You are on page 1of 4

M

3.5

A
3.5

B
3.5

C
3.5

D
3.5

Output Work-In-Process Lead Time "Days"

73 61 25

Dr Eli Goldratt introduced the dice game in his book The Goal. Many people have played this game over the years and have Traditionally the dice game is played with 6 players (here; A - F). Each player starts out with 4 pieces of work Each dice pip represents a piece of work that can be "processed" and each roll of the dice represents a day. Each player rol work from their immediate left as per the roll on the dice. If you press "Roll" you will see this. At the end of the day th station to the right for the beginning of the next day. Press "Pass" to see this. New work enters the system through the ma pile at the end. You can repeat "Roll" and "Pass" in sequence to follow through for several days. The premise of the game is that a dice can roll any of; a one, a two, a three, a four, a five, or a six, giving a total of 21 throw; equivalent to 3.5 pieces of work per day. If we run this game for 30 rounds then we ought to get 30 days multiplied b pieces of work produced - right?

Lead time ought around about 7 "days;" that is 6 stations multiplied by 4 pieces of work-in-process = 24 pieces in total divided

Try it and see. Press "Run 30" and watch the outcome.

See what happens to the output, see what happens to the work-in-process, see what happens to the lead time. Don't run it on Graph them if you like. And then please read on.

There is a great deal to be learnt from this game. However, this configuration - a balanced line - is more a part of the proble outcome of our own psychology, an outcome of our own expectations on how we think that the world "ought" to work. People observing that having just 6 stations isn't a reflection of reality; but then having a distribution that has a range from 1 t combination of the two does enable us to experience in a very compact and effective way the underlying physics of the situati

At its heart, this simulation shows us the effect of variability and close-coupled dependency. Very few people have the intuiti reduce his message for management to just a few words he would say; "it all had to do with reducing variation." However, be that is reduce variation, we should ask are we indeed "doing the right thing" - that is, should we really be trying to drive bal
Balanced line simulations let us learn a lot about the way we think about running systems at the present the assertion that the dice throws a mean of 3.5. Is that really true here? And if it is not true, then why? Think about the uniform nature of the dice distribution. Does this remain valid throughout this line?

Think about most people's reaction on how to improve this line. Write them down.

Are these really reasonable assumptions - that is, do they work? Can we afford the time required? Can we afford the capital?

Are these really reasonable assumptions - that is, do they work? Can we afford the time required? Can we afford the capital?

There is a great deal to learn from this simple simulation and I have left some of the critical lessons off. It is, after al the problem not a statement of the solution. The solution, too, can be represented by a dice simulation and the real value is in working through such a solution in person approaches to demonstrating the solution confirm and embed a current, subtle, and powerful error in people's thinking. I've it. Call it a learning disability if you like. There is also a way to overcome this but I have never seen it described and create value then you need to recognise value. We are so use to learning "explicitly" that we forget that simple "tacit" lea and immediate approach.

It is quite possible to walk people correctly through all five stages of Goldratt's 5 step focusing process; identify, exploi at each and every step. Learning how to produce more from the current system and how to create additional value. This mea It is also possible to run a scheduled drum-buffer-rope process if required. It is possible to simulate the issues around criti issues around supply chain replenishment and distribution. It all depends upon whether you would like to "do" rather than "n modern business reality will never be the same again.

And although people like to put a brave face on it, we are all very sensitive to having to make decisions in the presence of than correct. For this reason I've designed the work so that even though there are several important decisions to be made, n anyone else's individual response and although I will see them, they are anonymous and shuffled and thus I can't know which is much easier for me that way and I can more easily move a group from where you are to where you are not. Its a perfectly s here to learn; are we not?

My contact details are Dr Kelvyn Youngman; youngman @ dbrmfg.co.nz

D
3.5

E
3.5

F
3.5

Round No. 30

Dr Youngman's Balanced Line Dice Simulator

e played this game over the years and have learnt a great deal from it.

arts out with 4 pieces of work-in-process. If you press "Setup" you will see this.

f the dice represents a day. Each player rolls a dice and "processes" the amount of will see this. At the end of the day the completed work is passed on to the next work ew work enters the system through the market (M) and completed work forms a stock-

ur, a five, or a six, giving a total of 21 pips for 6 throws or an average of 3.5 pips per s then we ought to get 30 days multiplied by around about 3.5 pieces per day = 105
process = 24 pieces in total divided by approximately 3.5 pieces per throw.

what happens to the lead time. Don't run it once, run it many times, record the results.

is more a part of the problem than a part of the solution. It is an e think that the world "ought" to work. People sometimes try to deflect the lesson by distribution that has a range from 1 to 6 is hardly a reflection of reality either. But the ctive way the underlying physics of the situation.

ependency. Very few people have the intuition for this. Deming said that if he had to d to do with reducing variation." However, before we jump in and "do the thing right" t is, should we really be trying to drive balanced lines?

systems at the present - and without causing any danger to anyone else. Think about it is not true, then why?

the time required? Can we afford the capital? Do we even have the knowledge?

the time required? Can we afford the capital? Do we even have the knowledge?

the critical lessons off. It is, after all, only the first step, and again, it is a statement of

n working through such a solution in person with a group of people. The traditional and powerful error in people's thinking. I've seen this happen too many times to ignore t I have never seen it described and I am not about to disclose it here. If you want to citly" that we forget that simple "tacit" learning, when done correctly, is a very powerful

step focusing process; identify, exploit, subordinate, elevate, don't stop, - while learning and how to create additional value. This means learning things that we don't yet know.

ossible to simulate the issues around critical chain, and it is possible to simulate the whether you would like to "do" rather than "not do," learn or not learn. Your view of

ving to make decisions in the presence of our colleagues which might turn out to be less re several important decisions to be made, no one else in the team will ever see or know ous and shuffled and thus I can't know which individual gave which response. In fact it you are to where you are not. Its a perfectly safe learning environment - and we are