Int. J.

Production Economics 59 (1999) 53—64

Are push and pull systems really so different?

M.C. Bonney*, Zongmao Zhang, M.A. Head, C.C. Tien, R.J. Barson
Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Operations Management, University of Nottingham, University Park,
Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK

Abstract
A distinction is frequently made between push and pull production planning and control systems. Many people believe
that pull systems are inherently better at reducing stocks because they try to eliminate queues, not provide for them,
whereas push systems encourage queues to cushion operations and to increase work station utilisation but at higher cost.
However, the definitions of push and pull are inconsistent between different researchers. Worse, arguments about
performance are sometimes circular. Thus, if the performance of a pull system is poor then it may be suggested that this is
because the fundamentals of JIT are not being observed, whereas, if the performance of a push system is poor, then that is
a consequence of it being a push system. After defining push and pull systems, this paper examines, by means of
simulation, the effect that push and pull information flows have on system performance, under a variety of conditions. In
particular, the performance of both push and pull information flow systems are considered in conjunction with
high-quality levels, small set-ups and small batches, i.e. the conditions normally associated with JIT continuous
improvement programmes. Similarly, the performance of both push and pull information flow systems are investigated in
the presence of conditions such as large set-up times, which are frequently eliminated as part of a continuous
improvement programme. The question investigated in this study is how system performance is affected by the flow of
control information. The investigation uses models of the material and information flows of push and pull systems to
examine the conditions which affect performance. A production sequence is chosen which consists of ordering materials,
making parts and assembling products which are then despatched to customers. A set of decision rules is used to operate
the systems using different demand and inventory level data.  1999 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights
reserved.

Keywords: Push-pull systems; Material flow; Information flow; Simulation; Petri-nets

1. Introduction system is usually considered to be a typical pull

Many push and pull material control systems
have been implemented. MRP is frequently de-
scribed as a push system. A kanban operated JIT
* Corresponding author. Tel.: #44 115 951 4010; fax: #44
115 951 4000; e-mail: maurice.bonney@nottingham.ac.uk
system. However, closer examination shows that
most practical systems consist of both push and
pull. For example, a system which operates mainly
by local pull control may use a push system to
obtain long lead time items. The Toyota system, the
classical pull system, uses push information flow for
the vehicle and pull information flow based on
kanbans to ensure the availability of other parts on

0925-5273/99/$ - see front matter  1999 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 9 4 - 2
54 M.C. Bonney et al./Int. J. Production Economics 59 (1999) 53—64
the assembly track. Similarly, a MRP system may
use local progress chasing to pull items through the
manufacturing process.
Our study investigated whether there was any
difference in performance as a direct result of using
push or pull information flows. A brief summary of
some published material on push and pull systems
and their performance is presented. From this it is
clear that some inequitable comparisons have been
made. This immediately raises the question of how
push and pull should be defined. This paper pro-
poses definitions related to information flows and
then models several examples of each system. The
performance of each system is then derived and
compared.
2. Some definitions of push and pull systems
It has already been observed that most manufac-
turing control systems are hybrid, i.e. a mixture of
both push and pull. However, this observation is
not very meaningful if the terms push and pull have
been left deliberately vague. In order to clarify the
terms, we examined papers which discussed the
performance of push and pull systems. The papers
are broadly of two kinds: firstly those by authors
who have tried to investigate push and pull systems
by simulation and, secondly those by authors who
have looked more descriptively at manufacturing
systems. Broadly, the former investigate well-de-
fined manufacturing sub-systems whilst the latter
have a wider perspective, perhaps referring to the
whole enterprise. The simulation modelling exam-
ples refer to push and pull to identify the type of
system, but necessarily then go on to define in detail
the rules of operation and other parameters which
describe the system modelled. This makes it very
difficult to compare directly the results of these
studies. Views of some of the authors are now
described:
Lee [1] described procedures for push and pull
as follows:
Push
Jobs on entry into the system are queued at the
first required process. Queue priority is resolved
according to the selected scheduling rule. On
completion of a process, the job proceeds to
subsequent processes on the designated process
route. When all processes are completed the job
exits from the system [1].
Pull
Activities at the process station are triggered by
depleted output kanban stock at the process sta-
tions. Each depleted kanban stock constitutes
a queue unit at the station. Before a job can be
loaded a check is made to ensure that the preced-
ence constraint is satisfied; that is, there must be
sufficient inventory in the output kanban stock
of the upstream processes of that job. If so,
a draw is made from the output kanban stock.
Should this cause the output kanban stock to fall
below the re-order level, the job is queued at that
station [1].
Venkatesh [2] described push and pull as opera-
tional paradigms “In a push system, a preceding
machine produces parts without waiting for a re-
quest from the succeeding machine. On the other
hand, in a pull system a preceding machine pro-
duces parts only after it receives a request from the
succeeding machine”.
Toni et al [3] attempt a classification of push and
pull applied to manufacturing systems. They con-
sider three sub-systems: inventory systems; manu-
facturing priority, material picking and moving
sub-system; production planning sub-system.
Push and pull are distinguished by the source of
the information. In their classification they use the
terms push and pull as in Goddard and Brooks [4];
push means to take action in anticipation of a need,
pull means to take action on request. They say the
logic has been classified by Da Villa [5] as
push"look back and pull"look ahead. In re-
spect of inventory management techniques, push
means launching an order based on previous con-
sumption, conversely pull means to take action on
request and the logic on which an order is launched
is a look ahead one based on requirements. Using
these definitions, they show re-order point to be
a push inventory management technique and ma-
terial requirements planning to be a pull inventory
management technique. They go on to say that it is
not rare to find definitions completely opposite to
 M.C. Bonney et al. /Int. J. Production Economics 59 (1999) 53—64
those given. They say the misunderstanding comes
from missing the distinction between inventory
management sub-systems and priority assignment
sub-systems. Similarly, they classify production
planning techniques according to push and pull
logic with e.g a master production schedule being
push if based on forecasting and pull if based on
orders.
Villa and Watanabe [6] present descriptive char-
acterisations of push and pull, e.g. commenting that
“existing approaches in Japan and the West to
managing production orders are clearly different.
The former aims at assuring lean production, flow-
ing without waste, where each stage of the manu-
facturing process pulls the supply of items and
resources according to needs. The latter forces
management to plan for fat production against the
risk of stock-out, so the loading conditions at each
stage in the manufacturing process have to be
pushed by suitable plans”.
Kenworthy and Little [7] present the following
comments: “MRP II and kanban are frequently
regarded as competing techniques, with proponents
of kanban disparagingly referring to MRP II as
a push technique, implying that materials are
pushed into production faster than they emerge as
finished goods, thus leading to high work in pro-
gress. Kanban in contrast, is described as a pull
technique because the kanban signal or card pulls
material forward only when it is required by the
next stage of production”.
BS 5192 [8] defines push and pull as follows:
Push system: System of ordering in which orders
are issued for completion by specified due-dates,
based on estimated lead times.
Pull system: System of ordering in which a fixed
stock is held of every item and orders are issued for
the immediate replacement of any items which are
removed from stock. Examples of pull systems are
base stock control and kanban.
These definitions and the description in the pre-
vious section show that there is little consistency in
how the terms are defined. Sometimes the emphasis
is placed on inventory replenishment, sometimes
on lead times, sometimes on scheduling methods
sometimes on lean production and sometimes on
the source of information on which the logic is
based.
55
3. Definitions used in this investigation
In this paper the definitions of push and pull
systems are based on the information flows used for
control. Simulation models of systems with these
information flows were constructed and the perfor-
mance of each was then investigated under care-
fully defined conditions.
A pull system is one in which the control informa-
tion flow is in the opposite direction to the material
flow.
For a single-stock location the situation is as
shown in Fig. 1 i.e. the standard inventory control
situation. A replenishment order is generated when
items are taken from stock. For multiple stock
locations replenishment orders cascade through the
stock locations as shown in Fig. 2. With our defini-
tion, examples of pull systems are ROP and ROC
systems, the base stock system and also various
kanban control systems.
A push system is one in which the control
information flow is in the same direction as the
material flow.
In a push system, instructions can be derived
from one of the following: customers orders, a mas-
ter schedule which consists of customers orders, or
a master schedule based on forecast demand. Each
of these will usually have a due date associated with
it but that date could be “as soon as possible”.
Either forward or backward scheduling (or both)
may be used for planning, but control is forward
against the targets so derived, ie the aim is that
items will reach a particular location by a time
determined by central or local control (e.g. schedule
or priority rules).
The material and information flow of an MRP
system is shown in Fig. 3. In MRP, the gross
Fig. 1. Material and information flow for single-stock location.
56 M.C. Bonney et al./Int. J. Production Economics 59 (1999) 53—64

Fig. 2. Material and information flow for multiple-stock location pull system.

Fig. 3. Material and information flow for push systems.

requirements calculation is derived level by level by
backward scheduling from product to material.
Nevertheless, the control information is from raw
material to product, so that items reach the re-
quired state at the right time. With the definitions
given, make to order systems and MRP are each
push systems.
4. Manufacturing control
Manufacturing control systems have the follow-
ing essential elements: materials flow, the opera-
tions performed, the resources used, information
flow, the decision rules for planning and control
and, finally, the performance measures used. Differ-
ences between (and possibly within) push and pull
systems performance can arise not only from differ-
ences in the information flows but from the decision
rules, the initial conditions (stocks), the demand
characteristics to which the system responds and
the environment within which the system works.
The following steps are involved in manufactur-
ing control:
Pre-planning: This is the process of determining
the operations to be performed to make the part or
product. In this paper it is assumed that the manu-
facturing processes and the material flow for each
product are known. Pre-planning also includes set-
ting up the system and priming the system with
initial stocks so that a kanban control system can
work.
Production Planning: This is the process of decid-
ing what to make and over what planning horizon.
Plans include the master schedule and make-and-
buy instructions for parts, etc. The plans can be
based on real orders or forecast demand and the
planning process may use formal or informal deci-
sion rules. Priorities are chosen either as part of the
planning procedure or by means of separate dis-
patching control routines. Planning can use either
or both forward-and-backward scheduling, e.g. as
in critical path methods.
Action: This is the set of activities to be under-
taken in order to achieve the plans. In the context
of this paper, the activities are the planning and the
manufacturing activities.
Progressing: This is the process of re-setting
priorities in response to unexpected and usually
unwanted occurrences such as scrap, machine
breakdown, etc. Progressing is normally a direct
pull operation but may arise from recalculating
 M.C. Bonney et al. /Int. J. Production Economics 59 (1999) 53—64 57

priorities of work waiting in a queue. In this 5. Scope of the study

investigation it is assumed that no progressing is
required.
Forward Scheduling: This usually occurs from
a given starting time, e.g. now and it may be as-
sumed that one should produce requirements as
soon as possible. If resources are limited then it will
be necessary to set priorities. If coordination is
required, e.g. having components available for as-
sembly, any mishap (causing lateness, poor quality,
etc.) will require progressing the work.
Backward Scheduling: The assumption is that
backward scheduling occurs from a desired com-
pletion time. Typical backward scheduling
methods are incorporated in infinite capacity
(MRP) or finite capacity (MRP II), material re-
quirements planning systems.
The emphasis of push systems is on planning, i.e.
looking ahead to determine what should happen,
whereas the emphasis of pull systems is on pre-
planning, e.g. production starts with pre-planned
levels of stock and demand is smoothed. If the
manufacturing lead time is long relative to the
ordering lead time, the system either has to use
push information flow or have high safety stocks,
for example, at a finished product warehouse. With
short manufacturing lead times, the system used
can be either push or pull. Table 1 shows some
system types, their planning methods and perfor-
mance measures.
Simulation was chosen to investigate some as-
pects of the relative performance of push and pull
information flow systems. The aim was that the
models should be relatively simple but exhibit some
aspects of complexity. The systems chosen could
potentially make two products for each of which
material had to be ordered, parts made and prod-
ucts assembled. As far as possible, the only differ-
ence between the models was the information flow.
The push and pull models are broadly those repre-
sented in Petri-net form in Figs. 4 and 5 which
correspond to the planned and reactive systems
described in Bonney et al. [9]. Two symbols are
used; (*) to represent a place and (") to represent
a transition. A place may be marked, in this case to
represent an order or stock being available. If all
input places to a transition are marked, it can fire,
i.e. an activity takes place. In these diagrams, ob-
tain material, make parts and assemble are timed
transitions representing the time it takes to process
the activity. Referring to Figs. 4 and 5, orders are
generated in the bottom left hand corner. In the
push system, (Fig. 4) this has the effect of marking
the places representing despatch notes and
authorising the raising of an order set which will
eventually mark the places representing material
orders, parts orders and assembly orders. If prod-
uct stock is available then, as both that and the

Table 1
System types and their planning methods

System type Inputs Planning action Performance measures

Push forward Customers orders and/or The orders are the Master Schedule. Choose Completion time, resource
forecast demand Priorities to finish as soon as possible utilisation, queue lengths, number
of orders rejected, MWT etc.,
stocks, cash flows
Push back Customer orders with Create a Master Schedule
delivery dates and/or
forecast demand
Derive scheduled start and end times for each Also performance against plans
operation by backward scheduling
Pull forward Customer orders plus Create a set of prioritised orders As above
planned stock at each
location
Local action maintains planned stocks
58 M.C. Bonney et al./Int. J. Production Economics 59 (1999) 53—64

Fig. 4. UNISON Petri-net model of the push system.

Fig. 5. UNISON Petri-net model of the pull system.

 M.C. Bonney et al. /Int. J. Production Economics 59 (1999) 53—64
despatch notes places are marked, the despatch
transition fires and products are despatched. In the
pull system, (Fig. 5) despatch again occurs when
product stock is available but now a replenishment
assembly kanban is released and so on back
through the system to release material kanbans.
Minor changes are needed to deal with specific
decision rules, e.g. to allow back-ordering or, alter-
natively, to lose orders not satisfied immediately.
A range of different situations was investigated.
These included: make to order, make to forecast,
back-ordering if stock is not available, orders lost if
stock is not available, variability in demand, varia-
bility in processing times, various batching rules,
different master scheduling rules, varying set up
times, etc. One difficulty was how to make equi-
table comparisons. To achieve this, the batch size in
the push system was chosen initially to be the same
as the kanban controlled container size (henceforth
called the kanban size or just the kanban) in the
pull system. The initial stocks in each system were
chosen to be the same and at the same locations.
The generated load arises as a set of “orders” to
which the system is asked to respond. The orders
input to each system were generated using the same
random number seeds. Likewise, the seeds of the
random numbers used to generate the transition
times for material ordering, make parts and prod-
uct assembly, though different from each other
were, respectively, the same in the equivalent push
and pull systems.
A preliminary experiment was performed to test
how the two systems responded to demand for
a single product. The orders placed on the system
were generated by sampling from a uniform distri-
bution in the range of 15—25 (mean of 20 units). One
order of variable size, but with a mean of 20 units,
was generated per hour. The processing times at
each transition were chosen to be constant, respec-
tively, 1, 3 and 1 h for the material order, make
parts and assemble transitions. The kanban size in
pull and the batch size in push, were each set at 20
items. The initial stocks were chosen to be 1 batch
or 1 kanban of material, 3 batches or 3 kanbans of
parts and 1 batch or 1 kanban of products. When
orders arrived, demand not satisfied immediately
from stock was lost. A range of control rules was
used to control production in both the pull and
59
push systems. A kanban was released in the pull
system, or 1 batch of parts issued to the push
system, if the product stock was less than or equal
to the specified control quantity in the control
rules. The control rules thereby allow the simula-
tion model to represent safety stock in both the
push and pull systems. The meaning attached to
issuing a batch of parts through the push system is
that a despatch note is created and also that an
order is released which will take that order require-
ment through the system separately. As soon as
product stock is available to meet the needs of the
despatch note, the product will be despatched. As
had been anticipated, the results obtained from
using the pull and push systems in these highly
constrained situations were the same.
6. Discussion of the experiments
Experiments were performed to see how the dif-
ferent information flow systems responded to
greater internal and external (order size) variability
and to changes in other variables. In each experi-
ment 120 orders were released. Each order corre-
sponded to a demand for approximately 20
products and so the total demand, the sum of the
individual order quantities, is approximately 2400.
Each experiment is outlined and the results dis-
cussed. In Tables 3 and 4 the terms “mat”, “part”
and “pd” are the number of kanbans for material
stock, part stock and product stock in the pull system
and the equivalent initial stocks in the push system.
6.1. Experiments 1, 2 and 3 — demand not satisfied
immediately is lost
The experiments are summarised in Table 2a
and the results are shown in Table 3.
In the first two experiments variability was intro-
duced into the time taken for each transition. In the
first experiment, the same seeds were used so that
the same variability was introduced into each
transition. However, the performance of each sys-
tem was affected because of randomness in the
processing time. The results were that, if the stocks
were the same, more demand was satisfied using
60 M.C. Bonney et al./Int. J. Production Economics 59 (1999) 53—64

Table 2

(a) Simulations performed when back orders not allowed

Experiment Range of order size Push batch size Pull kanban size Special rules

1 15—25 20 20 Same variability in each transition

2 15—25 20 20 Different variability in each transition
3 5—35 20 20 Greater order size variability

(b) Simulations performed when back orders allowed

Experiment Range of order size Push batch size Pull kanban size Special rules

4 15—25 20 20 As expmt 2 but demand backlogged

5 15—25 160 20 Assume MPS"1 day
6 Two products 160 20 Assume MPS"1 day
(a) 15—25 (p"0.7)
(b) 15—25 (p"0.3)

The processing times in hours for 1 batch of 20 were obtained by sampling from a uniform distribution with ranges: 0.9—1.1, 2.7—3.3 and
0.9—1.1 for material ordering, make parts and assemble.

Table 3
Results of experiments 1—3

Experiment Outputs Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3

variables
Control Rules (PdAv)

)5 25 )5 25 )5 35

mat"1 Satisfied demand 1960 2291 1920 2240 1560 2120

Pull part"3 Rejected demand 425 94 465 145 795 235
pd"1 Final stock 20 89 40 40 40 40
mat"1 Satisfied demand 1960 2320 1920 2280 1560 2160
Push part"3 Rejected demand 425 65 465 105 795 195
pd"1 Final stock 20 40 40 40 40 40
mat"1 Satisfied demand 1960 2320 1920 2280 1560 2180
Pull part"4 Rejected demand 425 65 465 105 795 175
pd"1 Final stock 20 40 40 40 40 40
mat"1 Satisfied demand 1560 2180
Push part"4 Rejected demand 795 175
pd"1 Final stock 40 40
mat"2 Satisfied demand 1960 2300
Pull part"3 Rejected demand 425 85
pd"1 Final stock 20 40

a push information flow system. When the number performance, but it still did not match the results of
of part kanbans was increased the performance push.
of the two systems became the same. Increasing In experiment 2, different random numbers were
the number of material kanbans improved the used to introduce different variability into the
 M.C. Bonney et al. /Int. J. Production Economics 59 (1999) 53—64 61

processing time at each operation. As in experiment
1, similar results were obtained if the number of
part kanbans was increased. With 3 batches of part
stock in each system, the push system performed
better in the sense that more demand was satisfied.
In experiment 3, greater order size variability
was introduced (uniform 5,35). Randomness of the
transition times was as in experiment 2. Although
many more orders were rejected by both systems,
the push system satisfied more than the pull. If the
number of kanbans for a part was increased to 4 in
the pull system, then the results were found to be
the same as when the part stock was equal to
4 batches in push.
6.2. Experiments 4 to 6 — demand backlogged
The experiments are summarised in Table 2b
and the results shown in Tables 4—6. In the first
three experiments demand not satisfied immedi-
ately from stock was lost. A more realistic model is
to backlog unsatisfied demand and despatch it
when products become available. With this rule,
both the kanban (pull) and make to order (push)
systems could potentially have delays in satisfying
demand. Experiment 4 found that under equivalent
but restricted stock levels the mean waiting time for
demand to be satisfied was longer for pull systems
than for push but as stock increased, the mean
waiting times became the same. This is shown in
Table 4.
Experiment 5 introduced a simple master pro-
duction schedule into the push system. This sched-
ule was perfect in the sense that it smoothed the
actual daily requirements over the planning hor-
izon of 1 week. The total order quantity (TOQ)
over 1 week is an aggregate of the requirements
represented by the orders for that week. The daily
production requirement was B"TOQ/5 which
was then made in one batch. Because the average
order size was 20, an 8 h day assumed and one
order received per hour, the batch size B was ap-
proximately 160. The results of this rule were then
compared with a pull system which, as before, oper-
ated with a kanban size of 20. The larger batch size
understandably increased work in process stocks
and also increased the manufacturing lead time.
This is indicated in Table 5 where it will be seen
that the push system with larger batch size resulted
in a longer mean waiting time (MWT) for orders to
be satisfied because of the later delivery.
Whereas experiments 1—5 dealt with a single
product, experiment 6 considered the effect of

Table 4
Results of experiment 4

Experiment Outputs Experiment 4

variables Control Rules
(PdAv) )5
Initial Stock
(PdAv)"20

mat"1 Total demand 2385

Pull part"3 Mean waiting time 3.678
pd"1 Final stock 12
mat"1 Total demand 2385
Push part"3 Mean waiting time 2.030
pd"1 Final stock 12
mat"1 Total demand 2385
Pull part"4 Mean waiting time 1.159
pd"1 Final stock 12
mat"1 Total demand 2385
Push part"4 Mean waiting time 1.159
pd"1 Final stock 12
62 M.C. Bonney et al./Int. J. Production Economics 59 (1999) 53—64

Table 5
Results of experiment 5

Experiment 5

Pull Push

Control rules (PdAv)

)R R R R MPS MPS MPS MPS

Initial stock 20 80 160 170 20 80 160 170

Total demand 2385 2385 2385 2385 2385 2385 2385 2385
Mean waiting time 3.678 0.849 0 0 4.334 1.876 0.192 0.114
Final stock 35 95 175 185 30 90 170 180

Table 6
Results of experiment 6

Outputs Type Experiment 6

of part Initial stock: a"112, b"48

Set up time

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Total demand a 1717 1717 1717 1717 1717

b 650 650 650 650 650
Pull Mean waiting time a 0 0.091 0.664 1.870 3.636
b 0 0.015 0.271 1.676 3.716
Final stock a 115 115 115 115 115
b 78 78 78 78 78

Total demand a 1717 1717 1717 1717 1717

b 650 650 650 650 650
Push Mean waiting time a 1.417 1.615 1.852 2.125 2.431
b 0.120 0.168 0.267 0.422 0.597
Final stock a 125 125 125 125 125
b 53 53 53 53 53

producing two products. The situation considered
was where 70% of orders were for product “a” and
30% of the orders were for product “b”. Again the
MPS generated 1 days work but now this was in
the form of two batches, one for “a” and one for
“b”. Set up time was incurred whenever there was
a change from making “a” to making “b” or vice
versa. When set up times were small, the push
information flow system had a longer MWT. The
bigger the set-up times, the poorer became the
performance of both systems. However, because the
batch size chosen in the pull system incurred more
set-ups, the performance of the pull system pro-
gressively deteriorated relative to the push system
as set-up time increased. This illustrates the obvi-
ous point that reducing set up times is important if
one wishes to use small batches. This is illustrated
in Table 6.
 M.C. Bonney et al. /Int. J. Production Economics 59 (1999) 53—64
7. Observations and conclusions
Different results were obtained for the push and
pull systems. Provided that the batch sizes were the
same and orders were released order by order, then
push information systems performed better,
whether measured by demand rejected when no
backlogging occurred or MWT when demand was
backlogged. A related result was that push systems
sometimes required lower stocks to obtain equiva-
lent performance. This probably arose because in
a push system a replenishment order is released
immediately whereas, in the pull system, there may
be a delay when waiting for the kanbans to cascade
back through the system.
The experiments with the kanban pull system
and the make to order push system used the same
initial stocks so as to provide equivalence. How-
ever, some differences are immediately apparent
between the two systems With zero planned stock,
the make to order system would always be able to
satisfy an order even though on occasions it would
be late, whereas, with a zero number of kanbans,
a pull system would not work at all. If a pull system
runs out of stock then a delay occurs equal to the
processing time remaining on the previous replen-
ishment kanban. Over the complete set of manufac-
turing operations, a delay can occur which is not
greater than the sum of the individual processing
times of 1 kanban at each operation. With 1 kan-
ban at each location, the replenishment time would
usually not be more than the processing time of
1 batch at the last operation, but potentially this
could increase. At the extreme, for example, in start
up condition, the replenishment time could be the
sum of the processing times at each operation. As
the number of product kanbans increases, the prob-
ability of satisfying an order, obviously, tends to
one. This suggests that one should be able to calcu-
late the number of orders satisfied as a function of
the number of kanbans. If this is so then one could
calculate the number of kanbans which would
minimise the sum of the stock holding costs and
lost order costs, a somewhat alien approach for pull
systems.
The investigation has touched on the problems
of MRP, the classic push system, at which many
criticisms are levelled. On the other hand, the
63
ROP/ROC pull systems have not been discussed at
all, although their performance could, by changing
the control rules and the kanban size, use the same
simulation model. Initially we compared a single
product make to order push system which started
operating with the same (base) stock as the pull
system (which issued from stock and generated
kanbans for replacement orders). The stocks/batch
sizes, etc., in each system were the same. Then,
provided that information processing times were
the same, which they were because of the constant
processing time at each transition, the performance
of both systems was identical. However, delays in
relaying the pull information can occur when
transition times are variable, and this could affect
the performance of pull relative to push.
If more than one product is made, then schedul-
ing is required. Pull systems potentially have a de-
lay associated with the time taken to make the
kanban of parts and therefore push information
flow systems will in general be better.
Further investigations of multi-product situ-
ations, with different demand patterns and different
methods of choosing a master production schedule,
are needed. When forecasting in a multi-product
situation with long lead time items, the problem
becomes more complex. First, there is the choice of
master production schedule which allows a trade
off between stocks and schedule stability. Second,
both push and pull systems allow the possibility of
aggregation, which may reduce the manufacturing
costs, increase capacity or just increase stocks.
We have provided some insight into the necessity
for reducing set-up times in pull. We believe the
same effort to reduce set-up times should be applied
to push. If so, push appears to be less constrained
than pull, e.g. in response to individual orders or to
wide demand variability. The implication of the
analysis in this paper is that, if lean production
methods are used, then push systems should per-
form at least as well as pull systems provided batch
sizes are not allowed to grow and the resources are
not overloaded. In addition to the improvements
made to manufacturing by the lean production
philosophy, there is also an opportunity to improve
performance further by using scheduling methods.
Finally, the local information processing and vis-
ibility of most practical pull systems probably has
64 M.C. Bonney et al./Int. J. Production Economics 59 (1999) 53—64
an important effect. This was not included in the
models and it may be that this is the reason that the
simulation results are inconsistent with conven-
tional wisdom. On the other hand, although less
commonly used, visual methods of local scheduling
are possible with push.
It is believed that the comparisons that have
been made in this paper provide some insight into
the effect of information flows and, in particular,
indicate that it may be possible to obtain similar
performance improvements with push systems as
have already been produced by pull systems. As the
results are a consequence of using similar condi-
tions, no doubt the same concerted effort will be
required using push control systems as has been
applied to successful pull systems. Perhaps the
question is how to achieve the same commitment
with push systems as has been achieved with the
best pull systems?
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the British
Council support of Zhang Zongmao as a visiting
scholar to the University of Nottingham. Thanks
are also extended to the two referees who provided
many helpful suggestions for improvements to the
original paper.
References
[1] L.C. Lee, A comparative study of the push and pull pro-
ductions systems, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management 9 (4) (1989) 5—18.
[2] K. Venkatesh, M.-C. Zhou, M. Kaighobadi, R. Caudill,
A Petri net approach to investigating push and pull para-
digms in flexible factory automated systems, International
Journal of Production Research 34 (3) (1996) 595—620.
[3] A. Toni De, M. Caputo, A. Vinelli, Production manage-
ment techniques: push — pull classification and application
conditions, International Journal of Operations and Pro-
duction Management 8 (2) (1988) 35—51.
[4] W.E. Goddard, R.B. Brooks, Just-in-time: a goal for MRP
II, Readings in Zero Inventory, Conference Proceedings
APICS, 1984.
[5] F. Da Villa, Programmazione e controllo della produzione,
Etas Libri, 1985, p. 39.
[6] A. Villa, T. Watanabe, Production management: beyond
the dichotomy between ‘push’ and ‘pull’, Computer Integ-
rated Manufacturing Systems 6 (1) (1993) 53—63.
[7] J. Kenworthy, D. Little, When push comes to shove is
MRP II infinite push or finite pull? BPICS Control (1995)
31—32.
[8] BS 5192: Giude to production Control Part I: 1993, British
Standards Institution, London.
[9] M.C. Bonney, N. Huang, M.A. Head, C.C. Tien, R.J.
Barson, Inventory and Enterprise Integration, Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 45 (1996) 91—99.