Key takeaways
Short answer: MRP and kanban are two fundamentally different ways to control production and materials. MRP — Material Requirements Planning — calculates what to make and buy from a forecast and bills of materials, then pushes production to a computed schedule. Kanban pulls replenishment from real downstream consumption: nothing is produced until a signal says it has been used. MRP is push and plan-driven; kanban is pull and demand-driven. They suit different demand patterns, and many plants use both. For the pull mechanics, see push vs pull production.
Material Requirements Planning is a push, plan-driven system. It starts from a master production schedule (forecast and orders for finished products), explodes the bills of materials to calculate every component requirement, nets against inventory, and time-phases purchase and production orders — then pushes that plan to the floor. MRP's strength is handling complexity: it can plan many products with deep, multi-level bills of materials, long and varying lead times, and lumpy demand, computing exactly what is needed and when across the whole structure. It is calculation-driven and forward-looking, building a schedule from predicted demand. Its weakness is its dependence on the accuracy of that plan — forecasts, bills of materials, lead times, and inventory records all have to be right, or the plan pushes the wrong things. MRP plans centrally and pushes; it is powerful for complex planning but only as good as its data.
Kanban is a pull, demand-driven system. Rather than computing a schedule and pushing it, kanban lets actual downstream consumption trigger replenishment: when a step uses a part, a kanban signal authorizes the upstream step to make or supply a replacement — no more, no less. Nothing is produced until real demand pulls it. Kanban's strength is simplicity and responsiveness for steady, repetitive demand: it needs no complex calculation, ties production tightly to real consumption, caps inventory, and exposes problems fast. Its weakness is that it assumes reasonably steady, predictable demand and short lead times — kanban regulates flow against whatever demand it sees, so it handles lumpy, highly variable, or long-lead-time demand poorly, transmitting spikes upstream rather than planning for them. Kanban controls the floor with simple signals; it excels at steady repetitive flow but is not a planning system for complex, variable demand.
The core distinction is push versus pull, plan versus demand. MRP pushes production to a centrally-computed plan derived from forecast demand; kanban pulls production from real, actual consumption at the point of use. MRP looks forward and calculates; kanban reacts to what just happened. This drives their different strengths: MRP's planning power handles complexity, variability, and long lead times that kanban cannot, while kanban's simplicity and tight demand-coupling beat MRP's plan-driven push for steady, repetitive items where a forecast-driven schedule just adds inventory and lag. They are not really competitors so much as tools for different demand profiles — and, importantly, different layers. MRP plans; kanban executes. Confusing them, or forcing one onto demand it does not suit, is a common error: MRP on simple steady flow over-plans, kanban on complex variable demand under-plans.
A plant makes a complex product with hundreds of components, some with long overseas lead times, and variable customer demand. MRP fits the planning: it explodes the bills of materials, accounts for the long lead times, and computes when to order each component and start each sub-assembly to meet the schedule — a calculation kanban could never do, because the long-lead, variable items must be planned ahead, not pulled reactively. But within that product, certain common, cheap, steadily-used components flow through the final assembly at a constant rate. For those, kanban fits the execution: a simple pull loop replenishes them from the supermarket as assembly consumes them, with no MRP order churn. So the plant uses MRP to plan the complex, long-lead, variable materials and kanban to execute the steady, repetitive ones — each where it fits.
The worked example points to the common, powerful answer: many plants combine MRP and kanban rather than choosing one. MRP handles the high-level planning — the complex bills of materials, long-lead purchasing, and overall production schedule — providing the forward plan that complex, variable, long-lead demand requires. Kanban handles the shop-floor execution of the steady, repetitive items, pulling them simply against real consumption without burdening MRP with constant order churn for high-volume staples. This hybrid plays to each system's strength: MRP's planning power for the things that must be planned ahead, kanban's pull simplicity for the things that flow steadily. The decoupling is usually by item characteristic — plan the lumpy, long-lead, complex items with MRP; pull the steady, short-lead, high-volume items with kanban. The result is a planning system that is both capable of complexity and lean in execution, rather than forcing everything through one approach.
Both systems plan against capacity that depends on OEE. MRP computes a schedule assuming the floor can produce at a certain rate; if real OEE is well below the assumption, the MRP plan pushes more than the line can make and the dates slip, the same capacity gap behind finite scheduling. Kanban, on the pull side, depends on equipment reliability differently: a tight kanban loop is unforgiving of downtime, because the thin buffer starves the next step quickly when a machine stops — so kanban exposes OEE losses immediately, the same dynamic as pull production. Either way, grounding the plan or the kanban sizing in real OEE-adjusted capacity is what keeps production control matched to what the floor can actually deliver.
Fabrico supplies the real capacity and reliability that both MRP planning and kanban execution depend on. For MRP, its live OEE reveals whether the line can produce at the rate the schedule assumes, so the plan is realistic rather than optimistic. For kanban, its downtime data shows whether equipment is reliable enough to run the thin buffers a pull loop requires, or whether poor availability is forcing larger kanban quantities as insurance. Either way, it grounds production control in what the floor genuinely delivers. Book a demo to base planning and pull on real capacity.
MRP (Material Requirements Planning) calculates what to make and buy from a forecast and bills of materials, then pushes production to a schedule. Kanban pulls replenishment from real downstream consumption — nothing is made until a signal says it is needed. MRP is push and plan-driven; kanban is pull and demand-driven.
Use kanban for steady, repetitive, short-lead-time items where simple pull replenishment beats a forecast-driven schedule. Use MRP for complex products with deep bills of materials, long lead times, and lumpy or variable demand that must be planned ahead rather than pulled reactively.
Yes, and many plants do. MRP handles high-level planning — complex bills of materials, long-lead purchasing, the overall schedule — while kanban handles shop-floor execution of steady, repetitive items. Plan the lumpy, long-lead items with MRP; pull the steady, high-volume ones with kanban.
MRP is a push system: it computes a production and purchasing plan from forecast demand and bills of materials, then pushes that schedule to the floor. Kanban, by contrast, is a pull system that triggers production from real downstream consumption.
Both depend on capacity that OEE determines. MRP's schedule assumes a production rate; poor OEE makes it optimistic and the dates slip. Kanban's thin buffers are unforgiving of downtime, so poor OEE starves the line quickly. Grounding both in real OEE-adjusted capacity keeps them realistic.
Programați o întâlnire individuală cu experții noștri sau înscrieți-vă direct în planul nostru gratuit.
Nu este nevoie de card de credit!
Login
Blog
