

How Toyota outproduces Ford - rasmus4200
http://rasmusson.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/batch-vs-continuous-flow-processing/
A simple graphical example of the manufacturing process Toyota uses to outproduce Ford.
======
crux_
Perhaps this should be "outproduced"..... these ideas are, at this point,
creaky and ancient. I'd be willing to concede that they may have been an
advantage in the '70s.

Heck, you could paraphrase it as "What Henry Ford did, but even more so!"

Edit: with a bit more thought: The example is completely contrived and
misleadingly false. For "batch" processing you have 30 person-minutes. For
continuous flow processing: 30 person-minutes as well. The example cheats by
throwing two extra people at it.

~~~
rasmus4200
No, the example doesn't cheat. You hit on the point of the example.

With batch processing, and large levels of inventory you have a lot of idle
inventory (waste).

Adding two extra people to work on the idle inventory (instead of having it
sit there) isn't cheating.It's not letting inventory sit idle, build up, and
collect defects because of a bad production run.

~~~
crux_
But if you have two extra people working, then you could do each 'batch' step
in 3 1/3 minutes, not 10. If the point was "all else being equal, continuous
processing is faster" then it cheats: all else is _not_ equal in the examples
given.

If the point was about idle inventory, specialization, risk mitigation,
etc.... then it would be nice if it had mentioned those aspects instead of
focusing specifically, and misleadingly, on throughput.

All else being equal, throughput will be equal as well. Continuous processes
will produce their first products much more quickly than batch processing, but
the time to completely finish the same volume (again: what the examples
focused on!) will be the same as batch processing plus the extra time added
while the late steps are idle, waiting on the early ones.

~~~
rasmus4200
Yes I see what you saying now.

Yes I agree. The throughput will be the same. Regardless of batch or
continuous.

I do agree the title is miss leading. The example in the post compares and
contrasts the two systems, but does not demonstrate more production.

Thx for pointing that out.

------
sdurkin
If you want to know how Toyota outproduces Ford, go pick up a copy of the book
The Machine that Changed the World. It outlines all of Toyota's lean
production methods.

Continuous flow processing doesn't even scratch the surface of how far ahead
Toyota is with Lean.

------
astine
If I understand correctly, the description is off. Ford pioneered the assembly
line which outputs cars one at time through a continuous flow. Japan's
innovations have more to due with labor management if I recall.

------
dangoldin
Does this remind anyone else of pipelining in computer processor design?

This article brings me back..

------
kingkongrevenge
Well golly, maybe Ford should pay this guy a million dollars to explain it to
them. Apparently they're all retarded and don't employ any logistics experts
or industrial engineers.

The #1 reason Toyota generally outperforms Ford is that Toyota is not burdened
with an extremely expensive and aging union work force.

>* is more efficient - less material lying around >* reduces costs - less
inventory

Left off: *Leaves the whole line catastrophically vulnerable to supply chain
disruptions and equipment failures.

A lot of these JIT oriented production methods and floorspace optimizations
associated with Japan are presented as clear win innovations. The truth is
that historically Japanese plants had tight warehousing and floor space
constraints and had to optimize for that. If you're not so constrained they're
often silly ideas.

~~~
gibsonf1
The genius of Toyota is that they now operate fundamentally on the "pull"
system, where customer demand pulls to have products created rather than the
traditional approach of "pushing" products on the consumer and hoping there
will be demand for them.

Using the pull concept, Toyota redefined their entire management system to
create only customer value when that value was demanded, and eliminate all
waste: Lean Management. They have taken the idea to such extremes now that if
you need spare parts at a Toyota dealer, you will find that only a few parts
are stocked, and when the stock runs low they produce new parts on demand.
These guys are unbeatable using the old way of doing business - they can do
their work with this approach twice as fast with half the labor required and
radically higher quality.

Several other manufacturers have taken on Lean as well, such as Porsche. For
those who don't, it will only be a downhill slide into oblivion against the
Lean competition.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
Supply chain management is an advanced field. Inventory levels are computed to
an optimum from many inputs.

This buzzword cheerleading for "pull" and "lean" is just silly. Some
consultant types want to sell books and conferences with tidy little concepts.

Very low inventory means no buffer. 9/11 or Katrina shuts you down completely.

