Waste Reduction in Work Processes to Enhance Purchasing Efficiency of Monopy (Thailand) Co., Ltd.
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Monopy (Thailand) Co., Ltd. operates a 13-step procurement process. A baseline time study based on at least five repeated observations produced an average total process time of 62,623.32 seconds, compared with the organizational KPI of 43,600 seconds. Major time-consuming points involved supplier search and comparison, approval waiting, and repeated document handling, including printing, sorting, scanning, and file renaming.
This applied case study used time study, value stream mapping (VSM), a cause-and-effect diagram under a 4M framework, and ECRS principles to analyse and redesign the procurement workflow. The existing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system was used to support data integration, supplier quotation collection, and approval. Performance was assessed from operational purchase-order records in two periods using descriptive statistics. Before the improvement, 75 of 115 purchase orders were delayed (65.22%). After the improvement, 4 of 149 purchase orders were delayed (2.68%). The number of delayed orders decreased by 71 orders, or 94.67% relative to the pre-improvement delayed-order count, while total delay time decreased from 1,964 to 37 minutes, a 98.12% reduction.
The changes followed the removal or consolidation of repetitive document work, revised approval routing, and greater use of integrated data. The cloud-based ERP workflow included an AI-assisted function for calculating and comparing supplier price information as decision support, while responsible personnel retained review and approval authority. The reported outcomes therefore represent the performance of the redesigned process as a whole within this case.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Every article published in the Romphruek Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences is the opinion and point of view of the authors. Thery're not the viewpoint of Krirk University or the editored department. Any part or all of the articles for pablication must be clearly cited.
References
American Society for Quality. (n.d.). Fishbone. https://asq.org/quality-resources/fishbone
Bienhaus, F., & Haddud, A. (2018). Procurement 4.0: Factors influencing the digitisation of procurement and supply chains. Business Process Management Journal, 24(4), 965–984. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2017-0139
Christopher, M. (2022). Logistics and supply chain management (6th ed.). Pearson.
Freivalds, A., & Niebel, B. W. (2014). Niebel's methods, standards, and work design (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Guida, M., Caniato, F., Moretto, A., & Ronchi, S. (2023). Artificial intelligence for supplier scouting: An information processing theory approach. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 53(4), 387–423. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2021-0536
Handfield, R. B., Jeong, S., & Choi, T. Y. (2019). Emerging procurement technology: Data analytics and cognitive analytics. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 49(10), 972–1002. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2017-0348
Herold, S., Heller, J., Rozemeijer, F., & Mahr, D. (2023). Dynamic capabilities for digital procurement transformation: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 53(4), 424–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2021-0535
Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill.
Lysons, K., & Farrington, B. (2020). Procurement and supply chain management (10th ed.). Pearson.
Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2021). Purchasing and supply chain management (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Ongkunaruk, P., & Wongsatit, W. (2014). An ECRS-based line balancing concept: A case study of a frozen chicken producer. Business Process Management Journal, 20(5), 678–692. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2013-0063
Rother, M., & Shook, J. (2018). Learning to see: Value-stream mapping to add value and eliminate muda. Lean Enterprise Institute.
