Delmo Alves de Moura
Federal University of ABC, Brazil
E-mail: delmo.moura@ufabc.edu.br
Rui Carlos Botter
University of São Paulo, Brazil
E-mail: rcbotter@usp.br
Submission: 04/02/2017
Revision: 17/02/2017
Accept: 24/02/2017
ABSTRACT
The objective is analysing the shipbuilding industry and their
competitiveness to develop and apply Toyota Production System. The methodology
consisted in the qualitative type research by means of personal interviews,
with entrepreneurs, presidents, directors and managers of the maritime
industry. The contribution of that work
was several Toyota Production System technicians can and should be applied at
shipyards to improve their vessel manufacturing and assembling systems. The
shipbuilding system can use the techniques used in the Toyota Production System
as an example for its production process. Production should be lean, minimize
defects, stop production and reduce or eliminate inventories. Lean production is regarded by many as simply an
enhancement of mass production methods, whereas agility implies breaking out of
the mass production mould and producing much more highly customized products -
where the customer wants them in any quantity. In a product line context, it
amounts to striving for economies of scope, rather than economies of scale
ideally serving ever smaller niche markets, even quantities of one, without the
high cost traditionally associated with customization. A lean company may be
thought of as a very productive and cost efficient producer of goods or
services.
Keywords: Toyota Production System, Lean production, Agility, Shipbuilding
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1.
Toyota
Production System (TPS)
The
main objective of that work is analyses the
shipbuilding industry and their competitiveness to develop and apply Toyota
Production System. The Shipbuilding has some stages of production that may have
affinity with the Toyota Production System and thereby improve the
competitiveness of the domestic industry. Various production techniques may be
relevant to improve waste of time and products in the production stages of
vessels.
Some
overseas yards already work applying the Toyota Production System in their
industrial facilities. This greatly reduced the time wasted on project
development, vessel production time, improved the integration of people who
work directly and indirectly in the production of ships and, above all,
improved the competitiveness of the shipyards.
Know
the tools related to the Toyota Production System, know how to apply them in
several stages, from product development to final production. As well as
integrating it with its supply chain, is an important competitive differential
to remain in the shipbuilding market.
Producing
to eliminate inventory, waste, defects and meet the market need is a strategic
differential of the Toyota Production System. Building an integrated logistics
chain among its suppliers is another essential factor in the success of the
system.
Since
the conception of the assembly line and the following development of the Toyota
Production System (TPS), efficiency has been a central objective of
manufacturing. Lean manufacturing focuses on the systematic elimination of
wastes from an organization’s operations through a set of synergistic work
practices to produce products and services at the rate of demand.
Lean
manufacturing represents a multifaceted concept that may be grouped together as
distinct bundles of organizational practices. A list of bundles of lean
practices includes JIT, total quality management, total preventative
maintenance, and human resource management, pull, flow, low setup, controlled
processes, productive maintenance and involved employees. Lean manufacturing is
as a set of practices focused on reduction of wastes and non-value added
activities from a firm’s manufacturing operations (YANG, et al. 2011; BROWN;
SCHMITT; SCHONBERGER, 2015; HASLE, et al. 2012; KUULA; PUTKIRANTA; TOIVANEN,
2012, BENNET; KLUNG, 2012; CHAVEZ, et al., 2013; HENDRY; HUANG; STEVENSON, 2013;
BONNEY; JABER, 2013; DIBIA; DHAKAL; ONUH, 2014; THANKI; THAKKAR, 2014; PANWAR;
JAIN, RATHORE, 2015; MARODIN; SAURIN, 2015; BR KUMAR; SHARMA; AGARWAL, 2015;
BALL, 2015; PAKDIL; LEONARD, 2015; MUND; PIETERSE; CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al.,
2015; HU, et al., 2015; WICKRAMASINGHE; WICKRAMASINGHE, 2016; BIRKIE, 2016;
VENTO, et al., 2016; ALI; DEIF, 2016; NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016;
MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
The
base of the Toyota Production System (TPS) is to eliminate waste in the system.
Therefore work philosophy and a few techniques / tools were inserted in the day
to day organization to achieve such goal.
The
seven types of waste recommended that should be eliminated in TPS are:
·
Overproduction; Transport, which adds no value to the
product; Process, transactions that should not exist; Waiting time,
intermediate stock which generates queue in the process; Stock, throughout the
production process, supply chain and finished products; Driving, which adds no
value to the product; Defects, which burden the productive process generating
rework; wasted of time; manpower; hours of equipment etc.
1.2.
Agile
Manufacturing
Agility
can be summarized as the use of well known developed technologies and
manufacturing methods. Among them there are Lean Manufacturing, CIM, TQM, MRP
II, BPR, Employee Empowerment and OPT. In other words agility is the ability to
grow business in competitive markets of continuous and unexpected changes, with
rapid response aimed at the consumer/customer valuing the product and service
(YANG, et al. 2010; CHAVEZ, et al., 2013; HENDRY;
HUANG, STEVENSON, 2013; BONNEY; JABER, 2013; DIBIA; DHAKAL; ONUH, 2014; THANKI;
THAKKAR, 2014; PANWAR; JAIN; RATHORE, 2015; MARODIN; SAURIN, 2015; BR KUMAR;
SHARMA; AGARWAL, 2015; BALL, 2015; PAKDIL; LEONARD, 2015; MUND; PIETERSE;
CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al., 2015; HU, et al., 2015; WICKRAMASINGHE;
WICKRAMASINGHE, 2016; BIRKIE, 2016; LEITE; BRAZ, 2016; ALI; DEIF, 2016;
NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016; MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
·
CIM (Computer Integrating Manufacturing); TQM (Total
Quality Management); MRP II (Manufacturing Resources Planning II); BPR
(Business Process Reengineering); OPT (Optimized Production Technology).
Agile
can be describe as ability of an organization to detect changes (which can be
opportunities or threats or a combination of both) in its business environment
and hence providing focused and rapid responses to its customers and
stakeholders by reconfiguring its resources, processes and strategies (LEITE, BRAZ, 2016)
An
effective integration of response ability and knowledge management in order to
rapidly, efficiently and accurately adapt to any unexpected (or unpredictable)
change in both proactive and reactive business/ customer needs and
opportunities without compromising with the cost or the quality of the product/
process (GANGULY, et al., 2009; DRAKE; LEE; HUSSAIN, 2013; VENTO, et al., 2016).
Ability
of a firm to dynamically modify and/ or reconfigure individual business
processes to accommodate required and potential needs of the firm. Ability of a
firm to redesign their existing processes rapidly and create new processes in a
timely fashion in order to be able to take advantage and thrive of the
unpredictable and highly dynamic market conditions.
The
ability of a firm to excel simultaneously on operations capabilities of
quality, delivery, flexibility and cost in a coordinated fashion’ (VENTO, et al., 2016).
The
Lean Manufacturing system aims to reduce the lead time for obtaining the
components /parts, subsets etc. related to the supply chain, to reduce time of
production /processing, to run the process/operation without faults (do it
right at the first time) and to eliminate or minimize stocks with high control
over the operations, on time deliveries, increased productivity with efficiency
in operations (HASLE, et al. 2012; KUULA; PUTKIRANTA;
TOIVANEN, 2012; ZU; KAYNAK, 2012; CHAVEZ, et al., 2013; DIBIA; DHAKAL; ONUH,
2014; THANKI; THAKKAR, 2014; PANWAR; JAIN; RATHORE, 2015; MARODIN; SAURIN,
2015; EL-KHALIL, 2015; BR KUMAR; SHARMA; AGARWAL, 2015; BALL, 2015; PAKDIL;
LEONARD, 2015; MUND; PIETERSE; CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al., 2015; HU, et al.,
2015; WICKRAMASINGHE; WICKRAMASINGHE, 2016; BIRKIE, 2016; ALI; DEIF, 2016;
NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016; CHEN; SU; RO, 2017; KAMALAHMADI; PARAST,
2017; MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
Research
conducted by Iaccoca Institute, Lehigh University, in USA resulted in a report
about agility manufacturing. New
criterion are:
·
Constant changes; Fast response; Improved quality;
Social responsibility
Thus,
an agile manufacturing company must have a broad view of new needs in the
business environment, skill and ability to deal with turbulence and gain
competitive advantage in its businesses (LEITE; BRAZ,
2016).
The
four main categories to be an organization in a rapidly changing environment
are: In Fast Response (ability to identify changes and promote rapid responses
of reactive and proactive manner) and sensitivity to anticipate market changes;
Immediate reaction to changes and insert them into the system and Absorbing
changes.
In
Competence (a set of abilities that produces higher productivity, efficiency
and effectiveness in operations and processes to the tasks to achieve the goals
set by company):
·
Have strategic vision; Appropriate technologies or enough
technological ability; Quality of products and services; Efficiency in costs;
High rate of introduction of new products; People are trained, certified and
involved with the process; Efficiency and effectiveness in lean operations;
Internal and external cooperation and Integration (KUULA;
PUTKIRANTA; TOIVANEN, 2012; CHAVEZ, et al., 2013; DIBIA; DHAKAL; ONUH, 2014;
THANKI; THAKKAR, 2014; PANWAR; JAIN; RATHORE, 2015; MARODIN; SAURIN, 2015; BR
KUMAR; SHARMA; AGARWAL, 2015; BALL, 2015; PAKDIL; LEONARD, 2015; MUND; PIETERSE;
CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al., 2015; HU, et al., 2015; WICKRAMASINGHE;
WICKRAMASINGHE, 2016; BIRKIE, 2016; VENTO, et al., 2016; ALI; DEIF, 2016;
NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016; MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
In
flexibility (ability to process different products and achieve different goals
with the same manufacturing plant):
·
Flexibility in the volume of products; Flexibility in
product models; Organizational flexibility and Flexible people.
In
Quickness (ability to deal with tasks and operations in a shorter time). Short
time to insert new products in the market; Fast delivery of products and
services and Fast transaction time
Agile
manufacturing encompasses both the concepts of lean and flexible. Also that
lean manufacturing is primarily concerned with minimization (if not
elimination) of waste through an efficient production process (GANGULY, et al.
2009; HASLE, et al. 2012; CHAVEZ, et al., 2013; DIBIA;
DHAKAL; ONUH, 2014; THANKI; THAKKAR, 2014; PANWAR; JAIN; RATHORE, 2015; MARODIN;
SAURIN, 2015; BR KUMAR; SHARMA; AGARWAL, 2015; BALL, 2015; PAKDIL; LEONARD,
2015; MUND; PIETERSE; CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al., 2015; HU, et al., 2015;
WICKRAMASINGHE; WICKRAMASINGHE, 2016; BIRKIE, 2016; LEITE; BRAZ, 2016; ALI;
DEIF, 2016; NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016; MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
Agile
manufacturing means that the production process must be able to respond quickly
to changes in information from the market This requires lead time compression
in terms of flow of information and material, and the ability, at short notice,
to change to a wide variety of products Therefore, the ability to rapidly
reconfigure a the production process is essential. In lean manufacturing the
ability to change products quickly is also key as any time wasted in changing
over to a new product is muda and therefore should be eliminated (CHAVEZ, et al., 2013; DIBIA; DHAKAL; ONUH, 2014; THANKI;
THAKKAR, 2014; PANWAR; JAIN; RATHORE, 2015; MARODIN; SAURIN, 2015; BR KUMAR;
SHARMA; AGARWAL, 2015; BALL, 2015; PAKDIL; LEONARD, 2015; MUND; PIETERSE;
CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al., 2015; HU, et al., 2015; WICKRAMASINGHE;
WICKRAMASINGHE, 2016; BIRKIE, 2016; LEITE; BRAZ, 2016; ALI; DEIF, 2016;
NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016; MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
To
summarize these two characteristics agile manufacturing calls for a high level
of rapid reconfiguration and will eliminate as much waste as possible but does
not emphasize the elimination of all waste as a prerequisite. Lean
manufacturing states that all non value adding activities, or muda, must be
eliminated (CHAVEZ, et al., 2013; DIBIA; DHAKAL;
ONUH, 2014; THANKI; THAKKAR, 2014; PANWAR; JAIN; RATHORE, 2015; MARODIN;
SAURIN, 2015; BR KUMAR; SHARMA; AGARWAL, 2015; BALL, 2015; PAKDIL; LEONARD,
2015; MUND; PIETERSE; CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al., 2015; HU, et al., 2015;
WICKRAMASINGHE; WICKRAMASINGHE, 2016; BIRKIE, 2016; LEITE; BRAZ, 2016; ALI;
DEIF, 2016; NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016; MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
Agile
manufacturing further requires an all encompassing view, whereas lean
production is typically associated only with the factory floor. Agility further
embodies such concepts as rapid formation of multi company alliances or virtual
companies to introduce new products to the market. An agile company is
primarily characterised as a very fast and efficient learning organisation if
it was not first productive and cost efficient (CHAVEZ,
et al., 2013; DIBIA; DHAKAL; ONUH, 2014; THANKI; THAKKAR, 2014; PANWAR; JAIN;
RATHORE, 2015; MARODIN; SAURIN, 2015; BR KUMAR; SHARMA; AGARWAL, 2015; BALL,
2015; PAKDIL; LEONARD, 2015; MUND; PIETERSE; CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al., 2015;
HU, et al., 2015; BIRKIE, 2016; LEITE; BRAZ, 2016; ALI; DEIF, 2016;
NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016; MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
In
agile manufacturing, the main features shall be (LEITE;
BRAZ, 2016; VENTO et al., 2016):
·
High quality products and highly customized; Products
and services with high added value; Mobilization of key competences; Commitment
to social and environmental matters; Responding to change and uncertainty and
Intern Integration and between companies.
2. THE ENABLERS OF AGILE MANUFACTURING
The
enablers of Agile Manufacturing are the strategies, systems, technologies,
methodologies and tools that allow the company to become agile. For better
understanding, these enablers are classified based on its focus. This
classification groups the enablers of Agile Manufacturing, according to the
focus on four categories (LEITE; BRAZ, 2016):
·
Strategies: Virtual enterprise / virtual manufacturing
Virtual
enterprise is a temporary aggregation of smaller units and its core
competencies and associated resources, which gather together to explore
business opportunities and act like a single large company. However, as one
company is not often able to respond quickly to market needs, the virtual
company works for its agility. The subject of virtual enterprises within an
agile context is considered vital and indispensable for Agile Manufacturing
(LEITE; BRAZ, 2016).
Integration
of supply chain; Management based on key competences; Simultaneous Engineering;
Management based on uncertainty and change; Knowledge based management;
Technologies: Hardware - Tools & Equipment (ZU; KAYNAK, 2012; CHEN; SU; RO,
2017; KAMALAHMADI; PARAST, 2017).
To
Leite, Braz (2016), Agile Manufacturing requires the rapid shift in product
assembly. This is only possible with an adequate structure for the hardware
(robots, feeders of flexible parts, module assembly, automated visual
inspection, computer guided vehicles etc. Information Technology: computers and
software
The technology and information systems used in Agile
Manufacturing can be divided according to the purposes intended, in: Technology
and systems dedicated to agile project: CAD, CAM, the computer aided planning
process - CAPP (FENG, et al., 2015; LEITE; BRAZ, 2016).
Technologies
and systems for the agile production: FMS, CIM. Technologies and systems of
communication and integration inside and among enterprises MRP, ERP, EDI and
electronic commerce.
·
CAD (Computer Aided Design); CAM (Computer Aided
Manufacturing); FMS (Flexible Manufacturing System); MRP (Material Requirement
Planning); ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning); EDI (Electronic Data
Interchange).
Several
techniques and systems are addressed in the literature that support the agile
systems design: CAD/CAM, rapid prototyping and QFD are some examples. Regarding
the project support systems for Agile Manufacturing, some jobs are worth
highlighting:
·
QFD (Quality Function Deployment); Planning and
Control Systems; Integration of management systems and database; People;
Continuous improvement; Commitment of senior management and empowerment; People
multi qualified, flexible and knowledgeable; Teamwork and participation and
Training and continuing education.
The
main human factors to be considered for an agile manufacturing environment are:
continuous improvement, top management commitment and empowerment, use of
flexible multienabled people, teamwork and participation, training and
continuing education (LEITE; BRAZ, 2016).
3. SOME IMPORTANT POINTS TO BECOME LEAN AND/OR AGILE
3.1.
TQM -
Total Quality Management
TQM
is something more solid which involves an integrated and shared chain with
strategic goals of high performance and quality, aiming at highly competitive
markets with sustainable industrial processes and international reference.
However, quality program like ISO 9000 does not necessarily guarantee the best
quality practices and can not be considered an integrated process throughout
the production chain, but it is a first step to check quality (YANG, et al.
2010; HENDRY; HUANG; STEVENSON, 2013; LEITE; BRAZ, 2016; VENTO, et al., 2016;
MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
TQM
has the emphasis on continuous improvement of industrial processes, always
seeking the feedback system, in order to improve the process and eliminate
potential causes of problems. Thus, TQM integrates the suppliers from the
development phase of the project, in the quest for continuous improvement with
a focus on flawless process, reducing the development time, with operational
reliability in the process, and products with no defects according to the
specifications of the customer or market, free of processing errors or rework,
with a balanced industrial operations, with high productivity and reduced
operating costs (YANG, et al. 2010; KUULA; PUTKIRANTA; TOIVANEN, 2012; HENDRY;
HUANG; STEVENSON, 2013; EL-KHALIL, 2015; NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016).
3.2.
Core Competency
Core
competencies are factors that involve collective learning and the way that
those values are disseminated in an organization, and how those competences are
managed in order to enhance the integration among the agents who seek for
competitive advantage of an organization to face competitors.
The
core competence of an organization may allow the opening of new markets or be a
positive factor to try to keep customers, being an advantage over the
competitors when decisions of purchase are made, as well as being an
outstanding brand when compared to others. Core competence can make a
competitor to have difficulty imitating it.
3.3.
Innovation
Innovation
is a key factor in competitive advantage for an organization. Then, fine tune
with the needs of markets is a key factor to promote the competitive edge of
companies. Factors such as financial sustainability, ways of relating to their
supply chain and customers, reliability and recognized quality of products and
service are key points that shall be taken into consideration when making
strategic decision for a company to become globally competitive (ZU; KAYNAK,
2012, OTA; HAZAMA; SAMSON, 2013; FOX, 2013; PÉRY; AGERON; NEUBERT, 2013; OKE,
2013; DEKKERS; KÜHNLE, 2012; SÄFSTEN, et al., 2014; BRUNCH; BELLGRAN, 2014;
KAFETZOPOULOS; PSOMAS, 2015; THEYEL; HOFMANN, 2015; WALLIN; PARIDA; ISAKSSON,
2015; VENTO, et al., 2016; CHEN; SU; RO, 2017; KAMALAHMADI; PARAST, 2017).
Innovation
means that industries can gain competitive advantages in their segments. Thus,
it is essential that companies make investment as a way to stand out from
competitors and gain recognition (OTA; HAZAMA; SAMSON, 2013; FOX, 2013; OKE,
2013; DEKKERS; KÜHNLE, 2012; SÄFSTEN, et al., 2014; BRUNCH; BELLGRAN, 2014;
KAFETZOPOULOS; PSOMAS, 2015; THEYEL; HOFMANN, 2015; WALLIN; PARIDA; ISAKSSON,
2015).
Innovation
will require pro-active strategies for anticipating technological and market
changes which directly or indirectly affect companies when facing their main
competitors. Thus, this process should also be inserted in the supply chain of
a client, otherwise it would have difficulties in gaining competitive advantage
over the competitor. It is also essential to integrate innovative business
strategy of a company and its partners (ZU; KAYNAK, 2012; OTA; HAZAMA; SAMSON,
2013; FOX, 2013; PÉRY; AGERON; NEUBERT, 2013; OKE, 2013; DEKKERS; KÜHNLE, 2012;
SÄFSTEN, et al., 2014; BRUNCH; BELLGRAN, 2014; KAFETZOPOULOS; PSOMAS, 2015;
THEYEL; HOFMANN, 2015; WALLIN; PARIDA; ISAKSSON, 2015; CHEN; SU; RO, 2017;
KAMALAHMADI; PARAST, 2017).
3.4.
Advantage
in Manufacturing
The
competitive advantage in manufacturing shows that the company stands out from
its competitors to meet market needs. That means making right is related to the
goal of quality performance, making fast relates to Speed, making in time
relates to reliability, customization relates to flexibility and making with
low cost is related to the objective costs.
The
manufacturing strategy, according to, can not be isolated from corporate
strategy and should affect and be affected by other areas of business such as
Marketing, Finance, Purchasing, Research and Development, Human Resources etc..
The authors comment that the manufacturing objectives are expressed in terms of
some dimensions of performance used to measure manufacturing strategy,
characterized by: cost, quality, flexibility and delivery.
Technological
capability is one of the attributes that can differentiate a company from its
competitors. They report that firms that possess technological expertise
recognized by the market have an asset difficult to be imitated contributes to
the improvement of products, increasing their value and creating a gap in the
market among companies that have it and those that still try to achieve. The
development of technological capability must be inserted in the strategy
defined by the company.
4. SOME EXPERINCES
South
Korea approached the boundaries of technology, activities related to Research
and Development (R&D) has become more intense. There was a need for
targeted search for relevant information, more interaction between the project
team and other departments of the organization like production and marketing,
and even with other companies, such as the suppliers, customers, local research
institutions, and universities.
One
of the policies implemented in Korea was the import of technology and its
dissemination to all Korean companies in that segment, aiming to have the
largest possible number of Korean companies with knowledge of the new world
leading technologies. Then, Korean companies noticed the need to develop their
own technologies, assimilate, adapt and improve the imported technology. For
this, there was a need for investment and integration with the areas of
research and development (R&D) with the intention of having their own
technologies. Therefore, with increasing industrialization, there were
government policies focused on increasing research and development.
The
policy aimed at import substitution was critical in creating the demand for
foreign technology transfer. The import substitution through protectionism
contributed greatly to the transfer of technology from other countries,
leveraging various industries and introducing more sophisticated products
Add
to that the export issue, which became the top priority of the Korean
government to achieve goals of economic growth. Thus, the government selected
strategic industries, both for import substitution and for export promotion.
As a
segment changed his condition from not developed to an exporter, the Korean
government decreased significantly its protectionism. The Korean government
defined exports target montlhy, and companies were required to achieve that
goals being monitored constantly by the Minister of Trade and Industry,
directors of the biggest financial institutions, leaders of business
associations and representatives of leading exporting companies.
As
South Korea was one of the countries that entered the shipbuilding sector much
later than its biggest competitors at the time, she had the advantage of the
projects best suited their yards, compared to existing in the Asia and Europe.
Apart from this, some were designed with huge capacity, exceeding enormously
the total capacity of countries considered high power production for the
season. The ability of a single Korean shipyard has already surpassed the total
production of a country. In addition to these items, there was the fact that
the Korean manpower work more hours per week, compared with European countries,
and this has increased the competitiveness of Korean shipbuilding segment of
the world.
South
Korea has created policies towards the shipbuilding segment that gave
sustainability to the sector by promoting the development of technology
centers, universities, companies of marine parts, service companies, industrial
parks, schools, technical and labor specialized work, and has focused primarily
on the external market. Export was a challenge that has afforded it the
policies for the shipbuilding sector and enormous efforts have been made by
various actors directly or indirectly related to the country to reach their
goals and become globally competitive in that segment .
Both
South Korea and Japan have specialized in the production of bulk carriers and
tankers focused on mass production, benefiting their production lines because
the yards have reduced or eliminated the flexibility offered to the clients,
the ship owners, benefiting economies of scale and reducing production costs.
Low or no flexibility, high quality, low cost, reduced cycle time for
development and production with some innovation / technology were some of the
strategies used by Korean shipyards (OTA; HAZAMA; SAMSON, 2013; FOX, 2013; PÉRY;
AGERON; NEUBERT, 2013; OKE, 2013; DEKKERS; KÜHNLE, 2012; SÄFSTE, et al., 2014;
BRUNCH; BELLGRAN, 2014; KAFETZOPOULOS; PSOMAS, 2015; THEYEL; HOFMANN, 2015;
WALLIN; PARIDA; ISAKSSON, 2015).
This
has seen a huge gain with the learning curve, obtaining a competitive advantage
against global competitors. The strategy of South Korea was producing ships
different from those produced in Japan, with simpler and cheaper products.
Another peculiarity was the planning for the financing focused on exports.
There was heavy subsidies in the Korean shipbuilding sector, for insertion of
its vessels in various world markets, as well as having strong export policy
aimed at solidifying entire structure to make South Korea a country among the
most renowned world shipbuilding market.
Japan
has established itself in the strategy of cost leadership, according to the
model of Porter. With strong participation of several companies related to the
sector, with special dedication to factors related to quality control, well
trained manpower able to perform their tasks with the highest quality in the
production process, the emphasis for having a classification society qualified
and a standardization policy which would help boost the business of shipbuilding.
But soon the focus of Japanese policies shifted to Research and Development,
with strong predominance of the critical success factor Innovation.
It is
critical that a business analyzes the trade-offs from the manufacturing area,
in order that the settings defined in the strategic production can meet the
corporate strategies and allow the company to become competitive in highly
competitive global markets. Analyzing possible decisions and their alternatives
is essential to guide the likely direction to be followed by an organization to
promote their competitive advantages in the market.
Japan
has guaranteed a minimum production at its shipyards, which contributed to
promoting the development of the sector. This program was called Keikaku Zosen.
Furthermore, there was a massive investment in automation, to reduce the cost
of manpower, and this factor contributed greatly to developing the critical
success factor Technology and, thus, Japan is recognized with this competitive
advantage ahead the international market of shipbuilding.
Japan
has innovated in the production of ships and consequently has increased
productivity, but also innovated in the design of vessels. Invested in robotics
and in managerial and administrative techniques for controlling the flow of
materials and their respective quality.
Another
very important factor in the Japanese shipbuilding system was the integration
existing in the supply chain among shipyards and their suppliers of ship parts,
and there was integration between shipyards and ship owners too, and also
between competing shipyards. There was bigger cooperation for product
development and technology that would benefit everyone, with government
incentives, helping the growth of the local maritime sector. There was the implementation
of national policy for promotion of scientific and technological activities
involving laboratories, universities, research institutes etc. (ZU; KAYNAK, 2012; CHEN; SU; RO,
2017; KAMALAHMADI; PARAST, 2017).
Thus, the
Japanese were able to get competitive prices globally and even below the market
average in the construction of their ships, besides offering special financing
conditions for international ship owners to build their ships in shipyards in
Japan. For this it was necessary plans, incentive mechanisms and instruments of
industrial policy that would involve not only shipbuilding but the chain that
was directly or indirectly related to the Japanese shipbuilding industry. For
instance: chemical, steel and metallurgic industries, electrical machinery and
transport equipment and heavy chemical industry. There was the essential
participation of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry to create
such industrial policies that ensure sustained growth of the segment.
5. METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES
The
methodology consisted in the qualitative type research. It was carried through
by means of personal interviews, with entrepreneurs, presidents, directors and
managers of the maritime industry. The criterion used for election of the
companies in the qualitative research was based on the importance of the
company inside its segment. Therefore, the questionnaire was applied
exclusively in the 31 visited shipyards in Brazil and and abroad. However,
other data had been collected personally in the other actors of the national
maritime industry.
In
the State of Rio de Janeiro there is a concentration of shipyards focused on
the segments of the ship construction, repair and offshore platform
construction. When it is analyzed the integration factor among the shipyards of
these segments in the State of Rio de Janeiro, the research has pointed out
that is almost inexistent the exchange of experience, know-how, technology or
knowledge among the companies.
Few
are the suppliers that participate on the development phase of products from
the shipyards and when this occurs, it is generally in the offshore platform
segment where there is the PROMINP programme and the leadership of Petrobras,
that contributes for the small integration among the companies of this specific
segment (offshore platform construction). The integration with the other actors
of these segments, such as universities, research and development centres,
government, etc. is isolated and without industrial policies that contribute
for the development of the maritime segments.
When
the segment is analyzed, it is evident that there is not a cluster; therefore
the shipyards are installed in several places in the country, with enormous
distances among them and also with their supply chains. There is not any kind
of integration among them, not even integration with universities, research and
development centres, government, and the other actors from the nautical
segment.
The
methodological procedures adopted was based on the opinion of experts. This
type of research design can be used to answer questions about relationships,
including those of cause and. Thus, the questioning of the participants
happened through questionnaires.
Regarding
the questionnaire, the survey method involves structured questions that the
respondents answered and which was carried out to describe the current stage of
shipyards. The questionnaire was sent to people working in the shipbuilding
industry, product development experts, production managers, production
supervisors, and production specialists. Thus, composing the research sample.
The
research is classified as a qualitative and descriptive case. Descriptive
research has as its primary objective the description of the characteristics of
a given population or phenomenon or, thus, the establishment of relations
between variables. It is defined as an intermediate study between exploratory
and explanatory research, that is, it is not as preliminary as the first nor as
profound as the second. In this context, describing means identifying,
reporting, comparing, other aspects (PANDEY; PANDEY, 2015; KOTHARI, 2004;
KUMAR, 2011).
The
research of an applied nature seeks to produce knowledge for an application and
is directed to solve a specific problem and that can be easy to apply. Exploratory
research is aimed at studying problems in order to discover new practices,
process or product improvements, and data collection that can be used to
develop new models (PANDEY; PANDEY, 2015; KOTHARI, 2004; KUMAR, 2011).
6. SHIPYARD can
WORK TOWARDS LEAN SHIPBUILDING OR AGILE MANUFACTURING
In
order to work with the production system similar to an automobile assembly
plant, a shipyard must acquire most of the parts and components in the form of
subsets, available on the market aiming to reducing domestic costs of
production.
A key
factor in production management is related to the flow of information on the
sites, focusing on planning and control of the production process. To make this
analogy is relevant to the lean production system with special attention to the
Just-In-Time, the resource planning and project management organization (CHAVEZ,
et al., 2013; DIBIA; DHAKAL; ONUH, 2014; THANKI; THAKKAR, 2014; PANWAR; JAIN;
RATHORE, 2015; MARODIN; SAURIN, 2015; BR KUMAR; SHARMA; AGARWAL, 2015; BALL,
2015; PAKDIL; LEONARD, 2015; MUND; PIETERSE; CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al., 2015;
HU, et al., 2015; BIRKIE, 2016; LEITE; BRAZ, 2016; ALI; DEIF, 2016;
NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016; MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
As
the shipbuilding is characterized within the system of production by large
projects is essential to focus on managing each activity in order to reduce
operating costs, waste and carrying out each task in the correct period without
generating stocks.
Integrated
information systems are critical to achieving the state of the art in various
functions of a shipyard. Production features such as cutting boards with
numerical control, or the use of automated processes on dedicated production
lines, and also functions of planning and control only affect the state of the
art if there are available information systems product, process and resources
available and fully integrated.
Concentrating
similar production processes identifying families of products that can be
manufactured in the same cost centers, using the productive capacity of
resources, machinery, equipment, people, in order to generate a continuous flow
of operations, without generating intermediate stocks throughout the process
production is a prerequisite for entering into the Lean Manufacturing system (KUULA; PUTKIRANTA;
TOIVANEN, 2012; SILVEIRA; SNIDER; BALAKRISHNAN, 2013; CHAVEZ, et al., 2013;
DIBIA; DHAKAL; ONUH, 2014; THANKI; THAKKAR, 2014; PANWAR; JAIN; RATHORE, 2015;
MARODIN; SAURIN, 2015; BR KUMAR; SHARMA; AGARWAL, 2015; BALL, 2015; PAKDIL;
LEONARD, 2015; MUND; PIETERSE; CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al., 2015; HU, et al.,
2015; BIRKIE, 2016; ALI; DEIF, 2016; NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016;
MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
The
focus is not to generate batch processing (batch processing), but uniformly
according to the needs of each production center, optimizing resources and
minimizing or eliminating driving steps, intermediate stock during the
production process. The gain of manufacturing family of products is higher when
compared with manufacturing by specialized centers in functions.
Thus,
it is sometimes necessary to duplicate a production center in the layout of a
shipyard. It does not mean to double the area that existed initially for this
batch operation, but rearrange physically to fill the needs for a continuous
production flow. It is often necessary smaller areas and resources with the
dismemberment of manufacturing centers that were concentrated.
Eliminating
intermediate stocks in the process can provide an enormous gain in physical
space for the shipyards. Lean flow allows cost savings in operations and
improve efficiency and effectiveness of production, allowing to balance tasks
and optimize the use of productive resources (SILVEIRA; SNIDER; BALAKRISHNAN,
2013; CHAVEZ, et al., 2013; DIBIA; DHAKAL; ONUH, 2014; THANKI; THAKKAR, 2014;
PANWAR; JAIN; RATHORE, 2015; MARODIN; SAURIN, 2015; BR KUMAR; SHARMA; AGARWAL,
2015; BALL, 2015; PAKDIL; LEONARD, 2015; MUND; PIETERSE; CAMERON, 2015; CHAY,
et al., 2015; HU, et al., 2015; BIRKIE, 2016; ALI; DEIF, 2016; NARAYANAMURTHY;
GURUMURTHY, 2016; MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
Reducing
or eliminating stock will resulted in the reduction of its costs, involving the
supply chain, materials and processes in the physical area, which serve to
support the lean production system. Another relevant factor is the cost of
unnecessary drives that are eliminated with the inclusion of a lean production
flow (ZU; KAYNAK, 2012; SILVEIRA; SNIDER; BALAKRISHNAN, 2013; CHAVEZ, et al.,
2013; DIBIA; DHAKAL; ONUH, 2014; THANKI; THAKKAR, 2014; PANWAR; JAIN; RATHORE,
2015; MARODIN; SAURIN, 2015; BR KUMAR; SHARMA; AGARWAL, 2015; BALL, 2015;
PAKDIL; LEONARD, 2015; MUND; PIETERSE; CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al., 2015; HU,
et al., 2015; BIRKIE, 2016; ALI; DEIF, 2016; NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016;
CHEN; SU; RO, 2017; KAMALAHMADI; PARAST, 2017; MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
The
problems that arise in the production system will be easier identified and
mapped. So, an action plan may be strategically placed to eliminate or minimize
them aiming to not to interrupt production. With the elimination of batch
production and the insertion of a lean flow, reducing inventory, an essential
factor that will be easily noticed is the quality of manufactured products, as
problems related to quality will be easily detected and require quick,
efficient and effective solution (VRIES, 2013; HASLE, et al. 2012; SILVEIRA;
SNIDER; BALAKRISHNAN, 2013; CHAVEZ, et al., 2013; DIBIA; DHAKAL; ONUH, 2014;
THANKI; THAKKAR, 2014; PANWAR; JAIN; RATHORE, 2015; MARODIN; SAURIN, 2015; BR
KUMAR; SHARMA; AGARWAL, 2015; BALL, 2015; PAKDIL; LEONARD, 2015; MUND; PIETERSE;
CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al., 2015; HU, et al., 2015; BIRKIE, 2016; VENTO, et
al., 2016; ALI; DEIF, 2016; NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016; MOHAMMADDUST, et
al., 2017).
The
large batch production does not allow us to understand the problems of quality
detected. When they are detected they will have caused more problems along the
entire supply chain, manufacturing, increasing costs by increasing waste of
resources, time, machine, manwork etc.
The
productivity of a company is an important indicator of competitiveness. When
production problems are eliminated or reduced to a minimum acceptable, will
automatically increase the productivity of the organization by avoiding rework
or loss of semi-processed or finished product. In constructions that operate
under a system of large projects with high operational costs, by operations,
parts, products, subsets etc. is essential to have quality assured on the
manufacture and also on its supply chain, because production stoppages due to
defects can make the final product too
much expensive and drive up costs, reducing productivity and competitiveness of
a shipyard (EL-KHALIL, 2015; VENTO, et al., 2016; CHEN; SU; RO, 2017;
KAMALAHMADI; PARAST, 2017).
Rework,
unnecessary movements, activities that do not add value to the product are
factors that minimize the productivity of a company and increase the lead time
for implementing the final product, making it uncompetitive compared to its
main competitors (EL-KHALIL, 2015).
Assured
quality of parts, components, assemblies, subassemblies etc. is the backbone of
a lean process to eliminate waste and activities that add no value to the final
product. Get output with high productivity will require that this concept is
widespread in every stage of the production process. The industrial layout
should be efficient and provide operational efficiency by eliminating most
unnecessary transport and reducing the operation time in the shipyard (SILVEIRA;
SNIDER; BALAKRISHNAN, 2013; CHAVEZ, et al., 2013; DIBIA; DHAKAL; ONUH, 2014;
THANKI; THAKKAR, 2014; PANWAR; JAIN; RATHORE, 2015; MARODIN; SAURIN, 2015;
EL-KHALIL, 2015; BR KUMAR; SHARMA; AGARWAL, 2015; BALL, 2015; PAKDIL; LEONARD,
2015; MUND; PIETERSE; CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al., 2015; HU, et al., 2015;
BIRKIE, 2016; VENTO, et al., 2016; ALI; DEIF, 2016; NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY,
2016; MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
The
implementation of the system 5S's housekeeping is also essential in the whole
production system. This type of technical corroborates to increase
productivity, to eliminate unnecessary handling or transport, to reduce
manufacturing time, to eliminate defects and to improve productivity and
strengthen lean production (CHAVEZ, et al., 2013; DIBIA; DHAKAL; ONUH, 2014;
THANKI; THAKKAR, 2014; PANWAR; JAIN; RATHORE, 2015; MARODIN; SAURIN, 2015;
EL-KHALIL, 2015; BR KUMAR; SHARMA; AGARWAL, 2015; BALL, 2015; PAKDIL; LEONARD,
2015; MUND; PIETERSE; CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al., 2015; HU, et al., 2015;
BIRKIE, 2016; ALI; DEIF, 2016; NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016; MOHAMMADDUST,
et al., 2017).
Lean
production also extends to the supply chain of the shipyards. Receiving
materials in time to be processed is important to minimize or eliminate the
stocks in the production process. Receiving the products with assured quality
from the supply chain will require that quality control is performed inside the
supplier’s plant so that the manufacturing system does not stop at the shipyard
(CHAVEZ, et al., 2013; BONNEY; JABER, 2013; DIBIA; DHAKAL; ONUH, 2014; PANWAR;
JAIN; RATHORE, 2015; BALL, 2015; PAKDIL; LEONARD, 2015; MUND; PIETERSE;
CAMERON, 2015; CHAY, et al., 2015; HU, et al., 2015; BIRKIE, 2016; VENTO, et
al., 2016; ALI; DEIF, 2016; NARAYANAMURTHY; GURUMURTHY, 2016; CHEN; SU; RO,
2017; KAMALAHMADI; PARAST, 2017; MOHAMMADDUST, et al., 2017).
7. CONCLUSIONS
Some
overseas shipbuilding yards are already more apt to apply the concepts and
techniques of the Toyota Production system, given the need to survive in a
competitive market with Asian shipyards such as Chinese, Korean and Japanese.
The
shipyards installed in Brazil do not yet have these characteristics and have
not yet implemented a Toyota Production System. However, there is a way to
implement a system similar to that used in the automobile industry and thereby
improve the competitiveness of the shipyards.
Several
Toyota production system technicians can and should be deployed at shipyards to
improve their vessel manufacturing and assembling systems. Even long and medium
term production, having a supply chain committed to the production phases of
the vessels is essential for business success.
The
shipyards must work to minimize or eliminate waste in project and production
phases. The integration with the supply chain is essential to develop families
of interim products.
The
production must fabricated using standard work processes in the same way each
time using the same equipment.
To
implement agile manufacturing, product design and planning must become very closely
integrated with manufacturing, and all bottlenecks in product flow and the flow
of engineering information must be minimized. The tight integration between
design functions, planning and manufacturing requires precise and sufficiently
complete information on all aspects of product, production processes and
operations are available.
Thus,
it is expected that future systems design and planning are closely aligned with
the manufacturing technology, and future manufacturing systems will require
more complete and more accurate when compared to the information available at
this time.
REFERENCES
ALI,
R.; DEIF, A. (2016) Assessing leanness level with demand dynamics in a
multi-stage production system. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 27, n. 5, p. 614-639.
BALL,
P. (2015) Low energy production impact on lean flow. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 26, n. 3, p.
412-428.
BENNET, D.;
KLUG, F. (2012) Logistics supplier integration in the automotive industry. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, v. 32, n. 11, p. 1281-1305.
BIRKIE,
S. E. (2016) Operational resilience and lean: in search of synergies and
trade-offs. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, v. 27, n. 2, p. 185-207.
BONNEY,
M.; JABER, M. (2013) Developing an input–output activity matrix (IOAM) for
environmental and economic analysis of manufacturing systems and logistics
chains. International
Journal of Production Economics, n. 143, p. 589-597.
BROWN, K. A.;
SCHMITT, T. G.; SCHONBERGER, R. J. (2015) ASP,
the Art and science of practice: three challenges for a lean enterprise in
turbulent times. Interfaces, v. 45, n. 3, May-June, p. 260-270.
BR
KUMAR, R.; SHARMA, M. K.; AGARWAL, A. (2015) An experimental investigation of
lean management in aviation Avoiding unforced errors for better supply chain. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, v. 26, n. 2, p. 231-260.
BRUNCH,
J.; BELLGRAN, M. (2014) Integrated portfolio planning of products and
production systems. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 25, n. 2, p. 155-174.
CHAVEZ, R.;
GIMENEZ, C.; FYNES, B.; WIENGARTEN, F.; YU, W. (2013) Internal lean practices
and operational performance. The contingency perspective of industry
clockspeed. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, v. 33, n. 5, p. 562-588.
CHAY,
T.; XU, Y.; TIWARI, A.; CHAY, F. (2015) Towards lean transformation: the
analysis of lean implementation frameworks. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 26, n. 7, p.
1031-1052.
CHEN,
Y-S.; SU, H-CH.; RO, Y. K. (2017) The co-evolution of supplier relationship
quality and product quality in the U.S. auto industry: A cultural perspective. International Journal of Production
Economics, n. 184, p. 245-255.
DEKKERS, R.;
KÜHNLE, H. (2012) Appraising interdisciplinary contributions to theory for
collaborative (manufacturing) networks. Still a long way to go? Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, v. 23, n. 8, p. 1090-1128
DIBIA,
I. K.; DHAKAL, H. N.; ONUH, S. (2014) Lean “Leadership People Process Outcome”
(LPPO) implementation model. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 25 n. 5, p. 694-711.
DRAKE, P. R.;
LEE, D. M.; HUSSAIN, M. (2013) The lean and agile purchasing portfolio model. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, v. 18, n. 1, p. 3-20.
EL-KHALIL,
R. (2015) Simulation analysis for managing and improving productivity - A case
study of an automotive company. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 26, n. 1, p. 36-56.
FENG, C.; XIAO,
Y.; WILLETTE, A.; MCBEE, W.; KAMAT, V. R. (2015) Vision guided autonomous
robotic assembly and as-built scanning on unstructured construction sites. Automation in Construction, n. 59, p.
128-138.
FOX, G. L.
(2013) Weaving webs of innovation. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, v. 33, n. 1, p. 5- 24.
GANGULY, A.;
NILCHIANI, R.; FARR, V. J. (2009) Evaluating agility in corporate enterprises. International Journal of Production
Economics, n. 188, p. 410-423.
HASLE, P.;
BOJESEN, A.; JENSEN, P. L.; BRAMMING, P. (2012) Lean and the working
environment: a review of the literature. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, v. 32, n. 7, p. 829-849.
HENDRY,
L.; HUANG, Y.; STEVENSON, M. (2013) Workload control Successful implementation
taking a contingency-based view of production planning and control. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, v. 33 n. 1, p. 69-103.
HU,
Q.; MASON, R.; WILLIANS, S. J.; FOUND, P. (2015) Lean implementation within
SMEs: a literature review. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 26, n. 7, p. 980-1012.
KAFETZOPOULOS,
D.; PSOMAS, E. (2015) The impact of innovation capability on the performance of
manufacturing companies - The Greek case. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 26, n. 1, p. 104-130.
KAMALAHMADI,
M.; PARAST, M. M. (2017) An assessment of supply chain disruption mitigation
strategies. International Journal of
Production Economics, n. 184, p. 210-230.
KOTHARI, C. R.
(2004) Research Methodology Methods and
Techniques. New Age International Publishers, New Delhi.
KUMAR, R. (2011)
Research Methodology a step-by-step
guide for beginners. SAGE Publications Ltd, London.
KUULA,
M.; PUTKIRANTA, A.; TOIVANEN, J. (2012) Coping with the change: a longitudinal
study into the changing manufacturing practices. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, v.
32, n. 2, p. 106-120.
LEITE,
M.; BRAZ, V. (2016) Agile manufacturing practices for new product development:
industrial case studies. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 27, n. 4, p. 560-576.
MARODIN,
G. A.; SAURIN, T. A. (2015) Classification and relationships between risks that
affect lean production implementation - A study in southern Brazil. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, v. 26, n. 1, p. 57-79.
MOHAMMADDUST,
F.; REZAPOUR, S.; FARAHANI, R. Z.; MOFIDFAR, M.; HILL, A. (2017) Developing
lean and responsive supply chains: A robust model for alternative risk
mitigation strategies in supply chain designs. International Journal of Production Economics, n. 183, p. 632-653.
MUND,
K.; PIETERSE, K.; CAMERON, S. (2015) Lean product engineering in the South
African automotive industry. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 26, n. 5, p. 703-724.
NARAYANAMURTHY,
G.; GURUMURTHY, A. (2016) Systemic leanness an index for facilitating
continuous improvement of lean implementation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 27, n. 8, p.
1014-1053.
OKE, A. (2013)
Linking manufacturing flexibility to innovation performance in manufacturing
plants. International Journal of
Production Economics, n. 143, p. 242-247.
OTA, M.; HAZAMA,
Y.; SAMSON, D. (2013) Japanese innovation processes. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, v.
33, n. 3, p. 275-295.
PAKDIL,
F.; LEONARD, K. M. (2015) The effect of organizational culture on implementing
and sustaining lean processes. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 26, n. 5, p. 725-743.
PANDEY, P.;
PANDEY, M. M. (2015) Research
Methodology: Tools and Techniques. Bridge Center, 2015
PANWAR,
A.; JAIN, R.; RATHORE, A. P. S. (2015) Lean implementation in Indian process
industries – some empirical evidence. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 26, n. 1, p. 131-160.
PÉRY, C. D.;
AGERON, B.; NEUBERT, G. (2013) A service science framework to enhance value
creation in service innovation projects. An rfid case study. International Journal of Production
Economics, n. 141, p. 440-451.
SÄFSTEN,
K.; JOHANSSON, G.; LAKEMOND, N.; MAGNUSSON, T. (2014) Interface challenges and
managerial issues in the industrial innovation process. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 25, n. 2, p.
218-239.
SILVEIRA,
G. J. C.; SNIDER, B.; BALAKRISHNAN, J. (2013) Compensation-based incentives,
ERP and delivery performance. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, v. 33, n. 4, p. 415 -
441.
THANKI,
S. J.; THAKKAR, J. (2014) Status of lean manufacturing practices in Indian
industries and government initiatives - A pilot study. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 25, n. 5, p.
655-675.
THEYEL,
G.; HOFMANN, K. H. (2015) Environmental practices and innovation performance of
US small and medium-sized manufacturers. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 26, n. 3, p. 333-348.
VENTO,
M. O.; ALCARAZ, J. L. G.; MACÍAS, A. A. M.; LOYA, V. M. (2016) The impact of
managerial commitment and Kaizen benefits on companies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 27, n. 5, p.
692-712.
VRIES, J. (2013)
The influence of power and interest on designing inventory management systems. International Journal of Production
Economics, n. 143, p. 233-241.
WALLIN,
J.; PARIDA, V.; ISAKSSON, O. (2015) Understanding product-service system
innovation capabilities development for manufacturing companies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, v. 26, n. 5, p. 763-787.
WICKRAMASINGHE,
V.; WICKRAMASINGHE, G. L. D. (2016) Variable pay and job performance of
shop-floor workers in lean production. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 27, n. 2, p. 287-311.
YANG, M. G. M.;
HONG, P.; MODI, S. B. (2011) Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental
management on business performance: An empirical study of manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production
Economics, n. 129, p. 251-261.
YANG, C. L.;
LIN, S. P.; CHAN, Y. H.; SHEU, C. (2010) Mediated effect of environmental
management on manufacturing competitiveness: an empirical study. International Journal of Production
Economics, n. 123, p. 210-220.
ZU, X.; KAYNAK,
H. (2012) An agency theory perspective on supply chain quality management. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, v. 32, n. 4, p. 423-446.