Talk:Lean dynamics

Advertisement

I'm concerned that this article is based almost entirely upon books, and that we have few if any independent, reliable sources about lean dynamics at all. Have we met notability criteria? --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this article and saw your concerns... I think this is a great topic that has been gaining strength for several years, and (surprisingly) even has some popular culture connections. I'll try to contribute some background if that will help.LnCnslt (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the lean manufacturing article adds an 8th form of "waste" based on one book--so I'm surprised to see your comment that multiple reputable books and articles cited here do not constitute independent, reliable sources... could you please explain the standard based on this discrepancy?Nabiw1 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that some of the books may not be reliable sources and that the topic itself may not meet WP:N criteria. See WP:SPS. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Two key sources are books published by John Wiley & Sons -- one of the largest publishers in the world, known for highly-regarded academic publications--per Wikipedia's article (this source includes praise by James Womack on the back cover, and was awarded the Shingo Prize, which is listed in Wikipedia...). Another is AMACOM, a division of American Management Association, which has been one of the highest regarded sources of management materials since the early 1900s. Not sure how these and other similar sources don't meet the reliable sources criteria. If not, suggest that much of the other material in this general topic area (lean manufacturing), which solely rely on similarly-credentialed publishers, be deleted as well.Nabiw1 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please identify which sources you're talking about? Do they actually mention "lean dynamics?" --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. The book titled, "Breaking the Cost Barrier: A Proven Approach to Managing and Implementing Lean Manufacturing", Wiley, ISBN 0-471-38136-5 describes the history behind this concept. The term, "lean dynamics" is used throughout the book: "Going Lean: How the Best Companies Apply Lean Manufacturing Principles to Shatter Uncertainty, Drive Innovation, and Maximize Profits", AMACOM, ISBN 0-8144-1057-X. I appreciate your interest in this.Nabiw1 (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Breaking the Cost Barrier looks to be a good source.

Is there anything older than Going Lean that uses the phrase "lean dynamics" to describe this approach? --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that I could find. I did find a number of sources that have used it more recently though. Also, I always looked at American Management Association as a solid source--should I be concerned with that? Going Lean seems to have been validated by credible sources, including strong reviews from business journals and organizations like ASQ.Nabiw1 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So, is "lean dynamics" a neologism then? --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it certainly doesn't meet the definition of "... not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people...". It has been clearly defined, and is consistently and broadly used. It appears to be recognized by a large number of universities (its easy to validate that hundreds of universities have these reference books in their libraries), and sources across different industries refer to this term in a consistent manner (from aerospace to medical journals).Nabiw1 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Also showing up in Microsoft parlance as per their ERP offering--which goes beyond books and print media. I also believe I saw them reference the Going Lean book.FrankAdvice (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Wasn't the term "lean" only introduced by a book (albeit 20 years ago)?FrankAdvice (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is correct.Nabiw1 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference is the 20 years and the many, many sources showing that "lean" is not a neologism.

So, what do we have since the publication of Going Lean, not specifically about Going Lean itself, that demonstrates that this is not a neologism?

Additionally, it appears that "lean dynamics" is a trademark. I'm not sure what implications there are for this, if any/

Taken as a whole, I'm concerned that this article is part of the advertising campaign for the book, the phrase "lean dynamics", and the consultants behind both. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that there is a trademark, but based on the public record it applies to educational books on this--not consulting. Based on this you might want to reconsider that last thought... Finally, I have no interest in pursuing this further if you don't think it adds value...

The points from this page might best be merged into lean manufacturing, but I'll leave that to someone else to decide or do...

I have to agree that this page does seem like an advertisement. I'm reading 'Going Lean' right now and the concept of "Lean Dynamics" seems to be fully supported by anecdotes. The "value curve" Ruffa seems to cherish so much is nothing more than a rudimentary ripoff of more complex microeconomics models. Furthermore, if you look carefully, the writing style found on this page looks extremely similar to that of Stephen Ruffa's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.118.18 (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems Like an Ad to Me

Hey, we've coined several cool Lean manufacturing tool/approach names over the years but they have never been published on Wikipedia. This appears to be a working attempt at getting a powerful link from Wikipedia. Google does give links from this site great credibility even though Wikipedia labels them as "no-follow." Searching with an advanced keyword and social media linking tool today is what brought me here! I sure wish I had my links here... just haven't ever been clever enough to get past Ronz! ; - ) Even when I was giving links to free resources not covered in Wikipedia (to my competitors,) Ronz shut me down. Not wishing the Lean Dynamics folks any ill will... but I really don't see this as some stand alone methodology; rather, a brilliant attempt at getting some Google Luv.Jbillh (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lean dynamics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091221071958/http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/article.asp?intArticle_id=823 to http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/article.asp?intArticle_ID=823
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vids2u.net/2009/04/23/jag-season-6-episode-9-family-secrets/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)