Talk:Lean manufacturing/Archives/2011

Origins

According to a recent article (http://www.chemicalprocessing.com/articles/2005/456.html?SESSID=6b42cd2b2deb2bf39943e2db62f5119f), lean manufacturing is said to have roots with Henry Ford and Frederick Taylor. Should this be incorporated into the article? Spalding 12:36, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting: Reading the History Part it seems as if Lean Production were a genuinly American invention by Franklin and Ford. Who had thought so when term was invented by a team of MIT-researchers (Womack et al.) who wanted to spread the word of new production methods developed in Japan by Toyota? Methods, which until then had not been sufficiently adapted by US-firms still adhering to Fordist methods of mass production. First US firms did not want to learn from the Japanese, and when they finally did, it was something which had always been common US-knowledge. If lean manufacturing were to be introduced in North Korea, they would also say that it's all based on Marx, Stalin and Kim Il-Sung ;-) --134.102.3.20 18:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The history section is a history of the waste reduction goal and not of lean itself. I have therefore relabelled. The waste reduction goal, as you might imagine, can be seen in all societies but some developments do seem to have happened in the US. Womack's key partner is Jones who is not from MIT or the US but Wales. The Americans who went to Japan, like the Europeans, largely saw what they expected to see. Which is why it was only with Sensei that they started to see what they didnt want to see. Facius 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

I had a go at cleaning up. I hope i have improved clarity and strengthened the links between sections. I have removed sections not directly about Lean Production since they already seemed to have dedicated pages. I have attempted to refocus the content on what is core about Lean as per Womack and Jones. I hope my attempt is acceptable and helpful.Facius 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Value Adding Articles - Your Input Requested

Hello fellow Lean and Wikipedia enthusiasts. Obviously many of us wish to contribute valuable content to the site and likewise include links to information and resources not appropriate for the main article, but complimentary just the same.

The question has been raised regarding a link I posted to a series of 3 articles geared toward preparing managers to implement Lean manufacturing. You may see the first article by clicking here: * Mere Mortal Managers Preparing Managers for Lean Implementation.

Of course I am biased because it is my article, but I have had considerable feedback that this is a value adding article and seek your opinions on this matter.

If enough of you agree that this article adds value to the subject of Lean then it will be re-posted to the "External Links" section of the main page along with the many other links to articles. If enough of you take exception to posting this link it will not be posted.

The article does contain links to my website which is a "for profit site." This, of course is true of all posted links to books and articles housed on other websites as well. There is no sales pitch within the article. Visitors may click for additional information or they may click away to other sites as they see fit. There are no re-directs and no one is compelled to do anything at all.

I believe this link is value adding and will contribute further understanding on the topic of Lean implementation and ask for your support to include the link, or your opinion as to why it should not be included.

Thank You,

Bill --Jbillh 02:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Enthusiasts? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an objective reference, not a means of promulgating one's own beliefs. Please remember not everyone who reads this article will be in favour of Lean processes, and stick to the NPOV rules. Jeffgwatts (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Lean thinking versus Lean production

Lean Thinking is separate and different from Lean production. For example, Lean Thinking can be applied to a service industry. It also applies to day to day life, such as the process one might choose in cooking in the kitchen, or gift wrapping packages. Lean production (see Lean manufacturing) is the application of Lean Thinking to manufacturing industries. User Cutler was wrong to merge Lean Thinking into Lean manufacturing. Lean manufacturing would be more commonly labelled Lean production because it represents an advancement over Mass production which in turn represents some advances (and some draw backs) over Craft production.

I cross posted this to the discussion page of Lean Thinking. Chris Murphy July 7, 2005 01:32 (UTC)

I merged the articles because they have too much in common and its poor practice to have very similar content in different articles as it's difficult to maintain. This really is then a discussion about what to call the article. I feet that Lean Thinking is not a widely used term and is too closely associated with the book. I agree with the problems with the term lean manufacturing. An alternative that addresses those issues is lean operations. However, thinking form the point of view of the reader, I think that the terms lean production and lean manufacturing are likely to lead them here. Please sign posts. Cutler July 7, 2005 12:20 (UTC)

Promotional links

This and other Wiki lean articles are quickly becoming an anchor for consultants and sales websites trying to drive traffic to those websites. The external links policy is reasonably clear:

Links to normally avoid

...

2. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.

...

4. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

5. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

Both links I just deleted are covered with advertising, exist primarily to sell products, and don't add anything that are a unique resource - in fact, I would say that the wiki definitions of the articles contained in both glossaries are better than those glossaries. If you have something unique and useful to say on one of those links, that's something different. But then, why not just add it to the wikipedia article? ;)

See also External link spamming

Ehusman 03:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the other links on here then? What criteria are we going to use for this and other lean pages? Should the LEI be on there? There are many useful articles, although that is a "commercial" site. The lean blog has many good lean articles linked on it, it's not commercial, but it's valuable? What's wrong with leaving more lean links on there as opposed to fewer? [This was left by User:Mgraban]

I agree. There are primarly commercial sites that may contain useful articles, explanation, downloads even books.

Good question. I am mostly interested in interdicting these links because without some policy they are likely to either explode and burden the article with too many promotional links, lead to edit wars, or both. Less is better than more, not only because Wiki's purpose is neither to serve as an aggregator nor search engine, but to provide an encyclopedic reference. Too much information in an article is as bad as too little since it overburdens the reader. Can you imagine what would happen if we added a link to everything on the net remotely related to Lean manufacturing? It would take minutes to load the article over DSL and thereby defeat the purpose of Wikipedia.

• Glossaries do not provide a resource beyond what is available on wiki almost by definition, and the glossaries that keep appearing here are not as good as the content already provided within Wikipedia for things such as 5S, Just in Time, and so on. Easy case for omitting.
• LEI has free forums and other articles. They sell things, but you can get other value from the site for free.
• Except for the fact that I think there is value in it, the Lean Blog should probably go (it violates item 12 in the Links to normally avoid list, and possibly also 4 and 5). I emphasize that I find it valuable because I'm not sure how to write a standard to differentiate between good and bad blogs. Perhaps there should be another article entitled "Lean blogs" or perhaps "Manufacturing blogs", though I don't know whether that is a useful encyclopedia article. You can easily discover such blogs by searching for them through any of the popular search engines.
• the Cooper paper should probably go - it is original research and exists primarily to promote products
• Not sure about the Manufacturing Magazine article - they don't seem to be promoting anything, the ad content is low, but does it add anything to the encyclopedia article?
• The Curious Cat site contains links to free articles that add value ... by people who have products to sell, but not primarily to sell them. On the other hand, perhaps it would be better to link directly to those useful articles?
• The Archer paper exists primarily to promote products

I think it is obvious that someone is a spammer when they (1) don't bother to register or intentionally cover their identity with an IP address, (2) only go to articles connected to a consulting business to add a link to a specific website, and (3) never add any other valuable content. They aren't here to help wiki, they are here to help themselves.

Ehusman 17:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I still have to register, and I see that of stuff gets deleted due to my IP address. There might be a spammer with the same IP address. Actually I think I can add some value to some of the articles here. Do you think I should register, so that MY OWN EDITS can be traced?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.2.124.251 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The link you're adding is to a site that has almost no content at all, and links to information are broken (not yet created?). As such, it doesn't offer anything useful to the article, so please don't re-add it. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

So where did the term "lean manufacturing" come from? by who? when?

Although the philosophy was from Toyota, the term LEAN was actually coined at MIT. 10:47 2 April 2008 (EST)

I suspect it came from Womack, et al, but I may be wrong. Ehusman 15:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The first reference came in The Machine That Changed The World by Womack, Jones & Roos. A note about the origin of the term is on page 13. --Kradeka 21:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the term first introduced by Krafcik? 193.202.255.201 (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was recently in a lean manufacturing seminar and the speaker informed me that the term lean manufacturing came from trying to teach US companies the toyota production system and these companies getting mad that they were now following the japanese, and that America wasnt the strongest manufacturing country anymore. --Mathsux124 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm an engineering student at a rather prestigious university, and this is also what they teach in my classes; the only reason it is called Lean Manufacturing is that US companies wanted the benefits of the system but didn't want to admit they were using something that another country had come up with --unsigned 11:24, 13 June 2007 (EST)

I think it is broader that that, although that explanation may also be true. The TPS is defined/owned/evolving inside Toyota. I think there was a desire to generalise the thinking and principles into other areas (outside production) which would perhaps come to new conclusions and develop its own workarounds/tools. Lean thinking and solutions are after all all around us in informal, unrecognised and unfocussed ways. So i would say that the TPS is the foremost and most developed Lean implementation in the world today; but not that it was just a rebranding exercise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Facius (talk • contribs) 12:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Value Stream Mapping

I think more information on Value and Value Stream mapping would be required for inclusion into the article!

Suggest you write a separate page since it is a key subject and the one i believe most often to fail. Facius 11:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What does the term DFT stand for? It is a kind of technique that came in 1990 I'm told. Can you please help? Harish P. Patel, leanways@gmail.com India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.55.239 (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

-Perhaps Design for Test? Test is one of many "X"s in DfX. Ken (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Valuable Link Removed

Hi, I came across a Lean Manufacturing article on Wikipedia and thought that an article I have written would be another useful resource. I posted the article, which you may view by clicking here: How to Implement Lean Manufacturing. However the link has been removed.

I added some content to the lean manufacturing article called “Lean implementation program” which was taken from my article, and is still available on Wikipedia. Surely it would benefit the readers to be able to view the full article. Does it not make sense to progress from information on Lean Manufacturing to implementation?

The article sits on a commercial site, but so do all of my articles which have received lots of positive feedback for being well informed and very useful. The content of the article most definitely adds something unique to the Lean Manufacturing page.

I would appreciate any views on the matter, especially as there are links to other commercial sites.

--Paul Aster 10:28, 15 August 2006

People are being real sticklers about "no blogs, no commercial sites, etc." If that's going to be enforced selectively by some, then I'd argue we need to be absolutist about it --- no commercial links then, no matter how helpful they are. That's what google is for, finding other articles.

--Mark Graban 12:20, 21 August 2006

Why is it ok to have the LAI and DAU links, but not the LEI?

LEI is a not-for-profit, just like LAI (through MIT).

Let's have ZERO links then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.204.75 (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul, and Welcome to the Club!

Many of us would like to see links to "value-adding" articles on an endless supply of relevant topics. Like you, my posts have been deleted by folks claiming to know what is best for Wikipedia while similar links remain. I'm a bit confused as well.

We all need to appreciate that Wikipedia does not want to become a grand repository of links to outside "external" sources, nor does it want to become an advertiser for services or products. Wikipedia wants only to be an encyclopedia; a compendium of "knowledge" not opinion or even great ideas.

In my humble opinion most external articles and perhaps a couple of blogs, i.e., KanBan Blogspot add a great deal of value to the overall understanding and appreciation of Lean, but are not encyclopedic in nature. Are they still of value? Of course they are! But getting them included (without being zapped by editors) is the tricky part and the criteria for inclusion are very inconsistently applied as you can see by current "External Links" that are mildly or blatantly for profit and advertorial in nature. Sure they offer "free" help or information, but rest assured, they are all commercially driven in one way or another, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I tried placing links to the following articles that I believe most would agree "add value" to the subject of Lean, but they were soundly zapped. Mere Mortal Managers that helps management better implement Lean, and A Glossary of Lean Terms A glossary of Lean terms seems like a resource to me and many others.

The problem seems to be that when you search Google (or any of the other major search engines) for the term "Lean Manufacturing" Wikipedia's article on Lean will almost always appear on the first page of search results. All the people wanting marketing benefit (all of us for profit consulting firms) want to be listed in the article even if it is an "external link" so we can gain additional website traffic, and hopefully business. That makes "our" intentions impure and very likely biased. So our goals and motivations for posting are in question. Yes, we also want to add value to Wiki but our possible underlying goals of inspiring others to consider our services or products are an affront to encyclopedic purists and others opposed to capitalism. Wikipedia is and encyclopedia not a marketing arm for business.

In the end, I for one believe we are better off with more links to outside (non-encyclopedic) resources that add value rather than fewer. How we do that without creating a list of thousands of links to external documents is another question.

Since Wikipedia does not want to house our links (that may have commercial intentions) I propose a "Master External Link to Outside Resources" in which we could list "other value-adding resources" that could be housed on an external (not Wikipedia) site. I'll even volunteer a free page on my website to house these links and descriptions. I'll set it up today and edit this section later with the link. People can use it or not.

The site is Free Lean Resources Let's give this a try and see how it goes. I figure we have nothing to lose.

Anyone have a better idea?

--Jbillh 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jbillh,

Good idea and thanks for adding the link to my article. Let’s see what happens!

--Paul Aster 10:28, 15 August 2006

You guys are on the right track - a single link to a directory of other links is usually acceptable and is much prefered to a series of links here (especially questionably-promotional ones). The best type is a DMOZ (Open Directory Project) link. The site is an an open directory, edited by volunteers. If you guys are interested in developing a directory of Lean manufacturing related links, consider signing up as an editor there, developing the appropriate category, then add the appropriate link here. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lists of Videos/Books

I removed the list of videos - seemed to violate WP:NOT mostly, as well as WP:EL and maybe WP:SPAM. I'd like to see some trimming of the book list too though not sure how to do so. --Ronz 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree on both your removal and the need to trim the books section. Probably the best way to do this would be to go through the history of the article to try to determine if any might've been used as sources (ie someone adding content to the article also listing a book), then remove all others. If there really needs to be a list of these types of books, a separate list article would be more appropriate. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! --Ronz 00:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. i have started adding sources as references to try to help. Facius 15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Software Engineering section

The applicability of any manufacturing concept to software is disputed. See, for instance, articles in The Best Software Writing, Joel Spolsky ed. which contend that 95% of the cost of software development is design, in contrast to all other "manufacturing" industries. This section is also vague and inaccurate --- for instance, individual software components are almost never purchased. I'm removing this section and replacing it with an attribution. Original section follows:

Lean and Toyota Production System (TPS) concepts have also been applied successfully in software development. In software engineering the process begins with a requirement review, to eliminate unnecessary requirements, and substitute mechanical and electrical components with software. Software generally has a lower per-component cost than other disciplines, especially in the large production runs typical of a lean product. The design then attempts to eliminate costly software components, especially those that are purchased. Lean in the Software industry is quite similar to Agile software development - some of which explicitly state TPS as a source of inspiration, including Scrum and Extreme Programming (XP).

66.117.135.137 01:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)David

Spolsky is no expert in software engineering. Ever read how critical system software is made? Given that this article is unreferenced, why not wait until other editors have a chance to respond? --Ronz 01:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The article from Spolsky's book is The Pitfalls of Outsourcing Programmers by Michael Bean. There are both practical and theoretical problems with the application of "lean" methods to software development. Some of the practical problems are outlined in the article. Here is a concise summary of the theoretical problems:

The origins of lean thinking lie in production, but lean principles are broadly applicable to other disciplines. However, lean production practices -- specific guidelines on what to do -- cannot be transplanted directly from a manufacturing plant to software development. Many attempts to apply lean production practices to software development have been unsuccessful because generating good software is not a production process; it is a development process.

— Mary and Tom Poppendieck, Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit

In any case, it is my understanding that mission-critical and life-critical systems not considered "home ground" for agile methods Agile software development#Suitability_of_agile_methods 66.117.135.137 04:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC) David

Update: User:66.117.135.137 is mistercupcake Mistercupcake 04:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Yes, agile methods aren't applicable to critical systems. My point is that lean methods are applicable to critical systems. They're also applicable to large, integrated systems common in government contracting work - which is what I first thought of when I read from the article, "The design then attempts to eliminate costly software components, especially those that are purchased". Since we don't have sources, it's hard to know what the original editors where thinking when that section was first added. --Ronz 05:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I goofed --- I didn't realize that "lean software development" existed. As a concept, lean software development (I'm resisting the temptation to use the three letter acronym...) is brought to us by the Poppendieck shop, and the term does not appear to have received widespread acceptance. According to this comparison of agile and lean software development Toyota applied lean methods to product development, apparently independent of the Poppendiecks, except that where the Poppendiecks tried to apply TPS to software development, Toyota was more interested in applying TPS to car design. I added a reference to lean software development.

In the "determining the original intent" department, this phrase, "...substitute mechanical and electrical components with software" baffles me. Mechanical components are physical. Software is information (intangible). I have a similar problem with the phrase "The design then attempts to eliminate costly software components, especially those that are purchased." The subject of this sentence is "the design," an inanimate object. How can it attempt anything? The design either does or does not eliminate costly components, and it is the actors who must "try." Did the original editor perhaps mean "designers?" I don't mean to provoke, but this really does seem to border on nonsense.Mistercupcake 08:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the nonsense factor. I'm just trying to see if there is information worth salvaging. I think the edits are fine, especially with this discussion. --Ronz 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I took out this section since a link to a page with similar name exists. That way the discussions and development can continue away from the already lively debate about `lean Production itself. Hope you're okay with that. Facius 15:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Deadly Wastes

I removed the following:

Technically, there are now nine 'deadly wastes' (source--see below):

Source: John Patram corporate sr. industrial engineer, lean sensei

I assumed that this was a quickly written reference to a book, but I'm unable to find anything that would be a suitable reference per WP:V. --Ronz 17:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

7, 8, 9, 10 Wastes...How Many? and Who Says?

For many years I have been promoting the idea of an 8th waste..."Untapped Human Potential." I have seen others call this "People's Skills" or "Human Resources" etc. Other wastes have also been posited within the community of Lean practitioners. Shouldn't they be given consideration or is the Lean lexicon dead?

I'm not from Japan and never worked at Toyota, but everyone I've talked to in the Lean community seems to understand what is meant by the three descriptions (wastes) above.

Can't we agree that some term(s) (not originated from our TPS founders) should be added to the "7 Wastes" as long as we duly note the addition(s)?

Please help me understand why Lean cannot, or maybe should not evolve in this way.

Thanks,

BillJbillh (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Urgent Feedback Help

I'm looking for someone to give feedback to my page Cellular Manufacturing

Please help!

Meganlaw15 06:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging with "Toyota Production System" Discussion

One Lean Practitioner's opinion..., but I do not believe the "Lean Manufacturing" article should be merged with the "Toyota Production System" article.

Although the majority of what we now call Lean Manufacturing stems from Toyota, it is easy to argue that Toyota's Production System has been bastardized and/or improved upon in the realm of Lean Manufacturing, to the point that there is an increasing disparity between the two.

For example: Many now promote the inclusion of an 8th or 9th waste such as "Untapped Human Potential" or include "6S" in place of "5S" etc.

Although this "evolution" or "bastardization" (depending on how you look at it,) will continue, the distinctions between the two are growing. I do not believe it is incumbent on Toyota to redefine its' system due to popular opinions or practices, nor do I believe Lean Manufacturing, as practiced in diverse ways, should be limited to the confines of Toyota's system.

One need only look to any of hundreds (if not thousands) of companies now practicing their own version of "TPS" or "Lean Manufacturing" to recognize serious deviations from Toyota's system. Consider the following examples: "Ford Production System - FPS," "GM's Global Manufacturing System - GMS," "Autoliv Production System - APS," and etc. This list could go on and on. It seems, increasingly so, more companies prefer to customize or create their own Lean systems.

Perhaps the practice of "continuous improvement" may be the primary reason for maintaining the distinction between "Lean Manufacturing" and "other" systems established and developing, under the umbrella of Lean Manufacturing. It would seem Toyota's "umbrella" and original authorship are no longer sufficiently broad to cover the evolution of Lean Manufacturing as practiced and emerging.

If you take issue with this line of reasoning consider Lean in service industries such as Healthcare, Education, Government, and etc.

Lean Manufacturing is clearly rooted in the Toyota Production System, but it has "left the building" when you recognize how it is applied in venues outside of manufacturing. This is true even though many of the original tools, techniques, and the guiding philosophy of the Toyota Production System are central to current Lean thinking and practices.

I believe there is more of "Lean Manufacturing" yet to be discovered or created than currently exists. Can we envision "Lean Psychotherapy," "Lean Knowledge Acquisition," "Lean Computing," or even "Lean Relationships"? The future is very bright!

Again, just one man's opinion; I'd enjoy reading yours.

Jbillh 09:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

These articles should not be merged. Doing so would be like merging "Lassie" with "dogs" because Lassie happens to be a dog. TPS is one example of Lean Manufacturing with its own history and practice. Lean Manufacturing is a term coined in The Machine That Changed the World and is used in other contexts such as Lean software development. TPS and Lean are not the same. Yorrose 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the articles should not be merged. "Lean" is a concept that reaches far beyond what any single company has done; it's a way of passing value on to the end user of a product (or service, as a matter of fact) by being more responsive to demands. Let the article stand separately. hbolling 13:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I find it revealing that Jones & Womack have moved from Lean production/thinking towards Lean consumption/solutions in their latest book. I think I heard them both say that Lean production without very very clear linkages to the actual customer's expressed value creates waste. Hence they have refocussed on the consumption process in order to get breakthrough lean production. So the links are strong but lets not try to force them into the same box/page.Facius 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with do not merge. I've removed the mergeto tag per the unanimous comments above. - Xsmith (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The New Destroyer of Worlds

I believe Lean Manufacturing, ie: Japanese Management in a British Company will ultimately destroy the fabric of industry as we know it.

It is fine to look at Lean Principles objectively, but their implementation is destroying the bonds that already exist in a lot of companies, to the extent that they are no longer able to keep staff.

If Lean is implemented wrongly on a wide-spread basis in the UK we may as well resign ourselves to the fact that mass unemployment will eventually again become a reality.

It is one thing to save money in this day and age, it is another to save money by ultimately getting rid of staff by forcing them out. This is exactly what Lean is doing in reality, although this is not the basis on which Lean was written.

Large companies that implement Lean are starting to fix hours in order to pay employees the lowest possible wage/salary, and taking away overtime which some people actually rely on these days due to the rising cost of living. I read in an implementation booklet on this subject "Never punish with Lean", but that is exactly what some companies are doing to keep their staff on the bread line.

Lean is senior management lead, and the only thing that senior management are interested in is profit, end of.

It also interests me that most companies gauge themselves on profit rather than turnover, against their competitors. The profit is only a snapshot of how the company is doing and is certainly not an indication of how successful the company is.

In my view as a temporary contractor, the entire concept of Lean is playing right into the hands of employers, and taking money away from those people who work tooth and nail to earn it, just so that senior management can have their new BMW or Austin Martin.

Enigma2006 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why the Lean Manufacturing and Toyota Production System entries in wikipedia should not be combined. One element of the Toyota Production System is a respect for the worker that is not found in most western companies. Lean Manufacturing is a set of tools used to increase productivity. Toyota Production System uses the lean manufacturing tools, but focuses on doing more with the available manpower rather than doing the same amount with less manpower. If a job is eliminated due to process improvement at Toyota, the employee in that position is reassigned to another position.

Wikinett 15:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The latest reports that I have heard is that Toyota has now abandoned Lean as a bad idea, can anyone confirm this?

Enigma2006 03:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a practicing Lean Coordinator for my facility, and every event is started with the reassurance that employees will not be eliminated through the groups actions. We have had many instance where we have reduced the need for labor, and in each instance we have retrained and repositioned the team members. If an organization is driven by short term "perceived" gains by reducing head count, applying a few Lean tools would work once or twice until the employees noticed the gaps at the lunch table. Neither Lean thinking nor Lean production is to blame. I could just as well try to blame a speeding ticket on me wheels being round. When applied, the tools work exceptionally well, and just like tires, not every one is appropriate for each scenario. I believe that in every scenario that Lean is appropriate for, the lifespan is a long one, and must be based on the respect of all portions of the Value Stream.

Stick Waver 16:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect however Lean is not being implemented in this way by a number of companies, and in truth the headcount is going down and counter-acting government policy on getting people back into work.

Jbillh 05:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Hey, I sure hear you "Stick Waver." Not cutting people due to improvements has been one of my mantras these last 12 years as a Lean consultant. I always ask prospective clients if they will commit to a "Never Punish for Lean" policy. So far everyone has agreed and as far as I know, not a single client has violated this agreement.

Frankly, I wouldn't take on a new client without this agreement in place from the get-go. Besides, the "people don't or won't improve themselves out of a job" argument makes good sense to most senior managers anyway.

Eventually those who punish for improving will reap the rewards...and they will recognize their errors. I only hope their companies stay viable long enough to retain much needed jobs and embrace a healthy approach to Lean.

Value

Much of this article suggests that Lean Manufacturing is all about waste reduction. That is not the best way to describe it. Lean Manufacturing is all about focusing on adding value for your customer - producing exactly what the customer wants in the quantity he wants when he wants it - and eliminating from your processes any step that does not value. Non-value-adding steps are waste, so that is where the concept of waste elimination comes from. But the point is adding value as much as or more than eliminating waste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeanInsider (talk • contribs) 21:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

tpslean.com

How transparently hosting a page without any ads for my company and giving my competitors a free listing for their free resources is a conflict of interest is beyond me. Are we getting a bit extreme here? I'd say so.

I've watched the Lean Manufacturing Article for years and saw a constant influx of LinkSpam and ads that were edited in and out continually. Do your research and you'll see that this free hosted page (out of the goodness of my heart with no Google "link-juice" to be gained) greatly diminished the need for editors to keep the external links at bay.

If the many contributors here want this link to go away please say so...if you want it to stay please say so. We can have this discussion again.

(Previously unsigned comment added by User:jbillh to User talk:jbillh on 28 December, 2008) Copied to this page by Nelson50^T 15:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill, Your contibutions consist of adding and maintaining a link to your own website, regardless of advertising. There is no "consensus", "established practices" "conversations with editors", that can in anyway justify the link you are adding. The fact that you maintain the external site generates the conflict of interest. As the editor it means either you select the articles to include, which would be wrong; or you add all articles, which would also be wrong. The article’s talk page and your own can carry such links and still comply with guidelines.

Further, adding edits such as this and describing them as “just formatting” and tagging them as minor is not likely to win you any support. Finally, as an expert in the field, it would be very welcome to see you adding actual content to the article, rather than focussing solely on the link. Nelson50^T 15:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to avoid talking here about individual editors and their contributions.

I think the tpslean.com link has been an interesting experiment, but there's certainly no consensus for it demonstrated in discussions on this page.

The recommendation of a DMOZ link is a widely accepted solution to this, but I don't see it as a necessity when all the tpslean link just providing advertising space. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen...Life is short. Too short to answer all of your allegations and play "wiki-rugby" with people who have much more time on their hands and a much stronger desire to "be right" than me. Last I checked, more than 2700 visitors came to the free hosted page called: Value-Adding Lean Resources Not Available on Wikipedia in 2008. I know that some of those visitors went to various pages on the TPS site, and many other sites as well.

We should probably entertain the idea that, just maybe, there is real value in content that is not on Wikipedia...maybe Wikipedia doesn't have all the answers. It sure seems fitting to provide more information where it has been sought after...(yes, clicking a link for additional information is a voluntary act, again, one that happened 2700+ times last year.) The links are for useful information and are not advertisements.

If someone else would like to host this page on their site in a "plain brown wrapper" as I have done, without ads or compensation, I will gladly pass the torch. The community is better off with it than without it in my humble opinion. Of course, you'll have to edit the Main Lean Manufacturing Article Page faster than (those who know better than you) and decide to remove the link, or lobby the Lean community to keep it alive. That may still be trumped by any number of wise editors who comes along. That is how this game is played. Way too tiresome for me I must say.

Any errors I have made in how I sign my name to edits are accidental. And, what I consider to be "minor edits" may be different from my critics; No ill-will or gaming the system somehow was intended. I do not edit Wikipedia for a living.

Quite simply; my life is so very good without Wikipedia, and all I was trying to do was help, not argue. If there are Lean Experts who have an opinion on the subject of reinstating the link to the Lean Resources page, please write about it on this page. My vote is tainted as I am accused of a conflict of interest. Your voice must be heard if you have an opinion one way or the other and if you care.

I wish you all the very best!

Bill Hanover Jbillh (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC) (my real name just in case I mess up the signature thing ; - ) contribs) 09:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved to talk - Lean dynamics

Another philosophy known as Lean Dynamics seems to be gaining popularity because of its emphasis on applying lean principles for overcoming challenging business conditions (a likely fallout of the 2008-2009 economic crisis) Its implementation is an adaptation of the second approach described above. Instead of directly targeting "waste", it addresses the "lag" in flow that often causes this waste to accumulate in the first place

I first removed the above from the Overview section because it appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for the book Going Lean. Without an independent, reliable source, I think it should remain out.

I've moved it here after it was restored without comment. The inclusion of this information, even if it had a proper source, makes no sense in this section, especially in the location where it was restored, which was different from its initial position. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's another attempt to add similar information, again without any independent sources: --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because directly targeting “waste” reduction as the focal point for lean programs produces highly variable results, studies of aerospace and other industries have identified that emphasis should be placed on addressing the disruption that often causes this waste to accumulate in the first place (see Lean Dynamics).

That one's been corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabiw1 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Books on lean production

Moved from the article. Too distracting and promotional. Maybe there are some potential refs here though. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Bicheno, John and Holweg, Matthias (2009), The Lean Toolbox: The Essential Guide to Lean Transformation, PICSIE Books, ISBN 978-0954124458
• Carlino, Andy and Flinchbaugh, Jamie (2005), The Hitchhiker's Guide to Lean, Society of Manufacturing Engineers , ISBN 0-87263-831-6
• Chalice, Robert W, (2007), Improving Healthcare Using Toyota Lean Production Methods - 46 Steps for Improvement, ISBN 0873897137 or # ISBN 978-0873897136
• Cooper, Robert G. and Edgett, Scott J. (2005), Lean, Rapid and Profitable New Product Development, ISBN 0-9732827-1-1
• Emiliani, B., with Stec, D., Grasso, L. and Stodder, J. (2007), Better Thinking, Better Results: Case Study and Analysis of an Enterprise-Wide Lean Transformation, second edition, The CLBM, LLC Kensington, Conn., ISBN 978-0-9722591-2-5
• Ford, Henry and Crowther, Samuel (2003), My Life and Work, Kessinger Press, ISBN 0-7661-2774-5
• Ford, Henry and Crowther, Samuel (1988), Today and Tomorrow, Productivity Press, ISBN 0-915299-36-4
• Ford, Henry and Crowther, Samuel (2003), Moving Forward, Kessinger Press, ISBN 0-7661-4339-2
• George, Michael L. (2003), Lean Six Sigma For Service, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-141821-0
• Graban, Mark (2008), "Lean Hospitals: Improving Quality, Patient Safety, and Employee Satisfaction," Productivity Press, ISBN 978-1420083804
• Hirano, Hiroyuki and Furuya, Makuto (2006), "JIT Is Flow: Practice and Principles of Lean Manufacturing", PCS, Inc., ISBN 0-9712436-1-1
• Imai, Masaaki (1997), Gemba Kaizen, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-031446-2
• Kennedy, Michael N. (2003), Product Development for the Lean Enterprise, The Oaklea Press, ISBN 1-892538-09-1
• Levinson, William A. (2002), Henry Ford's Lean Vision: Enduring Principles from the First Ford Motor Plant, Productivity Press, ISBN 1-56327-260-1
• Levinson, William A. and Rerick, Raymond (2002), Lean Enterprise: A Synergistic Approach to Minimizing Waste, ASQ Quality Press, ISBN 0-87389-532-0
• Liker, Jeffrey (2003), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer, First edition, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-139231-9.
• Norwood, Edwin P. (1931), Ford: Men and Methods, Doubleday, Doran, ASIN B000858158
• Ohno, Taiichi (1988), Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, Productivity Press, ISBN 0-915299-14-3
• Ortiz, Chris (2008),"Lessons from a Lean Consultant: Avoiding Lean Implementation Failures on the Shop Floor", ISBN 0131584634,Prentice Hall Professional.
• Rother, Mike and Shook, John (2003), Learning to See, Lean Enterprise Institute, ISBN 0-9667843-0-8
• Ruffa, Stephen A. and Perozziello, Michael (2000), Breaking the Cost Barrier: A Proven Approach to Managing and Implementing Lean Manufacturing, Wiley, ISBN 0-471-38136-5
• Ruffa, Stephen A. (2008), Going Lean: How the Best Companies Apply Lean Manufacturing Principles to Shatter Uncertainty, Drive Innovation, and Maximize Profits, AMACOM, ISBN 0-8144-1057-X
• Schonberger, Richard J. (1986), World Class Manufacturing, Free Press, ISBN 0-02-929270-0
• Womack, James P. and Jones, Daniel T. (1998), Lean Thinking Free Press, ISBN 0-7432-4927-5.
• Womack, James P., Jones, Daniel T., and Roos, Daniel (1991), The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production, Harper Perennial, ISBN 0-06-097417-6

Lean Six Sigma

Is it just me, or is the Lean Six Sigma paragraph that's been added to the intro just a thinly-veiled advert for Honeywell? Darp-a-parp (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just you. I don't think it's veiled at all. ;) Nelson50^T 10:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)