Polat, G and Arditi, D (2005) The JIT materials management system in developing countries. Construction Management and Economics, 23(7), pp. 697-712. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The just-in-time (JIT) approach to materials management appears to be superior to a just-in-case (JIC) approach in terms of reducing cost and improving productivity under most circumstances encountered in industrialized countries. However, is it truly more advantageous than the more commonly used approaches in developing countries? Contractors in developing countries may be compelled to keep excessive inventory under some circumstances to help manage uncertainty in the supply chain and production process, high inflation rates, available discounts on prices of large amounts of materials, and price cuts in case of early purchasing. This study presents a comparison of the JIT and JIC materials management systems in terms of total cost of inventory by means of a simulation model that makes use of actual data obtained from an ongoing trade centre project in Istanbul, Turkey. The study suggests that had the JIT system been used in the project in Istanbul the total cost of inventory would have been 4.4% higher than the total cost of inventory in the JIC system currently used.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | developing countries; just-in-time; materials management systems; simulation modelling |
| Index terms: | inflation, Istanbul, purchasing, production process, simulation modelling, inventory, Turkey, developing country, productivity, just-in-time, materials management |
| Subjects: | procurement strategy, operations management, analytical methods, inventory management, lean logistics, economic analysis, manufacturing engineering, management, Geography, development economics |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Procurement, International Construction, Engineering Principles, Supply Chain Management, Business Strategy, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here