This article was downloaded by: [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES]

On: 09 December 2014, At: 20:05

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Production Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

Analysis of setup time at constraint resources

a
M. C. PATTERSON
a
Division of Business Management , Midwestern State University , 3400 Taft Boulevard,
Wichita Falls, TX, 76308-2099, USA
Published online: 08 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: M. C. PATTERSON (1993) Analysis of setup time at constraint resources, International Journal of Production
Research, 31:4, 845-849, DOI: 10.1080/00207549308956761

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207549308956761

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations
or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the 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 relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 INT. J. PROD. RES., 1993, VOL. 31, No.4, 845-849

Analysis of setup time at constraint resources

M. c. PATTERSONt
The issue of setup time has received a great deal of research effort during the past
decade. Most of the related literature has focused on attempts to reduce the setup
time, also referred to as quick changeover. First, rather than analysing setup time
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 20:05 09 December 2014

reductions at all workcentres (resources) to gain improvements, the paper suggests

focusing such efforts on bottleneck resources. Second, the results of this study
conclude that a critical pieceof information needed for finite scheduling is missing
from the existing MRP database. The missing data field is a code to represent a
setup procedure. Current systems infer that setup time is an independent variable
that is different for each manufactured inventory item.The case study suggeststhat
a setup procedure, and the required time, can be the same for multiple inventory
items. Identifying these procedures can lead to the preparation of finite schedules
that can improve due date performance and/or reduce overtime required to meet
promised ship dates.

1. Introduction
In order to develop a master production schedule that is feasible, one must
recognize that available production capacity is limited. There have been many
innovative scheduling studies during the past decade (Blackstone 1985). The develop-
ment of finite scheduling software systems has provided opportunities for companies to
dramatically improve the management of the shop floor. However, in the software that
is available, there appears to be a missing data link that could further enhance the
power of these systems. The missing data deals with constraint setup time. The purpose
ofthis paper is to explore the issue of setup time at constraint resources and to propose
a way of modifying existing databases, to enhance the capability of finite scheduling
systems.

2. Finite scheduling
The field of industrial management has experienced dramatic changes in recent
years. One of the most significant developments was the scheduling software package
OPT. The creative force behind this software was Dr Eliyahu Goldratt. Goldratt's
ideas challenged the conventional theories of industrial management in many areas,
including cost accounting, capacity management, automation, resource utilization,
and measurements (Goldratt and Cox 1986). The OPT scheduling software was based
on a finite scheduling algorithm that suggested that an optimal production schedule
could be devised by scheduling around (both backward and forward from) the
identified constraint resource. This approach of finitely scheduling only the cons-
trained resource represented a radical departure from previous scheduling algorithms
which often attempted to schedule every operation. Another positive aspect to this
approach was improved degree of synchronization of the schedule. By focusing the

Revision received July 1992.

t Division of Business Management, Midwestern State University, 3400 Taft Boulevard,
Wichita Falls, TX 76308-2099, USA.
002(}...7543/93 SIO·OQ © 1993 Taylor & Francis Ltd.
 846 M. C. Patterson

scheduling effort around the bottleneck operation, other non-bottleneck operations

were freed from adherence to a strict schedule. Instead, those operations were given
instructions to work as orders arrive and otherwise simply wait. This, of course, results
in an increase in idle time at the affected departments. However, the improvements in
throughput, quality and reduced levels of work-in-process inventory were seen as
significant benefits. The success of OPT and the interest generated in both industry and
the academic community resulted in the development of other finite scheduling
software packages. Goldratt recently re-entered the software field with a new finite
scheduling system with the rather ominous name of DISASTER (Goldratt 1990).
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 20:05 09 December 2014

3. The existing database problem

The decade of the 1970s could well be called the MRP decade. Thousands of
companies worldwide built their databases according to the MRP philosophy. MRP
does some things very well. However, dissatisfaction with the capabilities of MRP
became widespread in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Plossl and Lankford (1984)
contend 'in a classic case of fad psychology, companies avidly embraced MRP as the
solution to their problems, oblivious to the other aspects of manufacturing control
essential to making MRP work'. They further state that 'MRP II is among the most
overemphasized and underachieved goals of US industry'. Another study (Whiteside
and Arbose 1984) refers to MRP.as a '100 billion dollar mistake' and that '90% of all
M RP users are unhappy'. Among the many pieces of information that a good
computerized manufacturing system should provide is a valid master production
schedule. By the early to mid I980s, it was apparent that an MRP-based system would
not do this (Umble and Srikanth 1990).
Beginning with Goldratt and the OPT software system, those attempting to
develop a valid finite scheduling system faced a dilemma. While it was apparent that the
MRP-based system was not providing workable schedules, there were aspects of the
implementation of MRP that seemed relevant to production planning. The routeing
file provided data related to product flow and labour/machine time required. The bill-
of-materials (product structure) file contained required data for material requirements
and scrap/yield. The inventory status file contained data relevant to material
availability and delivery time. To software developers all of this was required input to
algorithms designed to provide workable schedules that recognized limited availability
of resources. The approach that Goldratt took with OPT, and more recently with
DISASTER, was to pull the required data from the existing mainframe MRP database
into the main memory of a personal computer. This provides much quicker
calculations and near-instantaneous modelling of the shop schedule (Goldratt 1990).

4. Setup time improvements

The issue of setup time has received a great deal of attention the past decade. A key
element of the Japanese just-in-time (Jl'Tykanban/pull/stockless} production system
has been the reduction in time to prepare a workcentre for producing an inventory
item. In his book, Japanese Manufacturing Techniques, Schonberger (1982) cites several
studies comparing setup reduction in Japanese firms.
Ad vocates of the Goldratt theory of constraints (TOC) school of management agree
that setup reduction efforts can improve performance, but only if focused on
production bottlenecks or constraints (Wright et al. 1990). The point argued by
supporters of TOe is that time saved at a non-bottleneck is not a real saving, since by
definition a non-bottleneck already has excess capacity.
 Analysis of setup time at constraint resources 847

Thus, there does exist a difference between the lIT school and the TOC school, as to
how to approach the reduction of resource setup time. lIT suggests reducing setup time
everywhere. TOC suggests that efforts be focused only on identified production
bottlenecks.

5. Setup data definition

The approach taken by most MRP-based software packages is to define a routeing
using the following approach:
(1) part number;
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 20:05 09 December 2014

(2) workcentre number;

(3) process time per piece (or per batch);
(4) setup time per batch.
This data definition fails to recognize that the setup procedure for a particular
inventory item could very well be the same for more than one inventory item. The
failure to recognize this could result in less than optimal production schedules as
illustrated in the example shown below. It does approach the scheduling problem in the
manner advocated by TOC which suggests that we schedule only the bottleneck
resource. From that schedule we can use both backward and forward scheduling for the
other resources.

6. Case study schedule example

The data used for this example were drawn from the consulting experiences of the
author. The company has embraced many of the ideas advocated by the TOC school of
management and is considering an implementation of the DISASTER scheduling
package.

Load
Minutes Minutes Start Finish
Job (h) (min) process setup date/time date/time

1 4 50 230 60 1-30-92 8:00 1-30-92 12: 50

2 7 15 360 75 1-30-92 12:50 1-31-92 12:05
3 4 50 230 60 1-31-92 12:05 1-31-92 4:55
Due (55 min overtime
1-31-92 required)
4 5 45 280 65 2-3-92 8:00 2-3-92 1:45
5 5 30 300 30 2-3-92 1:45 2-4-92 11: 15
6 5 45 280 65 2-4-92 11: 15 2-4-92 5:00
Due (60 min overtime
2-4-92 required)
7 5 30 290 40 2-5-92 8:00 2-5-92 1: 30
8 5 15 270 45 2-6-92 1:30 2-6-92 10:45
9 5 50 310 40 2-6-92 10: 45 2--6-92 4:35
Due (35min overtime
2-6-92 required)

Schedule parameters: 8 h per day-8: OD-4: 00 p.m. Monday-Friday,

No work scheduled over weekend.
Table 1. Constraint production schedule-I.
 848 M. C. Patterson

The data presented in Table 1 represent nine jobs that fall within the production
horizon at the identified production bottleneck. Each of-the nine jobs represents a
different inventory item. As noted, overtime is required to meet the scheduled due dates.
Without an allowance for overtime, three of the nine orders would be delivered late.
With the existing schedule (Table 1) a total of 25 h of overtime is required to meet the
promised due dates.
The DISASTER software does recognize the possibility that saving time at a
constraint resource is possible by re-sequencing jobs. However, the package currently
recognizes only the possibility of moving forward batches that relate to the same part
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 20:05 09 December 2014

number (Goldratt and AV Institute 1990). In this example, the jobs each represent a
different inventory item. Thus, changing the sequence would not reduce the amount of
overtime required at the workcentre.
However, in analysing the scheduled jobs, it was determined that some of the jobs
required the same setup procedure as other jobs. This was despite the fact that the jobs
represented different parts. The observant production worker might well recognize this
event and change the sequence on his own in order to save a setup. However, this
practice could lead to problems on the shop floor. It would be very difficult for even a
very knowledgeable production worker to consider the overall impact of a decision to
alter the sequence of scheduled jobs on throughput. One of the objectives of a good
shop schedule is to tell the production departments what, how many, and when-
including the proper sequence-to produce. To the degree possible, such a schedule
would eliminate the need for production workers to 'second guess' the schedule and
would improve the overall synchronization of production flow. In this abbreviated
example, it was determined that job 3 required the same setup as job I. Likewise, jobs 4
and 6 require the same setup, as do jobs 7 and 9. Recognizing that these six jobs could
be re-sequenced and result in the elimination of all required overtime, while not
pushing the other jobs (2, 5, 8) out past their respective due dates, is a legitimate process
for finite production scheduling software. The results of this resequencing are presented
in Table 2.

Load
Minutes Minutes Start Finish
Job (h) (min) process setup date/time date/time
I 4 50 230 60 1-30-92 8:00 1-30-92 12:50
3 3 50 230 0 1-30-92 12:50 1-31-92 8:40
2 7 15 360 75 1-31-92 8:40 1-31-82 3:55
Due
1-31-92
4 5 45 280 65 2-3-92 8:00 2-3-92 1:45
6 4 40 280 0 2-3-92 1:45 2--4-92 10:25
5 5 30 300 30 2--4-92 10:25 2--4-92 3:55
Due
2--4-92
7 5 30 290 40 2-5-92 8:00 2-5-92 1: 30
9 5 10 310 0 2-5-92 1: 30 2-6-92 10:40
8 5 15 270 45 2-6-92 10:40 2-6-92 3:55
Due
2-6-92
Table 2. Constraint production schedule-2.
 Analysis of setup time at constraint resources 849

How can a system recognize that two different inventory items require the same
setup at a workcentre? From the author's experience, the existing MRP databases will
not provide the necessary data. The DISASTER package takes a positive step, but
currently'only recognizes batches that relate to the same part. Future releases of this
software package are planned which will address this issue (Burton 1992). What is
needed is the creation of a new data field-a setup procedure code. This code could then
be combined with the workcentre (resource) code number to represent a unique
number which indicates a specific setup procedure performed at bottleneck resources.
It is suggested that this, or a similar definition, be added to the language of POM-such
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 20:05 09 December 2014

as the APICS dictionary. It is not recommended that this process be undertaken at all
workcentres, as just-in-time might suggest for setup time reduction. Rather, the effort
should be focused only on resources that are, or have potential of becoming, constraint
resources. This process will provide opportunities for future research into the still
largely unexplored area of dependent setups.

6. Summary
The production schedule issue of setup time has received a significant degree of
attention in recent years. The results of this study suggests a different direction for
future efforts in this area. First, such efforts should be focused on constraint resources.
If, as both theoretical and applied research suggests, we can schedule better by focusing
and building schedules around bottlenecks, the analysis of setup should also be
directed at such resources. This includes efforts at setup reduction. Second, recognition
of the fact that setup time at a workcentre is not an independent variable is crucial to
future efforts to optimize production schedules. As a beginning, it is recommended that
production software developers recognize that there is a data field absent from most
MRP-based databases. That missing field is a setup procedure code. Combining this
code with the workcentre number will create a unique field, which can in turn be used
for re-sequencing the order of job processing and provide workable schedules for the
shop floor. The creation of this new code will also provide for advanced analysis and
further enhancement by recognizing the existence of sequence-dependent setup times.

References
BLACKSTONE, J., 1989, Capacity Management (Cincinatti, Ohio: Southwestern Publishing).
BURTON, T., 1992, Goldratt Institute, New Haven, Connecticut. Telephone Interview, 15 May.
GOLDRATT, E. M., 1990, The Haystack Syndrome. 1st edition (Croton-on-Hudson, New York:
North River Press).
GOLDRATT, E. M., and A. GOLDRATT INSTITUTE, 1990, Theory of Constraints-DISASTER
Documentation Jump Start, 1st edition (New Haven, Connecticut: A. Goldratt Institute).
GOLDRATT, E. M., and Cox, 1., 1986, The Goal, 2nd edition (Croton-on-Hudson, New York:
North River Press).
PLOSSL, G. W., and LANKFORD, R., 1984, The redirection of U.S. Manufacturing: Part 2-The
pivotal period. Production and Inventory Management Review, November, 50-51.
SCHONBERGER, R. J., 1982, Japanese Manufacturing Techniques, 1st edition (New York: The Free
Press).
UMBLE, M. M., and SRIKANTH, M. L., 1990, Synchronous Manufacturing, 1st edition (Cincinatti,
Ohio: Southwestern Publishing).
WHITESIDE, D., and ARBOSE, 1.,1984, Unsnarling industrial production: why top management is
starting to care. International Management, March, 20.
WRIGHT, A. C, BALL, R. G., BARRACLOUGH, H. J., and MORGAN, D. E., 1990,Profit improvement
through production lead time reduction. Australian Production and lnuentory Control
Society 3rd Conference Proceedings, October 1990,29-31.