International Journal of Operations & Production Management: Article Information

International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Theory of constraints: A review of the philosophy and its applications

Shams‐ur Rahman,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Shams‐ur Rahman, (1998) "Theory of constraints: A review of the philosophy and its applications", International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 Issue: 4, pp.336-355, https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579810199720
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579810199720
Downloaded on: 01 November 2018, At: 04:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 64 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 15316 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2005),"Application of the theory of constraints to a bottleneck operation in a manufacturing plant", Journal of Manufacturing
Downloaded by Universiti Malaysia Perlis At 04:13 01 November 2018 (PT)
Technology Management, Vol. 16 Iss 3 pp. 302-311 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380510583617">https://

doi.org/10.1108/17410380510583617</a>
(2008),"The theory of constraints thinking processes: retrospect and prospect", International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 28 Iss 2 pp. 155-184 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570810846883">https://
doi.org/10.1108/01443570810846883</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:530717 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

IJOPM
18,4 Theory of constraints
A review of the philosophy and its
applications
336 Shams-ur Rahman
Graduate School of Management, University of Western Australia,
Perth, Australia
Introduction
Today’s businesses are competing increasingly on time and quality. Companies

cannot survive if they fail to obtain competitive advantages by producing high
quality products and services in shorter throughput time and quicker inventory
turnover. Since the early 1970s, three important approaches have evolved for
companies to achieve competitive advantages, each challenging old
assumptions and ways of doing things. These are materials requirements
planning (MRPI and MRPII), just-in-time (JIT), and theory of constraints (TOC).
Developed by Eli Goldratt in the mid-1980s (Goldratt, 1988) TOC evolved
from the OPT (Optimized Production Timetables) system (Goldratt, 1980) and
was later known under the commercial name of Optimized Production
Technology (OPT®). As part of a marketing tool for the OPT system, Goldratt
illustrated the concepts of OPT in the form of a novel (Goldratt and Cox, 1984)
in which the theory is gradually unravelled through the context of an everyday
production situation. The concepts identified in this book (The Goal) were more
fully developed as results from actual implementations became known. A
second book, titled The Race (Goldratt and Fox, 1986), was written to overcome
difficulties encountered in the implementations. It presented a logistical system
for the material flow called the drum-buffer-rope (DBR) and, gradually, the
focus of the concept has moved from the production floor to encompass all
aspects of business. By 1987, the overall concept became known as the theory of
constraints (TOC) which Goldratt viewed as “an overall theory for running an
organisation” (Goldratt, 1988, p. 453). This refinement recognised that the main
constraint in most organizations may not be physical but managerial-policy
related. To address the policy constraints and effectively implement the process
of on-going improvement, Goldratt (1990b, 1994) develop a generic approach
called the “thinking process” (TP). This is the current paradigm of TOC.
Experts believe that it is the TP of TOC which will ultimately have the most
lasting impact on business. The aim of this paper is to present a comprehensive
list of publications on TOC using a classification framework based on its
International Journal of Operations The author wishes to thank the anonymous referees for their constructive comments on the
& Production Management,
Vol. 18 No. 4, 1998, pp. 336-355, previous version of this paper. This study was partially supported by the FECEL IRG of the
© MCB University Press, 0144-3577 University of Western Australia, Australia.
philosophy and applications in business disciplines, and to identify future Theory of
research areas in TOC. constraints
The concept
The concept of the TOC can be summarised as:
• Every system must have at least one constraint. If it were not true, then a
real system such as a profit making organisation would make unlimited 337
profit. A constraint therefore, “is anything that limits a system from
achieving higher performance versus its goal” (Goldratt, 1988, p. 453).
• The existence of constraints represents opportunities for improvement.
Contrary to conventional thinking, TOC views constraints as positive,
not negative. Because constraints determine the performance of a

system, a gradual elevation of the system’s constraints will improve its
performance.
The TOC has two major components. First, a philosophy which underpins the
working principle of TOC. It consists of the five focusing steps of on-going
improvement, the drum-buffer-rope (DBR) scheduling methodology, and the
buffer management information system, and is usually referred to as TOC’s
“logistics” paradigm. The second component of TOC is a generic approach for
investigating, analysing, and solving complex problems called the thinking
process (TP). In addition, TOC prescribes new performance measurements
which are quite different from the traditional cost-accounting system. We
discuss these components in the following sub-sections.
Philosophy
The working principle of TOC provides a focus for a continuous improvement
process. The principle consists of five focusing steps (Goldratt, 1990b, p. 5)
which are summarised in Figure 1. The steps are:
(1) Identify the system’s constraint(s). These may be physical (e.g. materials,
machines, people, demand level) or managerial. Generally, organisations
have very few physical constraints but many managerial constraints in
the form of policies, procedures and rules and methods (Goldratt, 1990b).
Recently, Goldratt (1993, 1994) developed a technique called a Current
Reality Tree to identify policy constraints. It is important to identify
these constraints and also necessary to prioritise them according to their
impact on the goal(s) of the organisation.
(2) Decide how to exploit the system’s constraint(s). If the constraint is
physical, the objective is to make the constraint as effective as possible.
A managerial constraint should not be exploited but be eliminated and
replaced with a policy which will support increased throughput.
(3) Subordinate everything else to the above decision. This means that every
other component of the system (nonconstraints) must be adjusted to
support the maximum effectiveness of the constraint. Because
IJOPM constraints dictate a firm’s throughput, resource synchronisation with
18,4 the constraint provides the most effective manner of resource utilisation.
Nonconstraint resources contain productive capacity (capacity to
support the constraint throughput) and idle capacity (capacity to protect
against system disruptions and capacity not currently needed)
(Lockamy and Cox, 1994). If nonconstraint resources are used beyond
338 their productive capacity to support the constraint, they do not improve
throughput but increase unnecessary inventory.
(4) Elevate the system’s constraint(s). If existing constraints are still the
most critical in the system, rigorous improvement efforts on these
constraints will improve their performance. As the performance of the
constraints improve, the potential of nonconstraint resources can be
better realised, leading to improvements in overall system performance.

Eventually the system will encounter a new constraint.
(5) If in any of the previous steps a constraint is broken, go back to step 1. Do
not let inertia become the next constraint. The first part of this step
makes TOC a continuous process. The second part is a reminder that no
policy (or solution) is appropriate (or correct) for all time or in every
situation. It is critical for the organisation to recognise that as the
business environment changes, business policy has to be refined to take
account of those changes. Failure to implement step 5 may lead an
organisation to disaster.
Overcome
inertia
Elevate constraint
Identify constraint
Figure 1. Subordinate all Exploit constraint

Process of on-going resources to
improvement global decision
Drum-buffer-rope and buffer management Theory of
The logistics paradigm of the TOC has evolved from the scheduling software constraints
called optimised production technology (OPT) which in turn, is based on the
following nine rules (Goldratt and Fox, 1986, p. 179):
(1) Balance flow, not capacity.
(2) The level of utilization of a non-bottleneck is not determined by its own 339
potential but by some other constraint in the system.
(3) Utilisation and activation of a resource are not synonymous.
(4) An hour lost at a bottleneck is an hour lost for the total system.
(5) An hour saved at a non-bottleneck is just a mirage.
(6) Bottlenecks govern both throughput and inventories.

(7) The transfer batch may not, and many times should not, be equal to the
process batch.
(8) The process batch should be variable, not fixed.
(9) Schedules should be established by looking at all the constraints
simultaneously. Lead times are the result of a schedule and cannot be
predetermined.
When OPT became available initially it was presented as a competitor for MRP
(I and II) and JIT (Fox, 1982a, 1982b; Aggarwal, 1985; Everdell, 1984; Plenert
and Best, 1986). It also attracted considerable criticism, and continues to be
criticised because of the claim that it offers an optimal schedule, and because of
the fact that the algorithm on which it is based has never been revealed in the
literature. It is noteworthy that OPT and its nine rules are no longer part of the
current TOC approach.
The implementation of the logistical system of TOC is governed by the
drum-buffer-rope (DBR) methodology and managed through the use of time-
buffers (T-Bs). The name of the method is based on metaphors developed in The
Goal (Goldratt and Cox, 1984). The drum is the system schedule or the pace at
which the constraint works. Rope provides communications between critical
control points to ensure their synchronisation. Buffer is strategically placed
inventory to protect the system’s output from the variations that occur in the
system. The DBR methodology synchronises resources and material utilisation
in an organisation. Resources and materials are used only at a level that
contributes to the organisation’s ability to achieve throughput. Because random
disruptions are inevitable in any organisation, DBR methodology provides a
mechanism for protecting total throughput of the system by the use of T-Bs.
Time-buffers contain inventory and protect constraint schedule from the effects
of disruptions at non-constraint resources. The use of T-Bs as an information
system to effectively manage and improve throughput is referred to as buffer
management. It provides information based on planned and actual performance
and is used for monitoring the inventory in front of a protected resource to
IJOPM compare its actual and planned performance (Schragenheim and Ronen, 1990).
18,4 Three types of T-B are used in buffer management (Lockamy and Cox, 1991):
(1) Constraint buffers: contain parts which are expected to wait a certain
amount of time in front of a capacity constraint resource (CCR), thus
protecting the constraint’s planned schedule. A CCR is a resource that is
not a bottleneck at present, but, if not managed properly, it can become a
340 constraint.
(2) Assembly buffers: contain parts/subassemblies which are not processed
by a CCR, but need to be assembled with CCR parts.
(3) Shipping buffers: contain products which are expected to be finished and
ready to ship at a certain time before the due date, thus protecting
delivery date performance.

Figure 2 shows the locations of these three T-Bs. Notice that an assembly buffer
is not required before every assembly operation. It is required only before
assembly operation that is fed by both CCR and non-CCR parts. The constraint
buffer is located in front of the CCR and the shipping buffer is located at the end
of the process. The use of T-Bs in buffer management can help spot the causes
of disruptions without disrupting throughput. Moreover, by continually
reducing buffer sizes, production cycle time can be reduced which in turn may
Market
Shipping Buffer
Assembly
Assembly Buffer
Assembly
Non-CCR
Assembly
CCR
Constraint Buffer
Figure 2.
Locations of buffers Raw Materials
reduce lead time. For a detailed discussion on DBR methodology and buffer Theory of
management readers are referred to Goldratt and Fox (1986). constraints
Thinking process
The implementation of the five focusing steps to a typical production environment
can quickly yield substantial improvements in operations and in profits (Noreen et
al., 1995). However, this process of continuous improvement takes the production 341
operations to a point where the constraint shifts from factory floor to market. In
such a case, constraint could be market demand (insufficient demand) which is a
managerial/policy constraint rather than a physical constraint. Policy constraints
are generally difficult to identify and evaluate, and frequently require involvement
and cooperation across functional areas.
Recently, Goldratt (1994) developed a generic approach to address policy

constraints and create breakthrough solutions for them using common sense,
intuitive knowledge and logic. This procedure is referred to as the thinking
process (TP). According to Noreen et al. (1995, p. 149) “the TP may be the most
important intellectual achievement since the invention of calculus”.
According to Goldratt, while dealing with constraints managers are required
to make three generic decisions. These are:
(1) Decide what to change.
(2) Decide what to change to.
(3) Decide how to cause the change.
The TP prescribes a set of tools, which basically are cause-and-effect diagrams,
to get answers to these questions. The questions, associated tools and their
purposes are summarised in Table I. The TP process starts with the first
decision question, “What to change?”, i.e. to identify core problems. The current
reality tree is used for this purpose. Once a core problem has been identified, the
decision question becomes “What to change to?”. Answering the second
question requires other tools such as evaporating cloud and future reality tree.
Once the “what to change to?” question is decided, then the organisation is left
with the question “how to do it?” or “how to change?”. The prerequisite tree and
transition tree diagrams are used to identify obstacles to implementation and
devise detailed plans for overcoming these obstacles. It is not the purpose of this
paper to discuss these tools in great detail. For a detailed discussion readers are
Generic questions Purpose TP tools
What to change? Identify core problems Current reality tree

What to change to? Develop simple, practical Evaporative cloud,
solutions Future reality tree Table I.
How to cause the change? Implement solutions Prerequisite tree, TP tools and their
Transition tree roles
IJOPM referred to Goldratt (1994) and Noreen et al. (1995). In their recent survey among
18,4 seven manufacturing companies, Noreen et al. (1995) observed that the TP
process was used infrequently, despite its great potential. However, experts
believe that TP will ultimately have the most lasting impact on business.
New performance measurements

342 TOC assumes that the goal of an organisation is to make money both now and
in the future. To measure an organisation’s performance in achieving this goal,
two sets of measurements have been prescribed by Goldratt and Fox (1986,
p. 31): global (financial) measurements and operational measurement. Since
global measurements can be expressed through the operational measurements,
operational measurements are defined first.

(1) Throughput (T): the rate at which the system generates money through
sales (output which is not sold is not throughput but inventory).
(2) Inventory (I): all the money invested in things the system intends to sell.
(3) Operating expense (OE): all the money the system spends in turning
inventory into throughput.
Throughput is represented as sales minus “totally variable” cost. Inventory
includes any physical inventories such as raw material, work in process, unsold
finished products, and includes tools, building, capital equipment and
furnishings. Operating expense includes expenditures such as direct and
indirect labour, supplies, outside contractors and interest payments. A detailed
explanation of these definitions can be found in Goldratt and Fox (1986).
There are three global measurements:
(1) Net profit (NP): an absolute measurement in dollars expressed as total T
minus OE.
(2) Return on investment (ROI): a relative measurement which equals NP
divided by the inventory (I).
(3) Cash flow (CF): a “red line” of survival which is an “on-off ” type
measurement, i.e. when a company has enough cash, it is not so
important, but when there is not enough cash, nothing is more important
than cash for its survival.
Since the two sets of performance measurements are related, it is possible to
assess the impact of each of the operational measurements on the global
measurements. When T is increased without adversely effecting I and OE, then
all three global measurements are simultaneously improved. The same result is
obtained when OE is decreased without harming T and I. However, the impact
of I is not so simple. When I is decreased, only ROI and CF are improved but NP
remains unchanged. The impact of reduced inventory, however, can be realised
indirectly through the reduction of carrying costs which is a component of the
OE. The operational measurements can be used to describe other
measurements such as inventory turns (T divided by I) and productivity (T Theory of
divided by OE). constraints
Management traditionally emphasises reduction of OE first, followed by
increasing T and, finally, reducing I. Goldratt suggests that the biggest gains
can be realised by first increasing T, then by reducing I. The reduction of OE
should be the last priority. The rationale for this order of priority is based on the
fact that the reward from decreasing costs (OE costs and I costs) is finite (a 343
theoretical lower limit is zero, a realistic limit is of course considerably higher),
but theoretically, increased profit from improved sales is unrestricted.
Clearly, the performance measurements of TOC are very different from
traditional cost accounting systems. Maskell (1991, pp. 45-7) identified five
problem areas associated with traditional accounting systems in today’s
business environment: lack of relevance; cost distortion; inflexibility; subjection

to the needs of financial accounting; and impediment to progress in world class
manufacturing. World class companies are increasingly competing on
competitive edges that are nonfinancial in nature: throughput time, inventory
turnover, process flexibility, product introduction responsiveness etc.
(Schmenner, 1988). As a result, there exists a mismatch between the goal of the
company and traditional accounting practices. Among others, Umble and
Srikanth (1990) suggest that traditional accounting systems be replaced by one
that can adequately evaluate the effect of managerial actions on the
productivity and profitability of the entire firm, and recommend use of the
performance measurements of TOC.
Literature review
Since the publication of an article by Goldratt in the APICS 23rd Annual
International Conference Proceedings in 1980 (Goldratt, 1980), many papers
have been published on TOC and its related techniques. To explain the
underlying philosophy, and to demonstrate the working rules of TOC, Goldratt
and his associates have written a number of books. They have also published
the Theory of Constraints Journal, dedicated solely to the TOC. An extensive
literature search has been conducted to identify articles published in refereed
and non-refereed journals, as well as papers published in conference
proceedings between 1980 and 1995. The TOC based dissertations were not
considered as a part of the literature search. Only papers published in refereed
journals were considered for further analysis. However, papers published in
non-refereed journals and conference proceedings (mostly APICS conference
proceedings) have been cited as a separate entity (see Table II). For the list of
refereed papers the search was carried out in the following journals:
• Computers & Industrial Engineering;
• Engineering Costs & Production Economics;
• European Journal of Operational Research;
• Harvard Business Review;
18,4
344
IJOPM
Table II.
proceedings
Articles in other
journals and conference
Year
Journal 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Total
Accountancy 1 1
Advanced Manufacturing
Engineer 1 1
Air Force Journal of Logistics 1 1
Baylor Business Review 1 1
Bibbin 1 1
Charted Accountants Journal
of NZ 1 1
Corporate Controller 1 1
Fortune 1 1
Human Systems Management 1 1
Iron Age 1 1
Industry Week 8 6 14
Industrial Computer 1 1
Journal of Systems
Improvement 1 1
Production Engineering 1 1
Management Review 1 1
Manufacturing Systems 1
New England Business 1 1
Rydges 1 1
Success 1 1 2
Tutorial Paper (ORS, UK) 1 1
The Performance Adv (APICS) 1 1
Management Accountant’s
Handbook 1 1
Conference Proceedings 1 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 1 17
Total 1 2 2 5 2 3 3 4 1 2 1 9 8 2 4 4 53
Year
Journal 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Total
Production and Inventory Management 1 5 1 1 1 5 2 1 4 2 23

International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 1 2 1 4
Industrial Management 1 2 3
Industrial Engineering 1 2 1 1 5
Inventories and Production 2 3 3
Computer and Industrial Engineering 1 2 5
Omega 1 1
Interfaces 1 1
International Journal of Production
Research 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Harvard Business Review 1 1
Management Accounting (UK) 2 2 1 1 1 7
Management Accounting (USA) 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 12
Quality Progress 1 1
Production and Operations
Management 1 1 2
Engineering Costs and Production
Economics 1 1 2 4
International Journal of Production
Economics 2 1 1 4
European Journal of Operational
Research 1 1 1 3
International Journal of Purchasing
and Materials Management 1 1
Total 2 4 1 3 5 2 6 10 8 11 6 6 12 10 86
journals
Classification of articles:
345
constraints
Theory of
by year, in selected
Table III.
IJOPM • Industrial Engineering;
18,4 • Industrial Management;
• Interfaces;
• International Journal of Operations & Production Management;
• International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management;
346
• International Journal of Production Economics;
• International Journal of Production Research;
• Inventories and Production;
• Journal of Operations Management;
• Journal of Operational Research Society;

• Management Accounting (UK);
• Management Accounting (USA);
• Omega;
• Operations Research;
• Production and Inventory Management;
• Production & Operations Management;
• Quality Progress.
No article on TOC was published in the Journal of Operations Management,
Operations Research, or the Journal of Operational Research Society over the
period between 1980 and 1995. Papers relating to TOC/OPT began appearing
in conference proceedings in 1980. The first journal article was published in
1982 (Fox, 1982a).
Articles, published in the refereed journals and the books on TOC were
reviewed separately. The author believes that this article contains the first
comprehensive review of referred academic literature relating to the philosophy
and application of TOC. Its main objectives are to:
(1) divide the contributions into three broad categories – TOC philosophy,
TOC applications, and TOC books;
(2) classify each broad category into subcategories;
(3) identify future research directions.
A total of 139 articles was identified of which 86 were published in refereed
journals and the others in other non-refereed journals and conference
proceedings. Articles published in the Theory of Constraints Journal were not
considered for review. The vast majority of articles appeared in Production and
Inventory Management and in two Management Accounting journals (UK and
USA) (see Table III for publication in each journal by year). Table IV categorises
articles according to theme. Those in each category were then subcategorised
on the basis of type of study:
• Conceptual: explaining the basic principles of TOC. Theory of
• Enhancement: extending TOC principles to different theoretical problem constraints
settings.
• Comparison: comparing TOC with other systems such as MRP, JIT, CIM.
• Application: application of TOC in business areas.
The articles in each category were classified according to type of study: 347
conceptual, enhancement, comparison, and area of application – production,
purchasing, accounting, administration, education, quality – and are identified
in the “References” section as [C], [E], [CN], [P], [PU], [AC], [A], [ED], [Q]
respectively. The framework used for the survey is shown in Figure 3.
Classified into two categories were 12 books on TOC: those written to explain
the concepts of TOC and those based on the concepts of TOC to analyse other
areas of business.
Table IV indicates that the major focus of published articles has been to
convey the concepts and principles of TOC. Some compare TOC with other
production techniques such as JIT and MRP. It was observed that most of the
articles which focused on the “enhancement” subcategory also discussed the
“conceptual” subcategory of TOC. Therefore, both these subcategories were
discussed under the same heading. Each category is discussed in the following
subsections.
Literature on the concept and enhancement of TOC concept

A vast majority of articles focus on the concepts and principle of TOC. Jacobs
(1983, 1984) and Zmiran (1994) provide insight into the production planning and
scheduling concepts of OPT. Lundrigan (1986), Marcus (1986), and Cook (1994)
highlight the advantages of OPT in reducing inventories, operating expense
and increasing throughput. Schragenheim and Ronen (1990, 1991) provide a
detailed description of the working principle of DBR logistic system and use of
T-Bs for uninterrupted production scheduling.
Immediately after the introduction of the OPT software, much criticism was
directed at the proprietary nature of the scheduling algorithms within the
software. Several papers contained a brief description of the software (Jacobs,
1984; Lundrigan, 1986; Vollman, 1986), and a detailed description is given by
Fry et al. (1992) which also included the batch sizing procedure and user
interfaces. Although OPT software is at the heart of scheduling procedure,
Jacobs (1984) argued that in many situations production planning and
scheduling concepts can be implemented without the software. Through the use
of computer simulation, Weeda (1990) and Huisman et al. (1990) explored the
relation between batch mode, utilization of capacities and throughput. Several
articles enhanced the TOC principles to address various theoretical problem
settings such as master production scheduling, V-A-T analysis, setup time
management (Lockamy and Cox, 1991; Patterson, 1993; Spencer and James,
1995). In a recent article, Dettmer (1995a) compared the system approach taken
by TQM and TOC. He argued that TQM views the system in terms of discrete
18,4
348
survey
IJOPM
Figure 3.
Framework for the
TOC
TOC TOC TOC Future

Philosophy Application Books research direction
Conceptual Enhancement Comparison Books on TOC Books based

concepts on TOC Case study
Accounting Production Purchase Quality Administration Education
Application in
service industry
Philosophy Application
Year/category Conceptual Enhancement Comparison Production Purchase Accounting Administration Education Quality
1982 1 1
1983 2 1 1
1984 1
1985 1 2
1986 2 2 1
1987 1 1
1988 2 1 1 2
1989 2 2 2 1 2 1
1990 5 1 1 1
1991 1 4 2 1 1 1
1992 1 4 1
1993 2 2 2 1
1994 1 2 3 3 1 1
1995 3 1 5 1
Total 19 22 19 13 1 9 1 1 1
Classification of articles:
349
constraints
Theory of
categories
by year, according to the
Table IV.
IJOPM processes and then optimises the quality in each process, whereas TOC
18,4 improves performance by concentrating on the weakest link in the total system.
TOC/JIT/MRP/LP comparison
Several articles compared TOC with other production methods such as MRP
and JIT. This theme was the general focus at the early stages of the OPT (Fox,
350 1982a; Everdell, 1984; Aggarwal, 1985). Swann (1986) advocated the use of MRP
for net requirements and OPT for realistic shop schedules. Vollmann (1986)
considered OPT as an enhancement to MRP II.
Several studies argued that TOC (OPT), JIT and MRP are mutually exclusive
inventory control systems (Grunwald et al., 1989). Gelders and Van Wassenhore
(1985) expressed similar views and concluded that OPT would come first to
plan the bottleneck facilities in the medium time horizon. MRP should be used
to generate time-phased requirements while JIT should be used to maximize
throughput. However, Plenert and Best (1986) concluded that both OPT and JIT
are more productive than MRP, and the TOC system is more complete than the
JIT system. Several studies compared the performances of TOC, JIT and MRP
using computer simulations (Ramsay, 1990; Neely and Byrne, 1992). A
simulation study by Cook (1994) indicated that TOC outperformed JIT on a
number of critical performance measures, including total output and standard
deviation of flow time. From these studies, it is difficult to conclude with
confidence that one system is better than the other. However, the general
consensus derived from the comparisons is that an organisation needs a
combination of these production control methods to take advantage of each
system’s strength (Ptak, 1991; Neely and Byrne, 1992).
The TOC has many of the same underpinnings as linear programming (LP), e.g.
the notion of shadow price. The TOC principle that an hour gained at a bottleneck
is an hour gained for the total system is similar to the notion of shadow price in LP.
The shadow price in LP illustrates that an improvement in the objective function
is only possible if an additional unit of binding resources was made available.
Several studies compared TOC with LP. Lee and Plenert (1993) demonstrated with
a numeric example that the scheduling procedure of TOC is inefficient compared
with the LP procedure when multiple constrained resources exist. However,
Posnack (1994) and Maday (1994) argued that Lee and Plenert’s (1993) conclusion
is misleading because of the improper use of constraint management. Luebbe and
Finch (1992) stated that both TOC and LP can determine the optimal mix and are
able to determine the impact of changes in processing time, or machines used or
products produced. But TOC adds more operational concepts for dealing with
constraining situations. Constraints are explicitly identified and they are buffered
with inventory for uninterrupted production process. The goal is always to break
a constraint and improve the performance of the system, and therefore continuous
improvement is an integral part of the TOC philosophy.
Applications in business areas

While there has been a significant increase in the number of articles on TOC in
recent years, there also has been a lack of research on its application. Several
papers have reported on the use of TOC in companies and the benefits obtained Theory of
from its application (Aggarwal, 1985; Gardiner et al., 1994). Fry et al. (1992) constraints
conducted a survey of users of OPT software and found that the automotive
industry is the main user and that more companies oriented towards make-to-
order production have tried the software than have those oriented towards make-
to-stock. However, very few papers are based on actual applications. Most research
has tackled production problems in the manufacturing environment. Studies by 351
Reimer (1991), Wahlers and Cox (1994) and Darlington (1995) demonstrated the use
of TOC to reduce inventory, reduce WIP inventory, reduce lead time, and improve
delivery performance. Guide and Ghishelli (1995) reported a unique application of
DBR and buffer management at a military rework depot engine works.
Few articles reported the application of TOC in other management areas
such as purchasing, quality management, information management (Gardiner

and Blackstone, 1991; Chakravorty and Atwater, 1994; Coman and Ronen,
1994). Feather and Cross (1989) observed a reduction in paperwork backlog and
an improvement in workers’ productivity and morale when the TOC technique
was applied to simplify administrative work. Several articles reported the
application of TOC concepts in the area of management accounting. A new
accounting technique called throughput accounting (TA) has been evolved
based on the concepts of TOC (Waldron and Galloway, 1988a; 1988b; 1989a;
1989b). Blake and Hellberg (1991), and Holmen (1995) compared the ABC
(activity-based costing) and TA, and concluded that for long-run decision
making, ABC is more appropriate whereas for short-run decision making TA
should be used.
Book reviews
Books published on TOC may be classified into two categories: TOC books, and
books based on TOC philosophy.
TOC books. TOC books explain the basic concepts and principles of TOC and
develop the techniques and operational procedures to implement these
concepts. These are The Goal (Goldratt and Cox, 1984), The Race (Goldratt and
Fox, 1986), The Haystack Syndrome (Goldratt, 1990a), Theory of Constraints
(Goldratt, 1990b), and It’s Not Luck (1994).
More than one million copies of The Goal have been sold since it was first
published in 1984. Though not a textbook or a how-to guide, it addresses
manufacturing management, is written in a fast-paced thriller style and delivers
the message in a Socratic way. In the introduction Goldratt states that “The
Goal is about new global principles of manufacturing” (Goldratt and Cox, 1984).
More than just a book on manufacturing, it presents a thinking process which
provides the context for a new continuous improvement approach in all spheres
of business.
In his second book, The Race, Goldratt fully developed the logistical system
called drum-buffer-rope (DBR), based on metaphors developed in The Goal. In
addition, Goldratt prescribed a new performance measurements framework
which indicates whether or not companies are moving towards their goal. The
performance measurements have been further discussed in The Haystack
IJOPM Syndrome which also examines differences between data and information, and
18,4 explains the logic of the need for information. The five focusing steps of on-
going improvement and fundamentals of the TP process were addressed in his
next book, The Theory of Constraints. In his latest novel, It’s Not Luck, Goldratt
used the TP process to address policy constraints. Techniques such as current
reality tree, evaporative Ccloud, future reality tree, prerequisite tree, and
352 transition tree were applied to identify core problems and to offer solutions.
Books based on TOC philosophy. Books based on the philosophy of TOC
analyse production systems and business performance using the TOC
guideline and compare it with other systems and measures. These are
Synchronous Manufacturing (Umble and Srikanth, 1990), Reengineering
Performance Measurement (Lockamy and Cox, 1994), The Next Phase of Total
Qual ity Management (Stein, 1994), The Theory of Constraints and Its
Implications for Management Accounting (Noreen et al., 1995), Goldratt’s
Theory of Constraints: A Systems Approach to Continuous Improvement
(Dettmer, 1995b), Measurements of Effective Decision Making (Srikanth, and
Robertson, 1995). In addition, the Theory of Constraints Journal is solely
dedicated to TOC.
Stein’s book (1994) expanded the body of knowledge within the TOC and
introduced it as TQM II. Its principles are similar to those of OPT although it
encompasses other quality management concepts and techniques such as SPC
(statistical process control), QFD (quality function deployment) and DOE
(design of experiment). The book by Lockamy and Cox, Reengineering
Performance Measurement, provided a framework linking three broad
functional areas of business (finance, resource, and customer) in order to
synchronise efforts and to achieve goals. TOC performance measurements were
used within the framework to measure the performance of organisations. In
Synchronous Manufacturing, Umble and Srikanth used a more traditional term
(synchronous manufacturing, which had been used by Goldratt in The Race) to
represent manufacturing principles of TOC and presented the basic
performance measurements developed by Goldratt that underpin the TOC
concepts. Srikanth and Cavallaro (1990) in Regaining Competitiveness provided
a detailed analysis of the case study presented in The Goal. Noreen et al.’s book
(1995) gives a third party view and critique of both the strengths and
weaknesses of TOC and its TP process based on their survey among several
manufacturing companies.
Conclusions and future research directions

This paper presents a comprehensive review of academic literature on the TOC,
including papers published in referred, and non-referred journals and
conference proceedings, and books. These are classified on the basis of the TOC
philosophy and its application in business disciplines. The review shows that
the vast majority of the papers have concentrated on the concept and
enhancement of TOC concept. Several articles compare TOC with other
production methods such as MRP and JIT. In the application category a number
of articles report the application of TOC concepts in the area of production and
management accounting. The articles published in these two subcategories are Theory of
evenly distributed. However, this review shows that until now only one constraints
application of TOC has taken place in each of the other business areas.
Although, several papers have referred to the application of TOC in actual
business settings, very few cases so far have been reported (Noreen et al., 1995).
Future research could be directed towards analysing the case studies of
organisations to identify what worked, and did not work and why. Also missing 353
are papers on TOC implementation in the service sector. Only two articles were
published in the context of service organisations (Feather and Cross, 1989, Eden
and Ronen, 1990). Further investigation of applications of the TOC philosophy
in the service sector is required.
References
Aggarwal, S.C. (1985), “MRP, JIT, OPT, FMS?”, Harvard Business Review, September-October, pp.
8-16. [CN]
Blake, N.A. and Hellberg, R. (1991), “Relevance lost? A critical discussion of different cost
accounting principles in connection with decision making for both short and long term
production scheduling”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 24 No. 1-2,
pp. 1-18. [AC]
Chakravorty, S.S. and Atwater, J.B. (1994), “How theory of constraints can be used to direct
preventive maintenance”, Industrial Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 10-13. [Q]
Coman, A. and Ronen, B. (1994), “IS management by constraints: coupling IS effort to changes in
business bottlenecks”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 65-70. [I]
Cook, D. P. (1994), “A simulation comparison of traditional, JIT and TOC manufacturing systems
in a flow shop with bottlenecks”, Production and Inventory Management, First Quarter,
pp. 73-8. [CN]
Darlington, J. (1995), “Optimizing production resources”, Management Accounting, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 57-60. [P]
Dettmer, H.W. (1995a), “Quality and the theory of constraints”, Quality Progress, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 77-81. [C]
Dettmer, H.W. (1995b), Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints: A Systems Approach to Continuous
Improvement, University Bookstore Custom Publishing, Los Angeles, CA.
Eden, Y. and Ronen, B. (1990), “Service organization costing: a synchronized manufacturing
approach”, Industrial Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 24-6. [AC]
Everdell, R. (1984), “MRPII, JIT, OPT: not a choice but a synergy”, APICS 27th Annual
International Conference Proceedings, pp. 149-51.
Feather, J.J. and Cross, K.F. (1989), “Workflow analysis, just-in-time techniques simplify
administrative process in paperwork operation”, Industrial Engineering, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 32-40.
[A]
Fox, R.E. (1982a), “MRP, Kanban or OPT, what’s best?”, Inventories and Production, January-
February. [CN]
Fox, R.E. (1982b), “OPT: an answer for America, Part II”, Inventories and Production, November-
December. [C]
Fry, T.D., Fox, J.F. and Blackstone, J.H. (1992), “An analysis and discussion of the optimized
production technology software and its use”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 229-43. [E]
Gardiner, S.C. and Blackstone, J.H. (1991), “The theory of constraints and the make-or-buy
decision”, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Summer, pp. 38-43.
[PU]
IJOPM Gardiner, S.C., Blackstone, J.H. Jr and Gardiner, L.R. (1994), “The evolution of the theory of
constraints”, Industrial Management, May-June, pp. 13-15. [C]
18,4 Gelders, L.F. and Van Wassenhore, L.N. (1985), “Capacity planning in MRP, JIT and OPT: a
critique”, Engineering Costs and Production Economics, Vol. 9 No. 1-3, pp. 201-9. [CN]
Goldratt, E.M. (1980), “Optimized production timetable: beyond MRP: something better is finally
here”, APICS 23rd Annual International Conference Proceedings. [C]
Goldratt, E.M. (1988), “Computerized shop floor scheduling”, International Journal of Production
354 Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 443-55. [C]
Goldratt, E.M. (1990a), The Haystack Syndrome: Sifting Information out of the Data Ocean, North
River Press, New York, NY.
Goldratt, E.M. (1990b), What is This Thing Called Theory of Constraints and How Should it be
Implemented?, North River Press, New York, NY.
Goldratt, E.M. (1993), “What is the theory of constraints?”, APICS – The Performance Advantage,
June, pp. 18-20.

Goldratt, E.M. (1994), It’s Not Luck, Gower, England.
Goldratt, E.M. and Cox, J. (1984), The Goal: An Ongoing Improvement Process, Gower, Aldershot.
Goldratt, E.M. and Fox, J. (1986), The Race, North River Press, New York, NY.
Grunwald, H., Striekwold, P.E.T. and Weeda, P.J. (1989), “A framework for quantitative
comparison of production control concepts”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 27, pp. 281-92. [CN]
Guide, V.D.R. and Ghishelli, G.A. (1995), “Implementation of Drum-Buffer-Rope at a military
rework depot engine works”, Production and Inventory Management, Third Quarter,
pp. 79-82. [P]
Holmen, J.S. (1995), “ABC v. TOC: it’s a matter of time”, Management Accounting, Vol. 76 No. 7,
pp. 37-40. [AC]
Huisman, H.H., Polderman, G.L. and Weeda, P.J. (1990), “Maximizing throughput in some simple
time constrained scheduling situations”, Engineering Costs & Production Economics, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 293-9. [P]
Jacobs, F.R. (1983), “The OPT scheduling system: a review of a new production scheduling
system”, Production and Inventory Management, 3rd Quarter. [E]
Jacobs, F.R. (1984), “OPT uncovered: many production planning and scheduling concepts can be
applied with or without the software”, Industrial Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 10, pp. 32-41. [C]
Lee, T.N. and Plenert, G. (1993), “Optimizing theory of constraints when new product alternatives
exist”, Production and Inventory Management, Third Quarter, pp. 51-7. [CN]
Lockamy, A. and Cox, J.F. (1991), “Using V-A-T analysis for determining the priority and location
of JIT manufacturing techniques”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 29 No. 8,
pp. 1661-72. [E]
Lockamy, A. and Cox, J.F. (1994), Reengineering Performance Measurement, Irwin Publishing,
New York, NY.
Luebbe, R. and Finch, B. (1992), “Theory of constraints and linear programming: a comparison”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 1471-8. [CN]
Lundrigan, R. (1986), “What is this thing called OPT”, Production and Inventory Management,
Second quarter, pp. 3-11. [C]
Maday, C.J. (1994), “Proper use of constraint management”, Production and Inventory Management,
First Quarter, p. 84. [CN]
Marcus, P.M. (1986), “OPT – fantasy or breakthrough”, Production and Inventory Management,
Second Quarter, pp. 13-21. [C]
Maskell, B.H. (1991), Performance Measurement for World Class Manufacturing – A Model for
American Companies, Productivity Press, CT.
Neely, A.D. and Byrne, M.D. (1992), “A simulation study of bottleneck scheduling”, International Theory of
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 26, pp. 187-92. [CN]
Noreen, E., Smith, D. and Mackey, J. (1995), The Theory of Constraints and Its Implications for constraints
Management Accounting, North River Press, MA.
Patterson, M. C. (1993), “Analysis of setup time at constraint resources”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 845-9. [E]
Plenert, G. and Best, T.D. (1986), “MRP, JIT and OPT: what’s “best”?”, Production and Inventory
Management, Second Quarter, pp. 22-9. [CN] 355
Posnack, A.J. (1994), “Theory of constraints: improper applications yield improper conclusions”,
Production and Inventory Management, First Quarter, pp. 85-6. [CN]
Ptak, C.A. (1991), “MRP, MRPII, OPT, JIT and CIM – succession, evolution, or necessary
combination”, Production and Inventory Management, Second Quarter, pp. 7-11. [CN]
Ramsay, M.L. (1990), “Push, pull and squeeze shop floor control with computer simulation”,
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 39-45. [CN]

Reimer, G. (1991), “Material requirement planning and theory of constraints: can they coexist? A
case study”, Production and Inventory Management, Fourth Quarter, pp. 48-52. [P]
Schmenner, R.W. (1988), “The merit of making things fast”, Sloan Management Review, Fall,
pp. 11-17.
Schragenheim, E. and Ronen, B. (1990), “Drum-Buffer shop floor control”, Production and
Inventory Management, Third Quarter, pp. 18-22. [E]
Schragenheim, E. and Ronen, B. (1991), “Buffer management: a diagnostic tool for production
control”, Production and Inventory Management, Second Quarter, pp. 74-9. [E]
Spencer, M.S. and James, F.C. (1995), “Master production scheduling developments in a theory of
constraints environment”, Production and Inventory Management, First Quarter, pp. 8-13. [E]
Srikanth, M. and Cavallaro, H. (1990), Regaining Competitiveness: Putting the Goal to Work,
Spectrum Publishing.
Srikanth, M.L. and Robertson, S. (1995), Measurements for Effective Decision-Making, Spectrum
Publishing.
Stein, R.E. (1994), The Next Phase of Total Quality Management, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.
Swann, D. (1986), “Using MRP for optimized schedules (emulating OPT)”, Production and
Inventory Management, Second Quarter, pp. 30-7. [E]
Umble, M. and Srikanth, M. L. (1990), Synchronous Manufacturing: Principles for World Class
Excellence, South-Western Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
Vollmann, T.E. (1986), “OPT as an enhancement to MRP II”, Production and Inventory
Management, Second Quarter, pp. 38-47. [E]
Wahlers, J.L. and Cox, J.F. (1994), “Competitive factors and performance measurement: applying
the theory of constraints to meet customer needs”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 37 No. 2-3, pp. 229-40. [P]
Waldron, D. and Galloway, D. (1988a), “Throughput accounting. Part 1: the need for a new
language for manufacturing”, Management Accounting, Vol. 66 No. 10, pp. 34-5. [AC]
Waldron, D. and Galloway, D. (1988b), “Throughput accounting. Part 2: ranking products
profitability”, Management Accounting, Vol. 66 No. 11, pp. 34-5. [AC]
Waldron, D. and Galloway, D. (1989a), “Throughput accounting. Part 3: a better way to control
labour costs”, Management Accounting, Vol. 67, pp. 32-3. [AC]
Waldron, D. and Galloway, D. (1989b), “Throughput accounting. Part 4: moving on to complex
products”, Management Accounting, Vol. 67, pp. 40-1. [AC]
Weeda, P.J. (1990), “On the choice of batch mode in order to maximize throughput”, Engineering
Costs and Production Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 241-47. [E]
Zmiran, J.P. (1994), “The power of the goal”, Success, January-February, pp. 91-3. [C]
This article has been cited by:
1. Fatma Serab Onursal, Semra Birgün, Ercan Mızrak. Analyzing the Delivery Process with TOC 645-659. [Crossref]
2. Kartik Modi, Harshal Lowalekar, N.M.K. Bhatta. 2018. Revolutionizing supply chain management the theory of constraints
way: a case study. International Journal of Production Research 38, 1-27. [Crossref]
3. Lucas Martins Ikeziri, Fernando Bernardi de Souza, Mahesh C. Gupta, Paula de Camargo Fiorini. 2018. Theory of constraints:
review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Research 16, 1-35. [Crossref]
4. Magnus Boström. 2018. Breaking the ice: a work domain analysis of icebreaker operations. Cognition, Technology & Work
20:3, 443-456. [Crossref]
5. Mohamed Grida, Mahmoud Zeid. 2018. A system dynamics-based model to implement the Theory of Constraints in a
healthcare system. SIMULATION 78, 003754971878895. [Crossref]
6. Matthias Thürer, Mark Stevenson. 2018. On the beat of the drum: improving the flow shop performance of the Drum–
Buffer–Rope scheduling mechanism. International Journal of Production Research 56:9, 3294-3305. [Crossref]
7. Dennis J. L. Siedlak, Olivia J. Pinon, Paul R. Schlais, Todd M. Schmidt, Dimitri N. Mavris. 2018. A digital thread approach
to support manufacturing-influenced conceptual aircraft design. Research in Engineering Design 29:2, 285-308. [Crossref]
8. Ryan K. Orchard. 2018. Using Homemade, Short, Fictional Cases for Teaching the Theory of Constraints. INFORMS
Transactions on Education . [Crossref]
9. CleggBen, Ben Clegg. 2018. Perceptions of growth-impeding constraints acting upon SMEs’ operations and the identification
and use of transitionary paths to elevate them. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38:3, 756-783.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

10. Matthias Thürer, Mark Stevenson. 2018. Bottleneck-oriented order release with shifting bottlenecks: An assessment by
simulation. International Journal of Production Economics 197, 275-282. [Crossref]
11. Chiranjib Bhowmik, Sachin Gangwar, Amitava Ray. Integrating Six-Sigma and Theory of Constraint for Manufacturing
Process: A Case Study 607-617. [Crossref]
12. Christopher Nikulin, Marcos Zuniga, Moulay Akhloufi, Camila Manzi, Christian Wiche, Eduardo Piñones. 2018. Enhancing
creativity for development of automation solutions using OTSM-TRIZ: A systematic case study in agronomic industry.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering 10:1, 168781401775195. [Crossref]
13. Nasim Afsar-manesh, Sarah Lonowski, Aram A. Namavar. 2017. Leveraging lean principles in creating a comprehensive
quality program: The UCLA health readmission reduction initiative. Healthcare 5:4, 194-198. [Crossref]
14. Matthias Thürer, Mark Stevenson, Cristovao Silva, Ting Qu. 2017. Drum-buffer-rope and workload control in High-variety
flow and job shops with bottlenecks: An assessment by simulation. International Journal of Production Economics 188, 116-127.
[Crossref]
15. Gurjeet Sahi, Mahesh C. Gupta, Pankaj C. Patel. 2017. A Measure of Throughput Orientation: Scale Development and
Nomological Validation. Decision Sciences 48:3, 420-453. [Crossref]
16. Harshal Lowalekar, R. Raghavendra Ravi. 2017. Revolutionizing blood bank inventory management using the TOC thinking
process: An Indian case study. International Journal of Production Economics 186, 89-122. [Crossref]
17. Sildenir Alves Ribeiro, Eber Assis Schmitz, Antônio Juarez S. M. de Alencar, Monica Ferreira da Silva. 2017. Research
Opportunities on the Application of the Theory of Constraints to Software Process Development. Journal of Software 12:4,
227-239. [Crossref]
18. Roberto Panizzolo. Practices and Performance in Constraints Management Production Planning and Control Systems
153-182. [Crossref]
19. Thawani Mpatama Sanjika, Carel Nicoolas Bezuidenhout. 2016. A primary influence vertex approach to identify driving
factors in complex integrated agri-industrial systems – an example from sugarcane supply and processing systems. International
Journal of Production Research 54:15, 4506-4519. [Crossref]
20. Jun-Qiang Wang, Jian Chen, Yingqian Zhang, George Q. Huang. 2016. Schedule-based execution bottleneck identification
in a job shop. Computers & Industrial Engineering 98, 308-322. [Crossref]
21. Antti Peltokorpi, Henrik Nisén, Johan Groop, Tapani Reinikainen, Auli Bengs, Markus Pirttimaa. 2016. Applying the Theory
of Constraints to Improve Throughput in a Forensic DNA Laboratory. Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International
Journal 7:1-2, 37-49. [Crossref]
22. Satya S. Chakravorty, Douglas N. Hales. 2016. Improving labour relations performance using a Simplified Drum Buffer Rope
(S-DBR) technique. Production Planning & Control 27:2, 102-113. [Crossref]
23. Jaeil PARK, SeJoon PARK, Changsoo OK. 2016. Optimal factory operation planning using electrical load shifting
under time-based electric rates. Journal of Advanced Mechanical Design, Systems, and Manufacturing 10:6, JAMDSM0085-
JAMDSM0085. [Crossref]
24. Oliver Gassmann, Karolin Frankenberger, Roman Sauer. Exploring Upcoming Theories for BMI Research: Enlightening the
Dark Side of the Moon 77-105. [Crossref]
25. Kan Wu, Ning Zhao. Dependence among tandem queues and the second moment result on the theory of constraints
2860-2871. [Crossref]
26. Kan Wu, Ning Zhao. 2015. Dependence among single stations in series and its applications in productivity improvement.
European Journal of Operational Research 247:1, 245-258. [Crossref]
27. Marcos Buestán Benavides, Hendrik Van Landeghem. 2015. Implementation of S-DBR in four manufacturing SMEs: a
research case study. Production Planning & Control 26:13, 1110-1127. [Crossref]
28. Shichang Du, Rui Xu, Delin Huang, Xufeng Yao. 2015. Markov modeling and analysis of multi-stage manufacturing systems
with remote quality information feedback. Computers & Industrial Engineering 88, 13-25. [Crossref]
29. Charles W. Kimbrough, Kelly M. McMasters, Jeff Canary, Lisa Jackson, Ian Farah, Mark V. Boswell, Daniel Kim, Charles R.
Scoggins. 2015. Improved Operating Room Efficiency via Constraint Management: Experience of a Tertiary-Care Academic
Medical Center. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 221:1, 154-162. [Crossref]
30. Thawani Mpatama Sanjika, Carel Nicolaas Bezuidenhout. 2015. Driving factors-based approach for identifying performance
indicators in sugarcane supply and processing systems. British Food Journal 117:6, 1652-1669. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Sachin R. Pendharkar, Diane P. Bischak, Paul Rogers, Ward Flemons, Tom W. Noseworthy. 2015. Using patient flow
simulation to improve access at a multidisciplinary sleep centre. Journal of Sleep Research 24:3, 320-327. [Crossref]
32. Hossein Mohammadi, Mehdi Ghazanfari, Hamed Nozari, Omid Shafiezad. 2015. Combining the theory of constraints with
system dynamics: A general model (case study of the subsidized milk industry). International Journal of Management Science
and Engineering Management 10:2, 102-108. [Crossref]

33. Michael J. Beck, Kirk Gosik. 2015. Redesigning an inpatient pediatric service using Lean to improve throughput efficiency.
Journal of Hospital Medicine 10:4, 220-227. [Crossref]
34. Neeraj Anand, Neha Grover. 2015. Measuring retail supply chain performance. Benchmarking: An International Journal 22:1,
135-166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Viera Šukalová, Pavel Ceniga. 2015. Application of the Theory of Constraints Instrument in the Enterprise Distribution
System. Procedia Economics and Finance 23, 134-139. [Crossref]
36. Henrietta Buddas. 2014. A bottleneck analysis in the IFRC supply chain. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain
Management 4:2, 222-244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Changsoo Ok, Jaeil Park. 2014. A conceptual approach for managing production in consideration of shifting electrical loads.
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 30:5, 499-507. [Crossref]
38. Zeynep Tuğçe Şimşit, Noyan Sebla Günay, Özalp Vayvay. 2014. Theory of Constraints: A Literature Review. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences 150, 930-936. [Crossref]
39. Simon Wu, H. M. Wee. A problem solving strategy based on a case study from SARS epidemic 166-173. [Crossref]
40. Protik Basu, Pranab K. Dan. 2014. Capacity augmentation with VSM methodology for lean manufacturing. International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma 5:3, 279-292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Xiaofeng Zhao, Jianrong Hou. 2014. Analyzing the time buffer in the Theory of Constraints based lean operations. Journal
of Management Analytics 1:3, 185-199. [Crossref]
42. Horng-Huei Wu, Amy H.I. Lee, Tai-Ping Tsai. 2014. A two-level replenishment frequency model for TOC supply chain
replenishment systems under capacity constraint. Computers & Industrial Engineering 72, 152-159. [Crossref]
43. Jijie Deng, Zhengcai Cao, Min Liu. A bottleneck prediction and rolling horizon scheme combined dynamic scheduling
algorithm for semiconductor wafer fabrication 58-63. [Crossref]
44. Usman K. Durrani, Zijad Pita, Joan Richardson. 2014. Coexistence of agile and SCM practices. Journal of Systems and
Information Technology 16:1, 20-39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. John Ahmet Erkoyuncu, Christopher Durugbo, Rajkumar Roy. 2013. Identifying uncertainties for industrial service delivery:
a systems approach. International Journal of Production Research 51:21, 6295-6315. [Crossref]
46. Ike Ehie, Rupy Sawhney. Integrating Six Sigma and Lean manufacturing for process improvement 323-336. [Crossref]
47. David Oglethorpe, Graeme Heron. 2013. Testing the theory of constraints in UK local food supply chains. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 33:10, 1346-1367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. Mahesh C. Gupta, Gurjeet Kaur Sahi, Hardeep Chahal. 2013. Improving market orientation: the theory of constraints-based
framework. Journal of Strategic Marketing 21:4, 305-322. [Crossref]
49. Somayeh Sadat, Michael W. Carter, Brian Golden. 2013. Theory of constraints for publicly funded health systems. Health
Care Management Science 16:1, 62-74. [Crossref]
50. Cyril Foropon, Ron McLachlin. 2013. Metaphors in operations management theory building. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 33:2, 181-196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
51. Hilmi Yüksel. Application of Theory of Constraints’ Thinking Processes in a Reverse Logistics Process 97-112. [Crossref]
52. N. Agami, M. Saleh, M. Rasmy. 2012. A Hybrid Dynamic Framework for Supply Chain Performance Improvement. IEEE
Systems Journal 6:3, 469-478. [Crossref]
53. Christopher Knaggs, Stephen Pollard, Wen-li Wang. Applying theory of constraints in administrative process: An experiment
from the U.S. government 2012-2020. [Crossref]
54. Einat Maayan, Boaz Ronen, Alex Coman. 2012. Assessing the Performance of a Court System: A Comprehensive Performance
Measures Approach. International Journal of Public Administration 35:11, 729-738. [Crossref]
55. Robin Sundkvist, Richard Hedman, Peter Almström. 2012. A model for linking shop floor improvements to manufacturing
cost and profitability. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 25:4-5, 315-325. [Crossref]
56. Jeroen de Mast, Benjamin Kemper, Ronald J. M. M. Does, Michel Mandjes, Yohan van der Bijl. 2011. Process improvement
in healthcare: overall resource efficiency. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 27:8, 1095-1106. [Crossref]
57. J Ladbrook, B Tjahjono, E Oakes, R R de Sanabria Sales, A G de Rueda, U Lizarazu, C Temple. 2011. Simulation study
for investment decisions on the EcoBoost camshaft machining line. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part
B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 225:11, 2124-2137. [Crossref]
58. C. Kasemset. A review on quality improvement and Theory of Constraints (TOC) 327-330. [Crossref]
59. Mahesh Gupta, Lynn Boyd. 2011. An Excel‐based dice game: an integrative learning activity in operations management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 31:6, 608-630. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Anders Skoogh, John Michaloski, Nils Bengtsson. Towards continuously updated simulation models: combining automated
raw data collection and automated data processing 1678-1689. [Crossref]

61. SIMON WU, MAURICIO F. BLOS, HUI MING WEE, YI-LI CHEN. 2010. CAN THE TOYOTA WAY OVERCOME
THE RECENT TOYOTA SETBACK? — A STUDY BASED ON THE THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS. Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Systems 09:02, 145-156. [Crossref]
62. Guangyuan SHI, Sheng-Hung CHANG, Wei ZHANG. Challenges of Beijing road transportation system: An extended
application of TOC think processes 264-274. [Crossref]
63. Fernando Bernardi de Souza, Sílvio R.I. Pires. 2010. Theory of constraints contributions to outbound logistics. Management
Research Review 33:7, 683-700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Ualison Rebula de Oliveira, Fernando Augusto Silva Marins, Dagoberto Alves de Almeida. 2010. Integrando técnicas e
procedimentos de gestão de operações: uma aplicação em um banco comercial Brasileiro de grande porte. Production 20:2,
237-250. [Crossref]
65. David G. McNamara, Annette R. Dickinson, Catherine A. Byrnes. 2009. The perceptions and preferences of parents of
children with tracheostomies in a study of humidification therapy. Journal of Child Health Care 13:3, 179-197. [Crossref]
66. J.Q. Wang, S.D. Sun, S.B. Si, H.A. Yang. 2009. Theory of constraints product mix optimisation based on immune algorithm.
International Journal of Production Research 47:16, 4521-4543. [Crossref]
67. M. Gupta, D. Snyder. 2009. Comparing TOC with MRP and JIT: a literature review. International Journal of Production
Research 47:13, 3705-3739. [Crossref]
68. Suelen Neves Boschetto, Ricardo Lüders, Flávio Neves Jr., Lúcia Valéria Ramos de Arruda. 2009. Um modelo de otimização
da operação de terminais petrolíferos usando a teoria das restrições como pré-processamento. Pesquisa Operacional 29:1, 1-21.
[Crossref]
69. Lin Zhang. Using TOC Thinking Process Tools to Improve Safety Performance 13-17. [Crossref]
70. Ibon Serrano Lasa, Rodolfo de Castro, Carlos Ochoa Laburu. 2009. Extent of the use of Lean concepts proposed for a value
stream mapping application. Production Planning & Control 20:1, 82-98. [Crossref]
71. Yuxiang Yang, Gengui Zhou. Research on the returned logistics network optimal design of packaging materials in storage
& transportation process based on TOC 1203-1208. [Crossref]
72. Gengui Zhou, Zhenyu Cao, Fangzhong Qi, Feng Ye. TOC-based approach on a decision-making model of recycling reverse
logistics 1170-1174. [Crossref]
73. Mahesh C. Gupta, Lynn H. Boyd. 2008. Theory of constraints: a theory for operations management. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management 28:10, 991-1012. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
74. Avninder Gill. 2008. An effect‐cause‐effect analysis of project objectives and trade‐off assumptions. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business 1:4, 535-551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Shigang Song, Aiping Li, Liyun Xu. AGV Dispatching Strategy Based on Theory of Constraints 922-925. [Crossref]
76. Nitza Geri, Niv Ahituv. 2008. A Theory of Constraints approach to interorganizational systems implementation. Information
Systems and e-Business Management 6:4, 341-360. [Crossref]
77. I. Rosolio, B. Ronen, N. Geri. 2008. Value enhancement in a dynamic environment—a constraint management expert system
for the oil refinery industry. International Journal of Production Research 46:16, 4349-4367. [Crossref]
78. Archie Lockamy III. 2008. Examining supply chain networks using V‐A‐T material flow analysis. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal 13:5, 343-348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. Chih-Hsien Chen, Yao-Hui Chang, Shuo-Yan Chou. 2008. Enhancing the design of air cargo transportation services via an
integrated fuzzy approach. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 19:6, 661-680. [Crossref]
80. Seonmin Kim, Victoria Jane Mabin, John Davies. 2008. The theory of constraints thinking processes: retrospect and prospect.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 28:2, 155-184. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
81. SIMON WU, SAMUEL WANG, MAURICIO F. BLOS, H. M. WEE. 2007. CAN THE BIG 3 OVERTAKE TOYOTA? —
A STUDY BASED ON THE THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems 06:02, 145-157.
[Crossref]
82. Jaesung Lee, Ralph D. Ellis, Jae-Ho Pyeon. Proposed Methodology for Dynamic Schedule Compression 986-991. [Crossref]
83. Ming-Kuan Tsai, Jyh-Bin Yang, Chang-Yu Lin. 2007. Synchronization-based model for improving on-site data collection
performance. Automation in Construction 16:3, 323-335. [Crossref]
84. Richard A. Reid. 2007. Applying the TOC five‐step focusing process in the service sector. Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal 17:2, 209-234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
85. M.A. Ribeiro, J.L. Silveira, R.Y. Qassim. 2007. Joint optimisation of maintenance and buffer size in a manufacturing system.
European Journal of Operational Research 176:1, 405-413. [Crossref]
86. Mark Stevenson, Linda C. Hendry. 2006. Aggregate load-oriented workload control: A review and a re-classification of a key
approach. International Journal of Production Economics 104:2, 676-693. [Crossref]
87. Hilma Raimona Zadry, Sha'ri Mohd Yusof. 2006. Total Quality Management and Theory of Constraints Implementation in
Malaysian Automotive Suppliers: A Survey Result. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 17:8, 999-1020. [Crossref]
88. Chih-Hsien Chen, Shuo-Yan Chou. An Integrated Approach to Process Design for Air Cargo Transportation 3152-3157.
[Crossref]
89. Roman Boutellier, Karin Loffler. Bottleneck Technologies: Applying the Constraints Approach to Technology Management
Evidence from Case Studies 38-45. [Crossref]
90. Richard A. Reid, Thomas E. Shoemaker. 2006. USING THE THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS to focus organizational
improvement efforts: Part 1-Defining the problem. Journal - American Water Works Association 98:7, 63-75. [Crossref]
91. S. Mehra, R. A. Inman, G. Tuite. 2006. A simulation-based comparison of batch sizes in a continuous processing industry.
Production Planning & Control 17:1, 54-66. [Crossref]
92. Ike Ehie, Rupy Sawhney. Integrating Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing for Process Improvement 36-1-36-12. [Crossref]
93. Jaydeep Balakrishnan, Chun Hung Cheng. 2005. The Theory of Constraints and the Make-or-Buy Decision: An Update
and Review. The Journal of Supply Chain Management 41:1, 40-47. [Crossref]
94. Daniel C. Steele *, Patrick R. Philipoom, Manoj K. Malhotra, Timothy D. Fry. 2005. Comparisons between drum–buffer–
rope and material requirements planning: a case study. International Journal of Production Research 43:15, 3181-3208.
[Crossref]
95. Ike Ehie, Chwen Sheu. 2005. Integrating six sigma and theory of constraints for continuous improvement: a case study.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 16:5, 542-553. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
96. D. K. Chua, L. J. Shen. 2005. Key Constraints Analysis with Integrated Production Scheduler. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 131:7, 753-764. [Crossref]
97. Satish Mehra, R. Anthony Inman, Gregory Tuite. 2005. A simulation‐based comparison of TOC and traditional accounting
performance measures in a process industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 16:3, 328-342. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
98. M. Stevenson *, L. C. Hendry, B. G. Kingsman †. 2005. A review of production planning and control: the applicability of
key concepts to the make-to-order industry. International Journal of Production Research 43:5, 869-898. [Crossref]
99. G. Köksal *. 2004. Selecting quality improvement projects and product mix together in manufacturing: an improvement
of a theory of constraints-based approach by incorporating quality loss. International Journal of Production Research 42:23,
5009-5029. [Crossref]
100. Lynn Boyd, Mahesh Gupta. 2004. Constraints management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management
24:4, 350-371. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
101. Togar M. Simatupang, Alan C. Wright, Ramaswami Sridharan. 2004. Applying the theory of constraints to supply chain
collaboration. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 9:1, 57-70. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
102. Victoria J. Mabin, Steven J. Balderstone. 2003. The performance of the theory of constraints methodology. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 23:6, 568-595. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
103. D. K. H. Chua, L. J. Shen, S. H. Bok. 2003. Constraint-Based Planning with Integrated Production Scheduler over Internet.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 129:3, 293-301. [Crossref]
104. Thomas Grünberg. 2003. A review of improvement methods in manufacturing operations. Work Study 52:2, 89-93. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
105. M. Gupta. 2003. Constraints management--recent advances and practices. International Journal of Production Research 41:4,
647-659. [Crossref]
106. Shams‐ur Rahman. 2002. The theory of constraints’ thinking process approach to developing strategies in supply chains.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 32:10, 809-828. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
107. Mahesh Gupta, Hyun-Jeung Ko, Hokey Min. 2002. TOC-based performance measures and five focusing steps in a job-shop
manufacturing environment. International Journal of Production Research 40:4, 907-930. [Crossref]
108. Victoria J. Mabin, Steve Forgeson, Lawrence Green. 2001. Harnessing resistance: using the theory of constraints to assist
change management. Journal of European Industrial Training 25:2/3/4, 168-191. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
109. Harvey Maylor. 2001. Beyond the Gantt chart:. European Management Journal 19:1, 92-100. [Crossref]
110. R. Y. Qassim. 2000. The theory of constraints in manufacturing. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences 22:4,
503-511. [Crossref]
111. Shams Rahman. The Theory of Constraints 136-156. [Crossref]

International Journal of Operations & Production Management: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Operations & Production Management: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

Theory of constraints: A review of the philosophy and its applications

Technology Management, Vol. 16 Iss 3 pp. 302-311 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380510583617">https://

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Today’s businesses are competing increasingly on time and quality. Companies

not negative. Because constraints determine the performance of a

better realised, leading to improvements in overall system performance.

Figure 1. Subordinate all Exploit constraint

(6) Bottlenecks govern both throughput and inventories.

delivery date performance.

Recently, Goldratt (1994) developed a generic approach to address policy

Generic questions Purpose TP tools

What to change? Identify core problems Current reality tree

New performance measurements

operational measurements are defined first.

business environment: lack of relevance; cost distortion; inflexibility; subjection

Production and Inventory Management 1 5 1 1 1 5 2 1 4 2 23

• Journal of Operational Research Society;

Literature on the concept and enhancement of TOC concept

TOC TOC TOC Future

Conceptual Enhancement Comparison Books on TOC Books based

Applications in business areas

such as purchasing, quality management, information management (Gardiner

Conclusions and future research directions

June, pp. 18-20.

Industrial Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 39-45. [CN]

[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

and Engineering Management 10:2, 102-108. [Crossref]

raw data collection and automated data processing 1678-1689. [Crossref]

You might also like