In my last few posts I showed you different types of pull systems, and an overview of the criteria on how to decide which one is right or you. In this post I finally give you a hands-on guide to decide which pull system to use. This blog post is loosely based on chapter 3.2 of my new book All About Pull Production: Designing, Implementing, and Maintaining Kanban, CONWIP, and other Pull Systems in Lean Production. Let’s have a look:
This is a cross post with the same article on Planet Lean.
There are different ways to establish a pull system. In my last post I gave an overview of the different types of pull system. Before telling you which one to use when I want to show you the different factors that should go into your decision. What do you have to pay attention to if you want to select a pull system? This post is loosely based on chapter 3.1 of my new book All About Pull Production: Designing, Implementing, and Maintaining Kanban, CONWIP, and other Pull Systems in Lean Production. Let’s have a look:
This is also a cross-post with the same article on Planet Lean.
Kanban is the best known way to establish pull production. But it is not the only way. There are many different methods to create a pull system. This blog post is loosely based on my new book All About Pull Production: Designing, Implementing, and Maintaining Kanban, CONWIP, and other Pull Systems in Lean Production, which is a practical guide for anyone looking to implement pull systems. Let me give you an overview.
This is a Cross-Post with the (almost) identical article 7 tools to establish pull production on Planet Lean.
The release of Christoph Roser’s new book All About Pull Production inspires John Shook to discuss the origins and true meaning of “pull” and why it is incorrect to blame JIT for the shortcomings of global supply chains.
Guest post by John Shook based on his foreword in my book, and also a Cross-Post with Planet Lean. Many thanks, John!
Maintenance is good. Maintenance is useful. But like all other tools, the wrong type of maintenance can cause more problems than it wants to solve. Hence, in this post I would like to point out some of the flaws of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). Don’t get me wrong. TPM is useful and has its strengths, but it also has its weaknesses. You need to know both to use TPM properly. I am looking forward to your input in the comments, as I am sure I will learn something.
In this post I will finally go into more details on reactive maintenance. I already explained in my last post that I am missing the reactive maintenance in the eight pillars of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), as well as preventive maintenance being often the better approach. The goal of reactive maintenance is to resolve breakdowns quickly to minimize the delay. This often includes a spare-parts management to decide which spare parts to keep in stock and which ones to order. It also helps to get a better understanding of your system to know what you are more likely to need and what not. A good analogy is the fire department, where speed is also (or even more) critical. Let’s look at the details:
In the last few posts I went in detail through the eight pillars of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). However, looking at this framework of eight pillars, besides having a few pillars too many, I am sorely missing one very important pillar: Reactive Maintenance! How do you fix stuff after it breaks? If I create a structured approach for maintenance, reactive maintenance would be one of the key points, yet it is completely absent in the TPM framework. This is in my opinion one of the flaws of TPM. I am looking forward to receiving your responses or rebuttals. I am sure I will learn more about maintenance through your comments. In any case, let me explain my view.
I also will go a bit into when to do reactive and when to do preventive maintenance. In my next post I will go into greater detail on how to do reactive maintenance.
This post continues the series on the pillars of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). Here we look at the last four pillars: quality, training, administrative, and safety. However, I find those pillars weaker than the first four. While the topics are important, in my view they should not be separate pillars. I think these topics are either better placed elsewhere (administrative) or should be integral part of all the other pillars (quality, training, and safety). Hence, I believe this is a weaker part of the TPM framework, and I won’t go into as much details as the previous pillars. In any case, let’s have a look. But feel free to disagree! I am looking forward to your comments, as I will surely learn something from them.