<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lean Inventories Do Not Excuse Failing to Deliver</title>
	<atom:link href="http://management.curiouscatblog.net/2009/11/20/lean-inventories-do-not-excuse-failing-to-deliver/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://management.curiouscatblog.net/2009/11/20/lean-inventories-do-not-excuse-failing-to-deliver/</link>
	<description>Management Improvement focused on Deming, lean thinking, innovation, customer focus, six sigma, etc.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:35:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruce Baker</title>
		<link>http://management.curiouscatblog.net/2009/11/20/lean-inventories-do-not-excuse-failing-to-deliver/comment-page-1/#comment-34406</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce Baker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://management.curiouscatblog.net/?p=1368#comment-34406</guid>
		<description>I think kanbans were developed for the purpose of assuring that you always had what you need.  I think the intent of standardized work in process is to assure A MINIMUM swip to allow uninterupted production in support of demand.  It has been my experience that a lot of people want to &#039;go lean&#039; to &#039;get the inventory out.&#039;  You can only do this after you reduce lead and increase stability.  To much internal focus (like inventory levels and costs) without an external view - preferably from the customers frame of reference - kind of defeats the &#039;intent of lean.&#039;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think kanbans were developed for the purpose of assuring that you always had what you need.  I think the intent of standardized work in process is to assure A MINIMUM swip to allow uninterupted production in support of demand.  It has been my experience that a lot of people want to &#8216;go lean&#8217; to &#8216;get the inventory out.&#8217;  You can only do this after you reduce lead and increase stability.  To much internal focus (like inventory levels and costs) without an external view &#8211; preferably from the customers frame of reference &#8211; kind of defeats the &#8216;intent of lean.&#8217;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim McMahon</title>
		<link>http://management.curiouscatblog.net/2009/11/20/lean-inventories-do-not-excuse-failing-to-deliver/comment-page-1/#comment-34405</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim McMahon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:07:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://management.curiouscatblog.net/?p=1368#comment-34405</guid>
		<description>Sounds like a lack of a customer focus.  What did they do to understand the demand of the market?  Where they too concerned with there own numbers to look at what the customer wanted.  I agree lean thinking helps you avoid this type of sitution when done right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds like a lack of a customer focus.  What did they do to understand the demand of the market?  Where they too concerned with there own numbers to look at what the customer wanted.  I agree lean thinking helps you avoid this type of sitution when done right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

