Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

Mahindra & Mahindra Implementing BPR

In our never ending quest for quality and increasing productivity at all levels, the
various projects initiated by the company including BPR are helping us achieve
higher productivity, reduction in costs and improved quality.
- Keshub Mahindra, Chairman, Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M), in 1996.
M&MS PROBLEM PLANTS
In the mid-1990s, Indias largest multi utility vehicle (MUV) and tractor manufacturer
M&M was facing serious problems at its Igatpuri and Kandivili plants in Maharashtra.
The plants were suffering from manufacturing inefficiencies, poor productivity, long
production cycle, and sub-optimal output. The reason: highly under-productive,
militantly unionized, and bloated workforces. The company had over the years been
rather lenient towards running the plants and had frequently crumbled under the
pressure of union demands.
The work culture was also reportedly very unhealthy and corruption was widespread in
various departments. Alarmed at the plants dismal condition, Chairman Keshub
Mahindra tried to address the problem by sacking people who allegedly indulged in
corrupt practices. M&M also tried to implement various voluntary retirement schemes
(VRS), but the unions refused to cooperate and the company was unable to reduce the
labor force.
During this period, M&M was in the process of considering the implementation of a
Business Process Reengineering (BPR) program throughout the organization including
the manufacturing units. Because of the problems at the Igatpuri and Kandivili plants,
M&M decided to implement the program speedily at its manufacturing units. The
program, developed with the help of the UK-based Lucas Engineering Systems, was
first implemented on an experimental basis at the engine plant in Igatpuri.
Simultaneously, an exercise was initiated to assess the potential benefits of
implementing BPR and its effect on the unions.
M&Ms management was not surprised to learn that the unions expressed extreme
displeasure at the decision to implement BPR and soon went on a strike. However, this
time around, the management made it clear that it would not succumb to union
demands. Soon, the workers were surprised to see the companys senior staff come
down to the plant and work in their place. With both the parties refusing to work out an
agreement, observers began casting doubts on the future of the companys grand plans
of reaping the benefits of BPR.
BACKGROUND NOTE
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (M&M) was the flagship company of the Mahindra group,
one of the top ten industrial houses in India. The companys history dates back to 1945,
when two brothers, J.C.Mahindra and K.C.Mahindra, decided to start a business of
general-purpose utility vehicles. The brothers formed a company, Mahindra &
Mohammed Ltd., in association with their friend Ghulam Mohammed. In October
1947, the first batch of 75 jeeps was released for the Indian market. In 1948, the
company was renamed Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Over the next few decades, the
group promoted many companies in areas as diverse as hotels, financial services, auto
components, information technology, infrastructure development and trading to name a
few (Refer Exhibit I for M&Ms history).
Though M&M had established itself in the markets and was among the leading players
in many of the segments it operated in, it realized that some of its businesses were not
closely related to its core business. This realization marked the beginning of the biggest
change exercise since the companys inception. In 1994, a major restructuring exercise
was initiated as part of a BPR program. M&M introduced a new organizational model,
in which various divisions and companies were regrouped into six distinct clusters of
related businesses, each headed by a president.
M&Ms core activities, automotive and tractors were made autonomous business units.
The other activities of the group were organized into infrastructure, trade and financial
services, telecommunication and automotive components. According to company
sources, the whole exercise was intended to develop a conceptual map to provide
direction for the future growth of various business lines. It was decided that, in future,
the group would confine its expansion to the identified thrust sectors.
The two main operating divisions of the company were the automotive division, which
manufactured UVs and LCVs, and the farm equipment division, which made tractors
and farm implements. The company employed over 17,000 people and had six state-of-
the-art manufacturing facilities spread over 500,000 square meters. The plants were
situated at Kandivili (MUVs and Tractors), Nasik (MUVs), Zaheerabad (LCVs,
Voyager, three-wheelers), Igatpuri (Engines) and Nagpur (Implements and tractors).
The company had 33 sales offices supported by a network of over 500 dealers across the
country. These offices were connected to the companys plants by extensive IT
infrastructure. By 2001, the company had firmly established itself as one of the leading
players in the Indian automotive industry, with revenues of Rs 43.53 billion and profits
of Rs 1.2 billion[1] (Refer Exhibit II for a summary of M&Ms operations).
The Kandivili and Nagpur plants were the production hubs for the farm equipment
division. This division, reportedly the single largest facility of its kind in the world,
received the ISO-9001 certification in 1996. In 2001, the division marked its 16th year as
the market leader; its products were being used by over 600,000 Indian farmers. The
division was a successful exporter to many countries: the US, South Africa, Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh, Nepal, Zimbabwe and several European countries. The division had set
itself the goal of becoming the worlds largest tractor manufacturer in terms of volume
by 2005, from its 2001 position of number four.
M&Ms decision to undertake BPR implementation at the plant was largely influenced
by its ambition to become the largest tractor manufacturer in the world. This was
accompanied by a decision to focus on enhancing productivity and delivering world-
class quality at the least possible cost. The company also decided to undertake a total
quality management initiative. Various initiatives such as supplier upgradation,
strategic and global sourcing, product development, channel management and lean
manufacturing were also identified as thrust areas. Problems at the individual factories
played a major part in the managements decision to hasten the implementation of the
BPR program.
ABOUT BPR
The concept of BPR was popularized in the early 1990s by Michael Hammer and James
Champy in their best-selling book, Reengineering the Corporation. The authors said
that radical redesign and reorganization of an enterprise was necessary to lower costs
and increase the quality of service. According to them, IT was the key enabler for that
radical change. Hammer and Champy felt that the design of the workflow in most large
corporations was based on assumptions about technology, people and organizational
goals that were no longer valid. They recommended seven principles of reengineering
for streamlining work processes and, consequently, achieving significant levels of
improvement in quality, time management and cost (Refer Table I).
Table I
BPR Principles
1.

Organize around processes, not tasks Instead of work being divided among different people,
one person is given the responsibility for an entire process. Each persons job is designed around an
outcome, such as a finished component or a completed process, rather than one of the tasks
necessary for producing the finished component or completing the process. This could mean
replacing functional departments such as manufacturing and marketing with interdisciplinary teams
that concentrate on completing a particular business process.
2.

Have output users perform the process Instead of departments functioning as distinct
specialized entities doing only their work, passing the output to someone else, BPR requires each
department to take full responsibility for one complete process.
3.

Have those who produce information process it People responsible for generating a piece of
information should be involved in processing all the information regarding it. For instance, instead
of the traditional way of receiving goods (involving receiving, accounts payable and other
departments), only one receiving clerk receives the goods using specialized software.
4.

Treat geographically dispersed resources as centralized To provide better customer service,
companies decentralize operations. With current technology, a companys data can be centrally
located and yet be made available to all its geographically dispersed units. This way, companies get
the benefits of centralization as well as decentralization.
5.

Link parallel activities in the workflow instead of just integrating their results
Certain processes, such as product development, are performed in parallel and
then integrated at the end. However, quite often, the teams involved do not
communicate well. In such a scenario, BPR would put people from various
functional areas on the team in charge of a particular product.
6.

Empower workers and use built-in controls Most organizations have many layers of personnel
working and several more to manage, audit and control them. BPR empowers the people actually
doing the work by giving them the authority to take certain decisions. This results in faster
responses to problems and increases the quality of the task performed.
7.

Capture information once and at the source Different departments capturing their own data at
their own pace leads to inefficiency, resource wastage and data discrepancy errors. By utilizing
information technology effectively, data can be captured electronically at source, entered once in an
online database, and made available to all who need it.
Source: ICMR.
Simply put, BPR refers to a complete overhaul of the way an organization does its
business. Instead of focusing on improving or modifying processes, it focuses on
reinventing the way the company carries out its business. And instead of focusing on the
existing business, it tries to determine what business the company should be involved in.
BPR thus results in dramatic changes in a companys business activities. The kind of
results the company looks for are not marginal in nature, BPR results in dramatic and
huge improvements in the processes being reengineered.
The most important aspect of BPR is the proper identification of the business processes.
A business process can be defined as a collection of closely-related tasks performed to
create value for the customers. According to analysts, in most organizations, processes
have traditionally not been earmarked or identified clearly. Thus, examining and
dealing with business processes is a radical change in the way organizations and
managers have traditionally functioned.
BPR seeks to remove the belief that by focusing on the efficiency of the tasks involved in
carrying out a piece of work, the organization is doing its best to complete the task in a
timely and cost-effective manner. Instead, it requires the organization to focus on the
outcomes of its processes in the way a customer would.
For instance, a customer of a furniture vendor who has asked for a wooden partition to
be installed in his house would be concerned only with the overall time taken for the
work to be completed. He would not be concerned about individual processes: the time
the company takes to get the request approved and dispatched to the carpenters, the
time the carpenters take to finish their job, and the time the painters take to finish their
work. Once the company begins looking at the above transaction from the customers
point of view (i.e. getting the partition installed within a certain timeframe), it will get a
fresh perspective on customer expectations regarding quality, responsiveness and cost-
effectiveness (Refer Table II for the effects of BPR).
Table II
The Effects of BPR
Work units change from functional to process teams
Jobs change from simple tasks to multidimensional.
Roles change from controls to empowered.
Advancement criteria changes from performance to ability
Executives change from scorekeepers to leaders.
Performance measures change from activity to results
Source: www.geocities.com
BPR can be categorized into Process Improvement, Process Redesign and Business
Transformation. Process improvements involve improving processes that are part of a
single business function, and are not cross functional. They result in small
improvements to the existing process, usually through eliminating non-value-added
activities.
Process redesign on the other hand, involves the total redesign of an end-to-end process.
This usually results in considerable performance improvement in terms of cost, quality
and cycle time. Business transformation begins with a study of the basic elements of
people, processes, information and technology involved by the top management. It is the
highest degree of BPR. It focuses on reinventing the business through a top-down
reappraisal and redesign of the total business. The organization has to evaluate itself
and ask why it exists and what it is trying to achieve.
A typical BPR implementation exercise can be divided into three phases comprising two
stages each (Refer Table III).
Table III
BPR Implementation Cycle
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
1. Business Understanding 3. Business Process Identification 5. Process Redesign
2. Project Planning &
Training
4. Process Envisioning 6. Process Implementation
Source: www.geocities.com
According to analysts, companies usually opt for reengineering when they are in serious
trouble, have foreseen trouble or are taking proactive measures to avoid landing in
trouble. Companies that implement BPR to avoid landing in trouble usually have
ambitious and aggressive managements. As a result, they are able to implement BPR
effectively and derive the benefits of reengineering. Many BPR exercises fail because the
concerned organizations do not ensure the presence of critical success factors for BPR
implementation (Refer Table IV). Often, BPR is confused with practices such as
automation, downsizing and outsourcing. However, such practices are only tools that
can be a part of the overall BPR program; they can never be the all of such an
exercise.
Table IV
BPR Success Factors
Strong and consistent top management sponsorship.
Addressing cultural transformation through effective change management.
Proven methodology including a vision process.
Reengineering team composition (in both breadth and knowledge).
Compelling business case for change (with measurable objectives).
Strategic alignment with company strategic direction.
Line ownership (pair ownership with accountability).
Source: www.geocities.com
M&MS EXPERIENCE WITH BPR
By the mid 1990s, BPR had become a popular tool globally, with many leading
organizations implementing it. However, when M&M undertook the exercise, it was still
a new concept in India. M&Ms workforce, as mentioned earlier, resisted this attempt
to reengineer the organization. Soon after the senior staff began working on the
shopfloors, the first signs of the benefits of BPR became evident. Around a 100 officers
produced 35 engines a day as compared to the 1200 employees producing 70 engines in
the pre-BPR days.
After five months, the workers ended the strike and began work in exchange for a 30%
wage hike. As the situation returned to normalcy, BPR implementation gained
momentum. M&M realized that it would have to focus on two issues when
implementing the BPR program: reengineering the layout and method of working, and
productivity.
M&M worked on the principle of cellular manufacturing.[2] In this type of
manufacturing, plant layout is reorganized drastically and workers are required to do
multi-tasking through multi-machine manning. The plant and machinery layout at the
company had to be revamped to reduce non-productive activities and introduce cellular
manufacturing. To enhance productivity, M&M moved from a batch to a modular
process[3] and implemented TPM[4] and Kaizen.[5] The company then revealed plans
to enhance the capacities at its plants and asked the workers to start working harder
and become more flexible. A group of workers voiced their resentment against this and,
at one point of time, even halted production.
However, the management stood its ground and called the opposition as the dying gasp
of any resistance to the new model of working. Anand Mahindra commented, All said
and done, I think our point was proven though it meant a loss in production. It was
necessary for the management to show the required commitment without which
everything would have come unwounded.
In line with its decision to adopt practices followed by international auto players, M&M
decided to replace its existing setup with the Platform Concept. The platform concept
focuses on customer requirements. It requires the formation of cross functional teams
consisting of professionals from R&D, manufacturing, processing, marketing etc. These
teams jointly develop the product, keeping in mind the needs of the final customer.
M&M took the help of its 600 strong R&D team consisting of engineering professionals
with experience across industries, for this purpose. This move was a complete shift from
the traditional form of product development, which was product/function centric (i.e.
R&D, manufacturing and other departments worked in isolation at the development
stage and came together only at the assembly stage).
To focus on customer requirements, M&M had to bring in features of concurrent
engineering[6] at the development phase itself. This was accompanied by the formation
of three full-time teams to bring the product development process in line with the
platform concept. The teams were named Horizon I, Horizon II and Horizon III.
While Horizon I concentrated only on some improvements in existing products, Horizon
II specialized in the upgradation of existing products. Horizon III was concerned with
the development of new products. This initiative resulted in the introduction of several
new features like constant mesh gearbox for easy gear shifting and power steering to
reduce steering efforts (besides a range of improved as well as new products).
Continuing with the BPR exercise, M&M decided to utilize information technology (IT)
to seamlessly integrate all business functions and processes with each other. Several IT
systems were installed at various locations and various functions, and officers were
directly linked with each other. The IT solutions were integrated with an ERP package
by SAP.[7] The solution integrated every facet of business operations to provide a
complete update of all organizational activities, at any point in time. ERP made
customer requirements available. Every department and location was connected
through information technology. Since they were informed of the work at hand, they
could adjust their schedules and inventories accordingly. The whole system was
designed to be controlled not by the average user, not by IT professionals.
By April 2000, the BPR program was successfully implemented at M&M. At the
Igatpuri plant, even as the number of employees declined to 760, the number of engines
produced went up by 125 per day. The 400 excess workers at the plant were redeployed
at the assembly plant in Nasik. The Nasik plant soon achieved a 125% improvement in
productivity. Employee costs at these two plants came down from 12.4% in 1994 to
10.1% in 1996. The number of vehicles produced overall increased from 47,760 in 1995
to 65,405 in 1996 and 75,568 in 1997. A large part of this increase was attributed to the
improvement in productivity because of the BPR program. During the same period,
inventory levels also came down from 74 days of net sales to 56 days, and value added
per employee increased from Rs 0.3 million to Rs 0.46 million.
Over the next few years, the BPR initiatives enabled the company to maintain steady
gross margins, reduce working capital levels, and rationalize manufacturing processes.
BPR not only enabled M&M to achieve a new and modern working relationship with its
employees (with productivity as the main criteria), but also brought its manufacturing
systems up to international standards. The benefits of the BPR exercise included bbetter
inventory control, better sourcing, better order distribution across plants, online
availability of data, transparent access to data, process transparency and an integrated
sales and supply chain.
THE FUTURE
Summing up the companys BPR experience, Anand Mahindra said, Let me put it in a
simple way. If we have facilities in Kandivili today, which are not just surviving but
thriving, it is all due to BPR. If you go back to the 1990s, there was no shortage of
pundits telling us that it would not be possible to manufacture in Mumbai due to the
fact that the plants are old and depreciated, workers are too highly paid and not
producing good quality. In fact, some of our compatriots in the city have met a similar
fate. So BPR was a way of reengineering our plants and making them viable in a
competitive environment.
Having reaped handsome gains from the BPR exercise, M&M decided to adopt other
globally accepted practices to improve its business. Towards this end, the company
hired McKinsey & Co in 1997 to offer restructuring proposals. Following McKinseys
recommendations, the farm equipment division undertook Project Vishwajeet, a
major restructuring exercise, in May 2000. This project divided the tractors business
into 38 business units classified under five business divisions. The hierarchy structure in
each of these divisions was limited to just five layers to ensure autonomy and clear
accountability.
The company continued with its efforts to further streamline its operations by
undertaking a cost-saving program in May 2001 to reduce break-even volumes in the
automotive and farm equipment divisions. The program, undertaken as part of the
restructuring proposals made by McKinsey, was expected to result in savings of 20-30%
on business redesign, including sharing of resources to prevent duplication of capital
expenditure.
In addition, M&M envisaged 10-15% savings on process redesign and 5-10% savings on
engineering redesign. The company also started outsourcing non-core manufacturing
activities, sourcing most components of a particular model from the same vendor, and
increasing the volume of business transactions with a few select suppliers. M&M,
however, continued to manufacture critical components.
There was one unexpected, welcome change brought about by the BPR program and
the companys other initiatives aimed at the shopfloor and its workers. Commenting on
this, Anand Mahindra said, Today the atmosphere is so different that every morning
all the workers recite the company oath, which is a sea change from the situation ten
years ago when workers used to play cards on the shopfloor during working hours.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. Comment on the circumstances that led M&M to implement a BPR program. Why
do you think the company-faced resistance from the unions when it decided to
implement BPR at the plants?
2. Analyze the BPR implementation exercise at M&Ms plants. How do you think the
platform concept helped the company? Also, comment on the benefits M&M reaped
as a result of the BPR program.
3. How is BPR different from traditional improvement techniques like TQM? As a
manager in charge of a shopfloor undergoing such a program, what measures would
you take to ensure its success?

Exhibit I
M&M Milestones

Year
Events
1948 Steel trading business was started in association with suppliers in UK
Business connections in USA through Mahindra Wallace.
1949 WallaceSteel trading on behalf of European suppliers; Jeep Assembly.
1950 The first business (for 5000 Tons) with Mitsubishi Corporation for wagon building plates.
1953 Otis Elevator Co. of India established.
1954 Technical & Financial Collaboration with Willys Overland Corporation.
1956 Dr. Beck & Co. formed - a JV with Dr. Beck & Co. ,Germany.
1957 Mahindra Owen formed a JV with Rubery Owen & Co. Ltd., UK.
1958 Machine Tools Division started.
1960 Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd. (MSP) formed - a JV with the GKN Group, UK.
1961 International Tractor Co. Of India (ITCI), a JV with International Harvester Co., US formed.
1962 Mahindra Ugine Steel Company (MUSCO) formed - a JV with Ugine Kuhlmann, France.
1965 Vickers Sperry of India Ltd., a JV with Sperry Rand Corporation, USA
Roplas (India), a collaboration with Rubery Owen. Manufacture of LCVs commenced.
1970 Mahindra Engineering & Chemical Products Ltd.(MECP) formed.
1971 International Harvester collaboration ended.
1975 Switch over to diesel vehicles in-house development.
1977 ITCI merges with M&M, to become its tractor division.
1979 License from Automobiles Peugeot, France, for XDP 4.90 Diesel Engine.
1982 License from KIA for 4 Speed Transmission Mahindra of tractors; Siro Plast formed.
1983 M&M becomes market leader in Indian tractor market.
1984 Mahindra Hellenic Auto Industries S.A. formed, a JV in Greece to assemble and market UVs in
Europe.
1986 Mahindra British Telecom , a JV with British Telecommunications plc (BT), UK formed.
1987 M&M acquired International Instruments Ltd.
1989 Automotive Pressing Unit (now MUSCO Stampings) acquired from GKW.
1991 Introduction of Commander series.
1992 Triton Overwater Transport Agency Ltd. formed, Implementation of the Service Center project
at Kanhe.
1993 MC & NI invited to participate in Steel Service Center Project. JV signed, MSSCL formed.
Mahindra Acres Consulting Engineers Ltd. (MACE) formed - a JV with Acres International,
Canada.
MBT International Inc., USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of MBT
The companys maiden international offering the US$ 75m GDR issue.
Introduction of Armada.
1994 Mahindra Realty & Infrastructure Developers Ltd. (MRIDL) formed; Mahindra USA Inc.
formed for distribution of tractors in the US; EAC Graphics (India) Ltd., formed in collaboration
with The East Asiatic Company Ltd. A/S, Denmark.
Year
Events
Reorganization of the Group, creating six Strategic Business Units
MSL Division (Auto Components) hived off to form Mahindra Sona Ltd.
Mahindra Nissan Allwyn Limited merged with the company.
1995 Mahindra Holding & Finance Ltd. (MHFL) becomes a subsidiary to carry out business as an
investment company.
Technical collaboration with Mitsubishi / Samcor to manufacture L300.
1996 Mahindra Ford India Ltd. (MFIL) - JV with Ford Motor, US, to manufacture passenger cars.
The company made a Foreign Currency Convertible Bond (FCCB) issue of US$ 115 million.
1997 Business connections in US through Mahindra Wallace; A new die shop was inaugurated at
Nasik.
Inauguration of the Mahindra United World College of India.
1999 Launch of Bijlee a battery-operated, 3-wheeler, environmental-friendly vehicle.
The largest online used vehicle website in India launched by Mahindra Network Services.
The business of Intertrade Division and Mahindra Exports Ltd. combined and renamed
Mahindra Intertrade Ltd.
Mahindra USA Inc. enters into a strategic alliance with Tong Yang Moolsan to distribute its
tractors under the Mahindra brand name.
The company acquires a majority stake in Gujarat Tractors.
2000 The company unveils new logo.
Mahindra Auto Specialties Ltd., a new 100% subsidiary, is formed. M&M sets up its first
satellite tractor plant at Rudrapur.
The company launches New Age Tractor, the Mahindra Arjun 605 DI (60 HP tractor).
The company launches Bolero GLX, a UV, in response to the needs of the urban consumer.
2001 3-wheeler diesel vehicle Champion is launched by the company.
The company launches Mahindra MaXX an MUV positioned with the caption Maximum
Space, Maximum Comfort.
M&M ties up with Renault for petrol engines. M&M establishes a separate division to provide
Defence Solutions.
Source: www.mahindra.com

Exhibit II
M&M Summary of Operations
( in Rs million)
Year end 31
st

MarchPRIVATE
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Income 14,896 17,151 21,135 28,996 36,205 41,280 42,250 44,760 43,529
Material Direct 8,194 9,218 11,457 15,790 19,668 21,514 22,274 22,102 23,586
Material - Indirect 272 322 260 328 441 491 431 455 489
Excise Duty (Net) 2,331 2,306 3,060 4,065 5,007 6,398 6,536 7,732 7,554
Personnel 1,841 2,098 2,339 3,002 3,417 3,875 3,853 4,094 4,156
Interest 595 562 447 482 805 1,229 1,519 1,415 622
Deprecation (Net) 321 351 336 423 630 993 1,120 1,233 1,401
Other Expenses 1,082 1,324 1,527 2,164 2,804 3,486 3,716 4,261 4,434
Extra-ordinary
items
- (144) 84 104 - - - 36 -
PBT 261 826 1,792 2,846 3,283 3,295 2,801 3,505 1,286
Tax - 148 623 1165 1190 780 515 870 880
Prior period items (22) - (34) (57) - - (27) - -
Balance Profit 239 679 1135 1623 2093 2,515 2,260 2,635 1,206
Dividends 108 184 342 441 560 625 631 675 670
Equity
Dividend(%)
30 45 65 45 50 55 55 55 55
EPS (Rupees) 6.64 16.64 21.61 16.98 20.56 24.33 21.85 23.85 10.91
Vehicles Prod.
(units)
38,813 49,155 47,760 65,405 74,653 77,510 70,639 76,983 63,146
Vehicles Sold
(units)
38,887 48,292 49,235 63,623 75,568 76,954 70,548 76,437 62,927
Tractors Prod.
(units)
35,454 32,925 40,051 49,651 58,028 71,468 66,211 73,222 80,261
Tractors Sold
(units)
34,052 32,875 41,006 50,005 57,379 67,780 69,362 70,571 79,237
Source: www.mahindra.com

Additional Readings & References:
1. Radhakrishnan N and M Karthikeyan, The Remaking of M&M, Business India, June 16, 1997.
2. Strategic Management Case Studies on Indian Companies Volume IV, ICMR, 2000.
3. M&M Kicks Off Cost Saving Drive, Business Standard, May 17, 2001.
4. Mahindra & Mahindra Tough Road Ahead?, www.karvy.com.
5. Wadia Jamshed, BPR, www.geocities.com.
6. CRISIL Company Profile Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., www.debtonnet.com.
7. Mahindra & Mahindra Farm Equipment Sector, www.managementor.com.
8. Company Annual Reports.
9. www.indiainfoline.com
10. www.mahindra.com



[1] In September 2002, Rs 48 equaled 1 US $.
[2] Cellular manufacturing allows companies to produce just what is needed with
minimum materials, equipment, labor, time and space. This translates to lower
operating costs. In addition, a cell has a simple and direct routing between operations,
so bottlenecks can easily be identified and eliminated, reducing lead times. As cells can
accommodate small lots, quality problems are discovered and corrected sooner.
[3] In the batch process, parts are accumulated and processed together repeatedly for
manufacturing items of a similar nature. Modular production aims to standardize both
the methods of production system design and the machine units for production system
construction. This results in fully integrated component production and assembly
systems, which can be rapidly configured for producing a wide range of products,
thereby enhancing productivity.
[4] Total Productivity Management (TPM) is an approach for optimizing the
effectiveness of production means in a structured manner. It entails the effective use of
all company resources to enhance customer satisfaction, in the context of clear business
direction, an integrated, visible improvement plan, a consistent set of improvement
strategies and an appropriate performance measurement system.
[5] Japanese for change for the better or improvement. A methodology of
continuous cost reduction, quality improvement, and delivery time reduction through
shopfloor involvement and rapid action now practiced in businesses worldwide.
[6] Concurrent engineering is a systematic approach to the integrated, concurrent
design of products and related processes, including manufacturing and support
processes. This approach is intended to make developers consider from the outset, all
elements of the product life cycle, from conception through disposal, including quality,
cost, schedule, and user requirements.
[7] ERP is a software-driven business management system that helps integrate all
functions of a business including planning, manufacturing, sales, and marketing. SAP
R/3 is a popular ERP software from the Germany based company Systems Applications
& Products in data processing (SAP).


Source: http://27.251.26.4/casestudies/mumbai2/OPER0008.asp

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen