrieved February, 2002, fromhttp://www.cs.wisc.edu/~vernon/papers/poems.00ierc.pdf

Kupanhy, L. (1995, February). Classification of JIT techniques and their implications. Industrial Engineering, 62-67.

McCloud, J. (1994, June). Changing customer demands serve as impetus for BPR at Schlage Lock Co. Industrial Engineering, 26(6), 30-34.

Ogan, P., & Heitger, L. (1999, March-April). Alphabet soup: Good for you or an indigestible stew? Business Horizons, 42(2), 61-70.

Pearson, J. N., & Wisner, J. D. (1993, November/December). Using volume and economies of scale to benefit long-term productivity. Industrial Management, 13-16.

Richman, E., & Zachary, W. (1994, March-April). Creating strategies for successful materials management. Industrial Management, 36(2), 24-29.

Ruhl, J. M. (1997, January). Management constraints. The CPA Journal , 60-63.The American Production and Inventory Control Society. (2001) Retrieved February, 2002, from

http://www.inventorysolutions.org/def_jit.htm

60
http://www.key3media.com/interop/atlanta2001/online_pre/downloads/interop_conf/C60_A_Burger.pdfhttp://www.cs.wisc.edu/~vernon/papers/poems.00ierc.pdfhttp://www.inventorysolutions.org/def_jit.htmhttp://www.inventorysolutions.org/def_jit.htmhttp://www.cs.wisc.edu/~vernon/papers/poems.00ierc.pdfhttp://www.key3media.com/interop/atlanta2001/online_pre/downloads/interop_conf/C60_A_Burger.pdf


15/16

ACR Vol.16 (1&2), 2008

61

Wafa, M. A., & Yasin, M. M. (1995). The effect of situational constraints on workforce performance and JITimplementation: An empirical study. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology,8(3/4), 139-144.

Wafa, M. A., & Yasin, M. M. (1998). A conceptual framework for effective implementation of JIT: An empiricalinvestigation. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 18(11), 1111-1124.

Yasin, M. M., Wafa, M. A., & Small, M., H. (2001). Just-in-time implementation in the public sector: An empiricalexamination. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(9), 1195-1201.

Zikmund, W. G. (2000). Business research methods . Orlando, FL: The Dryden Press.Zimmer, L. (2000). Manufacturing engineering: Lean design. Retrieved February, 2002, from

http://www.mfgeng.com/lean.htm ____________________________________________

Mahmoud M. Yasin ([email protected]) is Professor of Management at East Tennessee State University, P.O. Box70625, Johnson City, TN 37614-0625.

Andrew J. Czuchry ([email protected]) is Professor of Management and Technology and holder of the AFGIndustries Chair of Excellence in Business and Technology at East Tennessee State University, P.O. Box 70619,Johnson City, TN 37614-0625.

Rani A. Kady ([email protected] ) is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Managementand Systems Engineering at Old Dominion University, 241 Kaufman Hall, Norfolk, VA, 23529.
http://www.mfgeng.com/lean.htmhttp://www.mfgeng.com/lean.htm


16/16

Documents

RE-ENGINEERING OPERATIONAL PRACTICES AND PROCESSES TO IMPROVE THE CUSTOMER FOCUS OF A MARKETING ORGANIZATION