1999
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.45.12.1664
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Effects of Low Inventory on the Development of Productivity Norms

Abstract: Low inventory, a crucial part of just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing systems, enjoys increasing application worldwide, yet the behavioral effects of such systems remain largely unexplored. Operations research (OR) models of low-inventory systems typically use a simplifying assumption that processing times of individual workers are independent random variables. This leads to predictions that low-inventory systems will exhibit production interruptions leading to lower productivity. Yet empirical results suggest tha… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
99
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 103 publications
(105 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
6
99
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The authors also show that such temporary service rate increases are not sustainable (i.e., workers become fatigued) and can have potentially serious quality implications. The results obtained by Kc and Terwiesch complement a set of prior lab experiments conducted by Schultz et al (1998Schultz et al ( , 1999) that establish that workers in an assembly line adjust their service rates in response to the amount of work in process inventory between the workers. Powell et al (2004) …nd that such worker-level state-dependent behavior has implications for the entire process ‡ow.…”
Section: Literature Reviewsupporting
confidence: 62%
“…The authors also show that such temporary service rate increases are not sustainable (i.e., workers become fatigued) and can have potentially serious quality implications. The results obtained by Kc and Terwiesch complement a set of prior lab experiments conducted by Schultz et al (1998Schultz et al ( , 1999) that establish that workers in an assembly line adjust their service rates in response to the amount of work in process inventory between the workers. Powell et al (2004) …nd that such worker-level state-dependent behavior has implications for the entire process ‡ow.…”
Section: Literature Reviewsupporting
confidence: 62%
“…Since this is likely to be perceived as increased pressure to perform, the effect will be a positive motivational one (Kiggundu, 1983;Stewart & Barrick, 2000;Wong & Campion, 1991 Proposition 3 predicts a regression to mediocrity on static lines when there is heterogeneity: faster employees slow down, while slower employees speed up. This is consistent with the findings of Doerr et al (1996), Shultz et al (1998), andBoudreau (1999). The opposite effect is predicted for a dynamic line: faster employees, having autonomy and control over work pace and perceiving responsibility for others, speed up, while slower employees, experiencing negative feedback from constant interruption of their work flow and loss of autonomy over work pace, slow down.…”
Section: Motivation and Boundary Rulessupporting
confidence: 89%
“…In a similar vein, Berk and Moinzadeh (1998) Our work also extends prior studies of the impact of production system design on the productivity of employees. For example, using lab-based experiments, Schultz et al (1998Schultz et al ( , 1999 consider serial production systems in which adjacent workers in a serial assembly line can observe each others'productivity, as measured by inventory levels between them. A key insight from this work is that workers tend to work faster or slower depending on the work in process inventory.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%