Comments on: TOC Bottleneck versus Lean Pacemaker – Part 2 http://lssacademy.com/2007/04/19/toc-bottleneck-versus-lean-pacemaker_19/ Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma, and Kaizen Sat, 12 May 2012 15:25:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Ron Pereira http://lssacademy.com/2007/04/19/toc-bottleneck-versus-lean-pacemaker_19/comment-page-1/#comment-6394 Ron Pereira Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:25:31 +0000 http://lssacademy.com/?p=205#comment-6394 Hi Vivek, thanks for the great comment. The key, from a lean perspective, is to ensure value flows according to what the customer requests. So while we are always aware of our "constraints" or any process with cycle time greater than takt time, we will NOT allow it to dictate production. Instead, we break the bottleneck by removing waste or adding resources if needed so it operates below takt time. But, again, a lean pacemaker is not necessarily the bottleneck.... instead it is the process furthest downstream whereby everything flows smoothly. So with Goldratt's famous Herbie analogy... we lean folk agree to take the junk from his backback and such. But, most likely, this won't be enough to make his cycle time less than takt time so lean proponents would also help the young lad lose weight - no pun intended! Hi Vivek, thanks for the great comment.

The key, from a lean perspective, is to ensure value flows according to what the customer requests. So while we are always aware of our “constraints” or any process with cycle time greater than takt time, we will NOT allow it to dictate production. Instead, we break the bottleneck by removing waste or adding resources if needed so it operates below takt time.

But, again, a lean pacemaker is not necessarily the bottleneck…. instead it is the process furthest downstream whereby everything flows smoothly.

So with Goldratt’s famous Herbie analogy… we lean folk agree to take the junk from his backback and such. But, most likely, this won’t be enough to make his cycle time less than takt time so lean proponents would also help the young lad lose weight – no pun intended!

]]> By: Vivek Chopra http://lssacademy.com/2007/04/19/toc-bottleneck-versus-lean-pacemaker_19/comment-page-1/#comment-6393 Vivek Chopra Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:56:48 +0000 http://lssacademy.com/?p=205#comment-6393 Hi, "Why would I choose to let an operation with such problems determine the way I flow my entire value stream? " I agree but disagree :). As you rightly pointed out, TOC also says that the constraint, if it exists within the organization, has to be broken (which will, by the way, expose a different constraint, which again we have to manage...so there is always some constraint). Irrespective of whether we are breaking or not, we are always left with a constraint which limits the through-put of the organization. According to TOC there will be no situation where there will be zero constraint because that would mean that the organization can increase throuput without bounds. So we are always left with some constraint whether we like it or not -we can't really avoid that. We would obviously like to be in a happy position where we can choose our constraint but we may not always have that luxury. One can always choose a pacemaker process as separate from a constraint process and schedule it but one will probably realize over time, that it is still the constraint which is threatening the schedule at the pacemaker and so has to be managed separately. Vivek Hi,
“Why would I choose to let an operation with such problems determine the way I flow my entire value stream? ”
I agree but disagree :) . As you rightly pointed out, TOC also says that the constraint, if it exists within the organization, has to be broken (which will, by the way, expose a different constraint, which again we have to manage…so there is always some constraint). Irrespective of whether we are breaking or not, we are always left with a constraint which limits the through-put of the organization. According to TOC there will be no situation where there will be zero constraint because that would mean that the organization can increase throuput without bounds.
So we are always left with some constraint whether we like it or not -we can’t really avoid that. We would obviously like to be in a happy position where we can choose our constraint but we may not always have that luxury. One can always choose a pacemaker process as separate from a constraint process and schedule it but one will probably realize over time, that it is still the constraint which is threatening the schedule at the pacemaker and so has to be managed separately.
Vivek

]]> By: Let’s Create a Future State Value Stream Map! | Lean Six Sigma Academy http://lssacademy.com/2007/04/19/toc-bottleneck-versus-lean-pacemaker_19/comment-page-1/#comment-1360 Let’s Create a Future State Value Stream Map! | Lean Six Sigma Academy Wed, 27 Feb 2008 02:10:40 +0000 http://lssacademy.com/?p=205#comment-1360 [...] process “on an island” the lean approach is to schedule one process. We call this process the pacemaker process since it sets the pace for the entire [...] [...] process “on an island” the lean approach is to schedule one process. We call this process the pacemaker process since it sets the pace for the entire [...]

]]>