Optimizing Maintenance Management

Efforts by the Application of TOC:

A Case Study
Mahesh Pophaley* and R K Vyas**

The Industrial Age has given way to the Information Age. This transition calls
for unmatched kind of organizations filled with innovations, since success in
the past does neither assure continued success nor a good reputation or bigger
size in future. It is not uncommon for large businesses to have millions of
dollars invested in production assets. Today, the management of maintenance
function, of these assets, which range from factory machines to huge power
generating units are increasingly being viewed as strategic contributors to
company’s profit and loss. The constant increase in capital needed for this
function has recently directed vast interest in two methodologies: Total
Productive Maintenance (TPM) and Theory of Constraints (TOC), that are
found to be adequate to optimize returns on capital invested. This paper
presents a case study of initiating TPM implementation backed by TOC
application in an automobile company. As the case with many continuous
improvement projects in maintenance management, TPM program is often
launched using Pareto analysis by focusing on the resource with the most
unscheduled downtime. The logic behind this approach is that such a resource
presents the biggest potential for improvement. While the logic appears obvious
the question remains: Is this always true? The specific purpose of this paper
is to demonstrate a new and innovative approach for directing maintenance
improvement initiative using the theory of constraint principle. Further, this
research also shows that both the methodologies are convergent and the ideas
and concepts of the two different approaches to improvement can be combined
to give the company a unique competitive advantage.

Introduction
In today’s global economy the survival of companies depends on their ability to rapidly
innovate and improve. As a result, an unceasing search is on for methods and processes
that drive improvements in quantity, costs, and productivity. Thus, in this fast-changing
* Reader, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Medi-Caps Institute of Technology and
Management, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India; and is the corresponding author.
E-mail: mahesh_pophaley@rediffmail.com
** Reader, International Institute of Professional Studies, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya (DAVV),
Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India. E-mail: ramkrishnavyas@gmail.com

© 2010 IUP. All Rights Reserved. The IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. IX, No. 3, 2010
48
marketplace, slow and steady improvements in manufacturing operations will not
guarantee profitability or survival. Companies must improve at a faster rate than their
competitors if they are to become or remain leaders. To confront this challenge,
enlightened company leaders are adopting and adapting ‘best-in-class’ manufacturing
practices and improvement processes. As part of these benchmarking efforts, Total
Productive Maintenance (TPM) and Theory of Constraints (TOC) have been identified
as improvement philosophies.
Since traditional approach to maintenance function has not been able to provide
any dramatic improvement in performance, TPM as an upcoming industrial
maintenance program, seems to provide the answer. Further, TPM is a new and fast
growing concept among industries, assessing inefficiencies and determining where to
focus improvement actions, i.e., identifying the problem areas to implement TPM, is
the most interesting task for the plant managers. Included in the Continuous Flow
Manufacturing (CFM) strategy is an improvement process, called theory of constraints,
which outlines a methodology to achieve continuous flow manufacturing. The
philosophy concentrates on maximizing throughput while simultaneously reducing
operating expenses. CFM can be defined as a manufacturing philosophy which strives
to continually reduce manufacturing inefficiencies through improvements in logistics.
This can be complementary to TPM’s focus on equipment-related losses. Although
TOC and TPM have entirely different roots, the processes support one another. When
both are effectively coordinated in implementation, they provide an unbeatable team.
The case presented in this paper refers to the work carried out at an automobile
component manufacturing unit located in Central India. Within the ABC automobile
unit, company management emphasizes effective maintenance management to reduce
cost of maintenance and increase availability of equipments and throughput of the
system, that are their improvement goals. To achieve these goals, the company has
started implementing TPM in their production shops for efficient maintenance of
production units to minimize the downtime. A case study was undertaken in the
company to direct the TPM efforts for effective maintenance along with maximizing
pipeline throughput, considering effective bottleneck-constraint management to help
realize dual goals. The fundamental principle used was that the output of the production
pipeline is limited by and can never be greater than the output of the ‘primary
constraint’. It was anticipated that the combined methodology will support in setting
the priorities for addressing the critical maintenance issues along with increasing
throughput.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: It provides a literature survey, followed
by brief description of the theory of constrains. Subsequently, it covers the details of
case study research, followed by the analysis of shop floor data. Finally, the findings
of the paper are summarized as conclusion. An Appendix is given at the end of paper
containing various tables showing results in support of analysis.

Optimizing Maintenance Management Efforts by the Application of TOC: 49

A Case Study
Literature Review
The literature describes numerous applications of TPM and TOC principles in both
manufacturing and non-manufacturing environments.
Chaudhari and Mukhopadhyay (2003), in their research illustrate an application
of TOC thinking processes in a service industry, namely the integrated poultry industry
where interactions among the supply chain members were analyzed. In addition, the
paper also demonstrates how a generic evaporating cloud was developed from three
clouds each related to a specific undesirable effect—a recent advance in TOC thinking
processes. It highlights the fact that TP tools are particularly useful to address
nonphysical constraints such as wrong policies or inconsistent performance measures.
Kayton et al. (1997), in their study indicate clearly the serious detrimental effects of
downtime on non-constraint machinery, particularly in environments with re-entrant
product flows such as semiconductor wafer fabrication. The study resulted in,
managements significantly revising their views of the causes of their problems, and
prompted a significant effort to improve the maintenance function and reduce downtime.
In the past few decades, a number of attempts have been made to redesign and
analyze manufacturing systems. But most of them were not intended to facilitate
productivity measurement and analysis. The turning point in the history of productivity
measurement and analysis came when the concept of Overall Equipment Effectiveness
(OEE), an integral part of the TPM paradigm was proposed by Nakajima (1997). TPM
is an innovative approach to maintenance, that optimizes equipment effectiveness,
eliminates breakdowns, and promotes autonomous operator maintenance through
day-to-day activities involving the total workforce.
Robinson and Ginder (1995), in their book stated that term ‘total productive
maintenance’ was first used in the late 1960s by Nippondenso, a supplier of electrical
parts to Toyota. At that time it was a slogan for their plant improvement theme,
“productive maintenance with total employee participation”. In 1971, Nippondenso
received the Distinguished Plant Award from the Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance
(JIPM). Nippondenso was the first plant to receive the award as a result of implementing
TPM, and this marked the beginning of JIPM’s association with the improvement
methodology. Eventually Seiichi Nakajima, Vice-Chairman of JIPM, became known
as the ‘Father of TPM’, since he provided implementation support to hundreds of
plants, mostly in Japan. They explained the concept of TOC philosophy, and explored
that the terms ‘bottleneck’ and ‘Capacity Constrained Resource (CCR)’ are not
synonymous. A bottleneck resource is defined as one whose available capacity is equal
to or less than the capacity required by the demand placed on it. A CCR is defined as
“any resource which, if not properly scheduled and managed, is likely to cause the
actual flow of product through the plant to deviate from the planned product flow”.
Scoggin et al. (2003), in their paper illustrate an application of the TOC thinking
processes in a manufacturing environment. The paper demonstrates how a team of

50 The IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. IX, No. 3, 2010

employees used TP tools to document current reality, identify a core conflict and develop
proposed changes to address the core problem, and create several detailed action
plans to implement the changes. It provides insights into how to apply TOC processes
to analyze a company’s manufacturing strategy
Umble et al. (2006), in their case study on Hitachi Tool Engineering highlight two
important issues. One is that the TOC philosophy works very well in a traditional
Japanese environment, in both manufacturing and non-manufacturing functional areas.
Another issue highlighted is that the literature describes numerous applications of
TOC principles and a vast majority of these reported applications have occurred in the
US and most of the remainder have occurred in countries dominated by western culture
and business practices.
The website, TOC-Goldratt.com identifies companies that have undergone
TOC-based implementations and are willing to publicly share their results. This site
currently contains 95 references, 63 of which involve the US firms. The remaining 32
firms are from the UK(8), Ireland(3), Germany(1), Canada(2), Mexico(2), South
Africa(5), Israel(3), Venezuela(1), Uruguay(1), Estonia(1), Lithuania(1), Czech
Republic(1), Colombia(1), and India(2).
With few exceptions, the literature is clearly lacking in case studies of TOC
applications in Asian organizations, and as far as the authors can ascertain, contains
no case studies of TOC applications in Indian automobile industry.

Theory of Constraints
The theory of continuous flow manufacturing was developed by Eliyahu M Goldratt
and was first described in an educational novel, The Goal. This book describes the
philosophy and its accompanying methodology (TOC) by using the story of a fictitious
plant manager as he struggles to make his plant profitable. TOC is an approach to
business which focuses on achieving the goal of that business, i.e., to make more
money now and in the future. Goldratt stated that a business, like any system, operates
with constraints. A constraint is defined as anything that limits the performance of a
business relative to its goal. Another important aspect of TOC is its unique approach
to improvement that does not focus on cost reduction, but instead focuses on increasing
throughput. Under TOC, throughput is defined as the money generated by the system
through sales. It is the throughput value (selling price minus raw material cost) which
represents the value added to the product by the system. TOC strives to continuously
increase the money generated by the system.
The foundation of TOC is a five-step process for improving a system by focusing on
the constraints of that system. These steps are (Umble et al., 2006):
1. Identify the primary constraints of the system.
2. Decide how to exploit the constraints.

Optimizing Maintenance Management Efforts by the Application of TOC: 51

A Case Study
 3. Subordinate all other actions to exploit the constraints.
4. Determine if it is necessary to elevate the constraints.
5. If a constraint is broken in the previous step, return to the first step and repeat
the process.
It was believed that TOC can play an important role in successful implementation
of TPM to reduce downtime and cost of maintenance, and increase throughput. With
the bottleneck and near bottleneck equipment identified, the TPM teams identify and
stratify the losses associated with these pieces of equipment. The teams that work on
near bottleneck equipment, that feeds the bottleneck, work to reduce Mean Time to
Repair (MTTR), since extended periods of downtime will starve the bottleneck
equipment. The teams working on the bottleneck equipment focus on improving OEE
and increasing Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF). This results in appropriate
increases in productive capacity, i.e., increase in the overall rate of throughput and
reduction of starvation and blockage at the bottleneck equipment.
If a resource is not a CCR, then, by definition it has more capacity than demand.
Consequently, it is possible that even though that resource has the most downtime, it
also has sufficient capacity to absorb that downtime, without affecting the system’s
ability to achieve its scheduled target. Conversely, if a resource is a CCR, by definition,
any amount of unscheduled downtime will adversely affect the systems ability to meet
its schedule. From a TPM program’s point of view, it illustrates that for a resource with
relatively little downtime, the improvement potential for the system would be biggest
if its impact on the systems ability to meet its schedule and produce throughput is
high. As stated earlier, the TOC approach concentrates on increasing throughput rather
than reducing costs, therefore it would evaluate directing a TPM program in the same
manner, leaving TPM to work on the cost front.

Case Study
Overview of the Automobile Company
ABC automobile company uses state-of-the-art technology to produce and manufacture
automobile products. The plant described in this study is a classic plant and exhibits
all the standard problems of a traditionally managed company, existing within the
unique framework of Indian work culture. The plant management has been keen in
applying the continuous improvement activities in maintenance function and has already
implemented practices like 5S, Kaizen, and Daily Management, to improve productivity,
lower manufacturing costs and achieve excellence. One major initiative being taken at
ABC is TPM.

Methodology
A comparison of the traditional and newly-conceived integrated methodology for
effective maintenance management is given in Figure 1. The system’s constraint must

52 The IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. IX, No. 3, 2010

be identified early in the TPM implementation process by using TOC principles. Once
the constraint is identified, Small Group Activity Teams (SGATs) are formed to apply
TPM methodologies for improving performance.

Figure 1: Approaches of Effective Maintenance Management

Traditional Approach of
Applying Improvement
Processes in Maintenance
Function
1. Identify the resources
with the unscheduled
downtime
An Integrated Approach in
Applying Improvement Process
1. Analyze the resources by TOC
methodology and identify CCR and
non-CCR

2. Apply the improvement process

on the resource which is a CCR
2. Arrange the resources
in the decreasing order
of downtime (Pareto
Analysis) 3. Exploit the constraint to utilize
its capacity, which generates the
most monetary return

3. Start the improvement

process with the 4. Repeat the steps 1 to 3 to identify
resource having highest new CCR for improvement
unscheduled downtime process, till all resources become
non-CCR

General Information
1. Plant operates one shift of 8 hours per day, 6 days per week (i.e., 2,880
minutes per week; excluding 30 minutes for lunch per day and overtime is
not allowed).
2. There is one worker per station.
3. Selling price of product X = Rs. 6,000 per unit, and selling price of product
Y = Rs. 7,000 per unit (rounded off accurately to the nearest zero).
4. Average market demand for product X and product Y = 60 units per week
(demand is stable and continuous).
5. Average rate of production for both the products is assumed as 10 units per
day.
6. Downtimes for each station have been collected and are presented in Table 1
(based on previous year history/data sheet of each station).

Optimizing Maintenance Management Efforts by the Application of TOC: 53

A Case Study
 7. The actual layout of the final machining and assembling shop where this
case study was carried out is presented in Figure 2, along with the quantity
of Raw Materials (RM) required per day.
8. Simplified flow diagram of material with scheduled processing/assembling
time per unit at each station is presented in Figure 3, along with the cost of
raw materials per unit. It also shows individual product routing information.
Here product alternatives are not allowed.

Table 1: Average Downtime at Each Station Per Day

S. No. Station No. Downtime (Avg.) Downtime (Approx. %)
1. Station A 1 h 35 min/day 20
2. Station B 2 h/day 25
3. Station C 2 h 25 min/day 30
4. Station D 2 h 50 min/day 35

Figure 2: Layout of Final Machining and Assembling Shop

Station C Station A
RM2 (20 units/day) P P
P
RM3 (10 units/day)
P

Station B Station D

P Y (10 units/day)
X (10 units/day)
P
RM1 (10 units/day) P A

P: Processing; A: Assembling

Observations and Analysis

To utilize the TOC approach for directing maintenance management efforts, the
manufacturing system of ABC was examined very critically and final machining and
assembly section was chosen to apply the concept of TOC before implementing TPM.
This section makes two types of products X and Y, and uses four work stations equipped
with various machines. Figure 4 demonstrates and simplifies the product-wise
calculations of processing/assembling time required at each station, per week.

54 The IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. IX, No. 3, 2010

 Figure 3: Simplified Flow Diagram of Shop with Processing/Assembling
Time at Each Station

RM1 D B
Rs. 800/unit
12 min/unit (P) 21 min/unit (P)
D Product
X
4 min/unit (A)
A

28 min/unit (P)
RM2 C
Rs. 1,000/unit
8 min/unit (P)
A

20 min/unit (P)

D Product
Y
8 min/unit (A)
RM3 C B
Rs. 600/unit
12 min/unit (P) 21 min/unit (P)

Figure 4: Individual Manufacturing Flow Diagram for Product X and Y

X Y

A A

28 min/unit 20 min/unit
= 1,680 min = 1,200 min

B B

21 min/unit 21 min/unit
= 1,260 min = 1,260 min

RM1
RM2
C C
RM2
8 min/unit 8 min/unit = 480 min
= 480 min 12 min/unit = 720 min
1,200 min

RM1
D D
X Y

12 min/unit = 720 min 8 min/unit

4 min/unit = 240 min = 480 min
960 min

Optimizing Maintenance Management Efforts by the Application of TOC: 55

A Case Study
Launching TOC Initiative
In order to determine the priority of TPM implementation for stations A, B, C and D,
the steps of TOC were applied to these stations and the constraint was identified. This
was accomplished by computing the capacity requirements at each station to satisfy
the market demand (see in Appendix, Table A1). Available capacity and load profiles
were calculated on the basis of downtime given in Table 1. The figures in Table 1 show
that both stations A and B have insufficient capacities to satisfy demand. Consequently
they are both bottlenecks in the system. However, it is Station A that requires the
highest utilization at 125%, which makes it the primary constraint limiting the
performance of the system. Therefore, stations A and B are CCR, while stations C and
D are non-CCRs. Since Station A is the current CCR limiting the system’s performance,
TPM efforts should first be focused on Station A.
Once the primary constraint has been identified, the next step in the TOC continuous
improvement process is to exploit the constraint. One way of exploiting a constraint as
per TOC theory, is to utilize its capacity of processing products, which generates most
monetary returns on the basis of time spent on that resource. This factor is referred to
as the Throughput Value per Constraint Time Utilization (TV/CTU) as stated by previous
researchers. Table A2 shows that product X has a TV/CTU of Rs. 150 per minute and
product Y has a TV/CTU of Rs. 270 per minute, therefore product Y makes more profitable
use of the CCR than product X. Therefore, the most profitable mix has to be determined
to take maximum advantage of this situation. Since product Y is more profitable, it
should be processed first. After making 60 units of Y, with the remaining available
capacity only 39 units of product X can be processed. This is the most profitable product
mix for this situation. Because the market demand for X and Y are 60 units each, the
customer service potential for this condition is 82.5% and the throughput money
generating capability is Rs. 4,87,800 per week.
By eliminating the downtime at Station A, the available capacity of this resource
becomes 2,880 minutes per week, which enables it to fully utilize its capacity.
Eliminating the downtime on Station A has the impact of elevating the constraint
(Step 4), and so it leads us to (Step 5), which directs us to go back and re-identify the
new system constraint, if any. In order to determine the constraint (Step 1), we once
again compute the capacity requirements to satisfy the market demand (see Table A3).
The table reveals that after eliminating downtime on Station A, Station B becomes the
new system CCR (with required utilization of 116.6%). Unfortunately, the system is
still unable to fully satisfy market demand because resource B is now the new CCR.
Subsequently, evaluation was done to analyze the impact of this decision on customer
service level and throughput potential of the system. To exploit the new constraint
(Step 2), the TV/CTU for it was determined. Table A4 shows that product X yields a
TV/CTU of Rs. 200 per minute and product Y generates a TV/CTU of Rs. 257.1 per
minute. Since product Y is more profitable, it should be produced first. After making

56 The IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. IX, No. 3, 2010

60 units of Y, the remaining capacity enables the system to produce
42 units of X. Therefore, eliminating the downtime at resource A allows the shop to
process three additional units per week. This increases the customer service level to
85% and the throughput capability of the system by Rs. 12,600 to Rs. 5,00,400 per
week.
Efforts are now focused on resource B, since it becomes the new system CCR.
Eliminating downtime at Station B increases its available capacity to 2,880 minutes
per week. Since a CCR has been broken, it is suggested to repeat the process. In order
to determine where the system constraint is now, the capacity requirements are again
computed. Table A5 reveals that no station becomes the CCR, rather Station A has the
load profile of 100%. Once again, the impact of this decision on the customer service
level potential and throughput capability of the system is evaluated. However, system
capacity is now sufficient to meet market demand so the new optimal product mix is
60X and 60Y. By focusing TPM efforts at resource B, 18 additional units of X were
produced, leading to an increase in customer service level to 100% and the throughput
generating capability to Rs. 5,76,000 per week.
Since resources C and D are non-CCRs, by focusing TPM efforts on these resources,
no additional units could be processed through the system. Consequently, no matter
how much effort is placed on TPM projects of these resources, the customer service
and throughput potential of the system would remain unchanged. Of course, the
downtime of the non-CCRs needs to be investigated in due course, but if non-CCRs
are not obstructing the system’s ability to meet its targets, urgent actions may not be
necessary.

Directing TPM Program by Traditional Approach

Based on Pareto analysis, MII would have been focused on resource D first, since it
has the highest downtime (35%), followed by C (30%), B (25%) and A (20%). However,
eliminating downtime at resources D, C and B (by applying MII) does not allow the
system to process more units (i.e., the optimal product mix remains at 39X and 60Y).
This is because resource A remains the CCR for the system (see Table A6). Therefore,
the customer service potential for this system remains at 82.5% and the throughput
potential also remains at Rs. 4,87,800 per week. But this results in increased
maintenance cost and extra burden on maintenance team without reaping any benefits
in return.
Continuing with the improvement program, we would implement TPM on Station
A. Eliminating downtime at Station A by MII, can increase its available capacity to
2,880 minutes per week. Since the available capacity of resources B, C and D is already
2,880 minutes per week (see Table A7), sufficient capacity would now be available to
meet the market demand, so that the product mix will be 60X and 60Y. Thus, customer
service potential becomes 100 % and the throughput capability increases to Rs. 5,76,000

Optimizing Maintenance Management Efforts by the Application of TOC: 57

A Case Study
per week. This scenario illustrates how using the Pareto approach to set the priority of
TPM improvement projects can be unreliable. Under this approach all four resources
would need to undergo the maintenance improvement process, before the system
experiences any tangible monetary benefits. The final sequence is presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Final Sequence of Applying MII at Various Stations

By Traditional Pareto Analysis D C B A

By New Integrated TOC Analysis A B C or D

Conclusion
This case study makes a theoretical contribution by defining a conceptual framework
to implement a new maintenance function improvement initiative, which shifts focus
from a traditionally-driven approach to a new TOC-based approach. It is demonstrated
that to be successful in a new maintenance initiative like TPM, the TOC methodology
should be adopted, otherwise the gains obtained by a typical TPM program could be
lost in the form of idle time. It is widely accepted that bottlenecks should enter a TPM
program, but for the non-bottlenecks, it is not easy to determine which machines should
enter the program, their target and their impact on the overall efficiency.

The conceptual framework suggested in this research, allows a company to tackle

maintenance problem in a more controlled manner. Although maintenance might still
remain a source of expense, the procedure depicted in this case study will permit to
reduce costs and save time, thereby increasing profitability, while maintaining or even
improving customer satisfaction. This is done by enabling optimum use of machine
capabilities and through improved maintenance planning. Further early in the
implementation of TPM, ABC has already seen positive benefits in many domains of
the company. Linking TOC to improvement initiatives, such as TPM, becomes key in
ABC’s relentless pursuit to improvement. One major aim is to allow TOC to be the
common culture shared by all entities in the company.

The ABC case study presented in this paper highlights two important lessons. The
first lesson is that the TOC philosophy could work well if properly thought and
implemented in a traditional Indian manufacturing environment. And the second
important lesson is the typically insidious and pervasive nature of a core problem.
That is, a core problem is likely to cause dysfunctional behaviors throughout the
organization. Thus, when a core problem is discovered, it must be resolved before
proceeding further with changing initiatives. 

Acknowledgment: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of all who participated in
this case study, particularly the maintenance manager and his team, for their useful suggestions,
consultation in understanding the complexities of production system, data tracking and patient
listening and recognizing the theoretical concepts.

58 The IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. IX, No. 3, 2010

References
1. Chaudhari C V and Mukhopadhyay S K (2003), “Application of Theory of
Constraints in an Integrated Poultry Industry”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 799-817.

2. Kayton D, Teyner T, Schwartz C and Uzsoy R (1997), “Focusing Maintenance

Improvement Efforts in a Wafer Fabrication Facility Operating Under the Theory of
Constraints”, Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 4,
pp. 51-57.

3. Nakajima S (1997), Introduction to TPM: Total Productive Maintenance, 2nd Edition,

pp. 1-129, Productivity Press (India) Pvt. Limited, Chennai.

4. Robinson C J and Ginder A P (1995), Implementing TPM, pp. 151-160, Productivity

Press, New York.

5. Scoggin J M, Segelhorst R J and Reid R A (2003), “Applying the TOC Thinking

Process in Manufacturing: A Case Study”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 767-797.

6. Umble M, Umble E and Murakami S (2006), “Implementing Theory of Constraints

in a Traditional Japanese Manufacturing Environment: The Case of Hitachi Tool
Engineering”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 44, No. 10,
pp. 1863-1880.

7. www.TOC-Goldratt.com, Accessed on April 16, 2009.

Appendix

Table A1: Initial Capacity Requirements

Total
Needed Capacity for Rated Available Load
Station Capacity
Product Generation Capacity Capacity Profile
Needed

X (min/Week) Y (min/Week) (min/Week) (min/Week) (min/Week) (%)

A 1,680 1,200 2,880 2,880 2,304 125.0

B 1,260 1,260 2,520 2,880 2,160 116.6

C 480 1,200 1,680 2,880 2,016 83.3

D 960 480 1,440 2,880 1,872 76.9

Optimizing Maintenance Management Efforts by the Application of TOC: 59

A Case Study
 Appendix (Cont.)

Table A2: Initial Product Priority (when CCR is A)

Product Product X Product Y

Selling Price (Rs./unit) 6,000 7,000

Raw Material Cost (Rs./unit) 1,800 1,600

Throughput Value Added (TV) (Rs./unit) 4,200 5,400

Constraint Time (CT) (min/unit) 28 20

TV/ CT (Rs./min) 150 270

Priority 2 1

Table A3: Capacity Requirements with No Downtime at Station A

Total
Needed Capacity for Rated Available Load
Station Capacity
Product Generation Capacity Capacity Profile
Needed

X (min/Week) Y (min/Week) (min/Week) (min/Week) (min/Week) (%)

A 1,680 1,200 2,880 2,880 2,880 100.0

B 1,260 1,260 2,520 2,880 2,160 116.6

C 480 1,200 1,680 2,880 2,016 83.3

D 960 480 1,440 2,880 1,872 76.9

Table A4: Product Priority with No Downtime at Station A

(when CCR is Station B)

Product Product X Product Y

Selling Price (Rs./unit) 6,000 7,000

Raw Material Cost (Rs./uint) 1,800 1,600

Throughput Value Added (TV) (Rs./unit) 4,200 5,400

Constraint Time (CT) (min/unit) 21 21

TV/CT (Rs./min) 200 257.1

Priority 2 1

60 The IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. IX, No. 3, 2010

 Appendix (Cont.)
Table A5: Capacity Requirements with No Downtime
at Stations A and B
Total
Needed Capacity for Rated Available Load
Station Capacity
Product Generation Capacity Capacity Profile
Needed
X (min/Week) Y (min/Week) (min/Week) (min/Week) (min/Week) (%)

A 1,680 1,200 2,880 2,880 2,880 100.0

B 1,260 1,260 2,520 2,880 2,880 87.5

C 480 1,200 1,680 2,880 2,016 83.3

D 960 480 1,440 2,880 1,872 76.9

Table A6: Capacity Requirements with No Downtime

at Stations D, C and B
Total
Needed Capacity for Rated Available Load
Station Capacity
Product Generation Capacity Capacity Profile
Needed
X (min/Week) Y (min/Week) (min/Week) (min/Week) (min/week) (%)

A 1,680 1,200 2,880 2,880 2,304 125.0

B 1,260 1,260 2,520 2,880 2,880 87.5

C 480 1,200 1,680 2,880 2,880 58.3

D 960 480 1,440 2,880 2,800 50.0

Table A7: Capacity Requirements with No Downtime

at Stations D, C, B and A
Total
Needed Capacity for Rated Available Load
Station Capacity
Product Generation Capacity Capacity Profile
Needed
X (min/Week) Y (min/Week) (min/Week) (min/Week) (min/Week) (%)

A 1,680 1,200 2,880 2,880 2,880 100.0

B 1,260 1,260 2,520 2,880 2,880 87.5

C 480 1,200 1,680 2,880 2,880 58.3

D 960 480 1,440 2,880 2,800 50.0

Reference # 07J-2010-08-04-01

Optimizing Maintenance Management Efforts by the Application of TOC: 61

A Case Study
Copyright of IUP Journal of Operations Management is the property of IUP Publications and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.