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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I worked for Ford 18 years ago. They were well aware of these production systems. They knew Toyota was a leader and they always compared themselves with Toyota. I think, their problems are more complex than this.
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.