Int. J.

Production Economics 165 (2015) 38–50

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Int. J. Production Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

A study of scheduling under the theory of constraints

Davood Golmohammadi n
Management Science and Information Systems Department, University of Massachusetts Boston, United States

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, the implementation of the theory of constraints (TOC) rules for job-shop systems to
Received 18 May 2014 advance the state of research on constraint scheduling is investigated. Most previous studies have
Accepted 12 March 2015 applied the TOC concepts and rules to simple process flows, but the nature of job-shop systems adds
Available online 20 March 2015
complexity to scheduling. The current rules of thumb for scheduling based on the TOC are implemented
Keywords: for a case study in the automotive industry. A number of simulation scenarios are discussed, providing
Theory of constraints insights into the master production schedule (MPS), the drum–buffer–rope (DBR) scheduling method,
Production planning the role of setup times in scheduling, the impact of free products (those that do not use constraint
Drum–buffer–rope resources) on throughput, and the effect of priority rules in resource assignment to free products.
Scheduling
Moreover, optimization techniques are used to find optimal and/or satisfactory solutions for input
variables in the simulation experiment. Our findings suggest that the current rules of thumb should be
modified for real-world applications and complex job-shop systems.
& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction size) have the most significant impact on a job-shop system's

Developed by Goldratt in the early 1980s, the TOC has evolved
over the past thirty years. It was first applied in production planning
and scheduling to maximize enterprises' profits and effectiveness
with respect to market requirements by identifying and exploiting
constraint resources. To maximize profits, the TOC can be used to
develop a master production schedule (MPS) that maximizes the
throughput of the system constraints (i.e., exploits the constraints).
In most cases in the literature (see the background section), the
proposed heuristic scheduling techniques under the TOC are imple-
mented based on simple process maps. To effectively implement the
TOC approach in real-world operations, we investigated the pro-
posed common scheduling rules in the literature. To conduct a
comprehensive study and understand the behavior and dynamism
of a complex job-shop production system, we studied a real case in
the automotive industry that has a great deal of operations complex-
ity like most real-world job-shop systems. The operations include
different processing and setup times. This paper provides a detailed
description and analysis of the case study and its key features. The
following research questions were investigated:
a. How efficient are the TOC's detailed control systems (DBR) and its
buffer management?
b. Which of the input variables for scheduling (inter-arrival time
between batches, release time for raw materials, and arrival batch
n
Tel.: þ 1 617 287 7888.
E-mail address: davood.golmohammadi@umb.edu
performance?
c. How do the TOC priority rules for scheduling of free products
(those products that do not use constraint resources) affect the
throughput and profit of a job-shop system?
d. Are there conditions under which the throughput is not improved
by assigning scheduling priority to non-free products?
The case study was investigated based on three scheduling systems
developed for the operations. System 1 prepared a schedule in multiple
steps (i.e., MPS and DBR) and was based on general concepts and rules
from the literature. Then, System 1 (the initial scheduling plan) was
simulated to evaluate performance and determine the throughput.
System 2 employed a set of ad hoc solutions based on the initial
scheduling plan of System 1. Based on an analysis of the simulation
results, we varied the values of input variables such as batch size and
examined several scenarios in order to investigate the impact of these
inputs on throughput and profit. System 3 used optimization techni-
ques to determine the best input values for the simulation model to
generate the best throughputs. Statistical analysis based on the
generated scenarios in the simulation and optimization process was
performed to address the impact of input variables on profit. Finally,
the role of a free product and priority rules for the operations of parts
in scheduling were studied. Our results reveal that scheduling rules of
thumb in the literature may not be effective for a real and complex job-
shop production system, and suggest that some modifications and new
insights should be considered. The paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 reviews the literature and the background, Section 3
describes the case study and its characteristics. Section 4 presents the
research methodology. Section 5 shows the results of proposed systems

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.03.015
0925-5273/& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 D. Golmohammadi / Int. J. Production Economics 165 (2015) 38–50
implementation. Section 6 presents the statistical analysis. Section 7
discusses the role of free products and priority rules. Section 8 reviews
contributions and concludes.
2. Background and literature review
The TOC attempts to identify constraints in the system, exploiting
and elevating them to improve the overall output of the system
(Fawcett and Pearson, 1991). The TOC steps are well explained in the
literature (Goldratt, 1990b; Fredendall and Lea, 1997). A brief review
of the TOC scheduling approach is given below.
The production planning procedure has two main steps: MPS
development and detailed schedule planning (the DBR implementation).
2.1. Master Production Scheduling (MPS)
MPS planning is developed based on the first two principles of
the TOC. In situations that include more than one constraint or
bottleneck, it may be difficult to identify which one is the primary
constraint. When creating the MPS, the TOC heuristic treats the
resource that has the largest difference between its actual and
required capacity as the primary constraint (e.g. Plenert 1993).
Lawrence and Buss (1994) established that due to shifting con-
straints, the resource that will limit throughput may not be the
resource that has the highest load in excess of its capacity. They
argued that as the job-shop becomes more balanced, it is harder to
manage, since the possibility of shifting the constraint is higher.
Over time, scholars have improved MPS development algorithms
(Fredendall and Lea, 1997; Hsu and Chung, 1998; Aryanezhad and
Komijan, 2004; Wang et al., 2009; Komijan et al., 2009; Zheng et al.,
2012, Badri et al., 2014), but drawbacks still exist in their methods.
Primarily, most of these algorithms are validated based on simple
examples and may not effectively scale up to large scale or real
world operations in a job-shop system with complex operations
scheduling.
2.2. Operation Scheduling (OS)
After developing the MPS, a detailed schedule is created to
determine the release time of various parts to the operations. To
synchronize operations in the system, the DBR technique is applied.
DBR is used in the TOC as a control tool (Schragenheim and Ronen,
1990; Lea and Min, 2003, Fredendall et al., 2010). In fact, release time
is calculated by subtracting a time buffer from the constraint
schedule. When the DBR technique is applied to scheduling, the
buffer size is set by the initial computation.
Two factors influence system performance: disruptions and
complexities (Schragenheim and Ronen, 1990). Disruptions stem
from a variety of causes, such as breakdowns, absenteeism, fluctua-
tions in setup and processing times, unreliable vendors, and scraps.
The second factor, complexities, causes changes in buffer levels.
Buffer levels affect operations scheduling and release times. Some
recommend that buffer size should be three times the average lead
time to the constraint (Schragenheim et al., 1994), while others use a
rule of thumb that starts with a buffer of five times the sum of the
setup and processing times of operations between the material
release stage and the constraint (Spencer and Cox, 1995).
Hundreds of successful DBR stories have been reported, and
these reports claim that highly reliable due-date performance can
be rapidly achieved (for representative examples, see Mabin and
Balderstone, 2003; Umble et al., 2006). For detailed scheduling,
numerous authors have discussed the abilities and applications of
planning and control systems based on the TOC (e.g., Lundrigan,
1986; Vollmann, 1986; Lambrecht and Decaluwe, 1988; Ashcroft,
1989; Bond, 1993; Gardiner et al., 1993; Lawrence and Buss, 1994;
39
Schragenheim et al., 1994; Simons and Simpson, 1997; Cox
and Spencer, 1998; Chakravorty, 2001; Riezebos et al., 2003;
Chakravorty and Atwater, 2005; Umble et al., 2006; Tsai et al.,
2007; Betterton and Cox, 2009; Kuo et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2010;
Yao, 2012; Chang, 2012; De souza et al., 2013; Cannon et al., 2013;
Badri et al., 2014; Sobreiro et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014). Linhares
(2009) has criticized the current algorithms and claims that an
effective and optimum heuristic is simply impossible. Existing
algorithms ignore the significant impact of inherent randomness
in processing times, which contributes to delays, inventory accu-
mulation, idle time, and underutilization.
Most of the aforementioned studies developed or employed
heuristics algorithms to implement the TOC steps and concept based
on simple process-flow examples. These heuristics may not be
appropriate for many job-shop systems because they are not suited
to more complex situations. For instance, when bottlenecks feed each
other or when a bottleneck is part of operations for several products,
scheduling is especially difficult. The existing rules of thumb for
scheduling, which include buffer size, batch size, and material release
time computations, may not be appropriate for real job-shop systems,
which are dynamic and include the possibility of shifting bottlenecks.
In general, the literature concludes that the principles of the
TOC are useful but do not always provide sufficient guidance in the
design of planning and control systems, especially with respect to
multiple capacity constraint resources.
In this research, the performance of DBR and rules of thumb for
the buffer size computations of a complex operation are evaluated.
The TOC rules of thumb and techniques for a case study are
implemented, the performance of scheduling is investigated, and
insights into the TOC implementation for real-world operations
are provided. First the case study characteristics are explained and
then the research methodology is illustrated.
3. Case study
The case study involves an automotive parts manufacturer that
operates based on a job-shop system. We selected the operations of
three products, A, B, and C, which have 2000, 5000, and 2000 units
of demand respectively, with a production horizon of one month.
Product B consists of two types of raw materials, B1 and B2.
Processing times are shown in Tables 1 and 2. One machine of
each type was available for operations. Fig. 1 shows different
operation routings of the products. Although the process flow of
each product is similar to that of a flow-shop system, the machine
code shows that only one machine was used in the different steps of
the process. For instance, Fig. 1 shows that Machine 6 was used in
several processes; this was just one machine in a specific location in
a job-shop layout. Each machine may be used in several operations
among products, or in different steps of operations on a product. For
instance, the process routing of part A starts on the left side, where
material A is processed on Machine 8. It is then passed to Machine
7 for the next step of operations and so on. Each block in Fig. 1
indicates the operation code and machine code (right side). Fig. 1
depicts all of the sequences in the operations of each product, the
role of each machine, and the scheduling complexity.
The manufacturer's operations database has a history of all
operations and related times. These times were achieved through
motion and time studies (the stopwatch method), which is common
in manufacturing. The distributions were derived from the sample of
each operation.
Since most of the machines were used in different steps of the
operations, managing the constraints was not an easy task. Also, the
primary constraint, Machine 6 (which will be discussed later), was
operating for two products (B and C) in different steps of the
operation. This is the kind of complexity that is common in industry
40 D. Golmohammadi / Int. J. Production Economics 165 (2015) 38–50

Table 1
Processing and setup times of operations, products A and C.

Product A Setup time (mean, standard Product C Setup time (mean, standard
deviation) deviation)
Product Processing time (mean, standard Product Processing time (mean, standard
routing deviation) routing deviation)

8 ↓ Normal (.5, .14) Gamma (20, 5) 9 Normal (.5, .13) Gamma (16, 7)
7 Normal (.5, .19) Gamma(122, 24) 12 Normal (1.35, .28) Gamma (22, 9)
7 Normal (1.5, .23) Gamma(115, 36) 4 Normal (.5, .19) Gamma (30, 11)
3 Normal (1, .25) Gamma (27, 5) 6 Normal (.85, .23) Gamma (47, 22)
5 Normal (.5, .11) Gamma (32, 8) 6 Normal (.75, .31) Gamma (42, 19)
3 Normal (.5, .21) Gamma (37, 15) 12 Normal (2, .71) Gamma (48, 24)
5 Normal (.5, .12) Gamma (26, 11) 16 Normal (.3, .1) Gamma (28, 12)
4 Normal (.5, .21) Gamma (33, 14) 6 Normal (1, .39) Gamma (46, 18)
4 Normal (.5, .17) Gamma (20, 5) 12 Normal (1.4, .17) Gamma (22, 9)
5 Normal (.5, .22) Gamma (20, 5) 13 Normal (4, 1.6) Gamma (32, 15)
2 Normal (.4, .11) Gamma (20, 5) 13 Normal (5, 1.9) Gamma (29, 13)
2 Normal (.5, .15) Gamma (20, 5) 14 Normal (2, .8) Gamma (126, 46)
7 Normal (1, .27) Gamma 132, 29) 15 Normal (1, .37) Gamma (64, 34)
7 Normal (1, .32) Gamma(112, 44) 16 Normal (.3, .12) Gamma (35,10)

Table 2
Processing and setup times of operations, product B.

Product B

B1 B2

Product Processing time (mean, standard Setup time (mean, standard Product Processing time (mean, standard Setup time (mean, standard
routing deviation) deviation) routing deviation) deviation)

1 ↓ Normal (.25, .11) Gamma (22, 6) 9 Normal (.5, .12) Gamma (17, 5)
5 Normal (.3, .16) Gamma (33, 10) 12 Normal (1.25, .26) Gamma (22, 8)
6 Normal (.5, .15) Gamma (51, 19) 4 Normal (.4, .15) Gamma (35, 7)
5 Normal (1, .21) Gamma (30, 8)
5 Normal (.45, .19) Gamma (30, 14)
4 Normal (.3, .14) Gamma (45, 17)
6 Normal (.5, .15) Gamma (80, 13)
5 Normal (.55, .13) Gamma (30, 5)
4 Normal (.3, .11) Gamma (32, 9)
3 Normal (1, .27) Gamma (28, 11)
1 Normal (1.05, .31) Gamma (33, 14)
10 Normal (.5, .17) Gamma (55, 16)
11 Normal (3, .51) Gamma (31, 10)

and makes scheduling based on the TOC a challenging and infor-
mative experience.
In summary, the following complexities exist in the above
operations:
 The constraints feed each other.
 There are a number of setups in the constraints and many parts
use them.
 The different parts of one product need to use the constraint.
 The difference between available and required capacity for
some resources (machines) is not significant (which may shift
the bottlenecks).
 The sequence of operations shows that most of the machines
(constraint and non-constraint) are used by all products.
 Processing and setup times are different for the same operation
of different products.
We selected and studied this case for five reasons. First, the
system has complex flows that may create many shifting con-
straints. Second, the complexity of the system provides an excel-
lent environment in which to test the value of using an MPS based
on the TOC and DBR scheduling systems, as well as the impact of
varying resource utilization levels on operations performance.
Third, it allows us to analyze the impact of several factors on
throughput: arrival batch size, inter-arrival time, the dispatch of
raw materials, resource utilization, and work in process (WIP).
Fourth, the role of free products in scheduling can be investigated.
Fifth, the impact of priority rules for the operations of parts on the
system performance can be analyzed.
We applied MPS and DBR scheduling logic to this case. These
complexities make this study unique in terms of evaluating schedul-
ing techniques and common rules in the TOC.
4. Research methodology
Two sets of variables were defined in this study: input and
output. Input variables were inter-arrival time between batches,
release time for raw materials, and arrival batch size. Output
variables were worked in process (WIP), resource utilization,
profit, and the number of finished products.
Three scheduling systems were developed here as follows:
 System 1, prepared in multiple steps, was a scheduling plan (MPS
and DBR) based on general concepts and rules in the literature
(Schragenheim and Ronen, 1990; Goldratt, 1990a; Schragenheim
and Ronen, 1991; Spencer and Cox, 1995; Fredendall and Lea,
1997).
 D. Golmohammadi / Int. J. Production Economics 165 (2015) 38–50 41

The first step was to find the constraints and make the initial MPS. DBR. In the final step, verification of the initial plan and its results
We implemented the Fredendall and Lea (1997) method as a well- was achieved by simulation techniques.
known algorithm in the case study to develop the MPS. The next The production line described above was coded in a simulation
step was to design a detailed schedule for operations based on the program, ARENA 12, which allowed for graphic model verification,
statistical analysis, multiple scenarios, and varying input para-
meters. We ran the model for a one-month period (8 h per day,
5 days per week). Animation capability and verification techniques
in ARENA 12 allowed us to ensure that the simulation model
A B C
correctly considered all the assumptions made and parameters set.
We assumed that there were no defective parts or machine
A14 7
failures. Furthermore, we set the break time during operations at
B0 11 C14 16
A13 7 30 min per day. During this one-month period of operations,
B1,12 10 C13 15 demand was satisfied as much as possible given available machine
A12 2 capacity. At the end of the month, operations were stopped.
B1,11 1 C1 2 14 Therefore, it was not appropriate here to consider a warm-up
A11 2 period to reach a steady state (Kelton et al., 2009). More details are
B1,10 3 C11 13 provided in the next section.
A10 5  System 2 was a set of ad hoc solutions based on the initial schedule
B1, 9 4 C10 13
in System 1. By varying the values of input variables based on an
A9 4
B1, 8 5 C9 12 analysis of simulation results, several scenarios were examined via
A8 4 simulation to investigate the impact of these inputs on the output.
B1,7 6 C8 6  System 3 was an optimized plan to determine the input values
A7 5 for the simulation model that would generate the best outputs.
B1,6 4 C7 16
A6 3
B1 , 5 5 C6 12 All three systems used the same MPS and ad hoc solutions
A5 5 (System 2), or optimization techniques (System 3) were applied for
B1, 4 5 C5 6
detailed scheduling factors (input variables). A summary of these
A4 3
systems is shown in Fig. 2.
B1,3 6 B2,3 4 C4 6
A3 7
B1,2 5 B2,2 12 C3 4
A2 7
B1,1 1 B2,1 9 C2 12 5. Systems implementation and results analysis
A1 8
C1 9
The three aforementioned systems are discussed in detail based
Fig. 1. Process routing for each product. on the case study data for further analysis.

System 1 Purpose

Design of the MPS & DBR based on the a. How efficient are the existing TOC procedures for
current rules for the case study This system addresses developing the MPS?

b. How efficient are the TOC’s detailed control systems

Simulation and evaluation of the operations
known as the DBR and buffer management?
based on the designed schedule

System2

Consideration of the schedule from System 1
and change to input variables (ad hoc
changes)
Simulation and evaluation of the operations
and the effect of changes
Which of the input variables for scheduling (inter-arrival
times between batches, release time for raw materials
This system addresses and arrival batch sizes) has the most significant impact
on the performance of a job-shop system?

System 3

Use of the optimization technique to

determine the best values for input variables This system addresses A comparison environment and complete evaluation of
both previous purposes
( OPTQUEST as an optimization software
determines these values and checks the
response automatically using Arena)

Fig. 2. Summary of Systems 1–3.

42 D. Golmohammadi / Int. J. Production Economics 165 (2015) 38–50

Table 4
Contribution margin (CMi) Calculation of the contribution margin based on Machine 13.

Product Machine

6 13 D CM Rt ¼ CM
ti

A – – 2000 1500 –
3000
2200
1500

B 1 – 5000 2200 –
C 2.6 9 2000 3000 3000
9 ¼ 333:3
Market demand (Di)

Table 5
The initial MPS based on Machine 13.
2000
5000
2000

Priority Demand MPS Machine 13 Machine 6

Total time Used Time Total time Used Time

.6
0
0

1200
240
1440

1440

available time left available time left

16

C 2000 1800 16,200 16,200 0 9480 4680 4800

0
0
1
2400

2400
2000
400

B 5000 5000 – – – 4800 5000  200

15

A 2000 2000 – – – – –  200

0
0
2
4800

4800
4000
800
14

Table 6
0
0
9

16,200
18,000
 1800
11,520
4680

The final MPS based on Machine 6.

13

Priority Demand MPS Machine 6 Machine 13

4.75
0
0

9500
11,520

2020
11,520

Total Used Time Total Used Time

time time left time time left
12

available available
0
3
0
12,000

15,000
4680

1680
16,680

B 5000 5000 9480 5000 4480 16,200 – 16,200

11

C 2000 1723 4480 4479.8 .2 16,200 15,507 693

A 2000 2000 .2 – – 693 – 693
.5
0

2500
3360

3360

860
10

.5
.5

5.1. System 1
0

7200

7200
3500
3700
9

The MPS and DBR were designed as follows:

.5
0
0

1000
1920

1920

920
8

5.1.1. MPS planning

4
0
0
9600

9600
8000
1600

The first step was to identify the system's constraints. Table 3

7

provides the data for MPS planning (i.e., market demand, available
2.6
0
1

4800

10,200
 720
4680
9480

capacity, resource capacity, and the difference between them).

The difference between actual and required capacity showed that
6

four machines (5, 6, 11, and 13) were constraints. By considering

1.5
2.3
0

16,200
14,500
1700
11,520
4680

overtime work and subcontracting, more available capacity was

provided (4680 min) and Machines 5 and 11 were theoretically
5

converted to non-constraints. The capacity differences for Machines

.5

6 and 13 were also reduced to 720 and  1800, respectively.

1
1

9120

9120
8000
1120

Comparing these figures, it was observed that Machine 13 was the

4
Machine (resource) number

primary constraint. Note that the average processing time was used for
1.5
Processing times (average) and capacity differences.

1
0

8000
8640

8640

640

the computation and available capacities were given by management.

3

Using the accounting system of the case study regarding the

.9

contribution margin (CM), shown in Table 4, the initial MPS was

0
0

1800
1920

1920

120

developed based on the primary constraint (i.e., Machine 13). The

2

results are shown in Table 5. The order of products in Table 5 is

1.3

derived from the ranking of the ratio column (Rt) in Table 4. The
0

0
8160

8160
6500
1660

demand is satisfied based on the total available time of the

1

primary constraint. This is a common method of MPS development

Capacity difference (dj)
Available capacity (CPj)

based on the TOC; for more detail, see Spencer and Cox, 1995;
Required capacity

Fredendall and Lea, 1997; Aryanezhad and Komijan, 2004.

Normal capacity
Extra capacity

The developed MPS based on Machine 13 was not feasible

because Machine 6 did not have adequate capacity to produce
Product

products A and B. Therefore, it was concluded that Machine 6 was

Table 3

the primary constraint based on the Fredendall and Lea (1997)

A
B
C

algorithm. Using this information, the final MPS was developed as

 D. Golmohammadi / Int. J. Production Economics 165 (2015) 38–50 43

shown in Table 6. The product mix was 2000, 5000, and 1723 units Table 8
of products A, B, and C, respectively. Note that for the sake of Material release time.
simplifying the computations, we rounded the number of units of
Material Quantity Release time (h)
product C from 1723 to 1720.
B1 5000 0
5.1.2. Operations Scheduling (DBR) C 1720 36
B2 5000 70.5
We designed the DBR in the following manner. First, we
established buffers to ensure that disruptions of non-constraint
processes would not adversely impact output or ability to meet
demand. Two buffers, the constraint and assembly buffers, were
built into the system.
The constraint buffer was placed between the raw material Table 9
release stage and the primary constraint (Machine 6). Release The simulation results of the initial plan.
times were determined based on Machine 6. Spencer and Cox
Machine Utilization Average number of parts waiting in the queue
(1995) described a process for setting the initial buffer level. They
recommended a rule of thumb for the buffer size as the summa- 1 .0725 148.73
tion of processing and setup times (from the initial operation stage 2 0 0
to the constraint) multiplied by 5. Here, Machine 6 was the 3 .2125 212.39
4 .3958 1214.88
constraint that received material earliest. It fed other machines
5 .5601 1661.89
in the operations routings of products B and C. Following the 6 .4908 770.96
method of Spencer and Cox (1995), the buffer level was set at 7 .1556 155.48
336 min for Machine 6. Since the second constraint, Machine 13, 8 .0708 70.79
was fed by Machine 6, there was no need to assign it a buffer. The 9 .2042 346.13
10 0 0
scheduling of Machine 6 is shown in Table 7. This scheduling was 11 0 0
coded in the simulation model to evaluate the buffer level 12 .6903 1317.44
and rules. 13 0 0
As an initial plan, batch size was considered to be equal to 14 0 0
15 0 0
demand, which is common in TOC-based planning (Schragenheim
16 .0232 36.17
and Ronen, 1990). This leads to a reduction of setup times in
constraints. Since product A did not use the constraint, it was a
free product. Thus, producing products B and C both had high
priority. Product A was produced when there was no WIP for
products B or C in front of the machines. Product B consisted of on the first draft of scheduling was useful because it showed how
two parts; part B1 used Machine 6 in two steps of the operations the entire operations was working, where the bottlenecks were
and was then assembled with part B2. Thus, a buffer was needed shifted, and how the MPS, the rules of thumb for buffer size, and the
before the assembly operation. material release times were performing. According to the simulation
Our next step was to develop a detailed schedule for Machine 6, results, the production line was increasingly overloaded and the
which is the “drum” in the DBR system because it sets the pace of simulation run was prematurely terminated. There was no finished
operations. The buffer size in the TOC is based on time. For instance, product for any type (A, B, or C); thus, profit was 0. Therefore, all
a machine has materials for three hours as a buffer size. Once the input materials were stuck in the operations and the WIP for all
two buffers were developed, they could be used to tie the order's products was at the maximum level: 2000, 5000, and 1720 for A, B,
due date to its constraint schedule and continuing to work back- and C, respectively. These results are shown in Table 9.
ward, to tie the schedule of Machine 6 to the order's release date. According to the average number of parts waiting in the queue,
To calculate material arrival time, the buffer was deducted from Machines 5, 12, and 4, which did not initially seem to be bottle-
the starting time. Due to the high priority of product B, it was necks, in fact acted as bottlenecks. We expected to see Machine
necessary to enter B1 into the production line. Table 8 shows the 6 act as the main bottleneck, but observations showed a bottle-
material release time. neck shift in real operations. This shift happened because the
The details of DBR and buffer calculations as proposed by hidden effect of queues and WIP was significant, caused mainly by
Schragenheim and Ronen (1990) were the origin of the above the large batch sizes, the complex operations sequence, and an
initial detailed scheduling. inaccurate dispatching of raw materials. These results show that
the production capacities of various machines, especially the
5.1.3. Simulation results bottleneck machines, were adversely affected. This shows a lack
After developing an MPS and detailed schedule, we simulated the of efficiency in existing TOC procedures and suggests that current
initial plan and analyzed the results. Running the first system based rules such as buffer size assumptions for real-world operations
need improvement. These findings and this analysis address the
research question in part a and provide some insights for the part
Table 7 b question in the introduction section.
Scheduling of Machine 6.

Operation Lot size Starting time (from the start point of the
5.2. System 2
code production period/h)

B1,3 5000 0 In the second system, several simulation runs were conducted
C4 1723  1720 41.6 based on the MPS and detailed schedule of System 1 to probe the
C5 1720 64.5 behavior of input and output variables. These runs were ad hoc
B1,7 5000 87.4
C8 1720 110.3
solutions and each solution was proposed based on the analysis
of simulation results. The purpose of the second system was a
44 D. Golmohammadi / Int. J. Production Economics 165 (2015) 38–50

preliminary study of the impact of input variables on output variables.
We defined three scenarios based on the following input variables:
1. Material release time was fixed while batch sizes were varied
(i.e., material release time was the same as in System 1).
2. Material release time was varied and batch sizes were the same
as in System 1.
3. Material release time and batch sizes were both varied.
Since batch sizes were considered the same as demand in
System 1, inter-arrival time had no role in the original plan.
Therefore, it was not considered in System 2.
Scenario 1
The material release plan was set similarly to that of System 1,
but the batch sizes were reduced by several steps. The first
proposed solution was to set the batch sizes to half the original
size; accordingly, the simulation results were evaluated (the first
reduction). We set a reduction of 10% to the current batch sizes
and ran the simulation model (the second reduction). No
significant improvement was achieved, so the reduction was
continued at a greater rate, 25% of original batch sizes (the third
reduction). Note that whenever the WIP of a product was zero,
no further reduction in its batch size was considered. In such a
situation, more reduction means less input to the operations,
which results in less throughput and profit. For instance, the raw
materials of product A could come out as final products from the
production line after the first reduction in batch size. Therefore,
no change in size took place in other reduction steps. Accord-
ingly, the fourth reduction was considered only for product C. In
this scenario, profit increased as batch size decreased. Smaller
batch sizes could push more materials to the end of the
production line and created less WIP, which resulted in more
throughput and profit. The results are shown in Fig. 3.
Since further reduction could decrease profit as well as the number
of finished products, we stopped at the fourth reduction model.
Scenario 2
The second set of solutions is based on changes in material
release time. We fixed batch sizes similarly to the first system,
although we increased the material release time to double the
values of the original solution (System 1). In other words, more
delay was added to the original plan to release material. No
change occurred in the results; no final product was produced.
We continued to increase the material release time without
improvement. This shows that batch size has a more important
role than material release time, and the throughput may not be
very sensitive to material release time.
Scenario 3
The third scenario was to simultaneously change the two input
variables: batch size and material release time. To reduce the
WIP in the system and increase the throughput, we decreased
the batch sizes and increased the material release time in some
steps simultaneously. The results showed that as batch sizes
were decreased and material release time was increased, the
profit and throughputs increased to a certain point; after that
point, increasing the material release time could make some
resources idle, and starvation for materials caused low profit
and throughput. The details are shown in Table 10.
Running different scenarios based on ad hoc solutions may
provide insight into the behavior of operations and the impact and
role of input variables on the operations and throughputs. How-
ever, numerous scenarios should be investigated, a cumbersome
task with no guarantee of obtaining an optimal or nearly optimal
solution. The findings and analysis of this system may help to
illuminate the behavior of the operations and to reveal which of
the input variables for scheduling have the most significant impact
on the performance of a job-shop system.

5.3. System 3

In System 1, the MPS and detailed scheduling plan were deter-

Fig. 3. Impact of batch size reduction on Profit: Scenario 1 of System 2.
mined using the current algorithm and general rules of thumb in the
TOC, and simulation modeling was used to evaluate the performance
of scheduling. The MPS developed in System 1 was used for all
systems. However, for the detailed scheduling plan, we integrated the
optimization and simulation techniques in System 3. We determined
the optimal values for input variables to maximize throughput. An ad
hoc solution or heuristic scheduling technique may not be helpful in
finding the optimal or satisfactory values. For instance, the range of
batch sizes of product B as one of the input variables can be
considered as 1 to 5000. Considering all input variables with their
possible ranges and determining the optimal values make this a very
difficult task.

Table 10
Details of Scenario 3 of System 2.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Material Batch size Arrival time Material Batch size Arrival time Material Batch size Arrival time Material Batch size Arrival time

B1 1875 0 ↓ B1 1875 0 ↓ B1 1875 0 ↓ B1 1875 0 ↓

C 645 43.2 C 483 54 C 483 64.8 C 645 144
B2 1875 84.6 B2 1875 105.8 B2 1875 126.9 B2 1875 141
A 1000 0 A 1000 0 A 1000 0 A 1000 0
Throughput Throughput Throughput Throughput
A 1000 A 1000 A 1000 A 1000
B 1875 B 1875 B 1875 B 1318
C 0 C 483 C 0 C 0
Profit 5,625,000 Profit 7,074,000 Profit 5,625,000 Profit 4,399,600
 D. Golmohammadi / Int. J. Production Economics 165 (2015) 38–50 45

In System 3, we used optimization techniques to find an optimal
or satisfactory schedule. Without an appropriate tool, finding an
optimal solution for a simulation model generally requires searching
in a heuristic or ad hoc fashion. This usually involves running a
simulation for an initial set of decision variables, analyzing the
results, changing one or more variables, re-running the simulation,
and repeating this process until a satisfactory solution is obtained.
This process can be tedious and time-consuming, even for small
problems, and it is often unclear how to adjust the variables from
one simulation to the next.
Table 11
Best input variables values after optimization.
To find an optimal or satisfactory solution based on the best set
of input variables, we used OptQuest optimization software.
OptQuest overcomes the above limitation by automatically search-
ing for optimal solutions (input variable values) within the Arena
simulation model. OptQuest searches for a solution and moves
from one set of input values to the next. After determining each
set, it automatically evaluates the results of input values by
simulation. The results of this simulation help determine a direc-
tion toward an optimal solution.
As already mentioned, three types of input variables were
defined for this study: inter-arrival time between batches, release
time for raw material, and arrival batch size. The objective
function subject to the constraints was set as follows:

Maximize Max Z¼ 1500A þ2200B þ3000C

Subject to:
Objective value Status 0 rASIZE r2000
0 rB1SIZE r5000
Best value 1.464220E þ007 Feasible
Current value 1.37687E þ 007 Feasible
0 rB2SIZE r5000
Controls 0 rCSIZE r1720
Control name Best value Current value 0 rFCA r14,400
ASIZE 271 267 0 rFCB r14,400
B1SIZE 264 263
0 rFCC r14,400
B2SIZE 192 191
CSIZE 144 144 1 rInterArrival Time1 r14,400
FCA 542 394 1 rInterArrival Time2 r14,400
FCB 718 723 1 rInterArrival Time3 r14,400
FCC 625 579 1 rInterArrival Time4 r14,400
InterArrival Time 1 629 630
Where
InterArrival Time 2 566 559
InterArrival Time 3 430 437 Z: Profit (main objective)
InterArrival Time 4 680 677 InterArrival Time1: inter-arrival time between batches for
product A
InterArrival Time2: inter-arrival time between batches for
product C
Table 12 InterArrival Time3: inter-arrival time between batches for
Machine utilization and WIP levels for the optimized model.
product B (part B2)
Machine Utilization Average number of parts waiting in the queue InterArrival Time4: inter-arrival time between batches for
product B (part B1)
1 .416 63.26 FCA: initial release time for raw material of type A
2 .143 13.16 FCB: initial release time for raw material of type B2
3 .405 54.4
FCC: initial release time for raw material of type C
4 .79 127
5 .88 1084.5 ASIZE: arrival batch size of raw material of type A
6 .808 176.15 B1SIZE: arrival batch size of raw material of type B1
7 .716 319.4 B2SIZE: arrival batch size of raw material of type B2
8 .077 7.11
CSIZE: arrival batch size of raw material of type C
9 .225 23.06
10 .194 24.2
Note: The initial release time for raw material of type B (part
11 .27 34.2 B1) was set at time 0.
12 .877 165.9
13 .779 61.5
14 .244 12.1 The above optimization model was defined for OptQuest embedded
15 .122 6 in Arena. The model was simulated for 1000 runs with 30 iterations
16 .172 9.2
per run. The total profit was 14,642,200, and the numbers of the final
products were 1840, 3901, and 1100 for types A, B, and C, respectively,
which leaves a gap between the developed MPS and the throughput.
16000000
This shows that the complexity of operations reduces the accuracy of
14000000 0.9
12000000 0.8
0.7
10000000
Percentage

0.6
Profit

8000000 0.5
6000000 0.4
0.3 Utilization (Best Solution)
4000000
0.2 Utilization (initial Solution)
2000000 0.1
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Simulation Machine

Fig. 4. Trend of profit in the optimization process. Fig. 5. Comparison between utilization of the best solution and the initial solution.
46 D. Golmohammadi / Int. J. Production Economics 165 (2015) 38–50

scheduling. Of course the accuracy of the MPS has a critical role.
Managing the dynamism of operations when some machines are used
for several products with different setup operations is a difficult task,
and the more complex is the operation, the less likely is the chance of
achieving the planned throughput. This is one of the main reasons that
in real-world operations, detailed scheduling is usually re-evaluated
weekly to minimize deviation from the original plan. Over time,
subcontracting, adding shifts, and changing the detailed scheduling
plan are some of the common remedies for such deviations.
The best input variable values resulting from the simulation are
shown in Table 11. The resource utilization and the average parts
waiting for the operations are shown in Table 12. Fig. 4 shows the
trend of profit as the objective of the optimization problem.
Fig. 5 shows that utilization of resources significantly improved
from the initial schedule to the best solution, especially when
Machines 6 and 13 are considered as initial bottlenecks. Fig. 6
shows that in the best solution, the rate of WIP and of the parts in
the queues waiting for operation greatly improved. Although
Machine 5 had excess capacity for the required demand, this
graph indicates that Machine 5 played a critical role in the
operations as a primary constraint. An operations manager should
carefully supervise the operations of Machine 5.
As illustrated in the case study, the complexity of operations
enhanced the hidden effect of queues and WIP. Current algorithms
use capacity shortage as the basis for bottleneck identification and
do not consider the sequence of operations or the role of machines
in operations (i.e., the number of products that use each machine
and the number of times a product uses a machine). Our analysis
shows that current algorithms for bottleneck identification and
creating an MPS are not accurate, since, for instance, Machine
5 was identified as a real bottleneck.
In brief, in System 1, the MPS and detailed scheduling plan
were determined using the current algorithm and general rules of
thumb in the TOC, and simulation modeling was used to evaluate
the performance of scheduling. In System 3, we used optimization
techniques to find an optimal or satisfactory schedule. In System 3,
we designed the simulation model based on changes in the
common rules for buffer size, material release conditions, and
priority rules. The results of System 3 show much better through-
put for the operations. A summary of the suggested new rules is
presented in the conclusion section. The findings and analysis of
System 3 provide insight into the research questions in parts a and
b in the introduction section.
6. Statistical analysis
We used a standard multiple regression model to provide a
meticulous analysis of the input variables with the most signifi-
cant impact on the schedule plan performance. Profit was defined
as the dependent variable and input variables as the independent
variables. These independent variables have already been defined
in the aforementioned optimization model (e.g. ASIZE, FCA, Inter-
Arrival Time1). Tables A2 in the Appendix shows the entire list of
variables.
The 1000 generated scenarios during the optimization process
were used as sample size. Preliminary analysis was conducted to
ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity,
multi-collinearity, and homoscedasticity. The model was signifi-
cant and explained 66.6% of the variance in profit (r2). According to
correlation calculations, the bivariate correlation was not greater
than .7, so all variables were retained. The results of the coefficient
analysis also showed that there is no multi-collinearity, as shown
in Table 13. Based on the Beta and p values, we drew the
conclusion that batch size is the most important input variable.
More details are shown in Tables A2 and A3 in the Appendix.

7. Free products

In this section we discuss the impact of free products and

Fig. 6. Comparison between machines' queue in the initial schedule and the best solution.
priority rules in resource assignment. This discussion corresponds
to parts c and d of our research questions.
We investigated the role of free product A in scheduling. Since
free products do not use capacity at the primary resource con-
straint, they cannot play a role in MPS or DBR design. However, the
goal of TOC is to maximize throughput, and free products can
impact the protective capacity (the extra capacity available

Table 13
Coefficient analysis.

Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig. Correlations Collinearity statistics

B Std. Error Beta Zero-order Partial Part Tolerance VIF

(Constant) 415,724.067 9624.256 43.195 .000

ASIZE  37.839 8.588  .191  4.406 .000  .482  .214  .125 .429 2.331
B1SIZE  41.956 5.080  .298  8.260 .000  .517  .380  .234 .616 1.623
B2SIZE  53.219 4.533  .369  11.742 .000  .545  .504  .333 .814 1.229
CSIZE  32.312 8.680  .157  3.723 .000  .527  .182  .106 .451 2.220
FCA  7.207 4.049  .085  1.780 .076  .352  .088  .050 .350 2.854
FCB 2.622 2.861 .035 .917 .360  .138 .046 .026 .560 1.786
FCC 22.078 3.820 .263 5.780 .000  .122 .276 .164 .387 2.586
InterArrival Time1  7.102 4.180  .072  5.049 .060  .383  .243  .143 .380 2.634
InterArrival Time2  8.380 3.156  .104  2.655 .008  .397  .131  .075 .519 1.927
InterArrival Time3  9.846 3.384  .119  2.910 .004  .248  .143  .082 .482 2.074
InterArrival Time4 1.687 3.151 .026 .535 .593  .321 .027 .015 .338 2.961
 D. Golmohammadi / Int. J. Production Economics 165 (2015) 38–50
without demand) of operations, which ultimately impacts
resource constraint utilization and throughput. Goldratt (1990a)
explained that a perfectly balanced operation with no protective
capacity is undesirable and that some amount of both imbalance
and protective capacity is necessary to ensure optimal perfor-
mance. Several authors emphasize the importance of protective
capacity in the performance of DBR systems (Blackstone and Cox,
1998; Atwater and Chakravorty, 2002; Chakravorty and Atwater,
2005).
We manipulated the input variables of product A and studied
the impact on resource utilization (especially primary and poten-
tial constraints), WIP, throughputs, and profit. This study provides
insight into the relation of free products and scheduling principles
in the TOC for complex operations.
7.1. Analysis steps
For data manipulation and analysis, we considered the best
schedule resulting from the optimization technique, System 3. The
best solution can more accurately demonstrate the impact of a free
product on operations performance. Here, our focus of operations
performance is throughput, which is ultimately seen as profit.
Three scenarios were considered for each input variable of Product
A (a free product). The input variables for products B and C were
set based on the output of System 3, as shown in Table 11 for all
scenarios. In other words, the input values of product A vary, while
the input values of products B and C are fixed. In the first scenario,
the material release time of product A was increased incrementally
(by 500 units in each step), the batch size was set at the initial size
(2000), and the inter-arrival time was set at zero. In the second
scenario, the batch size of product A was reduced (by 300 units in
each step) and the release time and inter-arrival time were set at
the initial plan (0). In the third scenario, simultaneous changes in
the input variables of product A were considered. These scenarios
are ad hoc solutions based on the simulation results analysis;
however, they can still demonstrate the impact of free products on
the outputs. The results are given in Fig. 7, which shows that the
smallest batch size in the third scenario has a better performance
and higher profit. The highest profit belongs to the first point of
Scenario 3 in Fig. 7. The details of these input values are shown in
Table A1 in the Appendix.
The analysis shows that as the batch size of product A tapers
off, more throughputs are engendered. The results make sense for
several reasons. First, a small batch spends less time on each step
of operations, so it can reach the end of the production line more
quickly. Second, other products that utilize the same resources in
their sequence of operations can access the resources more
quickly, especially the non-free products (B and C). Therefore,
the protective capacity augments the number of finished products.
Throughput Profit
4000 16000000
3500 14000000
3000 12000000
2500 10000000
2000 8000000
1500 6000000
1000 4000000
500 2000000
0 0
Scenario1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Fig. 7. Impact of free product A on profit and throughput.
47
14000000
12000000
10000000
8000000
Profit
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Batch Size (ASIZE)
Fig. 8. Impact of input variables of free product A on profit.
Third, according to the priority rule implemented in the simula-
tion model, non-free products cannot seize a resource and inter-
rupt the operation if a batch of free products is being processed.
After finishing the operation of product A on a machine, opera-
tions on product B or C can start. Obviously, a large batch of
product A could increase the waiting time for product B or C, and
could result in less output. As the batch size of product A
decreases, system throughput increases. This results from product
A being unable to prevent the constrained products from using a
non-constrained resource.
Despite the increase of release time or inter-arrival time in
several steps, no significant change was found in the output. To
scrutinize the above analysis and find which input variables had a
significant impact on the output, the three input variables of
product A were varied individually by simulation (1000 runs of
30 iterations each) while all other input variables were set at their
optimal solutions. The analysis showed that profit is not sensitive
to changes in inter-arrival time and initial release time of material
A. As shown in Fig. 8, the results are in fact highly sensitive to
batch size. As batch size increased, profit tapered off.
7.2. Operations priority
Which product will have priority to use a resource if a batch of
a non-free product arrives as the resource is being used by a free
product? Should the batch of free product be interrupted in favor
of the non-free product? What criteria are important to make the
correct decision in such a situation? The priority rule in operations
for non-free products requires careful consideration and meticu-
lous interpretation, as we discuss below.
If batch sizes are at the ideal size (i.e., one piece) and setup
times are negligible, then non-free products have priority over free
products to seize and use a resource. (In certain conditions,
however, this may not be an appropriate decision, e.g. if the free
product is at the end of the production process and this priority
results in fewer final products by the due date and adds more
work in the process.) In the case of ideal batch size, the operation
of a batch of free product can be interrupted to accelerate the
operation of non-free products. This priority rule can enhance the
constraint utilization and throughput. If batch sizes are larger than
ideal, and setup times are part of the operations' condition, then
more complexity will be involved in the decision. Interruption of
operations while a batch of free products is being processed (in
order to follow the priority rules) may not be useful for the overall
Total Throughput of B goals, i.e., profit and throughput maximization. In such cases, three
Total Throughput of C questionable situations may be experienced:
Total Throughput of A
Profit
1- Two batches of products (free and non-free) arrive at a resource
at the same time.
48
16000000
NP P
14000000
12000000 P P P P P P NP P
NP NP NP NP
10000000
Profit
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Fig. 9. Impact of priority and non-priority rules on profit.
2- A batch of non-free products arrives at a resource while the
resource is being used by a batch of free products.
3- A batch of free products arrives at the resource while a non-
free product is being processed.
In the first case, the non-free product can seize the resource
and utilize it. There is no decision-making difficulty in this
situation, and this rule supports the essence of the TOC for con-
straint support and utilization. In the second case, either the batch
of free products should be interrupted, or, after finishing the
operation of the entire batch, the non-free product should use
the resource. In such cases, the decision vitally depends on setup
time and batch size. In the third case, no interruption is considered
to support the constraint.
Operations of the three scenarios discussed in Section 5.2 were
simulated with and without priority rules (no interruption in the
middle of operations) to investigate the impact of free products
and priority rules on the objective, as shown in Fig. 9. In Scenario
1, the batch sizes were set at the original plan, and implementa-
tion of the priority rule engendered enhanced results. The batch
sizes were at the maximum level for all products: 2000, 5000, and
1720 for A, B, and C, respectively. The priority rule caused an
interruption in the operation of processing a batch of A when
resources were needed by B or C. Batch sizes were large, and this
interruption could diminish the waiting time for the WIP of B or C
and could accelerate the process of reaching the final step of
operations for B or C.
As batch sizes were decreased in Scenarios 2 and 3, the use of
the priority rule did not result in better performance. When batch
sizes are small, and setup times exist, interruption can diminish
the available time of resources; therefore, it is better to finish the
batch of free product and then switch to a non-free product. But
what is the proper batch size for the priority-rule decision? The
answer might vary and depend on processing times, setup times,
and sequence of operations. However, the smaller the batch size,
the better the performance achieved by the absence of the
priority rule.
8. Summary of contributions and conclusion
Based on the rules of thumb in the TOC literature, the
implementation of scheduling techniques for a job-shop system
was investigated. The impact of free products on a production
system and throughput was analyzed. The role of priority rules for
non-free products and setup times was discussed.
This research provides several findings related to the schedul-
ing of complex operations that should be interesting to researchers
and practitioners. A summary of the findings to improve these
rules of thumb and scheduling accuracy in the context of the TOC
is as follows:
 The priority rule in operations for non-free products needs
careful consideration. If batch sizes are ideal (i.e., one or a very
D. Golmohammadi / Int. J. Production Economics 165 (2015) 38–50
NP small number) and setup times are negligible, then non-free
P: Priority
NP
P P NP P NP (with interuption ) products have priority over free products to seize and use a
NP: No Priority resource. Otherwise, the priority rule should be reevaluated
(no interuption) based on setup time and batch size criteria.
 Among defined input variables, batch size has a significant
impact on the throughput of a job-shop system in comparison
with two other factors, inter-arrival time and material release
Scenario 3 time. For operations that are simple in terms of sequence and
complexity conditions, other factors may have a significant
impact; however, in most job-shop systems, batch size can play
a crucial role.
 In a complex job-shop system, a reduction of the number of
setups in a constraint may not be the proper solution to
enhancing the capacity of the constraint. The overall gain of
throughput with small batch sizes, along with multiple setups,
does more than save time and capacity in the constraint. This
strategy can minimize WIP and enhance profit. This goes
against the batch-size rule in the TOC literature, which con-
siders batch size the same as demand to save time for working
hours (Schragenheim and Ronen, 1990). The resource assign-
ment priorities based on the CM should not necessarily be
followed when reaching due dates.
 For example, in a real production environment, there may be
two products, X and Y, which are competing to use the same
constraint simultaneously. Following the priority based on the
CM in this example, product X should be processed first.
However, after this operation, product X is not complete and
needs more operations, whereas assigning this resource to
product Y, a product with low priority, leads to the completion
of product Y, which can then be shipped to the customer. Thus,
based on the goal of meeting the due date, it is preferable to
expedite the WIP to be processed and shipped as soon as
possible, even though this priority conflicts with the original
priority based on the CM. In other words, while product X has
priority over product Y, the remaining time is not adequate to
complete the production of product X. The highest priority
should be switched to product Y, which needs less time to
reach the end of the production line.
 Scheduling of free products should be as important as that of
non-free products, especially when setup times are not negli-
gible and the sequence of operations is complex.
There are some limitations in this research. The data is based
on one complex case; therefore additional complex cases should
be studied for further validation. Another limitation is the number
of products. This case had three products (A, B, and C). For complex
cases, many products should be considered and some of them
should be free products. Due to the critical effect of batch size on
throughput and the hidden impact of the priority rule in a
complex situation, further research should be conducted in this
area. Mainly, most of the rules of thumb for scheduling parameters
such as batch size and buffer size do not take into account the
operations complexities.
As a future research direction, a method can be proposed to
define the complexities of operations, and to adjust batch sizes
and other parameters' rules of thumb accordingly. Expansion of
this investigation to other complex case studies and actual opera-
tion flows in job-shop systems can contribute to further general-
ization of the findings here.
Appendix A
See here Table A1–A3.
Table A1
Scenarios of free product A.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Senarios Material Batch Inter- Release Total profit Material Batch Inter- Release Total Material Batch Inter- Release Total profit Material Batch Inter- Release Total profit Material Batch Inter- Release Total
size arrival time size arrival time profit size arrival time size arrival time size arrival time profit
time time Time time time

1 A 2000 0 0 9,391,800 A 2000 0 500 9,028,800 A 2000 0 1000 9,526,000 A 2000 0 1500 9,539,200 A 2000 0 2000 9,174,000
2 A 1700 0 0 10,293,800 A 1400 0 0 13,287,000 A
3 A 500 500 500 14,174,400 A 1000 800 1000 11,886,200 A 1500 1000 1500 10,824,000 A 1700 1500 1700 10,494,000 A

Regression analysis.

D. Golmohammadi / Int. J. Production Economics 165 (2015) 38–50

Table A2
Correlations.

Profit ASIZE B1SIZE B2SIZE CSIZE FCA FCB FCC InterArrival Time1 InterArrival Time2 InterArrival Time3 InterArrival Time4

Pearson correlation Profit 1.000  .482  .517  .545  .527  .352  .138  .122  .383  .397  .248  .321
ASIZE  .482 1.000 .444 .103 .614 .131 .009 .021 .004 .210  .013 .099
B1SIZE  .517 .444 1.000 .150 .166 .225 .209 .178 .198 .165 .273 .320
B2SIZE  .545 .103 .150 1.000 .299 .187 .015 .078 .207 .185 .030 .058
CSIZE  .527 .614 .166 .299 1.000 .314 .076 .136 .243 .389 .125 .268
FCA  .352 .131 .225 .187 .314 1.000 .545 .702 .669 .570 .511 .577
FCB  .138 .009 .209 .015 .076 .545 1.000 .556 .489 .483 .329 .452
FCC  .122 .021 .178 .078 .136 .702 .556 1.000 .609 .433 .563 .600
InterArrival Time1  .383 .004 .198 .207 .243 .669 .489 .609 1.000 .536 .490 .683
InterArrival Time2  .397 .210 .165 .185 .389 .570 .483 .433 .536 1.000 .382 .532
InterArrival Time3  .248  .013 .273 .030 .125 .511 .329 .563 .490 .382 1.000 .666
InterArrival Time4  .321 .099 .320 .058 .268 .577 .452 .600 .683 .532 .666 1.000

49
50 D. Golmohammadi / Int. J. Production Economics 165 (2015) 38–50
Table A3
Model Summary.
Model R R Adjusted Std. Error of Change
Square R square the estimate statistics
R Square F Sig. F
change Change Change
1 .821a .675 .666 79,380.804 .675 76.322 .000
a
Predictors: (Constant), InterArrival Time4, B2SIZE, ASIZE, FCB, B1SIZE, Inter-
Arrival Time2, InterArrival Time3, FCC, CSIZE, InterArrival Time1, FCA.
References
Aryanezhad, M., Komijan, A., 2004. An improved algorithm for optimizing product
mix under the theory of constraints. Int. J. Prod. Res. 42 (20), 4221–4233.
Ashcroft, S., 1989. Applying the principles of optimized production technology in a
small manufacturing company. Eng. Costs Prod. Econ. 17 (1), 79–88.
Atwater, J.B., Chakravorty, S.S., 2002. a study of the utilization of capacity
constrained resources in drum–buffer–rope systems. Prod. Oper. Manag. 11
(2), 259–273.
Badri, S.A., Ghazanfari, M., Shahanaghi, K., 2014. A multi-criteria decision-making
approach to solve the product mix problem with interval parameters based on
the theory of constraints. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 70 (5–8), 1073–1080.
Betterton, C.E., Cox III, J.F., 2009. Espoused drum–buffer–rope flow control in serial
lines: a comparative study of simulation models. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 117 (1),
66–79.
Blackstone, J.H. & Cox, J.F., 1998. APICS Dictionary, APICS, The Educational Society
for Resource Management.
Bond, T., 1993. An investigation into the use of OPT production scheduling. Prod.
Plan. Control 4 (4), 399–406.
Cannon, J.N., Cannon, H.M., Low, J.T., 2013. Modeling tactical product-mix decisions
a theory-of-constraints approach. Simul. Gaming 44 (5), 624–644.
Chakravorty, S.S., 2001. An evaluation of the DBR control mechanism in a job shop
environment. Omega 29 (4), 335–342.
Chakravorty, S.S., Atwater, J.B., 2005. The impact of free goods on the performance
of drum–buffer–rope scheduling systems. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 95 (3), 347–357.
Chang, P.Y., 2012. Determining production schedule with resource constraints using
drum–buffer–rope (DBR) approach. Adv. Mater. Res. 488, 1130–1133.
Cox, J.F., Spencer, M.S., 1998. The Constraints Management Handbook. CRC Press
LLC, Boca Raton, FL.
De souza, F.B., Sobreiro, V.A., Nagano, M.S., de Souza, Manfrinato, Wagner, Jair,
2013. When less is better: insights from the product mix dilemma from the
Theory of Constraints perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (19), 5839–5852.
Fawcett, S.E., Pearson, J.N., 1991. Understanding and applying constraint manage-
ment in today's manufacturing environments. Prod. Inventory Manag. J. 32 (3),
46–55.
Fredendall, L.D., Lea, B., 1997. Improving the product mix heuristic in the theory of
constraints. Int. J. Prod. Res. 35 (6), 1535–1544.
Fredendall, L.D., Ojha, D., Wayne Patterson, J., 2010. Concerning the theory of
workload control. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 201 (1), 99–111.
Gardiner, S.C., Blackstone Jr, J.H., Gardiner, L.R., 1993. Drum–buffer–rope and buffer
management: impact on production management study and practices. Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag. 13 (6), 68–78.
Goldratt, E.M., 1990a. The Haystack Syndrome. North River Press, Croton-on-
Hudson, New York.
Goldratt, E.M., 1990b. Theory of Constraints: What is This Thing Called the Theory
of Constraints and How Should it be Implemented. North River Press, Croton-
on-Hudson, New York.
Hsu, T., Chung, S., 1998. The TOC-based algorithm for solving product mix
problems. Prod. Plan. Control 9 (1), 36–46.
Kelton, W., Sadowski, R., Swets, N., 2009. Simulation With Arena 5th Edition.
McGraw-Hill, United State.
Komijan, A.R., Aryanezhad, M.B., Makui, A., 2009. A new heuristic approach to solve
product mix problems in a multi-bottleneck system. J. Ind. Eng. Int. Islam. Azad
Univ. 5 (9), 46–57.
Kuo, T., Chang, S., Huang, S., 2009. Due-date performance improvement using TOC's
aggregated time buffer method at a wafer fabrication factory. Expert Syst. Appl.
36 (2), 1783–1792.
Lambrecht, M., Decaluwe, L., 1988. JIT and constraint theory: the issue of bottleneck
management. Prod. Inventory Manag. Third Quart. 29 (3), 61–66.
Lawrence, S.R., Buss, A.H., 1994. Shifting production bottlenecks: causes, cures, and
conundrums. Prod. Oper. Manag. 3 (1), 21–37.
Lea, B., Min, H., 2003. Selection of management accounting systems in Just-In-Time
and Theory of Constraints-based manufacturing. Int. J. Prod. Res. 41 (13),
2879–2910.
Lee, J., Chang, J., Tsai, C., Li, R., 2010. Research on enhancement of TOC simplified
drum–buffer–rope system using novel generic procedures. Expert Syst. Appl. 37
(5), 3747–3754.
Linhares, A., 2009. Theory of constraints and the combinatorial complexity of the
product-mix decision. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 121 (1), 121–129.
Lundrigan, R., 1986. What is this thing called OPT. Prod. Inventory Manag. 27 (2),
2–11.
Mabin, V.J., Balderstone, S.J., 2003. The performance of the theory of constraints
methodology: analysis and discussion of successful TOC applications. Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag. 23 (6), 568–595.
Plenert, G., 1993. Optimizing theory of constraints when multiple constrained
resources exist. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 70 (1), 126–133.
Riezebos, J., Korte, G., Land, M., 2003. Improving a practical DBR buffering approach
using workload control. Int. J. Prod. Res. 41 (4), 699–712.
Schragenheim, E., Cox, J., Ronen, B., 1994. Process flow industry—scheduling and
control using theory of constraints. Int. J. Prod. Res. 32 (8), 1867–1877.
Schragenheim, E., Ronen, B., 1991. Buffer-management: a diagnostic tool for
production control. Prod. Inventory Manag. J. 32 (2), 74–79.
Schragenheim, E., Ronen, B., 1990. Drum–buffer–rope shop floor control. Prod.
Inventory Manag. J. 31 (3), 18–22.
Simons, J.V., Simpson, W.P., 1997. An exposition of multiple constraint scheduling
as implemented in the goal system. Prod. Oper. Manag. 6 (1), 3–22.
Sobreiro, V.A., Mariano, E.B., Nagano, M.S., 2014. Product mix: the approach of
throughput per day. Prod. Plan. Control 25 (12), 1015–1027.
Spencer, M.S., Cox, J., 1995. Master production scheduling development in a theory
of constraints environment. Prod. Inventory Manag. J. 36, 8–14.
Tsai, W., Lai, C., Chang, J., 2007. An algorithm for optimizing joint products decision
based on the Theory of Constraints. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45 (15), 3421–3437.
Umble, M., Umble, E., Murakami, S., 2006. Implementing theory of constraints in a
traditional Japanese manufacturing environment: the case of Hitachi Tool
Engineering. Int. J. Prod. Res. 44 (10), 1863–1880.
Vollmann, T.E., 1986. OPT as enhancement to MRP II. Prod. Inventory Manag. 27 (2),
38–47.
Wang, J., Sun, S., Si, S., Yang, H., 2009. Theory of constraints product mix
optimisation based on immune algorithm. Int. J. Prod. Res. 47 (16), 4521–4543.
Wang, J., Zhang, Z., Chen, J., Guo, Y., Wang, S., Sun, S., Qu, T., Huang, G.Q., 2014. The
TOC-based algorithm for solving multiple constraint resources: a re-
examination. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 61 (1), 138–146.
Yao, D., 2012. Application of the Theory of Constraints (TOC) to batch scheduling in
process industry. Int. J. Appl. Ind. Eng. 1 (1), 10–22.
Zheng, B., Gao, Y.C., Wang, Y., 2012. The product-mix optimization with outside
processing based on theory of constraints oriented cloud manufacturing. Appl.
Mech. Mater. 121, 1306–1310.