Production elasticity differences between just-in-time and non-just-in-time users in the automotive parts industry

Brox, James A.; Fader, Christina

doi:10.1016/s1062-9408(96)90023-6

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With respect to the adoption of a single management practice, some study indirectly analyse the possible beneficial effect in term of costs reduction. For example, Brox and Fader (1996, 1997) find that Just in Time (JIT hereafter) management practices enhance cost efficiency by exploring the cost function differences between samples of JIT and non‐JIT user firms. Other studies infer about firm performance and management practices by limiting their analysis to a simple productivity comparison between adopters and non‐adopters or by simple looking at the statistical correlation between management practices and productivity.…”

Section: Management Practices and Firm Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

The UK productivity gap in the service sector: do management practices matter?

Battisti

Iona

2009

Int J Productivity & Perf Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper aims to contribute to the debate on the drivers of the productivity gap that exists between the UK and its major international competitors.Design/methodology/approachFrom the macro perspective the paper explores the quantitative evidence on the productivity differentials and how they are measured. From the micro perspective, the article explores the quantitative evidence on the role of management practices claimed to be a key determinant in promoting firm competitiveness and in bridging the UK gap.FindingsThis study suggests that management practices are an ambiguous driver of firm productivity and higher firm performance. On the methodological side, qualitative and subjective measures of either management practices or firm performance are often used. This makes the results not comparable across studies, across firms or even within firms over time. Productivity and profitability are often and erroneously interchangeably used while productivity is only one element of firm performance. On the other hand, management practices are multi‐dimensional constructs that generally do not demonstrate a straightforward relationship with productivity variables. To assume that they are the only driver of higher productivity may be misleading. Moreover, there is evidence of an inverse causal relationship between management practices and firm performance. This calls into question most empirical results of the extant literature based on the unidirectional assumption of direct causality between management practices and firm performance.Research limitations/implicationsThese and other issues suggest that more research is needed to deepen the understanding of the UK productivity gap and more quantitative evidence should be provided on the way in which management practices contribute to the UK competitiveness. Their impact is not easily measurable due to their complexity and their complementary nature and this is a fertile ground for further research.Originality/valueThis paper brings together the evidence on the UK productivity gap and its main drivers, provided by the economics, management and performance measurement literature. This issue scores very highly in the agenda of policy makers and academics and has important implications for practitioners interested in evaluating the impact of managerial best practices.

show abstract

Section: Management Practices and Firm Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

The UK productivity gap in the service sector: do management practices matter?

Battisti

Iona

2009

Int J Productivity & Perf Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At firm-level, Brox and Fader (1996) employ a generalised CES-TL cost model based on firm cost-functions in order to differentiate between the financial characteristics of JIT and non-JIT user firms, and find that JIT increases productivity and cost efficiency. JIT is defined as a mixture of JIT/TQM practices including Kanban, integrated product design, integrated supplier network, plan to reduce set-up time, quality circles, focused factory, preventive maintenance programs, line balancing, education about JIT, level schedules, stable cycle rates, market-paced final assembly, group technology, program to improve quality (product), program to improve quality (process), fast inventory transportation system, flexibility of worker's skills.…”

Section: Jit/ Tqm and Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite being at the origin implicitly aimed at increasing company efficiency, the results of the studies reviewed with regard to the impact of JIT and TQM on productivity are not conclusive. At firm-level, both JIT and TQM have been found to have mixed effects, ranging from positive, to none or even to negative effects (though the latter was only slightly significant and only in the case of JIT) (Callan et al 2000; Brox and Fader 1996Kaynak 2003;Kaynak and Pagan 2003;Sale and Imman 2003;or Callan et al 2005). Only one relevant plant-level study has been found in our review, and it reports a positive impact of JIT on productivity (Lawrence and Hottenstein 1995).…”

Section: Jit/ Tqm and Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Enhancing Productivity: The Role of Management Practices

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is no doubt that management practices are linked to the productivity and performance of a company. However, research findings are mixed. This paper provides a multi-disciplinary review of the current evidence of such a relationship and offers suggestions for further exploration. We provide an extensive review of the literature in terms of research findings from studies that have been trying to measure and understand the impact that individual management practices and clusters of management practices have on productivity at different levels of analysis. We focus our review on Operations Management (OM) and Human Resource Management (HRM) practices as well as joint applications of these practices. In conclusion, we can say that taken as a whole, the research findings are equivocal. Some studies have found a positive relationship between the adoption of management practices and productivity, some negative and some no association whatsoever. We believe that the lack of universal consensus on the effect of the adoption of complementary management practices might be driven either by measurement issues or by the level of analysis. Consequently, there is a need for further research. In particular, for a multi-level approach from the lowest possible level of aggregation up to the firm-level of analysis in order to assess the impact of management practices upon the productivity of firms.

show abstract

NAFTA, Infrastructure and the Canadian Automotive Sector

Brox

2006

The Journal of Economic Asymmetries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Production elasticity differences between just-in-time and non-just-in-time users in the automotive parts industry

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

The UK productivity gap in the service sector: do management practices matter?

The UK productivity gap in the service sector: do management practices matter?

Enhancing Productivity: The Role of Management Practices

NAFTA, Infrastructure and the Canadian Automotive Sector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About