A push system is a production system that relies on forecasts and schedules to plan the production and distribution of goods and services. A pull system is a production system that responds to actual customer demand and signals to trigger the production and distribution of goods and services. A transition from a push system to a pull system requires a change in the mindset and the processes of the organization, as well as the adoption of new tools and techniques to enable a demand-driven production system12.
One of the tools that is commonly used in a pull system is kanban, which is a visual signal that indicates the need for replenishment of materials or products. Kanban cards are attached to standardized containers that hold a fixed amount of inventory. When a container is empty, the kanban card is sent back to the upstream process as a signal to produce more. This way, the inventory level is controlled by the actual consumption of the downstream process, and the production is synchronized with the demand13.
One of the actions that hinders the transition from a push system to a pull system is using work orders as a backup. Work orders are documents that authorize the production of a certain quantity of a product or a service, based on a forecast or a schedule. Work orders are typical of a push system, as they are not triggered by the actual customer demand, but by the planned production. Using work orders as a backup means that the organization is not fully committed to the pull system, and still relies on the push system to ensure the availability of inventory. This can create confusion, inconsistency, and inefficiency in the production system, as well as increase the inventory holding costs and the risk of obsolescence1 .
Therefore, using work orders as a backup is the correct answer, as it is an action that hinders the transition from a push system to a pull system. The other options are actions that support the transition, as they are aligned with the principles and practices of a pull system.

Point-of-use storage is a stock location system that places inventory close to where it is needed or consumed in the production process. This reduces waste, handling, and transportation costs, and improves material flow and visibility. Point-of-use storage is a key element of a lean environment, where inventory is minimized and replenished frequently based on demand signals. References: EXAM CONTENT MANUAL PREVIEW, page 15, section 7.1.2. Manufacturing Planning and Control for Supply Chain Management: The CPIM Reference, Second Edition, page 462, section 13.3.

Absorption costing is a method of allocating all manufacturing costs to the units produced. It includes both fixed and variable costs in the calculation of the unit cost. In this example, the fixed cost per unit is §10, which is obtained by dividing the total fixed cost of §200,000 by the number of units produced (20,000). This fixed cost per unit is then added to the variable cost per unit to get the total unit cost under absorption costing.
Variable costing, on the other hand, only assigns variable costs to the units produced and treats fixed costs as period costs. Activity-based costing (ABC) is a method of allocating overhead costs to products or services based on the activities they consume. Overhead costing is a general term that refers to any method of assigning overhead costs to products or services. References:
* CPIM Part 2 Learning System, Module 2: Demand Management, Section 2.4: Costing Methods and Cost Behavior
* CPIM Part 2 Learning System, Module 3: Supply, Section 3.5: Cost Management

Substituting capital equipment in place of direct labor can be economically justified for scenario A, where volumes are forecasted to increase. This is because capital equipment can provide higher productivity, efficiency, and quality than direct labor, especially for large-scale and standardized production. Capital equipment can also reduce labor costs, such as wages, benefits, and training, and avoid labor shortages or turnover. However, capital equipment also involves high initial investment, maintenance, and depreciation costs, and may require more skilled workers to operate and monitor. Therefore, the substitution of capital equipment for direct labor should be based on a careful analysis of the trade-offs between the costs and benefits of both alternatives.
Option B is not correct, because material prices are forecasted to increase. This scenario does not directly affect the decision to substitute capital equipment for direct labor, as both alternatives use the same materials.
However, increasing material prices may reduce the profitability of the production, and may require the company to find ways to reduce material usage, such as improving material yield, reducing scrap and rework, or sourcing from cheaper suppliers.
Option C is not correct, because implementing a pull system in production. This scenario does not favor the substitution of capital equipment for direct labor, as a pull system is based on the principle of producing only what is needed by the customer, when it is needed, and in the quantity needed. A pull system requires flexibility, responsiveness, and adaptability to the changing customer demand, which may be better achieved by direct labor than capital equipment. A pull system also aims to minimize inventory, waste, and overproduction, which may reduce the need for capital equipment.
Option D is not correct, because functional layouts are being utilized. This scenario does not support the substitution of capital equipment for direct labor, as functional layouts are based on grouping similar or related processes or machines together, regardless of the product flow. Functional layouts may result in long and complex material flows, high transportation and handling costs, high work-in-process inventory, and low visibility and coordination of the production. Functional layouts may also require more direct labor to move and monitor the materials and machines. Capital equipment may be more suitable for product layouts, where the processes or machines are arranged according to the sequence of operations for a specific product or family of products.
Production and Inventory Management
Capital Equipment and Labor
Facility Layout and Design

Poka-yoke is a Japanese term that means “mistake-proofing”. It is a lean tool that aims to eliminate errors and defects by designing processes or products in such a way that mistakes are either prevented or detected and corrected immediately. Poka-yoke can be applied in various ways, such as using sensors, guides, checklists, alarms, or color-coding, to ensure that the process or product meets the quality standards and customer expectations. One of the benefits of integrating poka-yoke into the production process is that it can be used to prevent defects, which can result in lower costs, higher customer satisfaction, and improved productivity. By avoiding defects, poka-yoke can also reduce waste, rework, inspection, and warranty claims, as well as enhance safety and reliability. References := CPIM Part 2 Exam Content Manual, Version 8.0, ASCM, 2021, p. 29. CPIM Part 2 Learning System, Version 8.0, Module 3, Section C, Topic 2.

In an assemble-to-order (ATO) manufacturing environment, the MPS is used to plan subassemblies and components that have long lead times or high demand variability. These subassemblies and components are produced and stocked in anticipation of customer orders. The end items are only scheduled in the MPS when a customer order is received, and they are assembled from the available subassemblies and components. This reduces the lead time and inventory for the end items, while increasing the flexibility and responsiveness to customer needs. ATO is a hybrid strategy between make-to-stock (MTS) and make-to-order (MTO). Reference := CPIM Exam Content Manual, Module 4: Supply, Section 4.1: Master Production Schedule, p. 14 Manufacturing Planning and Control for Supply Chain Management, Chapter 8: Master Production Scheduling, Section 8.3: Master Production Scheduling in Different Environments, pp. 191-192

Substituting capital equipment in place of direct labor can be economically justified for scenario A, where volumes are forecasted to increase. This is because capital equipment can provide higher productivity, efficiency, and quality than direct labor, especially for large-scale and standardized production. Capital equipment can also reduce labor costs, such as wages, benefits, and training, and avoid labor shortages or turnover. However, capital equipment also involves high initial investment, maintenance, and depreciation costs, and may require more skilled workers to operate and monitor. Therefore, the substitution of capital equipment for direct labor should be based on a careful analysis of the trade-offs between the costs and benefits of both alternatives.
Option B is not correct, because material prices are forecasted to increase. This scenario does not directly affect the decision to substitute capital equipment for direct labor, as both alternatives use the same materials.
However, increasing material prices may reduce the profitability of the production, and may require the company to find ways to reduce material usage, such as improving material yield, reducing scrap and rework, or sourcing from cheaper suppliers.
Option C is not correct, because implementing a pull system in production. This scenario does not favor the substitution of capital equipment for direct labor, as a pull system is based on the principle of producing only what is needed by the customer, when it is needed, and in the quantity needed. A pull system requires flexibility, responsiveness, and adaptability to the changing customer demand, which may be better achieved by direct labor than capital equipment. A pull system also aims to minimize inventory, waste, and overproduction, which may reduce the need for capital equipment.
Option D is not correct, because functional layouts are being utilized. This scenario does not support the substitution of capital equipment for direct labor, as functional layouts are based on grouping similar or related processes or machines together, regardless of the product flow. Functional layouts may result in long and complex material flows, high transportation and handling costs, high work-in-process inventory, and low visibility and coordination of the production. Functional layouts may also require more direct labor to move and monitor the materials and machines. Capital equipment may be more suitable for product layouts, where the processes or machines are arranged according to the sequence of operations for a specific product or family of products.
References:
Production and Inventory Management
Capital Equipment and Labor
Facility Layout and Design

Point-of-use storage is a stock location system that places inventory close to where it is needed or consumed in the production process. This reduces waste, handling, and transportation costs, and improves material flow and visibility. Point-of-use storage is a key element of a lean environment, where inventory is minimized and replenished frequently based on demand signals. Reference: EXAM CONTENT MANUAL PREVIEW, page 15, section 7.1.2. Manufacturing Planning and Control for Supply Chain Management: The CPIM Reference, Second Edition, page 462, section 13.3.

Finite loading is a capacity planning approach that takes into account the available capacity of the resources and does not allow overloading. It considers adjustments to plans based on planned capacity utilization, which means that it can change the start or end dates of the operations to avoid exceeding the capacity limits. This way, finite loading ensures that the production schedule is realistic and feasible. Other capacity planning approaches, such as infinite loading, do not consider adjustments to plans based on planned capacity utilization. Infinite loading ignores the capacity constraints and schedules the operations based on the due dates and the lead times, regardless of the resource availability. This may result in overloading the resources and causing delays or disruptions in the production process. Therefore, the fundamental difference between finite loading and other capacity planning approaches is that finite loading considers adjustments to plans based on planned capacity utilization, while other approaches do not. Reference:
CPIM Part 2 Exam Content Manual, p. 48
The Difference Between Finite Capacity Scheduling and Infinite Capacity Loading FINITE LOADING

The labor efficiency variance is the difference between the standard labor hours allowed for the actual output and the actual labor hours used, multiplied by the standard labor rate. In this case, the standard labor hours allowed for 100 pieces are 0.5 * 100 = 50 hours. The actual labor hours used are 48 hours. The standard labor rate is $10 per hour. Therefore, the labor efficiency variance = (50 – 48) * $10 = $20 favorable. This means that the actual labor hours used were less than the standard labor hours allowed, which indicates a higher labor efficiency12 Reference: 1: CPIM Part 2 – Section B – Module 2 – Session 2 – Variance Analysis 2: CPIM Part 2 – Section B – Module 2 – Session 3 – Variance Analysis Example

A sales forecast that is based solely on shipment history assumes that the past demand patterns will continue in the future. However, this assumption may not be valid if there are factors that affect the customer demand that are not captured by the shipment history. For example, customer demands may change due to seasonality, promotions, new product introductions, competitor actions, economic conditions, or other external influences.
These factors may distort the sales forecast that is based solely on shipment history and cause it to be inaccurate or unreliable. The other options are not factors that typically distort a sales forecast that is based solely on shipment history, as they do not directly affect the customer demand. Material shortages, labor rate changes, and currency exchange rates may affect the supply side of the business, but they do not necessarily reflect the customer preferences or needs. References:
CPIM Part 2 Exam Content Manual, p. 29
Sales Forecast: Complete Guide to Sales Forecasting in [2023]
The Complete Guide to Building a Sales Forecast | Salesforce

Reducing the inventory value by 10% would contribute most to shortening the cash-to-cash cycle time. The cash-to-cash cycle time is calculated as the days of inventory outstanding plus days of sales outstanding minus days of payables outstanding. By reducing the inventory value, the company can decrease the days of inventory outstanding, leading to a shorter cash-to-cash cycle time. This aligns with CPIM’s focus on efficient inventory management to optimize the supply chain. References: The concepts are covered in detail in Module 4: Inventory Management