Just in Time, Lean Manufacturing and Manufacturing Resource Planning

Just in Time and Lean Manufacturing:

JIT enables companies to uplift efficiency standards, enhance quality and boost productivity through decreasing materials’ waste, improving production efficiency in addition to decreasing production’s associated time and effort. Accordingly, and in order to execute this philosophy, then Kanban system shall be presented to guarantee that the company is operating its SC both expertly and efficiently. The part taken care by Kanban is to bond diverse manufacturing procedures jointly, decrease work in progress, maintain low cost of operations in addition to minimize lead and setup times (Wang & Sarker 2004).

Manufacturing Resource Planning:

MRP as a core module within ERP systems helps in substituting complicated and manual connections amongst diverse corporate functions and systems, with the main benefit is in decreasing the headcount in finance and the operating capital. Moreover, the entire business data is assembled for one time throughout the preliminary initiation, then saved centrally, to be consequently amended on instant basis. By that, business can guarantee that all stages of scheduling are grounded on the exact data, and that the subsequent procedures accurately replicate the dominant operating circumstances of the company. Additionally, system generated reports offer executives with a holistic sight of business’s health in different areas of the company, which can be utilized to recognize required enhancements and take benefit of market prospects (Hendricks et al. 2007).

My Position from Both Approaches:

Following the earlier discussion, MRP can be positioned as a technology that permits for an astonishing level of progressive planning for cases that can be found in companies with high-volume production or even with relatively average inventory (Aggarwal 1985). However, is seen by many as a standout amongst the most costly methods for gaining zero or at least a negative ROI. The execution is quite expensive; signaling one of the top issues with the MRPs’ rollout. Where every implementation is subject for medium to heavy levels of customization, which will go in parallel with recognizing its consequences on the company, in addition to the exhausting part of training the employees to effectively use it (Slack 2014).

While on the other hand, JIT preserves low inventory expenses and includes workforce, yet necessitates excellent structure of supply lines and supportive employees (Aggarwal 1985). Nevertheless, there is a general observation concerning a major hindrance towards JIT’s full adoption in the SME organizations, which is usually due to their less accessibility to needed assets. While in the case of giant corporations, then the case is different, due to their better positioning in terms of their financial status as well as the volume and skills of their workforce (Bayo-Moriones et al. 2008).

Possibility of Forming a Hybrid Setup:

Some studies can be found describing the connection between JIT and ERP as so close leading to consider JIT as part of some ERPs. In line with that, (Cagliano & Spina 2000) and through their review to the subject, realized that companies with desire to gain the most possible improvement out of their business operations are highly advised to consider the hybrid adoption between both, the ERP (technology) and JIT (philosophy). Their justification was built on studies that proved where sole dependence on technology, or excessive usage of it, would most likely not improve the overall performance, but rather with the combined usage of technology and process enhancement that will eventually end up with bigger influence. Where the technology can bring operational discipline and relatively better handling of process changes. While the philosophy will offer a reliable and robust supporting framework (Bayo-Moriones et al. 2008).


Aggarwal, S.C. (1985) ‘MRP, JIT, OPT, FMS?’, Harvard Business Review, 63, 5, p. 8, EBSCOhost, [Accessed on April 29 2017].

Bayo-Moriones, A., Bello-Pintado, A. & Merino-Díaz-de-Cerio, J. (2008) ‘The role of organizational context and infrastructure practices in JIT implementation’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 28 (11), pp. 1042-1066, [Accessed on April 29 2017].

Cagliano, R. & Spina, G. (2000) ‘Advanced manufacturing technologies and strategically flexible production’, Journal of Operations Management, 18, pp. 169-190, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, viewed 29 April 2017.

Hendricks, K., Singhal, V. & Stratman, J. (2007) ‘The impact of enterprise systems on corporate performance: A study of ERP, SCM, and CRM system implementations’, Journal Of Operations Management, 25, pp. 65-82, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, [Accessed on April 29 2017].

Slack, N., Brandon-Jones, A. & Johnston, R. (2014) Operations management. 7th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Wang, S. & Sarker, B. (2004) ‘A Single-Stage Supply Chain System Controlled by Kanban under Just-in-Time Philosophy’, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 5, p. 485, JSTOR Journals, EBSCOhost, viewed 29 April 2017.

Corporate Sustainability

Sustainability in general is accomplished through consuming resources for the sake to fulfill present demands without jeopardizing future needs. In line with that, there are several connections amongst the domains of Operations Management (OM) and Sustainability Development (SD), with the intersection amid the two fields establishes a triggering point for undertaking a comprehensive integration between both. However, the main variance of significance is that SD commonly depends on a wider range of consideration compared to the OM. Yet, attaining such integration would be deemed as a great achievement, since it will positively impact the sequence of business operations and design, in addition to its influence on improving all dedicated resources in the process of transforming inputs into services and products (Peter & Magnus 2011).

Following the earlier discussion, sustainability is taking a major part in integrating several operational aspects, with the product life cycle and supply chain management being one of the most imperative elements that gets associated via multiple techniques. Starting from the assessment of product life cycle through which the company can estimate resources’ consumption along with any negative environmental impact, moving all the way to adopting lean and quality production techniques that can assist in eliminating unnecessary consumptions, decreasing the waste and recycling the products. Additionally, companies can consider the extension of product lifetime, which can help in avoiding resources’ depletion when manufacturing new products. While concerning the supply chain, then it should be clearly stretched to reflect the whole lifespan of the product, in addition to enhancing the product from two standpoints, present as well as total cost (Linton et al. 2007).

Another relevant subject in maintaining a sustainable trend of operations is through business’s contribution to its social obligation, which is commonly known as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). It can be defined as business’s moral contribution and behaviour towards economic growth, while taking into the consideration its commitment towards local, national or global communities, in addition to the working conditions of its employee along with the quality of life being offered to their families (Slack et al. 2014). Nevertheless, undertaking socially responsible resolutions will predominantly lead to economic significances; especially that investment returns have neither financial nor timeframe guarantees, but will have higher chances of influencing the public opinion and consequently on business’s reputation (Albino et al. 2013).

Finally, the necessity for protecting our environment that goes adjacently with the growing requests for consuming natural resources are obliging organizations to reexamine their operational models and reform their supply chain processes. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that pollution and waste decrease are associated with the classical targets of operations management, yet not every green procedure will guarantee savings, with some might even increase the operational cost. Therefore, the primary challenge for businesses out there would be to finding operational answers for the ways to maintain a sustainable business today without affecting the environment for future demands (Wu & Pagell 2011).


Albino, V., Carbone, P. & Taticchi, P. (2013) ‘Corporate Sustainability’, Berlin: Springer, eBook Index, EBSCOhost, [Accessed on May 13 2017].

Linton, J., Klassen, R. & Jayaraman, V. (2007) ‘Sustainable Supply Chains: An Introduction’, Journal Of Operations Management, 25, Supply Chain Management in a Sustainable Environment, pp. 1075-1082, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, [Accessed on May 13 2017].

Peter, F. & Magnus, P. (2011) ‘Integrating Sustainable Development Into Operations Management Courses’, International Journal Of Sustainability In Higher Education, 3, p. 236, Emerald Insight, EBSCOhost, [Accessed on May 13 2017].

Slack, N., Brandon-Jones, A. & Johnston, R. (2014) ‘Operations management’. 7th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Wu, Z. & Pagell, M. (2011) ‘Balancing Priorities: Decision-Making in Sustainable Supply Chain Management’, Journal of Operations Management, 29, pp. 577-590, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, [Accessed on May 13 2017].

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Side Of Globalization !

Globalization and for decades was considered as an eminent thing for several 2nd and 3rd world countries who had the opportunity to gain entry to world’s strong and established markets, in addition to the possibility for them to export back their relatively cheap merchandizes. While from global corporations’ perspective, then they had the opening to widen their international presence through penetrating new developing markets and consequently boost their operations and revenue streams. Nevertheless, globalization was not that helpful for both white and blue collar, since it had its share in deindustrializing heavyweight economies similar to the U.S. Accordingly, and since globalization is a complex subject, it is essential to assess both the advantages and disadvantages prior jumping into any conclusions (Ghemawat 2017).

Proponents of globalization debate that it includes the prospective to transform this world into a greater living place and to resolve world’s irritating concerns similar to poverty and unemployment. Thus, the pro-globalization groups argue that it helps in sustaining the foundations of free trades that will consequently decrease obstacles similar to VAT, tariffs and subsidization, in addition to promoting growth of global economy through making new jobs, inspiring competitiveness levels and lowering the prices (Collins 2015).

From the social perspective, then globalization can encourage cultural intermixing; with every nation can become better positioned to grasp more knowledge and understanding from other cultures, which will help in promoting tolerance, respect and acceptance of others. Additionally, workforce can relocate from a nation to another for the sake to promote their talents and seek for better opportunities (Manolică & Roman 2012).

The opposing groups of globalization perceive it differently, with their claims are grounded on several standpoints. Initially, they argue that in a time globalization is hypothetically meant to encourage free trade through eliminating all barriers, a rising contrasting trend by G20 to earlier claim is being noticed through imposing nearly 1,000 obstructive import and export measures (WTO 2014). In addition to the fact that the counter of VAT global club members is on constant increase and has surpassed 160 members (USCIB 2016).

Moreover, one of the perturbing issues for developed nations similar to the U.S. and Western Europe is the gradual loss of jobs and having them offshored to countries with less operational cost. Not just that, where developed nations are even threatening their workers to slash their wages and to happily accept that, unless they are willing to see their jobs ending up somewhere else overseas (O’Meara et al. 2000). Furthermore, international companies are blamed for social unfairness, unjust working circumstances, in addition to the absence of environmental sense of concern, biological damage and natural resources’ abuse. Besides, and amid the latest time of fast worldwide expansion of trade between the 60s and late 90s of late century, UNDP reported that inequality rates have got worse both domestically and internationally. The same report highlighted that 86% of global consumption is done through world’s wealthiest 20%, leaving the remaining population of 80% to consume just 14% (Bigelow & Peterson 2004).


Bigelow, B. & Peterson, B. (2004) ‘Rethinking Globalization: Teaching for Justice in an Unjust World’, Harvard Educational Review, 74, pp. 347-348, British Library Document Supply Centre Inside Serials & Conference Proceedings, EBSCOhost, [Accessed on June 8 2017].

Collins, M. (2015), ‘The Pros and Cons of Globalization’. Forbes. Available online from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/05/06/the-pros-and-cons-of-globalization/#34e6de16ccce, [Accessed on June 8 2017].

Ghemawat, P. (2017) ‘Globalization: Myth and Reality’. Harvard Business Review. Available online from: https://hbr.org/ideacast/2017/02/globalization-myth-and-reality. [Accessed on June 8 2017].

Manolică, A. & Roman, T. (2012) ‘Globalization: Advantages And Disadvantages From The Perspective Of The Manufacturer’, Centre For European Studies (CES) Working Papers, 4, 4, p. 747, Complementary Index, EBSCOhost, [Accessed on June 8 2017].

O’Meara, P., Mehlinger, H.D. & Krain, M. (2000) ‘Pros and Cons Of Globalization’, The Economist. Available online from: http://www.economist.com/node/393331, [Accessed on June 8 2017].

USCIB (2016) ‘Value Added Tax Rates (VAT) By Country’. United States Council for International Business. Available online from: http://www.uscib.org/valueadded-taxes-vat-ud-1676/, [Accessed on June 8 2017].

WTO (2014) ‘WTO report says restrictive trade measures continue to rise in G-20 economies’. World Trade Organization. Available online from: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news14_e/trdev_05nov14_e.htm, [Accessed on June 8 2017].