This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 26 January 2015, At: 15:35Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
International Journal of Management Science andEngineering ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmse20
Combining the theory of constraints with systemdynamics: A general model (case study of thesubsidized milk industry)Hossein Mohammadia, Mehdi Ghazanfaria, Hamed Nozaria & Omid Shafiezada
a Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology,Tehran, IranPublished online: 29 May 2014.
To cite this article: Hossein Mohammadi, Mehdi Ghazanfari, Hamed Nozari & Omid Shafiezad (2014): Combining thetheory of constraints with system dynamics: A general model (case study of the subsidized milk industry), InternationalJournal of Management Science and Engineering Management, DOI: 10.1080/17509653.2014.920123
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2014.920123
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Combining the theory of constraints with system dynamics: A general model(case study of the subsidized milk industry)*
Hossein Mohammadi*, Mehdi Ghazanfari, Hamed Nozari and Omid Shafiezad
Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
(Received 2 February 2013; final version received 8 January 2014)
This article discusses multi-methodology approaches. The authors explain that multi-methodology approaches assist increating a complementary understanding of complexity through specific processes. A new Mohammadi–Ghazanfari modelis proposed for combining the theory of constraints with systems dynamics to deal with soft problems. This model consistsof two phases. The first phase is the appreciation and analysis of the problem. The second phase includes assessment andevaluation actions. The first phase is described using a subsidized milk industry study in Iran.
Keywords: theory of constraints; thinking process; system dynamics; evaporating clouds; causal loop diagrams
JEL Classification: I0; L0; P0; Q0
1. Introduction
The development of multi-methodology approaches has
received attention over recent years. In this paper, we look
to display how the unique tools, methods and method-
ologies known as the Theory of Constraints (TOC) can be
accommodated to make perfect the System Dynamics (SD).
The TOC is a management philosophy first introduced by
Goldratt and Cox (1984) in their book ‘The goal’. As a
result, the current theory is based on the idea that every
system has a few limitations to achieving its goals and that
there is always at least one limitation in any system. The
TOC is composed of a considerable body of knowledge
which may be summarized as including operations strategy
tools, performance measurement systems, and Thinking
Process (TP) tools (Gupta, 2003). The TOC method for
identifying and solving organizational problems is called
TP. TP tools include the various tree diagrams, evaporating
clouds, and audit processes/guidelines such as categories of
legitimate reservation and layers of resistance (Dettmer,
1997; Scheinkopf, 1999; Smith, 2000). The TOC approach
in change management requires answering three essential
questions (see Table 1).
The Theory of Constraints Thinking Process (TOCTP)
involves a set of six logical tools that create a structure for
understanding the current situation of organizations and
projects, and for determining the optimal strategy to
achieve the desired goals. Goldratt (1990) outlined that
there are two approaches to finding root causes: the first is
the typical CRT approach and the second is the EC
approach. An EC diagram is a conflict statement with a
common objective but no apparent solution. Next consider
whether the injections will direct desirable effects. With
the injections and the logical cause-and-effect relation-
ships, the desired effects can be connected and the future
outcome will be developed. This technique is called
building the future reality tree. The prerequisite tree gives
a plan for implementing the solution found in the previous
step. In fact, the PRT is a logical tool for determining
the barriers preventing the implementation of existing
solutions. The prerequisite tree uses the required logic
and alternatively asks ‘What is absolutely needed?’ Also,
the goal in TRT is the implementation of change.
The applications of the TOC philosophy and TOCTP are
classified in Table 2.
Systems Dynamics (SD), originally known as ‘indus-
trial dynamics’, is a creation of Jay Forrester in the 1960s
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Forrester,
1961). SD aims to predict the behavior of a system, and for
doing this it depends on the use of a model which must
contain the complication of a complex structure and the
various feedback loops that link each element within that
structure (Nuhoglu, 2010). The SD process follows three
stages, which can be summarized as follows.
(a) Understanding the situation/problem definition.
(b) Model conceptualization/model building.
(c) Running the simulation model/using the results.
In general, papers that studied the combination of TOC
with SD are summarized in Table 3.
The newly proposed model consists of two phases. The
first phase is the appreciation and analysis of the problem.
The second phase includes the assessment and evaluation
actions. The first phase of the Mohammadi–Ghazanfari
(M-G) model using the subsidized milk industry study is
explained. The implementation of the second phase is
beyond the scope of this article. There are two important
issues about the appreciation and analysis of the problem.
First, the roots of conflicts within the problem will be
detected. Second, the variables and their impact on
each other will be identified in order to understand the
problem better. These issues have been investigated by
q 2014 International Society of Management Science and Engineering Management
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]; Tel: þ 98-912-7972574; Fax: þ 98-21-88782485
International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2014.920123
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:35
26
Janu
ary
2015
the Evaporating Clouds (EC) and Causal Loop Diagram-
ming (CLD) tools.
In this paper, we propose a general M-G model for
combining the TOCTP with SD to deal with soft issues.
To do this at the practitioner level, the necessity for clarity
about the characteristics, ability to replace or comple-
mentarity of different methodologies has been addressed
by the progression of systematically arranging systems and
frameworks. Here, we use the work of Mingers (1997a,
1997b, 2000, 2003) and Mingers and Brocklesby (1997).
We look for how the particular methods known as
TOCTP can be used to complement CLD.Wemap conflicts
in the subsidized milk industry by EC. Modeling the
problem situation as an EC diagram not only emphasizes
the acceptance of the systems perspective, but also
describes the assumptions that underpin conflicts in EC.
Next, according to the knowledge gained through drawing
EC, CLD is drawn. This diagram presents relationships that
are difficult to describe verbally, because normal language
presents interrelations in linear cause-and-effect chains,
while the diagram shows that the actual system has circular
chains of cause-and-effect. We choose here to draw
attention to how TOC methods may complement those of
SD in building an understanding of the problem situation.
However, for combining two tools, the philosophical
foundation of Mabin, Davies, and Cox (2006) has been
applied. In particular, the items that distinguish this paper
can be summarized as follows.
(1) Proposed generalmodel ofM-G that shows combining
TOC with SD.
(2) Defining the problem of the subsidized milk industry
in Iran as a soft problem.
Table 1. Thinking process steps.
Tools of the logical thinking process Change step
Current Reality Tree (CRT),Evaporating Clouds (EC)
What to change?
Future Reality Tree (FRT),Negative Branch Reservation (NBR)
What to change to?
Prerequisite Tree (PRT),Transition Tree (TRT)
How to cause the change?
Table 3. Combined approach: TOC with SD.
References EC/CRT DBRsPerformancemeasurement FRT/NBR PRT/TRT CLR CLD
Simulationmodel/flow diagram
Sterman, Forrester, Graham, and Senge (1983) † †Reid and Koljonen (1999) † † † †Davies, Mabin, and Cox (2004) † † †Mabin et al. (2006) † † †Wixson and Mills (2003) † †Politou and Georgiadis (2008) † †Sadat (2009) † † †Latorre, Roberts, and Riley (2010) † †
Table 2. Application of the TOC philosophy and TOCTP.
References EC CRT FRT NBR PRT TRT CLRTOCperspective Review Case study
Reid and Cormier (2003) † † † † Mexican food restaurantScoggin, Segelhorst, and Reid (2003) † † † † Organization’s production facilityChaudhari and Mukhopadhyay (2003) † † † Poultry industryRitson and Waterfield (2005). † † † † † † Mental health servicesWalker and Cox (2006) † † Large service companyUmble, Umble, and Murakami (2006) † † Hitachi tool engineeringLloyd, Taylor, andThomas (2008)
† † † † Invoicing system of an oil andgas firm
Lacerda, Cassel, and Rodrigues (2010) † † Institution of Higher EducationChou, Lu, andTang (2012)
† † † Electronic operational processfor sales
Dalci and Kosan (2012) † † † Hotel managementRahman (1998) †Blackstone (2001) †Watson, Blackstone, andGardiner (2007)
†Kim, Mabin, and Davies (2008) †Gupta and Snyder (2009) †Reid (2007) †Fekri, Shafiabady, Nooranipour,and Ahghar (2012)
†Naor, Bernardes, and Coman (2013) †Tsou (2013) †Zhao, Feng, Chu, and Ma (2014) †
H. Mohammadi et al.2
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:35
26
Janu
ary
2015
(3) Application of CLDs – part of SD and EC – tools of
TOCTP in the problem of the subsidizedmilk industry
for the appreciation and analysis of the problem.
2. M-B frameworks for mapping and classifying
methodologies
Using a two-dimensional grid mapping the appropriateness
of different methodologies in different contexts, a
foundation for linking the methodology to problem content
and problem-solving activity can be provided by the
original M-B framework. The first dimension is regarding
the problem domain, particularly the nature of the world
being examined – be it social, personal or material – and
the second relates to the methodology, particularly the
conceptually distinct but highly related phases of
‘intervention’. Phases of intervention are depicted within
the M-B framework. In Table 4, phases of intervention and
problem domain related to EC are given (Davies, Mabin, &
Balderstone, 2005).
Also, Mabin et al. (2006) examined the origin of
different domain of problems with CLD. Boldface
indicates the domains of the problem with the intervention
phase approach (Table 5).
3. Proposed model for the soft problem
Studies show that there is no comprehensive model that
combines TOC with SD as described. A comprehensive
model would be provided to help analysts to choose
different tools according to the nature of the problem. We
want to suggest the Mohammadi–Ghazanfari (M-G) model
for dealingwith the soft problem. This model consists of two
phases. The first phase is the appreciation and analysis of the
problem. In this phase, the composition of the CRT or EC
with CLD is used for the appreciation and analysis of the
problem. The second phase includes the assessment and
evaluation actions. At this stage, considering that we are
looking for creative or anticipated solutions, simulation or
FRT is used. Details of the proposedM-Gmodel can be seen
in Figure 1. In particular, to describe the first phase of the
model, a case study is used. The case study relates to the
subsidized milk industry. The implementation of the second
phase is beyond the scope of this article.
4. Subsidized milk industry in Iran
Milk is an excellent source of vitamins and minerals,
particularly calcium. It has long been recognized for its
important role in bone health. Nutritionists recommend
that milk and other dairy products should be consumed
daily as part of a balanced diet.
Consumption of milk and dairy products is associated
with numerous health benefits including glowing skin,
healthy bones and teeth, weight loss, less stress and a
healthy body. Currently, the annual average consumption
of milk per person in the world is 180 kg, and in developed
countries it is about 300 kg. Unfortunately, Iran’s milk
consumption per capita is about 100 kg per year.
So, per capita consumption of milk in a country is a
sign of development, improving the social, public health,
economic development and health of the society. An
important issue is the payment or non-payment of subsidy
for milk in Iran. Some claim that subsidies to increase per
capita consumption of milk will bring about benefits from
the positive effects of milk consumption. In contrast, some
people think that such payments are inappropriate and
believe prior methods should be corrected. Hence, this soft
problem is used to verify the proposed approach.
4.1 M-B frameworks for the subsidized milk industry
According to the subsidized milk discussions, it can be
stated that the problem in personal domain includes
Table 5. Mingers–Brocklesby framework for mapping methodologies – CLD.
Phases of intervention
Problem domain Appreciation of . . . Analysis of . . . Assessment of . . . Action to . . .
Social Social practices,power relations
Distortions, conflictsof interest
Ways of challenging andaltering power structures
Generate empowermentand enlightenment
Personal Individuals’ beliefs,meanings, emotions
Different perceptions andWeltanschauung
Alternative conceptualizationsand constructions
Generate accommodationsand consensus
Material Physicalcircumstances
Underlying causalstructure
Alternative physical andstructural arrangements
Select and implementbest alternative
Table 4. Mingers–Brocklesby framework for mapping methodologies – EC.
Phases of intervention
Problem domain Appreciation of . . . Analysis of . . . Assessment of . . . Action to . . .
Social Social practices,power relations
Distortions, conflictsof interest
Ways of challenging andaltering power structures
Generate empowermentand enlightenment
Personal Individuals’ beliefs,meanings, emotions
Different perceptionsand Weltanschauung
Alternative conceptualizationsand constructions
Generate accommodationsand consensus
Material Physicalcircumstances
Underlyingcausal structure
Alternative physical andstructural arrangements
Select and implementbest alternative
Theory of constraints/system dynamics 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:35
26
Janu
ary
2015
individual health and the problem in the social domain
includes social health, productivity, efficiency, employ-
ment, etc. (Table 6).
There are two important issues about the appreciation
and analysis of the problem. First, the roots of conflict in
problems will be detected. Second, the variables and their
impact on each other will be identified in order to gain a
better understanding of the problem. In the following, two
steps are performed by the EC and CLD tools.
4.1.1 Applying TOC – the evaporating cloud (EC)
We will demonstrate how EC can frame the natural
conflict in this dilemma between credible alternatives and
reciprocal exclusive actions. Using EC, an attempt at
discovery not only illustrates the dilemma but also makes
appreciation better in its underpinning assumptions, so that
one search can recognize breakthrough actions that can
solve the initial complicated situation. Underlying most
complicated situations is a conflict or dilemma. In the
illustration captured as Figure 2, we depict the dilemma of
whether or not to keep subsidizing milk from the
perspectives of the supporters and the opponents.
4.1.2 Applying SD’s CLD
Perhaps it could be said that the main phase of using a
system dynamics approach attempts to understand and
Phases of interventtion:Appreciation of ...
Analysis of ...
Use the TOCTPs and SD combinitedapproach for soft problem
Phases of interventtion:Assessment of ...
Action of ...
assessmentof policies
Select the bestpolicy by SD
If you’re Seeking solutionsthat have extracted of
creative ideas by TOCTPs
If you’re seeking policythat the consequences have
been predicted by SD
Comparison final solutionsand policies regard
to political,economical and socialcondition and organization environment
Select the best soution(s)opolicy in SD and TOCTPs
combinated approach
Do find the problemsolution with one of the SD or
TOCTPs approach?
Determination ofproblem domain
System analyser orDecision maker
Determination of phasesof intervention
yes
System Dynamics
Appreciation ofproblem
Causal LoopDiagrams
Stock and flowModel
Simulation
NO
yes
Theory of constraintsThinking process
CRT,EC
FRT,NBR
PRT,TrT
Figure 1. Proposed M-G model for developing basic solutions in the TOCTP/SD combined approach.
H. Mohammadi et al.4
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:35
26
Janu
ary
2015
identify the feedback loops of the system under study. One
of the methods used for this is drawing a causal loop
diagram. This diagram illustrates relationships that are
difficult to describe verbally because normal language
presents interrelations as linear cause-and-effect chains,
while the diagram shows that the actual system has
circular chains of cause and effect. Figure 3 shows the
CLD for the subsidized milk industry.
5. Conclusion
Quantitative modeling to deal with soft problems such as
managerial policies and organizational behavior have
faced a challenge. This article has discussed multi-
methodology approaches to dealing with soft problems.
In particular, the combination of TOC with SD has been
discussed and then the M-G model was proposed. This
model consists of two phases. The first phase is the
appreciation and analysis of the problem. The second
phase includes the assessment and evaluation of actions.
The subsidized milk industry was used to describe the first
phase of the model. Usually, governments try to increase
milk consumption using financial assistance. In Iran,
theoretical differences have grown up concerning the
payment or non-payment of milk subsidies. So we have
studied this conflict by applying TOC using evaporating
Reduce the cost of health care peopleand government which is caused bythe lack of milk consumptionIncreasing employment opportunitiesespecially in rural and small urban
Increasing labor productivity indexand positive effects on the economy
Enhance personal and social health
Save finacial resources andimprove economic idicators
Increase the milk supply andpublic accessPeople are more willing toconsume the cheaper milk
Increase in per capitaconsumption and investmetnt
and production in milkindustry
Manage costs,improveproductivity,eliminate
irregularities and long lines
Milk subsidies notbe eliminated
Conflict
Milk subsidies notbe eliminated
Fertility of resources, including humanresources,work spaces and warehouses
Eliminating milk subsidies reduceviolence and long lines to buy milk Dispatching all the milk produced to the market)lack
of maintenance (and Balancing the market
Increasing competitiveness and the use of newtechnologies in the supply,production anddistribution of dairy products
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
••
Figure 2. Evaporating clouds of the subsidized milk industry.
Table 6. Mingers–Brocklesby framework for mapping methodologies in the subsidized milk industry.
Phases of intervention
Problem domain Appreciation of . . . Analysis of . . . Assessment of . . . Action to . . .
Social Social practices,power relations
Distortions, conflictsof interest
Ways of challenging andaltering power structures
Generate empowermentand enlightenment
Personal Individuals’ beliefs,meanings, emotions
Different perceptionsand Weltanschauung
Alternative conceptualizationsand constructions
Generate accommodationsand consensus
Material Physical circumstances Underlying causal structure Alternative physical andstructural arrangements
Select and implementbest alternative
Tools EC/CLD EC/CLD
Theory of constraints/system dynamics 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:35
26
Janu
ary
2015
clouds (EC). The SD’s CLD was used to identify the
variables and their impact on each other in order to gain a
better understanding of the problem. Applying these tools
utilized the advantages of both methods.
References
Blackstone, J. H. (2001). Theory of constraints – A status report.International Journal of Production Research, 39,1053–1080.
Chaudhari, H. V., &Mukhopadhyay, S. K. (2003). Application oftheory of constraints in an integrated poultry industry.International Journal of Production Research, 41, 799–817.
Chou, Y.-C., Lu, C. -H., & Tang, Y. -Y. (2012). Identifyinginventory problems in the aerospace industry using thetheory of constraints. International Journal of ProductionResearch, 50, 4686–4698.
Dalci, I., & Kosan, L. (2012). Theory of constraints thinking-process tools facilitate goal achievement for hotel manage-ment: A case study of improving customer satisfaction.Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21,541–568.
Davies, J., Mabin, V. J., & Balderstone, S. J. (2005). The theoryof constraints: A methodology apart? A comparison withselected OR/MS methodologies. Omega, 33, 506–524.
Davies, J., Mabin, V. J., & Cox, J. F. (2004). The theory ofconstraints and system dynamics: A suitable case for multi-methodology. Proceedings of the system dynamics inter-national conference. Oxford, UK.
Dettmer, H. W. (1997). Goldratt’s theory of constraints:A systems approach to continuous improvement. ASQQuality Press.
Fekri, K., Shafiabady, A., Nooranipour, R., & Ahghar, G. (2012).Determine and compare effectiveness of entrepreneurshipeducation based on multi-axial model and theory ofconstraints and compromises on learning entrepreneurshipskills. Paper presented at the international conference oneducation and educational psychology (ICEEPSY 2012),Antalya, Turkey, 2–5 October 2012. Procedia – Social andBehavioral Sciences, 69, 566–570. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.561
Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics Vol. 2. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Goldratt, E. M. (1990). What is this thing called theory ofconstraints and how should it be implemented? Croton-on-Hudson, NY: North River Press.
Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (1984). The goal: Excellence inmanufacturing Vol. 1. Croton-on-Hudson, NY: North RiverPress.
Gupta, M. (2003). Constraints management – recent advancesand practices. International Journal of Production Research,41, 647–659.
Gupta, M., & Snyder, D. (2009). Comparing TOC with MRP andJIT: A literature review. International Journal of ProductionResearch, 47, 3705–3739.
Kim, S., Mabin, V. J., & Davies, J. (2008). The theory ofconstraints thinking processes: Retrospect and prospect.International Journal of Operations & Production Manage-ment, 28, 155–184.
Lacerda, D., Cassel, R., & Rodrigues, R. (2010). Service processanalysis using process engineering and the theory ofconstraints thinking process. Business Process ManagementJournal, 16, 264–281.
Latorre, V., Roberts, M., & Riley, M. J. (2010). Development of asystems dynamics framework for KPIs to assist project
Employment oportunitiesand prevent migrationThe cost of
livestock feeds
The cost of rawmilk production
Raw milkproduction
Payment of subsidies ofproducers and consumers
Delinquency bymanufacturers, distuibutors,
retailers
The loss ofresources allocated
to milk
The mortalityratePopulation
Birth rate
Awareness of thebenefits of milk
consumption
Advertising in the massmedia (TV and radio,
newspapers, etc.)Per capitaconsumption of milk
Level of people andsociety health
Diseases caused by lackof milk consumption
Labor productivity
People healthcists
Governmenthealth expenses
Financial resources
Financial resourcesallocated to milk
Subsidized Milksupply
Subsidized Milk price
Public Access
Set standards forSubsidized milk
SubsidizedMilk quality
Demand forSubsidized milk
FamilyAwareness
Distribution of Subsidizedmilk in schools
Figure 3. Causal loop diagram for the subsidized milk industry.
H. Mohammadi et al.6
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:35
26
Janu
ary
2015
managers’ decision making processes. Revista de laConstruccion, 9, 39–49.
Taylor, Lloyd J., & Thomas, E. (2008). Applying Goldratt’sthinking process and the theory of constraints to theinvoicing system of an oil and gas engineering consultingfirm. Performance Improvement, 47, 26–34.
Mabin, V. J., Davies, J., & Cox, J. F. (2006). Using the theory ofconstraints thinking processes to complement systemdynamics’ causal loop diagrams in developing fundamentalsolutions. International Transactions in OperationalResearch, 13, 33–57.
Mingers, J. (1997a). Multiparadigm multi-methodology.In J. Mingers & A. Gill (Eds.), Multi methodology: Theoryand practice of combining management science method-ologies (pp. 1–20). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Mingers, J. (1997b). Towards critical pluralism. In J. Mingers &A. Gill (Eds.), Multi methodology: Theory and practice ofcombining management science methodologies(pp. 407–440). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Mingers, J. (2000). Variety is the spice of life: Combining softand hard OR/MS methods. International Transactions inOperational Research, 7, 673–691.
Mingers, J. (2003). A classification of the philosophicalassumptions of management science methods. Journal ofthe Operational Research Society, 54, 559–570.
Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1997). Multimethodology:Towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega,25, 489–509.
Naor, M., Bernardes, E. S., & Coman, A. (2013). Theory ofconstraints: Is it a theory and a good one? InternationalJournal of Production Research, 51, 542–554.
Nuhoglu, H. (2010). The effect of the system dynamics approachon understanding causal relationship skills in scienceeducation. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2,3614–3618. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.561
Politou, A., & Georgiadis, P. (2008). Production planning andcontrol in flow shop operations using drum buffer ropemethodology: A system dynamics approach. Proceedings ofthe 26th international conference of the System DynamicsSociety (pp. 1–18). Athens.
Rahman, S. (1998). Theory of constraints: A review of thephilosophy and its applications. International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, 18, 336–355.
Reid, R. A. (2007). Applying the TOC five-step focusing processin the service sector: A banking subsystem. ManagingService Quality, 17, 209–234.
Reid, R. A., & Cormier, J. (2003). Applying the TOC TP: A casestudy in the service sector. Managing Service Quality, 13,349–369.
Reid, R. A., & Koljonen, E. L. (1999). Validating amanufacturing paradigm: A system dynamics modelingapproach. Proceedings of the 31st conference on Wintersimulation: Simulation – a bridge to the future (Vol. 1,
pp. 759–765). ACM: Pointe Hilton Squaw Peak ResortPhoenix, AZ, U.S.A. 5–8 December 1999.
Ritson, N., & Waterfield, N. (2005). Managing change: Thetheory of constraints in the mental health service. StrategicChange, 14, 449–458.
Sadat, S. (2009). Theory of constraints for publicly funded healthsystems. (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Toronto, Canada.
Scheinkopf, L. J. (1999). Thinking for a change: Puttingthe TOC thinking processes to use. printed in USA:CRC Press. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pinJA4-spBAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR21&dq=Goldratt’s+theory+of+constraints:+a+systems+approach+to+continuous+improvement.+%09ASQ+Quality+Press.+&ots=_uFQfpP-Mn&sig=SM4lZcHYPA331Jq0WuWwZUQzhKc#v=onepage&q=Goldratt’s%20theory%20of%20constraints%3A%20a%20systems%20approach%20to%20continuous%20improvement.%20%09ASQ%20Quality%20Press.&f=false
Scoggin, J. M., Segelhorst, R. J., & Reid, R. A. (2003). Applyingthe TOC thinking process in manufacturing: A case study.International Journal of Production Research, 41, 767–797.
Smith, D. (2000). The measurement nightmare: How the theoryof constraints can resolve conflicting strategies, policies, andmeasures. printed in USA: CRC Press. http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Change-Processes-Constraints-Management/dp/1574441019
Sterman, J. D., Forrester, J. W., Graham, A. K., & Senge, P. M.(1983). An integrated approach to the economic long wave.Paper read at the Long Waves, Depression, InnovationConference, Siena–Florence, Italy. Sloan School of Manage-ment, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Tsou, C. M. (2013). On the strategy of supply chain collaborationbased on dynamic inventory target level management:A theory of constraint perspective. Applied MathematicalModelling, 37, 5204–5214.
Umble, M., Umble, E., & Murakami, S. (2006). Implementingtheory of constraints in a traditional Japanese manufacturingenvironment: The case of Hitachi Tool Engineering.International Journal of Production Research, 44,1863–1880.
Walker, E. D. II, & Cox, J. F. III (2006). Addressing ill-structuredproblems using Goldratt’s thinking processes: A white collarexample. Management Decision, 44, 137–154.
Watson, K. J., Blackstone, J. H., & Gardiner, S. C. (2007). Theevolution of a management philosophy: The theory ofconstraints. Journal of Operations Management, 25,387–402.
Wixson, J. R., & Mills, J. I. (2003). A system dynamics viewof the theory of constraints. Proceedings of the 21stinternational conference of the System Dynamics Society.New York. 20–24 July 2003. http://wvasolutions.com/TOC.pdf
Zhao, J., Feng, Z., Chu, F., & Ma, N. (2014). Advanced theory ofconstraint and motion analysis for robot mechanisms.Oxford: Academic Press.
Theory of constraints/system dynamics 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:35
26
Janu
ary
2015
Top Related