Talk:Toyota Production System/Archives/2012

assessment of TPS as a science in 'Results' section
I am going to remove the following: It has been proposed that the TPS is the most prominent example of the 'correlation', or middle, stage in a science, with "banasik"material requirements planning and other data gathering systems representing the 'classification' or first stage. A science in this stage can see correlations between events and can propose some procedures that allow some predictions of the future. -as irrelevant to the section. If it is necessary to state the assertion that TPS is "the most prominent" example of a stage in a science, it should be a separate section. Goldratt is generally a reliable source, but this statement seems more an opinion than an fact. I have not gone to Goldratt to check this out because it seems like very low importance to include it. Wilhkar (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)wilhkar

It's continuous improvement
Let's not have the 'continuous improvement' vs 'continual improvement' debate here. Please add your view to Talk:Continual improvement process. wcrosbie (talk), Melbourne, Australia 10:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

French reference
I've removed the following, because it's obscure:
 * Zamprotta L., (1993), La qualité comme philosophie de la production. Interaction avec l'ergonomie et perspectives futures, Thèse de Maîtrise fr:Maîtrise ès Sciences Appliquées, TIU Press, Independence, MO, (1994), ISBN 0-89697-452-9. wcrosbie (talk), Melbourne, Australia 22:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)