Tuesday, 17 May 2011

6th Case Study: Just-In-Time (JIT) : Key to Success for Toyota

This case study is perhaps well known to Mech-guys. I learnt about JIT at the training period in BHEL. Although I m a HR-freak but there, I also developed interest in JIT and TQM. For the people interested in opting for Ops as specialization, this case is one of the obvious cases that they will have to encounter in future.

Toyota's history goes back to 1897, when Sakichi Toyoda (Sakichi) diversified into the handloom machinery business from his family traditional business of carpentry. He founded Toyoda Automatic Loom Works (TALW) in 1926 for manufacturing automatic looms. Sakichi invented a loom that stopped automatically when any of the threads snapped. This concept of designing equipment to stop so that defects could be fixed immediately formed the basis of the Toyota Production System (TPS) that went on to become a major factor in the company's success.

In 1933, Sakichi established an automobile department within TALW and the first passenger car prototype was developed in 1935. Sakichi's son Kiichiro Toyoda (Kiichiro) convinced him to enter the automobile business. After this the production of Model AA began and Toyota Motor Corporation was established in 1937. Kiichiro visited the Ford Motor Company in Detroit to study the US automotive industry. He saw that an average US worker's production was nine times that of a Japanese worker. He realized that the productivity of the Japanese automobile industry had to be increased if it were to compete globally. 


The JIT production was defined as 'producing only necessary units in a necessary quantity at a necessary time resulting in decreased excess inventories and excess workforce, thereby increasing productivity.' Kiichiro realized that by relying solely on the central planning approach, it would be very difficult to implement JIT in all the processes for an automobile. Hence, TPS followed the production flow conversely. People working in one process went to the preceding one to withdraw the necessary units in the necessary quantities at the necessary time. This resulted in the preceding process producing only quantities of units to replace those that had been withdrawn.
According to analysts, Toyota's success in both the local and global markets was mainly because of its state-of-the-art and well-planned operational strategies. The company had continuously focused on gaining a competitive advantage through implementation of innovative and path-breaking ideas on its production floors. TPS worked on the basic idea of maintaining a continuous flow of products in factories in order to flexibly adapt to demand changes. The most important feature of TPS was the way it linked all production activities to real dealer demand through implementation of Kanban, JIT and other quality measures that enabled Toyota to manufacture in low quantities.  

Developed by the Japanese, the JIT production system was one of the most significant production management approaches of the post World War II era. The system comprised a set of activities aimed at increasing production volume through the optimum use of inventories of raw materials, work-in-process, and finished goods. In a JIT production system, a workstation gets a part just in time, completes its work and the part is moved through the system quickly.

JIT was based on the principle of producing only what is needed and nothing more than needed. The Japanese believed that anything produced over the quantity required was a waste. Cho defined waste as, "Anything other than the minimum amount of equipment, materials, parts and workers (working time) which are absolutely essential to production." JIT did not allow any surplus as it believed that "effort and material expended for something not needed now cannot be utilized now."   

Just-In-Time Production System
What it is
• Management philosophy
• 'Pull' System through the plant
What it does
• Attacks waste (time, inventory, scrap)
• Exposes problems and bottlenecks
• Achieves streamlined production
What it requires
• Employee participation
• Industrial engineering/basics
• Continuing improvement
• Total quality control
• Small lot sizes
What it assumes
• Stable environment


Kanban was an essential component of Toyota's JIT concept. The Japanese referred to Kanban as a simple parts-movement system that depended on cards and boxes/containers to take parts from one workstation to another on a production line. Ohno had developed the idea in 1956 from the super markets in the US, which had devised an effective system for replenishment of store shelves based on the quantities picked by the customers. Initially, Ohno used pieces of paper contained in rectangular vinyl envelopes to convey information (called Kanban). In a period spanning three decades, Kanban developed into a sophisticated information system that ensured production in required quantities at the right time in all manufacturing processes within the factory.

The essence of the Kanban concept was that a supplier delivered components to the production line only when required, thus eliminating storage in the production area. Suppliers delivered desired components when they received a card and an empty container, indicating that more parts were needed for production. In case of line interruption, each supplier produced only enough components to fill the container and then stopped. Since Kanban was a chain process in which orders flowed from one process to another, the production or delivery of components was 'pulled' to the production line.

At Toyota, two types of Kanban cards were used: one, to move parts from one place to another, known as the Conveyance Kanban card, and the other, to authorize the production of parts, known as the Production Kanban card. A standard size container was used to store parts and each card was treated like a coupon.

To make the Kanban system effective and reap maximum benefits from it TPS framed six rules:
• Later process went to the earlier process to pick up products.
• The earlier process produced only the amount withdrawn by the later process.
• Should not pick or produce goods without a Kanban.
• A Kanban should be attached to the goods.
• 100% defect free parts were required.
• Reduce the number of Kanbans. 
The Kanban cards were re-circulated and the number of cards controlled work-in-progress (WIP) in the system. In this way, the activities of final assembly were linked to previous operations by a chain system of card ordering that 'pulled' production through the factory.

Another important component of JIT was Heijunka (production smoothing). JIT's principle of building only the required number of items helped keep the production costs low. Heijunka helped in the accomplishment of this principle by creating a consistent production volume. Heijunka averaged the highest and lowest variations of the orders. The variations were then removed from the production schedule. This ensured that the right quantity of parts was produced with minimum workforce. Heijunka took care not only of the total volume of items but also the type of items produced and the other options. 
Although Toyota's JIT had some drawbacks, it offered several advantages over other manufacturing processes. Because of the early adoption of JIT, Toyota benefited more from the system than other automobile companies.Although many automobile companies around the world later adopted JIT, the system was far from perfect and difficult to implement. It was based on the key assumption that sources and channels of supply were reliable and dependable at all times. Analysts felt that it did not take into account the possibility of labor strikes at automotive plants. Moreover, JIT involved high set up costs and Special training and reorganization of policies and procedures in the company were necessary to implement JIT. The supplier relations of the company also needed to be improved to ensure timely delivery. In the absence of good supplier relations, JIT increased the risk of inventory shortage. Organizational culture also seemed to play a crucial role in the implementation of JIT. Many companies outside Japan reported difficulties in the implementation of the concept.


Sunday, 15 May 2011

5th Case(Sales and promotion): The Coke-Pepsi Rivalry!!

It is very hard to tell about this famous topic within a post....In fact, the coke-pepsi rivalry is so old and so diversified that one can write a book on it!!...Anyway, I am trying to make it short.


Making billions from selling carbonated/colored/sweetened water for over 100 years, Coke and Pepsi had emerged as truly global brands. Coke was born 11 years before Pepsi in 1887 and, a century later it still maintained its lead in the global cola market. Pepsi, having always been number two, kept trying harder and harder to beat Coke at its own game. In this never-ending duel, there was always a new battlefront opening up somewhere. In India the battle was more intense, as India was one of the very few areas where Pepsi was the leader in the cola segment. Coke re-entered India in 1993 and soon entered into a deal with Parle, which had a 60% market share in the soft drinks segment with its brands Limca, Thums Up and Gold Spot.

Coke was mainly a franchisee-driven operation with the company supplying its soft drink concentrate to its bottlers around the world. Pepsi took the more capital-intensive route of owning and running its own bottling factories alongside those of its franchisees. Over half of Pepsi's sales were made by its own bottling units.

Though Pepsi had a lead over Coke, having come in before the era of economic liberalization in India, it had to spend the early years fighting the bureaucracy and Parle's Ramesh Chuahan every step of the way. Pepsi targeted the youth and seemed to have struck a right chord with the market. Its performance was praiseworthy, while Coke had to struggle to a certain extent to get its act right. In a span of 7 years of its operations in the county, Coke changed its CEO four times. Media reports about the troubles faced by Coke and the corrective measures it adopted were aplenty.

When Coke re-entered India, it found Pepsi had already established itself in the soft drinks market. The global advertisement wars between the cola giants quickly spread to India as well. Internationally, Pepsi had always been seen as the more aggressive and offensive of the two, and its advertisements the world over were believed to be more popular than Coke's. It was rumored that at any given point of time, both the companies had their spies in the other camp. The advertising agencies of both the companies (Chaitra Leo Burnett for Coke and HTA for Pepsi) were also reported to have insiders in each other's offices who reported to their respective heads on a daily basis. Based on these inputs, the rival agency formulated its own plans. These hostilities kept the rivalry alive and healthy. However, the tussle took a serious turn at times with complaints to Advertising Standards Council of India, and threats of lawsuits.
While Pepsi always relied on advertisements featuring films stars, pop stars and cricket players, Coke had initially decided to focus on Indian culture and jingles based on Indian classical music. These were also supported by coke advertisements that were popular in the West.
Somehow, Coke's advertisements missed the Indian pulse by a wide margin. Pepsi soon came to be seen as a 'defender' who had humiliated the 'invader' with its superior creative strengths. When Coke bagged the official sponsorship rights to the 1997 Cricket World Cup, Pepsi created media history by unleashing one of the country's most successful advertisement campaigns - the 'Nothing Official About It' campaign . Pepsi took on Coke, even when the latter sponsored the replays of the matches, through the campaign, 'Uncork a Cola.' Media coverage of the war even hinted that the exclusion of Rahul Dravid (Pepsi's model) from the Indian team had something to do with the war. However, Coke had its revenge when it bagged the television sponsorship rights for the 1997 Pepsi Asia Cup. Consequently, Pepsi, in spite of having branded the event was not able to sponsor it.

The severe damage caused by the 'Nothing Official About It' campaign prompted Coke to shift its advertising account from McCann Erickson to Chaitra Leo Burnett in 1997. The 'Eat-Sleep-Drink' series of ads was born soon after. Pepsi responded with ads where cricket stars 'ate a bat' and 'slept on a batting pad' and 'drank only Pepsi.' To counter this, Coke released a print advertisement in March 1998, in which cricketers declared, 'Chalo Kha Liya!' Another Thums Up ad showed two apes copying Pepsi's Azhar and Ajay Jadeja, with the line, 'Don't be a bunder (monkey), Taste the thunder.' For once, it was Pepsi's turn to be at receiving end. A Pepsi official commented, "We're used to competitive advertising, but we don't make fun of the cricketers, just the ad." Though Pepsi decided against suing Coke, the ad vanished soon after the dissent was made public. Commenting on this, a Pepsi official said, "Pepsi is basically fun. It is irreverent and whacky. Our rival is serious and has a 'don't mess with me' attitude. We tend to get away with fun but they have not taken it nicely. They don't find it funny."

Coke then launched one of its first offensive ads, ridiculing Pepsi's ads featuring a monkey. 'Oye! Don't be a bunder! Taste the Thunder', the ad for Thums Up, went with the line, 'issued in the interest of the present generation by Thums Up.'

The 1998 Football World Cup was another event the cola majors fought over. Pepsi organized local or 'para' football matches in Calcutta and roped in Indian football celebrity Bhaichung Bhutia to endorse Pepsi. Pepsi claimed it was the first to start and popularize 'para' football at the local level. However, Coke claimed that it was the first and not Pepsi, to arrange such local games, which Coke referred to as 'pada.' 
While Pepsi advertisements claimed, 'More football, More Pepsi,' Coke utilized the line, 'Eat football, Sleep football, Drink only Coca-Cola,' later replaced by 'Live football, dream football and drink only Coca-Cola.' Media reports termed Pepsi's promos as a 'me-too' effort to cash in on the World Cup craze, while Coke's activities were deemed to be in line with its commitment and long-term association with the game.

Coke's first offering in the lemon segment (not counting the acquired market leader brand Limca) came in the form of Sprite launched in early 1999. From the very beginning, Sprite went on the offensive with its tongue-in-cheek advertisements. The line 'Baki Sab Bakwas' (All the rest is nonsense) was clearly targeted at Pepsi's claims in its ads. The advertisement made fun of almost all the Pepsi and Mirinda advertisements launched during 1998. Pepsi termed this as Coke's folly, claiming it was giving Sprite a 'wrong positioning,' and that it was a case of an ant trying to fight a tiger.  
Sprite received an encouraging response in the market, aided by the high-decibel promotions and pop music concerts held across the country. But Pepsi was confident that 7 Up would hold its own and its ads featuring film stars would work wonders for Mirinda Lemon in the lemon segment.

When Pepsi launched an advertisement featuring Sachin Tendulkar with a modified Hindi movie song, 'Sachin Ala Re,' Coke responded with an advertisement with the song, 'Coke Ala Re.' Following this, Pepsi moved the Advertising Standards Council of India and the Advertising Agencies Association of India, alleging plagarisation of its 'Sachin Ala Re' creation by Coke's advertising agency, Chaitra Leo Burnett, in its 'Coke Ala Re' commercial. The rivals were always engaged in the race to sign the most popular Bollywood and cricket celebrities for their advertisements. More often than not, the companies pitched arch-rivals in their respective fields against each other in the cola wars as well. (Refer Table I)

Celebrity Endorsers *
 Indian film industry
 Cricket players
Coke
 Karisma Kapoor, Hrithik Roshan, Twinkle Khanna, Rambha, Daler Mehndi, Aamir Khan, Aishwarya Rai. **
 Robin Singh, Anil Kumble, Javgal Srinath.
Pepsi
 Aamir Khan, Aishwarya Rai**, Akshay Kumar, Shahrukh Khan, Rani Mukherjee, Manisha Koirala, Kajol, Mahima Chaudhary, Madhavan, Amrish Puri, Govinda, Amitabh Bachchan.
 Azharuddin, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Sourav Ganguly.
* The list is not exhaustive.
**Aamir and Aishwarya had switched from Pepsi to Coke.
In October 2000, following Coke's 'Jo Chaaho Ho Jaaye' campaign, the brand's 'branded cut-through mark, ' reached an all-time high of 69.5% as against Pepsi's 26.2%. In terms of stochastic share, Coke had a 3% lead over Pepsi with a 25.5% share. Pepsi retaliated with a campaign making fun of Coke's advertisements. The advertisement had a mixed response amongst the masses with fans of both the celebrities defending their idols. In May 2000, Coke threatened to sue Pepsi over the advertisements that ridiculed its own commercials. Amidst wide media coverage, Pepsi eventually stopped airing the controversial advertisement. In February 2001, Coke went on the offensive with the 'Grow up to the Thums Up Challenge' campaign. Pepsi immediately issued a legal notice on Coke for using the 'Yeh Dil Maange More' phrase used in the commercial. Coke officials, however, declined to comment on the issue and the advertisement continued to be aired. 
Pepsi and Coke fought the war on a new turf in the late 1990s. In May 1998, Pepsi filed a petition against Coke alleging that Coke had 'entered into a conspiracy' to disrupt its business operations. Coke was accused of luring away three of Pepsi's key sales personnel from Kanpur, going as far as to offer Rs 10 lakh a year in pay and perks to one of them, almost five times what Pepsi was paying him. Sales personnel who were earning Rs 48,000 per annum were offered Rs 1.86 lakh a year. Many truck drivers in the Goa bottling plant who were getting Rs 2,500 a month moved to Coke who gave them Rs 10,000 a month. While new recruits in the soft drinks industry averaged a pay hike of between 40-60% Coke had offered 300-400%. Coke, in its reply filed with the Delhi High Court, strongly denied the allegations and also asked for the charges to be dropped since Pepsi had not quantified any damages. Pepsi claimed that this was causing immense damage as those employees who had switched over were carrying with them sensitive trade-related information. After some intense bickering, the issue died a natural death with Coke emerging the winner in another round of the battle.






Saturday, 14 May 2011

4th case study(Motivation): Brooklyn Bridge - Against all odds


In 1883, a creative engineer named John Roebling was inspired by an idea to build a spectacular bridge connecting New York with the Long Island. However bridge building experts throughout the world thought that this was an impossible feat and told Roebling to forget the idea. It just could not be done. It was not practical. It had never been done before.

Roebling could not ignore the vision he had in his mind of this bridge. He thought about it all the time and he knew deep in his heart that it could be done. He just had to share the dream with someone else. After much discussion and persuasion he managed to convince his son Washington, an up and coming engineer, that the bridge in fact could be built.
Working together for the first time, the father and son developed concepts of how it could be accomplished and how the obstacles could be overcome. With great excitement and inspiration, and the headiness of a wild challenge before them, they hired their crew and began to build their dream bridge.
The project started well, but when it was only a few months underway a tragic accident on the site took the life of John Roebling. Washington was injured and left with a certain amount of brain damage, which resulted in him not being able to walk or talk or even move.
“We told them so.”
“Crazy men and their crazy dreams.”
“It`s foolish to chase wild visions.”
Everyone had a negative comment to make and felt that the project should be scrapped since the Roeblings were the only ones who knew how the bridge could be built. In spite of his handicap Washington was never discouraged and still had a burning desire to complete the bridge and his mind was still as sharp as ever.
He tried to inspire and pass on his enthusiasm to some of his friends, but they were too daunted by the task. As he lay on his bed in his hospital room, with the sunlight streaming through the windows, a gentle breeze blew the flimsy white curtains apart and he was able to see the sky and the tops of the trees outside for just a moment.
It seemed that there was a message for him not to give up. Suddenly an idea hit him. All he could do was move one finger and he decided to make the best use of it. By moving this, he slowly developed a code of communication with his wife.
He touched his wife’s arm with that finger, indicating to her that he wanted her to call the engineers again. Then he used the same method of tapping her arm to tell the engineers what to do. It seemed foolish but the project was under way again.
For 13 years Washington tapped out his instructions with his finger on his wife’s arm, until the bridge was finally completed. Today the spectacular Brooklyn Bridge stands in all its glory as a tribute to the triumph of one man’s indomitable spirit and his determination not to be defeated by circumstances. It is also a tribute to the engineers and their team work, and to their faith in a man who was considered mad by half the world. It stands too as a tangible monument to the love and devotion of his wife who for 13 long years patiently decoded the messages of her husband and told the engineers what to do.
Perhaps this is one of the best examples of a never-say-die attitude that overcomes a terrible physical handicap and achieves an impossible goal.

3rd case study (Marketing): Ambush Marketing, an innovative way to market


Recently, Ambush marketing has received a lot of
publicity in the Indian and international marketing arena.
Simply put, Ambush marketing occurs when a company
signs on to sponsor an event as official sponsor, and a
rival hijacks the mind space through backdoor means. It
is a concept that describes the actions of companies who
seek to associate themselves with a sponsored event
without paying the organizers. The ambush consists of
giving the impression to consumers that the ambusher is
somehow affiliated with the event. Ambush marketing
can provide some, if not most, of the benefits of a
legitimate, paid-for sponsorship at relatively little cost.
 
For example, In 1996, soft drinks giant Coke paid a
fortune for the right to call itself the official sponsor of the
World Cup. Rival Pepsi promptly launched a massive
advertising blitz, based on the catch-line: Nothing Official
About It
. The Pepsi campaign captured the public
imagination - and Coke, the official sponsor, lost out.
The above incident highlights the subtlety & potential of
ambush marketing – hijacking the consumers’ mind.

Again in Fifa 2010, Adidas was the official sponsor of 
the even and Nike was not. But, Many fans have stated that
Nike’s “Write the Future” ad was simply better than 
 Adidas’ “The Quest” ad, and thus it is not a surprise  
Nike was winning with soccer fans and consumers. Nike's 
Ad included Rooney, Drogba, Ronaldinho etc. They also
started campaign called "Write your Headline - Write the future"
on Facebook and Twitter which again caught the imagination of
young guns. So while Adidas spent huge amount to be the 
official sponsor of FIFA'10, Nike invested much lesser and
still took the match away!!

Another example is the campaigning of airline companies
of India. Jetlite started with "We have changed" followed by
Kingfisher's "We made them change" and again followed by
Go Air's "We have not changed: We are still the smartest way to Fly".

It is to note that successful ambush strategies feed on ill-conceived
sponsorships and inept sponsors; in that regard, Ambush
Marketing is the natural result of healthy competition and
has the long-range effect of making sponsored properties
more valuable, not less, in that successful ambushes,
over time, help to weed out inferior sponsorship
propositions.  So, in spite of ethical issues raised by
many firms, it can be said that it is an war of
imaginative creativity not of harsh criticism/sarcasm and hence,
may not be a violation of normal ethical standards.

(Reference: http://www.ideasmakemarket.com/2011/05/ambush-marketing-most-contemporary.html)








2nd case study(Business Ethics): Gender Discrimination at Wal-Mart

It is a nice case study which shows that Ethics and equal opportunity for all employees are two things that every organization should practice for its own benefit. Even some of the world's top organizations can be reluctant to implement these and they have to pay the price.

Starting off with Sam Walton’s idea of low prices in the 1940s, Wal-Mart has since then become the world’s largest public corporation, topping the list of Fortune’s Global 500 for the sixth time in seven years. With headquarters in Bentonville,Arkansas, this retail giant has over 2 million employees worldwide, with 1.4 million within the United States alone, making it one of the largest private employers in the
nation.
As with any global corporation, Wal-Mart engages in multiple and complex relationships with a number of different stakeholders. Labor unions, environmentalist groups, grassroots organizations, religious groups and community members have criticized Wal-Mart for its perceived lack of concern in its current business practices and policies. Complaints have included unequal employment opportunities, lack of health
insurance etc.

Currently Wal-Mart finds itself facing the largest class action lawsuit in the history of the United States, having to fight against 1.6 million female employees who claimed that they were treated unfairly in their positions. Important statistical evidence being used by the women is a report conducted by Richard Drogin of Drogin, Kakigi & Associates, who was retained by the plantiffs of the Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. case.
The report was composed using personnel and compensation data collected from 1996 to 2002, and its findings strongly help defend the plantiffs. Among the results, Drogin found that it took longer for women to rise to a management position, at an average of 10.12 years since date of first hire, as opposed to 8.64 years for men. In general, women make up 92 percent of Wal-Mart’s cashiers, but only 14 percent of store
management. The lawsuit also claims that the average proportion of female managers in the nation’s 20 largest retail stores is 20 percent higher than at Wal-Mart.Women are also being compensated unfairly as opposed to their male counterparts.
Rammona Scott, a former personnel manager at Wal-mart tried to get a raise for a female cashier in 1993. Her request was turned down by the store manager who told her that women are not really interested in making aa career and they worked because they wanted to take home some extra money!!
According to Drogin, women earned about $5,200 less than men overall in 2001 at Wal-Mart. Contrasting hourly vs. salary employees, women working hourly earned about $1,100 less than men. Women in management earned a salary of $14,500 less than men. Women also asserted that the 5 to 15 percent additional pay that men are receiving has nothing to do with seniority or performance reviews, as many of these women felt that men would get promoted before them because of gender alone.If these women were to win the case, Wal-Mart would have to face very serious repercussions that could ultimately affect its bottom line. Not only would the company have to pay what could be up to $10 billion in damages, but there would also be anincrease in pay to about 60 percent of their current workforce, which in turn would boost
prices and reduce not only sales, but its share price as well. In July 2005, about a year after the plantiffs were certified as a class, Wal-Mart’s shares fell 3.9 percent to $50.
There are still a number of lawsuits that are running against Wal-Mart.
 

Friday, 13 May 2011

1st case study: What Is the Right Balance Between Work and Personal Life?

When you think of work/life conflicts, you may tend to
think of people in lower levels of organizations who might
not have as much flexibility in determining their workdays.
However, a recent survey of 179 CEOs revealed that many
of them struggle with this issue. For instance, 31 percent
said they have a high level of stress in their lives; 47 percent
admitted that they would sacrifice some compensation for
more personal time; and 16 percent considered changing
jobs in the past 6 months to reduce stress or sacrifices made
in their personal lives.
Most of these surveyed executives conceded that they
had given up, and continue to give up, a lot to get to the
top in their organizations. They are often tired from the
extensive and exhausting travel their jobs demand, not to
mention an average 60-hour workweek. Yet most feel the
climb to the CEO position was worth whatever sacrifices
they have had to make.
Jean Stone, while not representative of the group, indicates
the price that some of these executives have had to
pay. As senior VP and chief operating officer of Dukane
Corporation, an Illinois-based manufacturer of electronic
communications equipment, Stone describes herself as highly
achievement-oriented. She has an intense focus on her job
and admits to having lost sight of her personal life. Recently
divorced after a 10-year marriage, she acknowledges that
“career and work pressures were a factor in that.”
 


How much emphasis on work is too much? What is the
right balance between work and personal life? How much
would you be willing to give up to be CEO of a major company?
And if you were a CEO, what ethical responsibilities,
if any, do you think you have to help your employees balance
their work/family obligations?