A Guide to Implementing the Theory of
Constraints (TOC) |
|||||
More Definitional Subtleties Time doesn’t stand still, and not all definitions
remain constant. It would be nice if
they did, but they don’t. The introduction
of simplified drum-buffer-rope has resulted in a need to redefine buffers to
some extent. So now we have two
definitions in the literature and also in active use. Let’s explain the older definitions and
then explain the more recent changes. In traditional drum-buffer-rope
with an internal constraint (the birth-place of Theory of Constraints) the
constraint buffer and the shipping buffer are discrete parts of the whole
manufacturing lead time. They don’t
sum to the manufacturing lead time, there is a gap, the
gap is the duration that is scheduled on the constraint. There is another buffer that we have addressed in
passing; an assembly buffer.
Traditionally this is viewed as an extension of the shipping buffer. We will return to this in a moment. So on these pages we have used the older buffer
approach consistently across both make-to-order and make-to-stock and both
traditional drum-buffer-rope and simplified drum-buffer-rope. There is nothing wrong with this. Recently, however, in two sources the constraint
buffer has been defined as a part of the shipping buffer (1, 2). Strictly, I guess we should call the
constraint buffer here a “control point buffer,” but let’s not get too
particular. The shipping buffer
in-turn is the whole of the manufacturing lead time. There are very good reasons for doing this. The most important reason is that
the constraint should be in the market not in the firm, thus most often there
should not be a control point or constraint that we need to schedule in
detail. In which case the shipping buffer
is perfectly adequate. If there is a
constraint or control point that needs to be scheduled in detail then it’s buffer duration simply becomes a subset of the
shipping buffer duration. Note that
this only applies to make-to-order, or make-to-stock under the transitional
arrangement that we described earlier, after all we can’t schedule in detail
in make-to-replenish because the priorities will continue to change after
material release. What we are seeing is a change in emphasis from an
internal business constraint to an external market constraint. It is subtle but significant. Room for confusion arises when people exposed to the
Insights material go back to the existing literature. Room for confusion exists in using the
revised edition of the production simulator (new definitions) and the MICSS
simulator (prior definitions). Many people will however recognize that adding a
“free product” shipping buffer to the first diagram and the difference
between the shipping and constraint buffer to the second diagram and we would
have, apart from the difference in the “gap” for the constraint consumption,
essentially the same. OK, for clarity lets show that. Finally, assembly buffers are no
longer required. The rationale for
this is outlined in Warp Speed (3). (1) Goldratt, E. M., (2003) Production
the TOC way (revised edition). North
River Press. (2) Goldratt, E. M., and Goldratt A., (2003) TOC
insights into operations. Goldratt’s
Marketing Group. (3) Schragenheim,
E., and Dettmer, H. W., (2000) Manufacturing at warp speed: optimizing supply
chain financial performance. The St.
Lucie Press, pp 151-152. This Webpage Copyright © 2005-2009 by Dr K. J.
Youngman |