Benchmarking performance measures in traditional and just‐in‐time companies

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to show if there are differences between traditional and just‐in‐time ( JIT) companies in choosing benchmarking performance measures at various levels of organization.

Design/methodology/approach

A questionnaire‐based mailed survey was used to examine five questions on the differences between traditional and JIT companies. The target population for the study was manufacturing firms in midwestern USA. The sample covers organizations in a variety of industries ranging from fabricated metal, communication, electronics, automotive, toots, chemicals, rubber, and paper products. In addition to general organization and managerial profile items, the survey contained series of questions regarding organizational goals and objectives, competitive priorities, manufacturing performance objectives, and manufacturing action plans. Out of 91 completed surveys received, 84 surveys were usable resulting in a response rate of 17 percent. Out of 84 usable surveys, 33 respondents declared their organizations to be JIT organizations.

Findings

The paper finds that JIT companies are more consistent in choosing benchmarking performance measures that are aligned with organizational strategy.

Research limitations/implications

This research is general and not industry specific. Future research needs to focus on specific industries.

Practical implications

Successful implementation of JIT principles requires a thorough understanding of organizational strategy and deployment of the strategy into consistent sub strategies and action plans.

Originality/value

The paper shows that the benefits of JIT principles go much beyond inventory reduction and frequent deliveries. These principles could be applied to other areas of business.

Citation

Meybodi, M.Z. (2009), "Benchmarking performance measures in traditional and just‐in‐time companies", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 88-102. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770910936531