{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

        
User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • Regulated Industries
    • Research & Tech
    • Quality Improvement Tools
    • People Management
    • Metrology
    • Manufacturing
    • Roadshow
    • QMS & Standards
    • Statistical Methods
    • Resource Management
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • Regulated Industries
    • Research & Tech
    • Quality Improvement Tools
    • People Management
    • Metrology
    • Manufacturing
    • Roadshow
    • QMS & Standards
    • Statistical Methods
    • Supply Chain
    • Resource Management
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

Competing Definitions and Outcomes

The West’s limited understanding and uninhibited tweaking of lean

Gwendolyn Galsworth

Visual Thinking

Wed, 07/27/2016 - 11:32
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body

Does lean have a clearly delineated limit? When a company starts out on that path, should it expect an endpoint, a completion, an arrival? Is it a forever commitment, or is it a bounded outcome that companies can achieve and then move on? In short, is lean a destination or a process?

These aren't philosophical questions but practical, hard-nosed issues that a company must address before it can legitimately commit to a journey of change—or before it can be confidently be ready to invest the considerable resources such a journey will entail. Let’s examine the current state of lean in this regard—or should we say the current “array of runaway lean.”

The journey started for me in 1983, the year I joined Productivity Inc. as its lead consultant and principal developer of methods coming out of Toyota. Back then just-in-time (JIT) production ruled—grounded in a handful of very specific Toyota-based methods: quality at the source (an approach to mistake proofing); single-minute exchange of dies (SMED), and quick changeover; producing to takt time; and pull or kanban systems. Interestingly, cellular design and standard work went unnoticed at the time. They were too deeply embedded, and it would be several more years before they were specifically noted or named.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password
Top Stories
All Whys Are Not The Same
AI May Be Making Your Quality Problem Worse
Flying Blind: What Your Quality Data Miss Every Shift
The 6 Best Quality Management Software Features That Simplify Your QMS
Momentum Technologies Achieves Record Purity Milestones for Rare Earths

Add new comment

Please login to comment.

© 2026 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us