DReinertsen
-
@ True for performance shortfalls, but TLF treats excess performance as loss (to company) vs. gain to user. Oversimplified? Yes, IMO
32 minutes ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to machielg
-
@ Great testbed. Very visual + time to reflect. Example: why service 10 sec orders and 2 min orders FIFO in single queue?
7:07 AM Dec 16th
from TweetDeck
in reply to ashleymoran
-
@ (++) IME most waste does not lie in non-value-added activity, but 1) in inactivity 2) in VA activity adding more cost than VA.
6:59 AM Dec 16th
from TweetDeck
in reply to ashleymoran
-
@ We create global waste (queue time/work product inactivity) if we locally optimize a resource by running it at hi utilization.
6:56 AM Dec 16th
from TweetDeck
in reply to ashleymoran
-
@ Sorry, I was unclear. I was referring to time when no value is being added to work product, not inactivity of the resources.
6:51 AM Dec 16th
from TweetDeck
in reply to ashleymoran
-
@ IME most waste lies does not lie in non-value-added activity, but 1) in inactivity 2) in VA activity adding more cost than VA.
6:43 AM Dec 16th
from TweetDeck
in reply to ashleymoran
-
@ Any proxy variable can be dominant source of savings, but we must consider coupling to other variables.
6:39 AM Dec 16th
from TweetDeck
in reply to ashleymoran
-
@ I think it encourages local optimization. We reduce waste of underutilization w/o noticing we increase waste of time in queue.
6:37 AM Dec 16th
from TweetDeck
in reply to ashleymoran
-
@ Your support is always gratefully appreciated. It is particularly valuable since you are both very smart, and very experienced!
6:28 AM Dec 16th
from TweetDeck
in reply to alshalloway
-
@ IMO the focus on waste is classic case of chasing a single proxy variable and failing to see the system and its economic goals
6:22 AM Dec 16th
from TweetDeck
in reply to alshalloway
-
@ It's catchy & helpful in getting people beyond obsession with waste. A useful waypoint on the path, but not the destination.
6:00 PM Dec 15th
from TweetDeck
in reply to alshalloway
-
@ Don't blame me for that one. A trumps B implies smallest amount of A is better than largest amount of B. I trade off A for B
5:39 PM Dec 15th
from TweetDeck
in reply to alshalloway
-
@ SPC does help. A troublemaker would say cheapest way to improve RBE output is to "inspect and correct" defects. -but not me! :)
8:00 AM Dec 15th
from TweetDeck
in reply to benjaminm
-
@ Alternatively you could say we are trying to minimize the combined wastes of "excess capacity/slack" and "queues". (= a tradeoff)
7:49 AM Dec 15th
from TweetDeck
in reply to drunkcod
-
@ Agree. There is great value in the "toy problem". Complex enough to illustrate essence power of a method, but no more.
7:11 AM Dec 15th
from TweetDeck
in reply to joakimsunden
-
@ I have a copy of "Out of Crisis" signed by the Master himself. He is awesome. My comments are only about RBE.
7:07 AM Dec 15th
from TweetDeck
in reply to Huperniketes
-
@ Worker is a variable ... Okay, it is a variable with a transfer function of zero.
7:04 AM Dec 15th
from TweetDeck
in reply to Huperniketes
-
@ In RBE worker is (by design) not a variable. Worker has no effect on output. An interesting construct!
6:52 AM Dec 15th
from TweetDeck
in reply to Huperniketes
-
@ IMO we do SPC because it allows us to efficiently influence valued outcomes. UCL & LCL w/o planned action is pretty useless.
6:48 AM Dec 15th
from TweetDeck
-
@ @ Agree RBE is useful. A dose of pure randomness helps deterministic thinkers. But is 0% controllable realistic?
6:41 AM Dec 15th
from TweetDeck
|
- Name Donald Reinertsen
- Location Redondo Beach CA
- Web http://www.Reiner...
- Bio Product Development Consultant, Author
|
