Comments on: This Year’s WSJ "JIT"-Bashing Article, Again Misguided http://www.leanblog.org/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article/ Mark Graban's leanblog.org - Lean Healthcare, Lean Thinking, Lean Manufacturing, Toyota Production System Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:01:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: NPR Does a Great Job of Covering Toyota — Lean Blog http://www.leanblog.org/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article/#comment-22906 NPR Does a Great Job of Covering Toyota — Lean Blog Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:28:53 +0000 http://leanblog.bigbigdesign.net/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article-again-misguided/#comment-22906 [...] hand it to NPR, they generally do a much better job understanding and covering Toyota than the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, or [...] [...] hand it to NPR, they generally do a much better job understanding and covering Toyota than the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, or [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: WSJ Wrongly Blames Apple Inventory Problems on “Lean Manufacturing” — Lean Blog http://www.leanblog.org/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article/#comment-11498 WSJ Wrongly Blames Apple Inventory Problems on “Lean Manufacturing” — Lean Blog Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:56:17 +0000 http://leanblog.bigbigdesign.net/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article-again-misguided/#comment-11498 [...] WSJ has a habit of blaming lean, often referring to “just in time,” for inventory shortages. Can’t meet customer demand? Must be JIT’s fault. Don’t [...] [...] WSJ has a habit of blaming lean, often referring to “just in time,” for inventory shortages. Can’t meet customer demand? Must be JIT’s fault. Don’t [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: The Impact of Toyota’s Quality Problems on “Lean Healthcare”? — Lean Blog http://www.leanblog.org/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article/#comment-7091 The Impact of Toyota’s Quality Problems on “Lean Healthcare”? — Lean Blog Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:15:38 +0000 http://leanblog.bigbigdesign.net/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article-again-misguided/#comment-7091 [...] While the term “lean” has negative connotations, one advantage of defining a term lean and a set of principles is that we can separate “what Toyota does” from the lean methodology. The Wall Street Journal, once again, demonstrates that their writers don’t understand lean at all. Normally, each year, they trot out their article about how “just in time” doesn’t work. [...] [...] While the term “lean” has negative connotations, one advantage of defining a term lean and a set of principles is that we can separate “what Toyota does” from the lean methodology. The Wall Street Journal, once again, demonstrates that their writers don’t understand lean at all. Normally, each year, they trot out their article about how “just in time” doesn’t work. [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog » 2009 Annual Management Blog Review Part 2 http://www.leanblog.org/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article/#comment-6232 Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog » 2009 Annual Management Blog Review Part 2 Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:46:30 +0000 http://leanblog.bigbigdesign.net/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article-again-misguided/#comment-6232 [...] This Year’s WSJ “JIT”-Bashing Article by Mark Graban [...] [...] This Year’s WSJ “JIT”-Bashing Article by Mark Graban [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Mark Graban http://www.leanblog.org/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article/#comment-4982 Mark Graban Tue, 19 May 2009 12:09:00 +0000 http://leanblog.bigbigdesign.net/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article-again-misguided/#comment-4982 After emailing the reporter, I received a response from the Wall Street Journal indicating this article was intending to refer to JIT in "a wider range of practices than the precise ones pioneered by Toyota." The responder from the WSJ said the reference was in this "broader sense".<br /><br />"Broader sense" as in incorrect?<br /><br />Or as incorrect as JIT is typically thrown about by manufacturing people who don't know any better??? After emailing the reporter, I received a response from the Wall Street Journal indicating this article was intending to refer to JIT in “a wider range of practices than the precise ones pioneered by Toyota.” The responder from the WSJ said the reference was in this “broader sense”.

“Broader sense” as in incorrect?

Or as incorrect as JIT is typically thrown about by manufacturing people who don’t know any better???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: micahtc http://www.leanblog.org/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article/#comment-4979 micahtc Mon, 18 May 2009 18:55:00 +0000 http://leanblog.bigbigdesign.net/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article-again-misguided/#comment-4979 Precisely. One major inhibitor to more demand-driven "lean" supply chains is that lowest-cost manufacturers are also usually poorly integrated into supply-demand information systems. These are the companies building all the products that we consume at retail. There is a huge overcapacity in China – for consumer electronics especially – and thus we have a heavily cost-competitive and fragmented stage of the supply chain. <br /><br />Lowest-cost manufacturers typically have very poorly diversified customer portfolios, since they specialize to drive down costs... and thus they have very little ability to find alternate channels for long-lead-time raw materials for instance when one particular customer or segment's demand goes south. <br /><br />Long-lead, and usually higher cost components, like those of Zoran, are the hot potato in the supply chain. No one wants that inventory on their books. <br /><br />Only the very large initial orders with long-times are amply supplied, it is more typical that part shortages result... as there is typically a material rush/scramble routine to handle any unexpected jumps in a retailers' ordering habits.<br /><br />What happened in recent quarters has been fear entering everyone's minds. BBY signalling major consumer demand shortfalls rippled like hell thru the chain and the suppliers of the hot potato component end up the one holding onto the high cost inventory. <br /><br />My personal feeling on this matter is that this is exactly who SHOULD be stuck with the material, as it's the point in the supply chain that the component cost is the smallest. Zoran seems to take on a "victim" mentality in the article which is pathetic. It's their business! You are not a victim of your own core business. Rather, Zoran should amp up their own demand intelligence, and work with retailers directly to predict demand, without relying on supply chain intermediaries who they don't control.<br /><br />Further, Best Buy (and other big-box retailers) must recognize that the entire CE supply chain is their ecosystem. Technology partners who innovate and are known to deliver best in class technology should be nurtured and engaged with strategic demand reviews. Further, suppliers in the chain should be held to higher standard of supply transparency for the downstream, and demand transparency for their upstream. The gaps in sourcing that BBY will encounter as their demand picture improves will highlight the benefits of this as they help the industry liquidate older good in the place of newer goods they can't get their hands on due to material shortages on strategic parts.<br /><br /><br />I was just in a meeting where lead-times on components were discussed with a silicon vendor. Their sales engineer reluctantly mentioned that lead-times are usually 4 weeks if there is stock, but for a large initial order, it could be 16 to 60 weeks if it requires them to spin up a recently shutdown fab. Ugh. Precisely. One major inhibitor to more demand-driven “lean” supply chains is that lowest-cost manufacturers are also usually poorly integrated into supply-demand information systems. These are the companies building all the products that we consume at retail. There is a huge overcapacity in China – for consumer electronics especially – and thus we have a heavily cost-competitive and fragmented stage of the supply chain.

Lowest-cost manufacturers typically have very poorly diversified customer portfolios, since they specialize to drive down costs… and thus they have very little ability to find alternate channels for long-lead-time raw materials for instance when one particular customer or segment’s demand goes south.

Long-lead, and usually higher cost components, like those of Zoran, are the hot potato in the supply chain. No one wants that inventory on their books.

Only the very large initial orders with long-times are amply supplied, it is more typical that part shortages result… as there is typically a material rush/scramble routine to handle any unexpected jumps in a retailers’ ordering habits.

What happened in recent quarters has been fear entering everyone’s minds. BBY signalling major consumer demand shortfalls rippled like hell thru the chain and the suppliers of the hot potato component end up the one holding onto the high cost inventory.

My personal feeling on this matter is that this is exactly who SHOULD be stuck with the material, as it’s the point in the supply chain that the component cost is the smallest. Zoran seems to take on a “victim” mentality in the article which is pathetic. It’s their business! You are not a victim of your own core business. Rather, Zoran should amp up their own demand intelligence, and work with retailers directly to predict demand, without relying on supply chain intermediaries who they don’t control.

Further, Best Buy (and other big-box retailers) must recognize that the entire CE supply chain is their ecosystem. Technology partners who innovate and are known to deliver best in class technology should be nurtured and engaged with strategic demand reviews. Further, suppliers in the chain should be held to higher standard of supply transparency for the downstream, and demand transparency for their upstream. The gaps in sourcing that BBY will encounter as their demand picture improves will highlight the benefits of this as they help the industry liquidate older good in the place of newer goods they can’t get their hands on due to material shortages on strategic parts.

I was just in a meeting where lead-times on components were discussed with a silicon vendor. Their sales engineer reluctantly mentioned that lead-times are usually 4 weeks if there is stock, but for a large initial order, it could be 16 to 60 weeks if it requires them to spin up a recently shutdown fab. Ugh.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Peter P Patterson, MD MBA http://www.leanblog.org/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article/#comment-4978 Peter P Patterson, MD MBA Mon, 18 May 2009 18:27:00 +0000 http://leanblog.bigbigdesign.net/2009/05/this-years-wsj-jit-bashing-article-again-misguided/#comment-4978 GR8 post Mark. <br />I have no claim to be expert in supply chains, but it does make you wonder if the article were titled "Communication is Missing Link ..." if that might better point to what is actually the problem. Better yet how about "Transparency is Missing Link ...". <br />/Dr. Pete GR8 post Mark.
I have no claim to be expert in supply chains, but it does make you wonder if the article were titled “Communication is Missing Link …” if that might better point to what is actually the problem. Better yet how about “Transparency is Missing Link …”.
/Dr. Pete

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>