> The philosophy of JIT is simple - inventory is defined to be waste. JIT
> inventory systems expose the hidden causes of inventory keeping and are
> therefore not a simple solution a company can adopt; there is a whole
> new way of working the company must follow in order to manage its
> consequences. The ideas in this way of working come from many different
> disciplines including statistics, industrial engineering, production
> management and behavioral science. In the JIT inventory philosophy there
> are views with respect to how inventory is looked upon, what it says
> about the management within the company, and the main principle behind JIT.
>
> Inventory is seen as incurring costs, or waste, instead of adding value,
> contrary to traditional accounting. This does not mean to say JIT is
> implemented without an awareness that removing inventory exposes
> pre-existing manufacturing issues. Under this way of working, businesses
> are encouraged to eliminate inventory that does not compensate for
> manufacturing issues, and then to constantly improve processes so that
> less inventory can be kept. Secondly, allowing any stock habituates the
> management to stock keeping and it can then be a bit like a narcotic.
> Management are then tempted to keep stock there to hide problems within ...

> In short, the just-in-time inventory system is all about having “the
> right material, at the right time, at the right place, and in the exact
> amount”, without the safety net of inventory. The JIT system has
> implications of which are broad for the implementors.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_In_Time_(business)
>
> I wonder if you also could define knowledge to be waste. Knowledge is
> also a kind of inventory

>> I wonder if you also could define knowledge to be waste. Knowledge is
>> also a kind of inventory

>
> If you consider knowledge as being composed of distinct units, this
> comparison might hold. Or that each unit of specific knowledge is only
> useful at a specific time for a specific purpose then after use it is no
> longer needed until called upon again...
>
> But what is the relationship between knowledge and understanding? Can
> understanding be thought of as specific units? Or, does understanding
> actually break down any units of knowledge into integrated concept(s)?
>
> Using this physical analogy.. Maybe understanding is to knowledge as a
> system is to a system unit. No knowledge, no system.