Talk:Lean manufacturing/Archives/2015

Description of Lean Manufacturing is not Lean
The authors of this article need to demonstrate they understanding of "Lean" by removing everything that does contribute to giving the reader an understanding of Lean Manufacturing. This article is far too FAT. Who cares about the history until one has a understanding of what is Lean Manufacturing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregheth (talk • contribs) 00:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While I agree that a lot can be streamlined, history, my friend, is what I care most when I'm introduced to the next messiah-of-the-week. 189.245.22.45 (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticism
There should be a criticism section in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.184.122.26 (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going to say that, whoever you are.
 * This article should indeed have a section on criticism of the "lean management" or lean manufacturing method. As someone who will be entering the labour market full-time soon (I've been at university), I'd like to know what the negative aspects to this approach are, or what they are perceived to be. WikiReaderer 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a criticism section is a dangerous route to go down. Many Lean Sensei would contend that most of the problems with Lean implementation spring from the implementation and not the Lean principle behind it. A link to an active discussion group might be a good route to take rather than put it here in the wiki. Lean is a very challenging route to take and challenges many dearly held assumptions if done effectively (it was these assumptions that were the original problem). Refusal to take those decisions and watering-down of implementation plans are very often the cause of the issues with Lean. Facius 12:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, I believe a criticism section is needed. It may contain the same point you are pointing to (difficult implementation). As you comment, the principle may be good but the real life implementations may deviate and, maybe, it's an inherent problem relating to the very concepts... that's a weak point.


 * A criticism section is needed to avoid exposing this system as the ultimate answer to the human race problems. And being "Lean" a current fashion on the industry (and this means huge quantities of money and concealed political interest), signaling some of the weak points would help to ensure objectivity on the article. If we conform ourselves with posting a few links to forums, we will be unacceptably partial (showing on front page what's good but "hiding" on a possibly never-to-be-clicked link the dark side of the moon). We should do a full revision of the weak points.Israelff (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am looking for a documentary on Toyota implementation of JIT. The documentary showed Toyota paying employee bonuses for storing parts in the employee home.  The employees rented their homes from Toyota.  Toyota employees used the bonuses to pay for Toyota run or recommended schools for their children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.247.161 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we really need such a long article? The more it grows, less useful it appears. For example, the Differences from TPS section lacks citations, and reads like an essay. wcrosbie (talk), Melbourne, Australia 05:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A criticism section would run the risk of bringing the article closer to NPOV, threatening the commercial interests making a bundle off this. It will be better for pushing lean and selling consultant hours to leave the article long, clunky, and blatantly POV, without showing any criticisms.  The same can be said for a misapplications of lean section. —2601:0:7280:28D:F157:41A:5380:2317 (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you did there :). 189.245.22.45 (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

English
The English in the Implementation Dilemma section is shocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.144.200 (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Taiichi Ohno
Can someone add a picture of Ohno to is article?Lbertolotti (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization?
The article is inconsistent, sometimes capitalizing "lean," sometimes not. It seems from looking around on the Web that it should be lower case. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and do that. TimidGuy (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ford gets the ball rolling?
The section title "Ford gets the ball rolling" is ridiculous. And smells a lot like something you'd find in a text-book on the subject. Which makes me think that much of the article has been cribbed straight from commercial material. -- PaulxSA (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)