See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346772808

The constraints of theory: What is the impact of the Theory of Constraints on

Operations Strategy?

Article  in  International Journal of Production Economics · November 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107955

CITATIONS READS

2 217

3 authors:

Diego Pacheco José Antonio Valle Antunes Júnior

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos
96 PUBLICATIONS   441 CITATIONS    72 PUBLICATIONS   243 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Celso Augusto de Matos

Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos
63 PUBLICATIONS   2,041 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Marketing papers review guidelines View project

Cross-Cultural Consumer Behavior View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Diego Pacheco on 06 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Int. J. Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Production Economics

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

The constraints of theory: What is the impact of the Theory of Constraints

on Operations Strategy?
Diego Augusto de Jesus Pacheco a, d, *, José Antonio Valle Antunes Junior b,
Celso Augusto de Matos c
a
Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Oswaldo Aranha 99, Porto Alegre, Brazil
b
Postgraduate Program in Production Engineering and Systems, Unisinos University, Av. Unisinos 950, São Leopoldo, Brazil
c
Graduate Business Program, Unisinos Business School, Unisinos University, Av. Unisinos 950, São Leopoldo, Brazil
d
Aarhus University, School of Business and Social Sciences (Aarhus BSS), Department of Business Development and Technology (BTECH), Denmark

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Although previous studies have advanced understanding on about the effects of the Theory of Constraints (TOC)
Theory of Constraints in different areas in Operations and Supply Chain Management (OSCM), a relevant knowledge gap still remains
Competitive dimensions concerning how the TOC elements impact the main competitive dimensions of operations strategy, and how they
Operations Strategy
can be applied to influence the strategic priorities of the firm. In order to fill this knowledge gap, in this paper, we
Operations Management
Continuous Improvement
extended the operations strategy to the TOC context to examine with more precision the influence of TOC ele­
Operational performance ments upon the competitive priorities high speed, on-time delivery, high flexibility, low cost, and high quality. A
multi-method approach was adopted, combining both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Findings suggest
that the primary competitive dimensions leveraged by TOC elements are on-time delivery and high speed, fol­
lowed by high flexibility. Also, primarily, Scheduling Process (DBR and S-DBR), Critical Chain Project Man­
agement, TOC Replenishment for Distribution and Dynamic Buffer Management influence the competitive
dimensions with different intensity levels and overlaps. The first contribution of this paper is in offering a better
comprehension of the significant overlaps existing between various TOC elements and their simultaneous in­
fluence on firm’s operational performance. Second, we provide prescriptive strategies to firms for prioritising
managerial efforts and resources while implementing TOC elements, in isolation or combined with other man­
agement philosophies. Third, the paper enhances understanding of how to improve decision-making and to
manage conflicting strategic objectives affecting the firms’ competitiveness. The added value and originality of
this paper is in (i) minimising the lack of knowledge regarding whether and how TOC elements affect the
competitive priorities in operations strategy; (ii) enable decision-makers to evaluate their continuous improve­
ment initiatives adopted as part of the operations strategy and, eventually, select other managerial philosophies
to enhance the competitive dimensions and operational performance; (iii) enable a better organisational design,
attenuating the trade-offs among conflicting strategic objectives in OSCM.

1. Introduction particularly when the best practices of continuous improvement are

The relevance of decisions taken in the operations strategy context to
world-class manufacturing performance is a featured topic in OSCM
literature (Dubeya et al., 2017; Petroni et al., 2017; Ivanov et al., 2017).
Hayes et al. (2008) already mentioned that there was increasing
recognition that the production function can serve as a competitive
weapon when it is well designed and appropriately managed,
aligned with an effective operations strategy. Consequently, the disci­
pline of production economics management has emerged as an area that
investigates the fundamental laws that govern production systems and
utilises them for analysis, design and continuous improvement (Jing­
shan et al., 2013).
Thus, considering the challenges faced by firms because of market
competitiveness, it appears logical that practitioners and scholars

* Corresponding author. Aarhus University, School of Business and Social Sciences (Aarhus BSS), Department of Business Development and Technology (BTECH),
Denmark.
E-mail addresses: profdajp@gmail.com (D.A.J. Pacheco), junico@unisinos.br (J.A.V. Antunes Junior), celsoam@unisinos.br (C.A. de Matos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107955
Received 19 January 2020; Received in revised form 7 July 2020; Accepted 12 October 2020
Available online 6 November 2020
0925-5273/© 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.
D.A.J. Pacheco et al.
working in the field of OSCM should today ponder the following
essential questions: Do current operational performance improvement
methodologies meet the demands imposed by competitiveness? Are the
current manufacturing practices able to generate the operational per­
formance necessary in production systems to respond to marketing
challenges? What are the conflicting operational objectives in OSCM
that hinder firm’s operational performance, and how can they be
minimised?
The production systems have changed over recent decades, due to a
combination of several social and economic factors. In order to respond
to these challenges, Lean Production, Six Sigma and the TOC represent
some of the leading operations philosophies and managerial disciplines
enabling substantial transformations in the production economy, in light
of which firms have struggled to adapt and implement management
philosophies to maintain their profitability in an increasingly competi­
tive environment. However, failure to align the firm’s efforts at
continuous improvement with its strategic goals, particularly in the
decision level of the operations strategy, appears to be among the more
salient causes of firm’s poor performance of in the market. This obser­
vation was corroborated by Upton et al. (2004), who claimed that rea­
sons for failures in implementing continuous process improvement
methodologies in OSCM, such as is the case of the TOC, derive directly
from not having a clear vision of the relationship between the operations
strategy and the real impact of these managerial approaches.
Additionally, several recent empirical studies analysing
manufacturing challenges and the antecedents of the firm’s performance
reinforce the absence of academic contributions in the field of OSCM and
in operations strategy, proposing effective solutions to prevent failures
in the alignment of the firm’s practices with its strategic goals (Pacheco
et al., 2019; Ikeziri et al., 2018; Narkhede, 2017; Panizzolo, 2017;
Bernardo et al., 2017). Indeed, successful cases demonstrating the
empirical application of elements of the TOC have been reported (Wu
et al., 2020; Naor and Coman, 2017; Lowalekar and Ravi, 2017; Janosz,
2018; Golmohammadi, 2015; Inman et al., 2009; Wei et al., 2017;
Nanfang et al., 2008; Rahman, 1998) as a promising approach to
attaining the expected levels of operational performance.
If on the one hand, a dispersed research framework analysing the
impact of elements of the TOC has been presented from the perspective
of operational research techniques (Golmohammadi and Mansouri,
2015); mathematical modelling (Wu et al., 2020; Zupancic et al., 2017;
Tiwari and Sandberg, 2016); health care systems (Bisogno et al., 2017;
Lowalekar and Ravi, 2017; Groop et al., 2017); services (Naor and
Coman, 2017); flow shops environment (Thürer and Stevenson, 2018;
Gundogar et al., 2016; Golmohammadi, 2015; Yung-Chia and Wen-Tso,
2014; Schragenheim et al., 2012); computer science (Escobar et al.,
2016); and supply chain performance (Puche et al., 2016, 2019; Rah­
man, 2002; Simatupang et al., 2004), among others.
On the other hand, however, studies directly addressing the
connection between the different TOC elements with the competitive
priorities expected by the market are still missing, representing a
research gap in OSCM and operations strategy literature. In this
research, the terms TOC elements or practices refers to the set of well-
consolidated methods, techniques and tools available in the scope of
the TOC. Proponents of TOC advocate certain TOC practices within three
dimensions (logistics, thinking processes and performance measure­
ment). Thus, the practices found in the comprehensive study carried out
by Inman et al. (2009) were considered as the bottom line in our
research.
Although the quality of publications on TOC has improved consid­
erably in recent years, with several examples of contributions (Telles
et al., 2020; Myrelid and Olhager, 2019; Clegg, 2018; Groop et al., 2017)
published in top-ranking outlets in OSCM (e.g., IJPE, JOM, IJOPM,
among others), the research on TOC seems to be somewhat sporadic
when compared to other areas of interest in operations (Inman et al.,
2009, p. 342). TOC may be considered an example of OSCM managerial
philosophy successfully used in practice, but that has not been entirely
2
International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955
embraced as a scientific body of knowledge (Naor et al., 2013). More­
over, many of the available studies exploring the adoption of the TOC up
to now have been descriptive, and, consequently, the generalisability of
the research is still problematic (Wu et al., 2020). Hence, in order to
bridge this research gap regarding knowledge accumulation, the nature
of the present study can be considered prescriptive, favouring the
managerial dissemination and scientific contribution to the OSCM
discipline.
Additionally, it is possible to conclude that the TOC literature does
not sufficiently examine aspects related to the impact of its practices on
operations strategy, aiming to improve firm performance through the
lenses of the main competitive priorities. Although some studies (Ikeziri
et al., 2018; Bernardo et al., 2017; Naor et al., 2013; Inman et al., 2009)
outline the results of applying elements of the TOC, none in the OSCM
literature specifically explore the overlaps and the intensity of influence
of these elements on the main competitive dimensions in operations
strategy (high speed, on-time delivery, high flexibility, low cost, and
high quality). Thus, we argue that the lack of a clear understanding of
the influence of TOC practices on each dimension can limit the expected
benefits of their implementation and acceptance.
These knowledge gaps hold severe implications for the managerial
decisions process related to the allocation of resources, which are
generally scarce (e.g., financial, human, management efforts, etc.), as
well as for the support given to operations managers and TOC practi­
tioners for achieving the goals of the operations strategy. This issue is
also particularly sensitive to the context of micro and small companies
because of their recognised shortage of financial and human resources
(Clegg, 2018). These knowledge lacks are corroborated by previous
studies: “… a better understanding of specific TOC techniques and
environmental variables is necessary to ensure successful implementa­
tion and wider acceptance” (Watson et al., 2007, p. 400). In sum, the
extant OSCM literature shows that gaps remain concerning (i) whether
and how TOC practices impact the competitive dimensions, and (ii) how
to select the appropriate TOC element(s) to increase the operational
performance in each dimension required by the market. Therefore, this
study is intended to point to themes that, once addressed, may create
opportunities for the dissemination of TOC by a broader audience in
both academy and practice.
From the knowledge gaps discussed, two main hypotheses are sug­
gested in this research. The first assumption denotes that, to the firm
context, the full implementation of all TOC elements at the same time,
can be considered a complex, or even utopic, organisational task. Sec­
ond, not all TOC elements have the same level of intensity of impact on
the competitive dimensions and the operational performance of a firm.
The primary support for these two assumptions is that industrial man­
agers constantly make decisions involving conflicting objectives. In this
case, the full implementation of all TOC elements may represent a high-
cost transition for most firms, due to lack of internal capabilities,
financial vulnerability, lack of managerial competencies and organisa­
tional culture, among other aspects, involving the implementation of
continuous improvement methodologies (Watson et al., 2007).
Hence, from the knowledge gaps mentioned, the primary grounded
research question of this study aims to examine how TOC practices in­
fluence the competitive dimensions (high speed, on-time delivery, high flexi­
bility, low cost, and high quality) in operations strategy context? In
particular, the more concise research questions that we attempt to
investigate are the following:
RQ1. What is the intensity of influence and overlaps of TOC practices
upon the competitive priorities of operations strategy?
RQ2. How is it possible to select the appropriate TOC element(s) to
mitigate conflicts between operational objectives in organisational
design?
A multi-method approach was implemented, combining both quali­
tative and quantitative investigation procedures, including several
D.A.J. Pacheco et al.
statistical analysis steps. This paper fills a methodological gap in the
field, by including a survey with TOC practitioners, aiming to measure
their opinion regarding the impact of TOC practices on competitive
priorities. Controlled scientific analysis collecting the expertise of TOC
experts, in particular, is missing from OSCM literature, although surveys
with practitioners are “… worthwhile sources of information on the
performance of TOC” (Mabin and Balderstone, 2003, p. 591). This is
because “… practitioners have made numerous undocumented advances
within the many companies that have adopted TOC” (Watson et al.,
2007, p. 388).
The results achieved in this paper allow a better comprehension and
prioritisation of the significant overlaps existing between various TOC
practices, indicating with more precision the respective competitive
dimensions that are most impacted by TOC-based interventions.
Therefore, the main contribution of this work is the provision of insights
supporting the strategic decision-making process at the level of firms
and at the supply chain level. This research contributes to assisting
operations managers and practitioners in obtaining a better under­
standing regarding TOC elements and ultimately reduces the risk of
failures in empirical implementations. Findings suggest promotion of a
better organisational design to minimise strategic trade-offs in OSCM
(Tatikonda et al., 2013; Rosenzweig and Easton, 2010; Skinner, 2007),
enabling better decisions relating to managing contradictory opera­
tional objectives.
The research enables decision-makers to assess the continuous
improvement practices adopted in the execution of operations strategy
and, eventually, select different approaches to improve the operational
performance of the firm. The remaining part of the paper proceeds as
follows. The following section presents a review of the themes of pro­
duction strategy, competitive dimensions and the relationship between
the TOC and operations strategy. The third section describes the
research method, including the procedures for data collection, literature
review, research steps, and the multi-method approach, combining
qualitative and quantitative techniques. The fourth section presents the
paper results based on the research questions. After this, the results are
discussed, together with their managerial and theoretical implications.
Finally, conclusions and suggestions for future research are presented.
2. Research context
2.1. Operations Strategy
Studies on operations strategy have evolved continuously since
Skinner (1969). Skinner’s seminal paper proposed several relevant as­
sumptions. First, different organisations have different strengths and
weaknesses and may choose to compete in different ways. Second,
different production systems have different operational characteristics,
and the firm should, therefore, not adopt a standard production system
that is widespread in the industry merely because it is popular. Third,
the manufacturer’s task is to build a production system that will
permeate a series of consistently interrelated and internal choices about
how and where to compete, reflecting the priorities and trade-offs that
are implicit in the manufacturer’s competitive and strategic situation.
Fourth, new insights regarding production systems are required that
consider questions beyond the technology applied. Since Skinner’s
seminal ideas, the specific literature has presented diverse definitions of
production strategy.
The definition of operations strategy has evolved through time.
Skinner (1969) refers to exploring specific properties of the
manufacturing function as a competitive weapon. In the 1980s, Hayes
and Wheelwright (1984) defined it as a sequence of decisions over time
that allows the business unit to achieve the desired manufacturing
structure, infrastructure, and set of specific skills. Hill (1987) defined it
as a critical part of the business strategy and corporate firm, which must
create a coordinated set of goals and action programs aimed at sus­
taining a long-term advantage over competitors. Next, Brown (1999)
3
International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955
stated that operations strategy should be a driving force for continuous
improvement in the competitive priorities, which enables the firm to
satisfy a variety of priorities, while Cox and Blackstone (1998) con­
ceptualised it as a set of decisions that acts on the formulation and
development of manufacturing resources. To maximise the effectiveness
of the strategy, it should be aligned with global business strategies and
provide a competitive advantage.
In the 2000s, Slack and Lewis (2003) claimed that operations strat­
egy was a total pattern of decisions that shaped the long-term ability of
an operation to contribute to the formulated strategy. In 2007, Skinner
restored the definition as a set of political strategies designed to maxi­
mise the performance trade-offs and success criteria to fulfil the
manufacturing task determined by the corporate strategy. Hayes et al.
(2008) considered operations strategy as being an orientation that
regards the organisation’s operations as the assembly and alignment of
resources capable of efficiently implementing the competitive strategy.
More recently, Slack and Lewis (2015) asserted that “Operations strat­
egy is the total pattern of decisions that shape the long-term capabilities
of any type of operation and their contribution to overall strategy,
through the reconciliation of market requirements with operations re­
sources” (Slack and Lewis, 2015, p. 24).
The following conclusions can be drawn from the evolution of the
definitions of operations strategy. First, the authors cited agree that the
production environment and decisions are strategic aspects of the pre­
sent and future competitiveness of the firm. Second, the operations
strategy presupposes a set of objectives and decisions coordinated over
time, considering the internal and external environment. Third, the
operations strategy must be aligned such that it adjusts and adheres to
corporate and business strategies. Fourth, the literature considers the
importance of competitive priorities as an essential element of the
execution of an operations strategy and the firm’s performance. It is
important to underline that this paper adopted the definition of opera­
tions strategy proposed by Slack and Lewis (2015).
The competitive priorities represent the major operational objectives
of a firm (Dangayach and Deshmukh, 2006). Based on our literature
review, Table 1 presents a list of some of the representative scholars who
addressed the competitive dimensions theme to provide a better un­
derstanding of the dimensions already established and frequently cited
in the operations strategy field.
These results allow the analysis of the different competitive di­
mensions identified in the relevant literature. The following outcomes
can be observed: (i) for most of the authors, low cost, high quality, high
flexibility and on-time delivery appeared to be established as necessary
competitive dimensions to be considered as part of the operations
strategy; (ii) some scholars focused on the high speed dimension; (iii)
The innovation dimension has been referenced in recent publications as
an indispensable competitive dimension for some sectors (Paiva et al.,
2009).
However, it can also be stated that the literature addressing the type
of innovation in the industrial context (e.g., process, product, manage­
ment, materials, or market) is not yet totally mature in terms of the
Schumpeterian vision of a competitive dimension (Dangayach and
Deshmukh, 2001). We then adopted the first four suggested in­
terpretations most frequently cited in the relevant literature in OM (low
cost, high quality, high flexibility and on-time delivery) and added high
speed, which is linked to the lead time of the order, because the high
speed of delivering services/products before competitors has been rec­
ognised as a source of competitive advantage in previous relevant
studies (Slack, 2000; Bogner and Barr, 2000; Stalk, 1998; Eisenhardt and
Bourgeois, 1988).
In this research, the competitive priorities can be understood as
follows (Slack, 2000): (i) high speed: make the time between placing an
order and product delivery to the customer less than the time of com­
petitors; (ii) on-time delivery: to punctually fulfil the promises of
delivering; (iii) high flexibility: the ability to adapt or reconfigure the
operation whenever necessary and with appropriate speed to meet
D.A.J. Pacheco et al. International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955

Table 1
Synthesis of the state of the art in the research on the competitive dimensions.
Authors Statements in the literature On discussion in the literature

Low On-time High High High Innovation Services Supply Chain Environmental
Cost Delivery Speed Flexibility Quality Integration Sustainability

Skinner (1974) * * * *
Hayes and Wheelwright * * * * *
(1984)
Fine and Hax (1985) * * * *
Anderson et al. (1989) * * * *
Leong et al. (1990) * * * * *
Ferdows and De Meyer * * * * *
(1990)
Roth and Velde (1991) * * * *
Roth and Miller (1992) * * * *
De Meyer (1992) * * * * *
Kim and Lee (1993) * * * *
Vickery et al. (1993) * * * *
Miller and Roth (1994) * * * * *
Ward et al. (1994) * * * *
Fusco (1995) * * * * *
Kim and Arnold (1996) * * * *
Sweeney and Szwejczwski * * * *
(1996)
Kopcazk (1997) * * * * *
Ward et al. (1998) * * * *
Khurana and Talbot (1998) * * * * * *
Avella-Camero et al. (1999) * * * * *
Flynn et al. (1999) * * * *
Slack (2000) * * * * *
Kathuria (2000) * * * *
Frohlich and Westbrook * * * * *
(2001)
Dangayach and Deshmukh * * * * * *
(2001)
Mills et al. (2002) * * * *
Rosenzweig et al. (2003) * * * * *
Díaz and Martín (2004) * * * * * *
Dangayach and Deshmukh * * * * *
(2006)
Martín-Peña and * * * * * *
Díaz-Garrido (2008)
Paiva et al. (2009) * * * * *
Corrêa and Corrêa (2011) * * * * *

rapidly changing demands or needs of the productive system; (iv) low
cost: offer products at lower costs than competitors; (v) high quality: the
ability to deliver products according to design specifications. Overall,
the literature shows that the reasons for failures in implementing
continuous process improvement methodologies in OSCM, such as is the
case of the TOC, derive directly from not having a vision of the rela­
tionship between the operations strategy and the real impact of these
approaches. TOC represents some of the managerial philosophies
enabling substantial transformations in OSCM, and the next section
explores its main definitions and assumptions.
2.2. Theory of Constraints
The Theory of Constraints (TOC) is particularly useful in improving
processes and maximising efficiency in systems that are resource-
constrained (Pacheco et al., 2019; Bisogno et al., 2017). The TOC was
developed by Eliyahu M. Goldratt – a physicist in the 1980s who was
recognised for his systems knowledge – and is discussed in his 1984
book, “The Goal”. However, the origin of the TOC is also associated with
the development of a production programming software (Optimised
Production Technology - OPT), in the 1970s, also authored by Goldratt.
As improvements were introduced to the software, some innovative
concepts on productivity, such as the Drum-Buffer-Rope (DBR) algo­
rithm, were formulated within the TOC. Nonetheless, there is confusion
in the literature regarding the origin of the TOC, with OPT frequently
used as a synonym for the production programming approach (Souza,
2005). On the other hand, Lacerda and Rodrigues (2007) distinguish the
OPT software from the OPT concept, arguing that the OPT idea is the
formalisation of the principles that were the basis for the OPT software.
Since the 1980s, TOC has substantially impacted productivity
improvement in manufacturing systems (Wu et al., 2020), and it can be
applied in almost every kind of business (Janosz, 2018). However,
Spearman (1997) posited that the TOC does not offer a complete man­
agement paradigm; that there are, thus, times when trade-offs must be
made and that the TOC is hard-pressed to provide much assistance in
these situations. The principal tenet of the TOC is that there is at least
one constraint in each system that limits the ability to achieve higher
levels of performance relative to its goal. Maximum utilisation of this
constraint leads to maximum output in the system, whereas activating a
non-constraint resource at 100% of its capacity does not increase output
(Aryanezhad et al., 2010).
The overriding goal in a TOC system is to make money now and in
the future. In order to ascertain whether an organisation is obtaining
that goal, three global performance measures (Net Profit, Return on
Investment and Cash Flow) are utilised. While TOC makes use of these
traditional measures for global performance, they are not applicable at
the subsystem level (Watson et al., 2007). Thus, to bridge the gap be­
tween corporate financial measurements and business plant-level mea­
surement, three production-level performance measurements
(Throughput, Inventory and Operating Expense) are applied. These
plant-level measurements reinforce the goal of maximising corporate
profits by emphasising revenue generation while simultaneously

4
D.A.J. Pacheco et al.
reducing inventory and operating expense (Watson et al., 2007). In
order to advance this discussion, the next section explores the research
gaps and implications of the research connecting TOC and the opera­
tions strategy literature.
2.3. Theory of Constraints in Operations Strategy
The practical usefulness of TOC as a methodology for continuous
improvement is well-established (Naor et al., 2013). Studies have been
conducted on the evolution and current scope of the TOC. However,
although TOC has been in the literature for several decades, some re­
searchers have supported, and some ignored it (Gundogar et al., 2016).
Therefore, to interpret the findings available in the TOC literature and
map them into a perspective of the competitive dimensions, the core
seminal TOC papers were analysed, as well as empirical studies con­
ducted in the production environment. In doing so, we found that,
nowadays, new areas such as service management, health care systems
and others could be identified within TOC literature.
Several studies reveal that there is a substantial focus on TOC prac­
tices to find the production mix that leads to better optimisation results,
mainly through the OPT algorithm (Kaveh et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2014;
Linhares, 2009; Yenradee, 1994; Verma, 1997; Plenert, 1993) and the
DBR method (Huang et al., 2013; Hasuike and Ishii, 2009; Wahlers and
Cox III, 1994). This focus indicates that a limited number of studies are
available and these could be used in conjunction with other models
(such as linear-integer programming models, local optimisation, heu­
ristic models, stochastic and fuzzy programming, and genetic algorithm
models) to have more robust results that meet the standards of infor­
mation precision and address the real situational complexity of com­
panies. Cheng et al. (2012) presented two variants of a production
planning problem in hybrid pull-push systems that are applicable to a
wide range of planning problems with resource constraints or other
types of capacity limits in many industrial and business settings. Batun
and Maillart (2012) conducted a study of the optimisation of capacity in
a multi-product environment, while Myrelid and Olhager (2019) applied
mathematical modelling to compare Lean, traditional, and TOC
throughput accounting.
Naor and Coman (2017) described a typical scenario occurring inside
the stressful environment of a service call centre and suggested ways to
streamline operations through the use of TOC methods. In healthcare
systems, a number of applications of TOC have been reported. For
instance, Tiwari and Sandberg (2016) discussed the improvement of
perioperative bed capacity planning guided by TOC. Lowalekar and Ravi
(2017), in another example, demonstrated an application of the TOC
thinking process in a blood bank environment which was struggling with
the problems of high shortage and wastage of blood products, large in­
ventory levels, poor and erratic blood collection, limited product vari­
ety, high error rate, high turnover of technicians, high operating
expenses and low revenue levels. The logistics of medical records in
hospitals using TOC elements was also investigated in Escobar et al.
(2016). Improvements in the efficiency of a home care delivery system
also were evidenced (Groop et al., 2017) while Bisogno et al. (2017)
proposed and tested a new approach for a well-consolidated DBR suited
to healthcare services.
Atwater and Chakravorty (2002) presented the results of a simula­
tion experiment that studied how changes in the capacity utilisation of a
system’s two most heavily utilised resources affect the performance of a
DBR scheduling system with the TOC. Gundogar et al. (2016) combined
TOC with a simulation-based heuristic method to find the bottlenecks in
a production line to balance the semi-finished material flow. Golmo­
hammadi and Mansouri (2015) concluded that the literature available
on the product mix decision or master production schedule (MPS) did
not consider the system’s dynamism and the associated challenges
arising from the complexity of operations during the implementation of
MPS. They developed a new heuristic approach to MPS, based on the
TOC, considering the main operational factors that influence actual
5
International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955
throughput after implementation of the detailed schedule. Other studies
approaching DBR can also be found in the literature (Telles et al., 2020;
Zupancic et al., 2017; Yung-Chia and Wen-Tso, 2014; Golmohammadi,
2015; Schragenheim et al., 2012; Ye and Han, 2008).
Recently, Modi et al. (2018) demonstrated the case of the supply
chain of India’s largest lock manufacturing company. Using cause and
effect analysis, they showed how TOC Thinking Process tools were used
to identify the core constraints that had limited the performance of the
supply chain. To eliminate these constraints, the company implemented
the TOC in the areas of finance and measurements (Throughput Ac­
counting), production (DBR), distribution (Replenishment Solution) and
projects (Critical Chain). However, they did not directly address the
connections among the TOC with the operations strategy goals sup­
porting the decision-making process. Umble et al. (2006) examined a
case study in a Japanese tool manufacturing company, resulting in sig­
nificant improvements in work-in-process inventory, production lead
time, on-time delivery, productive capacity, inventory turnover, product
quality, sales volume, and profitability. Improvements in on-time de­
livery were obtained mainly through the implementation of a sophisti­
cated DBR scheduling system, fed by more accurate capacity and
performance data.
Findings by Panizzolo (2017) detected differences and similarities in
the adoption of TOC practices across several manufacturing plants and
suggested that managers should consider adopting some TOC practices
instead of others. In particular, in the case of DBR, the development of an
MPS based on constraints and the use of non-constraint resources with
excess capacity is among the most important practices to enhance the
competitive performance of manufacturing plants. Tests reveal that
manufacturing systems employing TOC techniques exceed the perfor­
mance of those using Manufacturing Resource Planning, Lean, Agile
Manufacturing and JIT. Other researches, however, suggest that the
TOC and Lean are complementary methodologies, because individual
gaps in each approach, for the most part, are offset by the virtues of the
other (Puche et al., 2019; Pacheco et al., 2019). In short, results from the
literature indicate that TOC systems produce higher levels of output
while reducing inventory, manufacturing lead time, and the standard
deviation of cycle time (Watson et al., 2007, p. 388).
Already Boyd and Gupta (2004) investigated the amplitude of the
TOC by conducting analysis in the OM environment, resulting in inter­
esting findings. First, they found that the TOC offers a new competitive
paradigm in Operations Management that replaces the old-fashioned
concept of searching for efficiency to achieve the firm’s goal, consid­
ering that the search for the goal from a global perspective is thus more
coherent for this new paradigm. Second, TOC offers decision-making
approaches for operations that extend beyond local optimisation to
achieve the firm’s vision. Third, TOC involves a valid theory in the
management of operations as far as its scope, definition, and fitting
criteria are concerned, but more empirical tests are required to validate
the TOC as a valid theory in OM. Fourth, TOC can serve as a theory or as
a unified theme in Operations Management providing new insights for
both researchers and practitioners.
Similar to the study by Boyd and Gupta (2004), the findings of Inman
et al. (2009) also provide evidence of the benefits of using the TOC.
These results are consistent with the findings of Mehra et al. (2005),
which indicated that businesses using a TOC-based system could
improve their performance more accurately, thereby gaining a sustain­
able competitive position in the future. Advancing the current rela­
tionship between the TOC and the firm’s performance, Inman et al.
(2009) expanded the model proposed by Boyd and Gupta (2004). After
evaluating TOC interventions, they reached several findings. First, when
completely implemented (logistics, thinking processes and performance
indicators), the TOC is an efficient managerial philosophy that yields
positive results, including increased gains and reduced inventory levels
and operating expenses, thereby improving overall organisational per­
formance. Second, contradicting the idea that gain orientation directly
improves organisational performance, as initially suggested (Boyd and
D.A.J. Pacheco et al.
Gupta, 2004), they found that the relationship between the TOC and
organisational performance is completely mediated by the results of the
TOC. Third, firms considering TOC implementation might experiment
some degree of confidence that worthwhile improvements can and
should be realised as a result of its application.
In a nutshell, the collection of investigations reporting operational
results of organisations applying elements of the TOC (Modi et al., 2018;
Panizzolo, 2017; Janosz, 2018; Golmohammadi, 2015; Golmohammadi
and Mansouri, 2015; Watson et al., 2007; Boyd and Gupta, 2004; Mabin
and Balderstone, 2003) shows considerable improvements in important
performance indicators (e.g., lead time, cycle-time, revenue, inventory
levels, etc.). However, the majority of the TOC literature fails to estab­
lish a direct connection with each competitive dimension, its impacts,
and consequently, with the set of TOC elements that enable performance
improvements in the content of the operations strategy.
Therefore, based on the landscape of the literature review, the gen­
eral conclusion achieved is that, as a result of the empirical studies and
the growing scope of the TOC over the years, the stock of knowledge
available makes the TOC a promising management philosophy in OSCM
with interesting research questions still open for investigations. TOC
provides a focus for continuous improvement, resulting in improved
organisational performance from a holistic viewpoint. Evidence of
positive results in several business contexts (e.g., health care, services,
retailing, manufacturing, etc.) has been reported after the imple­
mentation of TOC practices. However, much of the available research
examining the TOC in OSCM until now has been descriptive or exces­
sively quantitative, making problematic the extraction of managerial
insights originating from the operations strategy discipline, the
dissemination for a broader audience, as well as the generalisability of
the research. In short, the literature available demonstrates that,
although some research has been carried out on the implementation of
TOC within firms, there is still very little scientific understanding of the
impact of TOC on the main competitive dimensions of operations
strategy. The next section details the stages and procedures of data
collection and analysis adopted in the present study.
3. Materials and methods
This chapter is divided into two subsections, describing the research
design and the strategies by which information was generated, assessed
and analysed in response to the research questions. First, the data
collection subsection is devoted to detailing the qualitative procedures
and instruments applied. This includes the literature review made and
the validation of the TOC elements with recognised specialists through a
panel Delphi.
Already the data analysis section presents the quantitative proced­
ures employed. It describes the development of the questionnaire with
expert input, aiming to measure the impact of TOC practices on the
competitive priorities, the reliability of results, as well as the statistical
tests and modelling applied for data analysis. Rigorous validation of the
data and statistical analysis was accomplished in three steps by applying
statistical procedures performing multiple comparison tests that aimed
to detect statistically significant differences in the data.
3.1. Data collection
This research includes qualitative and quantitative approaches and is
both exploratory and descriptive in terms of objectives (Yin, 2004).
Mixed methods research can result in insights that cannot be obtained
from a quantitative or qualitative methodology alone (Creswell and
Clark, 2017). This approach aims to generate informative and useful
research results in practice with scientific rigour (Johnson et al., 2007).
The research is exploratory in that the discussion calls for the achieve­
ment of familiarity with the subject matter of the study, such that these
elements can be articulated thereafter. In exploratory studies, a set of
measures not previously tested are identified and tested and analysed.
6
International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955
Consistent with this exploratory research design, these measures should
be verified by further testing, and the possibility of other better mea­
sures should be examined. Further exploration of the complex re­
lationships between the elements of the design should be undertaken
(Inman et al., 2009). Like the exploratory study by Inman et al. (2009),
the research identified and tested a set of measures not previously tested
in the literature. It was necessary to conduct an extensive literature re­
view on the approaches discussed in order to establish the research
questions examined.
A protocol review (Tranfield et al., 2003) was used as a reference in
reviewing the literature integrating TOC and operations strategy. The
databases researched included Scopus, Web of Science, Ebsco, Proquest,
and Scielo. The focus of the literature review was to ascertain the state of
the art concerning the connection between TOC implementation and the
relevant competitive dimensions between 1995 and 2019, using all
possible combinations of the words ‘Theory of Constraints’, ‘TOC’, or
‘Constraints Management’ with the terms ‘competitive dimension’,
‘competitive criteria’, ‘competitive priorities’, ‘operations strategy’, and
‘production strategy’ in the Abstract, Title and Keywords fields.
The literature review demonstrated the absence of literature on TOC,
particularly discussing the relationship between TOC practices from the
perspective of the competitive dimensions in the OSCM context (Inman
et al., 2009; Hayes et al., 2008; Upton et al., 2004). For example, a
search in the field ‘Title’ in the Scopus database, using the combination
of keywords ‘Theory of Constraints’ AND ‘operations strategy” OR
‘production strategy’ did not return any document discussing the impact
of TOC in each competitive priority. The same result comes from the
combination of ‘Theory of Constraints’ AND ‘competitive dimension’ OR
‘competitive priorities’. There is an extensive body of work, composed
mainly of theoretical essays and case studies, analysing the impact of
TOC practices from the perspectives of operational research, mathe­
matical modelling, management and computer science; however,
studies focused on the connection between the different perspectives
and the competitive dimensions are still missing.
The data collection was delineated through the following main
procedures. In the first phase of the research project, the TOC elements
presented in the comprehensive study by Inman et al. (2009) in Table 2,
were validated by means of an open-ended question in a Delphi study
with TOC experts. This decision was needed because, although the
majority of TOC studies acknowledge that the TOC has three main
management approaches, they differ regarding the set of practices/ele­
ments. Through a panel Delphi, a questionnaire (Appendix 1) was sent to
a group of seven international specialist authors of popular books and
research on TOC, including leaders and experts of the Goldratt Institute
and academics on TOC with a number of citations in scientific databases
Scopus and WoS.
Delphi is a widely accepted method of gathering information from
Table 2
TOC approaches and practices.
TOC approaches Practices/Elements
Logistics Five-step process of focalisation
Programming process
Drum-Buffer-Rope
Buffer management
VATI layout analysis
Performance System Throughput, Operating expense and Inventory
Decision of product mix
Gain dollar x day and Inventory dollar x day
Thinking Process Effect-cause-effect (ECE) diagram
Current reality tree
Negative branch
Future reality tree
Prerequisites tree
Tree transition
Audit (ECE)
Cloud diagram
D.A.J. Pacheco et al.
respondents within their domain of expertise (Hsu and Sandford, 2007;
Hallowel, 2007), seeking out information which may generate a
consensus in the judgment of a panel of independent experts. In order to
minimise bias not related to the purposes of the study, the following
strategies were adopted in this stage (Dalkey, 1972; Hsu and Sandford,
2007). First, beyond ensuring a heterogeneous group of qualified ex­
perts, the preparation and administration of questionnaires was
minutely management and controlled, using a pre-test to validate the
questions and ensure reliability. Second, a controlled feedback process
was adopted by performing a structured synthesis of the findings in each
round and distributing the partial outcomes to allow each participant to
generate additional information or clarify the data obtained. Third, the
bias in consensus was minimised by facilitating information exchange,
enabling the experts to review the qualitative information of other panel
members anonymously, aiming to enhance recognition of each other’s
reasoning. Lastly, in order to ensure the validation of the information,
the panellists were asked to validate, in each round, the researcher’s
interpretation and categorisation of the data. As a result of four suc­
cessive rounds, multiple iterations and revisions were conducted until
the results converged towards a consistent direction. This approach was
chosen because surveys with TOC practitioners are “… worthwhile
sources of information on the performance of TOC.” (Mabin and Bal­
derstone, 2003, p. 591).
In the following phase of the research, the specialists’ answers were
subjected to content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004). Content analysis is
another data collection method, classified by Hair Jr. et al. (2014) as an
observational approach through which data can be gathered by means of
human, mechanical or electronic observation. Electronic observation
was utilised in this stage. From the content analysis, the experts’ re­
sponses were later analysed and consolidated. The outcomes achieved in
this step allowed the consolidation of the following TOC elements
(Fig. 1): Scheduling Process (DBR and S-DBR); Critical Chain Project
Management; TOC Replenishment for Distribution; Finance and Measure­
ments; Marketing and Sales (Mafia Offer connected to other applications);
TOC Thinking Process; Product mix decision (T, I and OE analysis); VATI
Fig. 1. Relationship of the influence between the TOC and the competitive priorities.
7
International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955
Layout Analysis; Dynamic Buffer Management; and Strategic Planning.
In the next research stages, the elements identified were used as a
reference for the development of a second questionnaire (Appendix 2)
that verified the influence between the TOC and the five competitive
dimensions of the operations strategy. In the following section, the
quantitative research results achieved are described in detail.
3.2. Data analysis
The data analysis was delineated through the following main pro­
cedures. A survey was developed according to criteria proposed by Hair
Jr. et al. (2014), considering an ordinal seven-point Likert scale. The
questions asked the specialists to indicate the level of influence of each
TOC element, as validated in the previous panel Delphi, on each
competitive priority (high speed, on-time delivery, high flexibility, low
cost, and high quality). The questionnaire was completed by experts and
researchers for pretesting and verification of whether the construction
criterion was coherent and to verify opportunities for improvement.
After the validation, the final survey was sent to a group of 146 re­
searchers and practitioners on TOC and operations strategy. The criteria
adopted for the selection of respondents included the following: (i)
Authors of articles on the TOC published in international journals in the
production and operations management field with Journal Citation
Report index over 1.0; (ii) Expert leaders of the Goldratt Institute; (iii)
Academics who conducted research projects in recent years or served as
supervisors of doctoral thesis on TOC; and (iv) Authors of textbooks or
dissertations about the theme of the research. The survey returned 22
valid responses, and Cronbach’s Alpha test satisfactorily validated the
reliability of the sample of responses (Hair Jr. et al., 2007). Also, the
responses were considered satisfactory for ensuring the validity of re­
sults for nonparametric test parameters (n > 10) (Derrac et al., 2011;
Shieh et al., 2007; Conover, 1999; Siegel and Castellan, 1988).
Nonparametric procedures are often more powerful than classical tests
for real-world data, which are rarely normally distributed (Fahoome,
2002). Corroborating these assumptions and satisfying the reliability
D.A.J. Pacheco et al. International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955

Table 3
Reliability analysis of the survey.
Cronbach’s Alpha High Quality High Speed

0.89 0.69

TOC practices associated and Mean Standard Coefficient of Cronbach’s Alpha if Mean Standard Coefficient of Cronbach’s Alpha if
individual Cronbach’s Alpha deviation Variation Item Deleted deviation Variation Item Deleted

1. Scheduling Process (DBR & S-DBR) 4.43 1.96 .44 .87 6.65 .59 .09 .69
2. Critical Chain Project 5.29 1.65 .31 .89 6.10 1.12 .18 .67
Management
3. TOC Replenishment for 4.33 2.01 .46 .87 6.40 .88 .14 .67
Distribution
4. Finance and Measurements 4.86 1.71 .35 .88 4.75 1.45 .30 .69
5. Marketing and Sales (Mafia Offer 4.33 2.08 .48 .88 4.35 2.01 .46 .63
connected to other applications)
6. Thinking Process 5.43 1.43 .26 .90 5.00 1.52 .30 .65
7. Product mix decision (T,I and OE 3.62 2.22 .61 .86 4.35 1.79 .41 .64
analysis)
8. VATI Layout Analysis 3.76 1.87 .50 .88 4.55 1.79 .39 .74
9. Dynamic Buffer Management 5.00 1.90 .38 .88 6.25 .97 .15 .68
10. Strategic Planning 4.81 1.86 .39 .89 4.85 1.69 .35 .61

criteria, Blair and Higgins (1980), for example, demonstrated the power
superiority of the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test over the
T-test for a variety of non-normal theoretical distributions. Other works
corroborate the appropriateness of the Wilcoxon test, rather than other
methods that do not assume homogeneity of variance or normal distri­
butions (Shieh et al., 2007; Demsar, 2006).
According to Hair Jr. et al. (2014), the definition of research validity
is concerned with how well the concept is defined by the measure. To
evaluate the validity of the results from the survey field applied, three
categories of validity were applied: face validity, construct validity and
criterion validity (Hair Jr. et al., 2014). Face validity was evaluated
using consultation with a small representative sample of specialists to
judge the suitability of the items chosen for each construct. In this case,
face validity was sought by analysing the TOC practices with each of the
three TOC approaches – logistics, performance systems and thinking
processes (Inman et al., 2009). Construct validity evaluates what the
construct or scale is, in fact, measuring, by understanding the theoretical
foundation underlying the measures used. The theory is then used to
explain why the scale works and how the results of its application can be
interpreted. The validity of the construct was ensured from the following
elements: (i) the definition of the ordinal measurement scale of the final
survey (Hair Jr. et al., 2014) applied with expert academics and prac­
titioners; (ii) ensuring that the definitions and nomenclatures of the
survey practices were clear, maintaining the differences between the
constructs; (iii) the clear statement of the conceptual definition of each
competitive dimension in the survey, according to Slack (2000); and (iv)
verification of whether the respondent sample size ensures the desired
reliability according to Cronbach’s Alpha.
The statistical analysis of the data collected in the survey utilised
analytical techniques consisting of four main steps. SPSS software
(PASW Statistics 18) was employed for data analysis. For all the statis­
tical analyses performed in this study, the significance level considered
was 5%. In the first step, the response reliability was analysed (Table 3).
Reliability is defined as the degree of consistency among multiple
measures of a variable, and it was evaluated using Cronbach’s Alpha
statistics (Hair Jr. et al., 2014). For exploratory studies, a Cronbach’s
Alpha greater than 0.6 indicates adequate reliability in the data sample
(Hair Jr. et al., 2007). It also measures the degree to which the re­
spondents understood the questionnaire applied.
The aim of this first step was to examine how the TOC elements
simultaneously impact the competitive priorities. Hence, the Wilcoxon
signed-rank test was initially applied. The test is typically adopted for
ordinal scales to compare two (paired) related samples (Siegel, 1956).
The test is useful to determine which member of a pair is greater and
determine the difference in the absolute values of the two members.
When we approximate to the normal distribution, the statistic is given
according to Equation (1). Hypothesis H0 of the test is that two samples
may be considered equal, and H1 is that the two samples may be
considerate different.
N.(N+1)
T+ − μT+ T+ −
Z= 4
= √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ∼ N(0, 1) (1)
σ T+ N.(N+1)(2N+1)
24
where N is the number of samples, μT+ is the median, and σ T+ is the
variance.
The statistic uses the ranks of the absolute differences between the
samples with the sign of the difference and may be used to test for
symmetry and equality of location for paired replicates (Fahoome,
2002). First, each TOC element (Fig. 1) was individually analysed with
the competitive dimensions in pairs (Table 4).
In the following step, in order to complement the Wilcoxon signed-
rank test, the Friedman rank test (Derrac et al., 2011; Demsar, 2006;
Siegel and Castellan, 1988) was adopted. The Friedman test (Siegel,
1956; Friedman, 1940) is recommended for ordinal or interval data
scales, to compare K related samples instead of only two samples as in
the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and is useful when one wants to prove the
hypothesis that K related samples come from the same population. It is a
multiple comparisons test that allows detection of significant differences
between the behaviour of two or more judgments, and its ranking
scheme allows intra-set comparisons in the group of variables (Derrac
et al., 2011).
One of the advantages of the test is that the total difference between
the K samples is presented in the form of a ranking of influence of
different variables on the data significance within the group, resulting in
the rank of the Friedman mean (Table 5). The statistic of the Friedman
test is then given by equation (2). Hypothesis H0 of the test is that the K
samples are equal, and H1 is that the K samples are different.
∑k
12
x2 = R2 − 3n(k + 1) (2)
nk(k + 1) i=1 i
where n is the number of observations/blocks or lines; k is the number of
conditions/groups or columns; Ri is the sum of posts in column i; and i =
1 indicates the sum of the squares of the sums of posts over all the k
conditions.
When the number of respondents n or the number of elements judged
k is representative (n > 10 or k > 5), the probability distribution can be

8
D.A.J. Pacheco et al. International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955

On-time Delivery High Flexibility Low Cost

0.70 0.61 0.69

Mean Standard Coefficient of Cronbach’s Mean Standard Coefficient of Cronbach’s Mean Standard Coefficient of Cronbach’s
deviation Variation Alpha if Item deviation Variation Alpha if Item deviation Variation Alpha if Item
Deleted Deleted Deleted

6.63 .68 .10 .69 5.75 1.33 .23 .59 5.17 1.38 .27 .63
6.05 1.39 .23 .66 5.65 1.04 .18 .58 5.22 1.44 .28 .64

6.53 .77 .12 .72 5.70 1.08 .19 .62 5.22 1.48 .28 .61

4.84 1.46 .30 .67 4.95 1.61 .32 .60 5.56 1.50 .27 .62
4.11 2.02 .49 .61 4.50 1.91 .42 .56 4.44 1.82 .41 .64

4.74 1.56 .33 .66 5.60 1.05 .19 .60 5.44 1.10 .20 .67
4.68 1.80 .38 .62 4.85 1.81 .37 .54 5.11 1.97 .38 .69

4.63 1.83 .40 .73 4.55 1.79 .39 .61 3.89 1.60 .41 .65
6.37 .83 .13 .71 5.55 1.32 .24 .58 4.72 1.36 .29 .63
4.84 1.71 .35 .69 5.65 1.60 .28 .57 5.00 1.24 .25 .73

approximated by chi-squared curve, and the p-value is given by (xk2− 1
≥ Q), when the significance level is established. Then, multiple
comparative analyses can be performed. Under the null hypothesis, the
test only requires exchangeability (or, if variances differ, compound
symmetry) and the ability to rank the data. The data are arranged in k
columns and n rows, where each row contains k related observations
(Fahoome, 2002). After identifying the statistical significance results
obtained in the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the Friedman test allowed
more precise identification of the effect of each TOC element on the five
competitive dimensions. For reasons of reproducibility, scrutiny, and for
future advances to this research domain, it is important to note that all
code and datasets used in this study will be publicly available without
restrictions under fair requesting.
4. Results
This section outlines the results achieved from the quantitative ap­
proaches previously described. It comprises of two subsections. First, the
outcomes are presented of the reliability analysis of the results of the
survey, nonparametric statistical procedures and modelling performed
for data analysis. Second, a detailed interpretation of the results is
presented, analysing how different TOC elements influence the
competitive priorities in operations strategy.
4.1. Relationships between TOC elements and competitive priorities
A detailed analysis was performed from the outcomes obtained with
the survey. Because a seven-point Likert scale was adopted, the scale of
the mean range (Table 3) is from 1 to 7. The satisfactory reliability
analysis of the responses collected is then demonstrated.
The column Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted indicates the global
value of Cronbach’s Alpha for the sample when the respective set of
responses for the survey question was excluded from the analysis. The
analysis of results demonstrates that the sample has adequate reliability
(Hair Jr. et al., 2014).
Next, the respondents’ preference analysis was conducted between
the TOC practices and the paired analysis among the competitive di­
mensions, aiming to identify which TOC practices are directly or indi­
rectly related. For this purpose, the paired analysis Wilcoxon test was
performed (Table 4).
It is possible to verify that the highlighted (bold) dimensions are
those statistically different (p < 0.05) in the paired analysis performed.
Based on the significance levels, results suggest which of the competitive
dimensions are most directly influenced by the corresponding TOC
element. For example, considering the p-value and the Mean values
(Table 3), outcomes indicate that there is a direct association between
Scheduling Process (DBR & S-DBR) (p = 0.000) over the Speed dimension
(Mean = 6.65), more than on the Quality dimension (Mean = 4.43) or
other competitive dimensions highlighted in the Scheduling Process box
(Table 4).
Overall, prelimininary results suggest that the Scheduling Process
(DBR & S-DBR) has a positive association with the high speed, on-time
delivery, and high flexibility dimensions. Similarly, Critical Chain Proj­
ect Management is positively associated with the dimensions high speed
and on-time delivery. Following this same rational, the remaining
findings suggest that there is a significant positive association between
TOC Replenishment for Distribution with the on-time delivery, high speed
and high flexibility dimensions. The Finance and Measurements elements
are positively associated only with the low cost dimension and Thinking
Process is associated only with on-time delivery. Product Mix Decision has
a statistically significant association with high speed, high flexibility and
low cost. Dynamic Buffer Management and VATI Layout Analysis show a
positive association with the dimensions high speed, high flexibility and
on-time delivery.
These preliminary outcomes might, a priori, corroborate the ideas
that TOC practices simultaneously influence several dimensions. In re­
gard to the practices associated with Marketing and Sales and Strategic
Planning, no statistically significant level was observed. Therefore, they
were disregarded in the later stages of the analysis. Thus, considering
these results and the nature of the paired analysis of the Wilcoxon
signed-rank test, the preliminary observation is that Scheduling Process
(DBR & S-DBR), TOC Replenishment for Distribution, and Dynamic Buffer
Management could indicate a simultaneous overlaps over the same di­
mensions (high speed, on-time delivery, and high flexibility). We also
conducted additional analysis applying the Friedman test (Table 5) to
detail and validate these preliminary observations mentioned.
From Friedman’s rank median results, and based on the significance
levels obtained, it was possible to detail the overlaps of the concurrent
TOC elements upon the competitive priorities. The null hypothesis was
rejected, and statistically significant differences could be observed in the
intra-set comparison among the competitive priorities for specific TOC
elements.
In this sense, the outcomes suggest that there is a statistically sig­
nificant difference (p < 0.05) between the mean ranks of the five
competitive dimensions for Scheduling Process (DBR and S-DBR), Critical
Chain Project Management, TOC Replenishment for Distribution and Dy­
namic Buffer Management. These results indicate that these specific four
TOC elements impact the competitive dimensions with different

9
D.A.J. Pacheco et al. International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955

Table 4
Paired analysis of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test between TOC practices and competitive dimensions.
TOC practice Paired analysis of Wilcoxon Sig. (p- TOC practice Paired analysis of Wilcoxon Sig. (p-
signed-rank test value) signed-rank test value)

Scheduling Process (DBR and S-DBR) High Quality - High Speed .000 Thinking Process High Flexibility - High Speed .123
On-time Delivery - High Speed .527 On-time Delivery - High Speed .190
High Flexibility - High Speed .013 Low Cost - High Speed .233
Low Cost - High Speed .001 High Quality - High Speed .266
Low Cost - High Flexibility .026 Low Cost - High Flexibility .475
High Quality - High Flexibility .019 High Quality - High Flexibility .687
On-time Delivery - High .012 On-time Delivery - High .026
Flexibility Flexibility
High Quality - On-time .001 High Quality - Delivery .072
Delivery
Low Cost - On-time Delivery .002 Low Cost - Delivery .072
High Quality - Low Cost .113 High Quality - Low Cost .471
Critical Chain Project Management High Flexibility - High Speed .103 Product Mix decision (T, I and High Flexibility - High Speed .185
On-time Delivery - High Speed .951 OE analysis) On-time Delivery - High Speed .429
Low Cost - High Speed .045 Low Cost - High Speed .158
High Quality - High Speed .039 High Quality - High Speed .042
Low Cost - High Flexibility .104 Low Cost - High Flexibility .400
High Quality - High Flexibility .323 High Quality - High Flexibility .015
On-time Delivery - High .172 On-time Delivery - High .635
Flexibility Flexibility
High Quality - On-time .018 High Quality - On-time .045
Delivery Delivery
Low Cost - On-time Delivery .074 Low Cost - On-time Delivery .300
High Quality - Low Cost .937 High Quality - Low Cost .006
TOC Replenishment for Distribution High Flexibility - High Speed .004 VATI Layout Analysis High Flexibility - High Speed .465
On-time Delivery - High Speed .414 On-time Delivery - High Speed .705
Low Cost - High Speed .004 Low Cost - High Speed .046
High Quality - High Speed .000 High Quality - High Speed .162
Low Cost - High Flexibility .410 Low Cost - High Flexibility .041
High Quality - High Flexibility .004 High Quality - High Flexibility .232
On-time Delivery - High .004 On-time Delivery - High .319
Flexibility Flexibility
High Quality - On-time .000 High Quality - On-time .118
Delivery Delivery
Low Cost - On-time Delivery .001 Low Cost - On-time Delivery .030
High Quality - Low Cost .079 High Quality - Low Cost .525
Finance and Measurements High Flexibility - High Speed .322 Dynamic Buffer Management High Flexibility - High Speed .069
On-time Delivery - High Speed 1.000 On-time Delivery - High Speed .380
Low Cost - High Speed .061 Low Cost - High Speed .008
High Quality - High Speed .747 High Quality - High Speed .033
Low Cost - High Flexibility .036 High Quality - High Flexibility .347
On-time Delivery - High .720 Low Cost - High Flexibility .043
Flexibility
High Quality - High Flexibility .769 On-time Delivery - High .036
Flexibility
High Quality - On-time .655 High Quality - On-time .014
Delivery Delivery
Low Cost - On-time Delivery .034 Low Cost - On-time Delivery .002
High Quality - Low Cost .026 High Quality - Low Cost .738
Marketing and Sales (Mafia Offer connected to High Flexibility - High Speed .769 Strategic Planning High Flexibility - High Speed .078
other applications) On-time Delivery - High Speed .179 On-time Delivery - High Speed .527
Low Cost - High Speed .627 Low Cost - High Speed .804
High Quality - High Speed .711 High Quality- High Speed .605
Low Cost - High Flexibility .659 Low Cost - High Flexibility .110
High Quality - High Flexibility .896 High Quality - High Flexibility .062
On-time Delivery - High .324 On-time Delivery - High .065
Flexibility Flexibility
High Quality - On-time .863 High Quality - On-time .730
Delivery Delivery
Low Cost - On-time Delivery .517 Low Cost - On-time Delivery .885
High Quality - Low Cost .931 High Quality - Low Cost .634

magnitudes of influence. On the other hand, the distribution of ranks of
the competitive dimensions for Finance and Measurements, Marketing and
Sales, TOC Thinking Process, Product Mix Decision, and VATI Layout
Analysis can be considered similar or not significantly different (p >
0.05). For these practices, results indicated that there is no statistically
significant difference in their influence upon the five competitive di­
mensions examined.
An integrative interpretation of the findings considering the statis­
tically significant results (p < 0.05) found in both, the paired analysis of
the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and in the Friedman’s rank test, indicated
the following overall outcomes, also summarised in a conceptual model
(Fig. 2).
• Scheduling Process (DBR & S-DBR) impacts with higher intensity of
influence the dimensions high speed (Mean = 6.65), on-time delivery
(Mean = 6.63), and high flexibility (Mean = 5.75).
• Critical Chain Project Management impacts with higher intensity of
influence on high speed (Mean = 6.10), rather than the on-time
delivery dimension (Mean = 6.05).

10
D.A.J. Pacheco et al. International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955

Table 5 dimensions is not statistically significant (p > 0.05), so it is not

Overlap of Friedman’s rank means among the TOC practices and competitive possible to statistically support any statement regarding their
priorities. influence.
TOC practice Competitive Friedman’s Chi- Sig. (p-
dimension Rank median Square value) These findings corroborate the statement that the TOC can be
Scheduling Process High Speed 3.86 28.63 .000 considered a system thinking methodology (Ikeziri et al., 2018; Inman
(DBR and S-DBR) On-time 3.79 et al., 2009; Watson et al., 2007) because its various elements present a
Delivery significant overlap. Nonetheless, to date, the literature has not clearly
High 2.98
addressed the simultaneous overlaps of these dimensions and the in­
Flexibility
Low Cost 2.36 tensity of their influence. The synthesis of the results achieved reflects
High Quality 2.02 the holistic view of TOC and how its elements more precisely impact the
Critical Chain Project High Speed 3.50 10.288 .036 strategic dimensions.
Management On-time 3.45 A conceptual model was developed from the results to represent the
Delivery
High 2.93
cumulative overlap of TOC practices (Fig. 2), which allows a systemic
Flexibility understanding of the results, in addition to providing support for prac­
High Quality 2.73 titioners to prioritise managerial efforts when implementing the TOC as
Low Cost 2.40 part the operations strategy content. The model initially suggests that
TOC Replenishment On-time 4.05 41.078 .000
the TOC practices in the first influence level may be prioritized under the
for Distribution Delivery
High Speed 3.90 practices on the second influence level; and, the practices on the second
High 2.90 influence level may be prioritized under the practices on the third level.
Flexibility The conceptual model can contribute to the decision-making process
Low Cost 2.48 of operations managers by suggesting different influence levels of TOC
High Quality 1.68
elements upon the competitive dimensions, resulting in prescriptive
Finance and Low Cost 3.73 7.780 .100
Measurements High 3.00 information for empirical interventions according to the operations
Flexibility strategy goals of the firm. The differing levels of influence of the TOC
High Quality 2.83 elements may be considered by managers and professionals looking to
High Speed 2.73
address simultaneous and/or conflicting strategic objectives in the op­
On-time 2.73
Delivery erations strategy content. Practitioners might interpret the conceptual
TOC Thinking Process High Quality 3.43 6.742 .150 model in the following manner: the practices with the first level of in­
High 3.28 fluence might be prioritized over those with the second and third levels
Flexibility of influence to improve the respective competitive dimension associ­
Low Cost 3.00
ated; and those with the second level, might be prioritized over those
High Speed 2.83
On-time 2.48 with third level. In turn, the choice and subsequent efficient imple­
Delivery mentation of the appropriate TOC element(s) will impact the opera­
Product mix decision Low Cost 3.48 7.266 .123 tional performance.
(T, I and OE High 3.17
Depending on the firm’s resources (e.g., internal capabilities,
analysis) Flexibility
On-time 3.07
financial and managerial competencies, organisational culture and
Delivery maturity in continuous process improvement interventions, etc.), the
High Speed 2.88 model can guide the selection of different combinations of TOC ele­
High Quality 2.40 ments. Alternatively, the combination with other continuous improve­
VATI Layout Analysis On-time 3.33 2.967 .563
ment methodologies, such as Lean and Six Sigma, might be explored to
Delivery
High Speed 3.19 influence operational performance according to the competitive di­
High Quality 2.94 mensions required by market specificities.
High 2.92
Flexibility
4.2. How TOC elements influence the competitive priorities in operations
Low Cost 2.61
Dynamic Buffer On-time 3.67 14.625 .006 strategy
Management Delivery
High Speed 3.55 Taken together, the analysis of the results suggests that, preserving
High 2.81 the premise of significant overlap between various TOC practices, in
Flexibility
High Quality 2.62
general, on-time delivery, high speed and high flexibility are the pri­
Low Cost 2.36 mary competitive dimensions influenced by TOC. This simultaneous
direct and indirect impact of TOC practices on competitive priorities
supports the understanding of the TOC as being a holistic management
• TOC Replenishment for Distribution impacts with higher intensity of philosophy, unlike several other improvement methodologies, which
influence, firstly, on-time delivery (Mean = 6.53), followed by high are primarily local by nature. These findings are seen to be consistent
speed (Mean = 6.40), and high flexibility (Mean = 5.70). with those stating that the TOC can be considered an approach in op­
• Dynamic Buffer Management impacts with higher intensity on-time erations strategy process that reflects a systems-oriented paradigm
delivery (Mean = 6.37), followed by high speed (Mean = 6.25), (Ikeziri et al., 2018; Panizzolo, 2017; Bisogno et al., 2017; Inman et al.,
and high flexibility (Mean = 5.55). 2009; Gupta and Boyd, 2008; Boyd and Gupta, 2004; Mabin and Bal­
• Then, in a systemic analysis, findings indicated that Scheduling Pro­ derstone, 2003).
cess (DBR & S-DBR), TOC Replenishment for Distribution, and Dynamic Consequently, the findings indicate with more precision how the
Buffer Management have a significant overlap over the dimensions TOC may contribute to attenuate the effect of trade-offs between con­
high speed, on-time delivery, and high flexibility. flicting strategic objectives discussed in OSCM literature (Tatikonda
• Lastly, for all the remain TOC elements (Finance and Measurements, et al., 2013; Rosenzweig and Easton, 2010; Skinner, 2007; Dangayach
Marketing and Sales, Thinking Process, Product Mix Decision, VATI and Deshmukh, 2001; Corbet and Wassenhove, 1993). By indicating
Analysis and Strategic Planning), the association with the competitive specifically the simultaneous overlaps of the influence of different TOC

11
D.A.J. Pacheco et al.
Fig. 2. Conceptual model of the simultaneous overlaps of TOC practices in Operations Strategy.
elements on the five competitive dimensions, and the intensity of this
influence (Fig. 2), managers can more precisely select the TOC element
(s) that will have greater impact on the particular dimension(s) targeted
by the market. Hence, the simultaneous influence of TOC on several
competitive dimensions - directly or indirectly - corroborates the hy­
pothesis that the appropriate combination of TOC practices has potential
to minimise the effect of the trade-offs existing among contradictory
operational objectives and operational goals of the firm.
Our research, therefore, extends the literature discussing the imple­
mentation of TOC in OSCM (Janosz, 2018; Modi et al., 2018; Inman
et al., 2009; Gupta and Boyd, 2008; Umble et al., 2006; Mabin and
Balderstone, 2003; Umble and Srikanth, 1995). Findings regarding the
simultaneous influence of TOC elements on several competitive di­
mensions are particularly relevant to firms because, depending on the
competitive environment and marketing strategy, specific competitive
dimensions can become more important and necessary than others, and,
in the areas where they excel, they serve as the organisation’s compet­
itive advantage over its competitors (Gupta and Boyd, 2008).
Findings also complement some previous related studies, providing
additional evidence for the hypothesis that the use of TOC is effective in
improving organisational performance (Modi et al., 2018; Inman et al.,
2009; Gupta and Boyd, 2008; Mabin and Balderstone, 2003). The out­
comes reinforce the ideas of Inman et al. (2009), who suggested that
savings from operating and inventory expense reductions should be seen
as part of the overall TOC philosophy. That is, “… TOC provides a broad
framework for viewing the relationship between Operations Manage­
ment and the whole firm” (Gupta and Boyd, 2008, p.1007).
Additionally, due to a perception of TOC in operations strategy, and
the length of training required to achieve mastery of the subject, many
top-level managers had delegated the implementation process to mid-
level managers (Watson et al., 2007). Accordingly, findings enable a
better decision-making process and give a more consistent basis for the
choice to be made by managers regarding the appropriate TOC element
to prioritise in practical interventions. Managers might benefit from this
study’s outcomes to implement and take better decisions, by applying
appropriate TOC elements by themselves or in combination with other
continuous improvement methodologies, such as Lean Production, Six
Sigma and others (Pacheco et al., 2015, 2019; Ikeziri et al., 2018).
Overall, this study responded to calls from OSCM literature
contributing to the managerial decision-making process, discussing
prescriptive strategies for a more assertive intervention process using
the TOC elements and enabling better decisions regarding the
12
International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955
management of conflicting strategic objectives. Hence, it is possible to
conclude that these findings may inform practitioners to make better
choices and efficiently allocate resources in the operations strategy
content, as well as to deal with the complexities of managing production
systems in volatile and competitive markets. An assertive implementa­
tion process is particularly relevant because, notoriously, the full
implementation of all TOC practices at the same time by a firm may be
considered a complex - or even a utopic task - representing a high-cost
transition due to lack of internal capabilities, financial vulnerability,
lack of managerial competencies, organisational culture, etc. More
importantly, not all TOC practices have the same level of influence on
the competitive dimensions and the operational performance of the
firm. This assumption is especially applicable to the reality of the small
business (Clegg, 2018). The next section includes a discussion as well as
the managerial and theoretical implications of these findings.
5. Discussion and implications for theory and managerial
practice
This research presented evidence that extends the current knowledge
on TOC in OSCM and operations strategy context, providing a better
understanding regarding the holistic influence of TOC practices on the
performance of firms from a managerial perspective. While the available
body of knowledge in this area (Modi et al., 2018; Inman et al., 2009;
Watson et al., 2007; Umble et al., 2006) discusses the TOC from a
generic perspective of the performance of firm, this paper explored a
more operational level of analysis, connecting the TOC methods/tools
with the primary competitive priorities. This paper provided an oppor­
tunity to advance the understanding of how the TOC can improve the
managerial decision-making process at the operations strategy level in
OSCM. The article also develops a conceptual model which accommo­
dates the competitive dimensions most leveraged by TOC elements,
distinguishing the intensity levels and overlaps that exist.
Consequently, a managerial implication of the findings is that the
correct prioritisation of efforts during the implementation of TOC should
be taken into account during the decision-making process of operations
managers. Examining the performance of TOC, Mabin and Balderstone
(2003) reported that, in practice, only a small portion of the full po­
tential of TOC has been adopted effectively in organisations worldwide.
This finding is particularly important because the full implementation of
all TOC practices at the same time may be considered an impracticable
task, and can represent a high-cost transition for most firms. Thus, this
D.A.J. Pacheco et al.
study provides additional evidence concerning the holistic view of TOC.
By examining managerial insights into the operations strategy, different
operational performance dimensions and TOC practices, this paper
contributes to expanding the absorption of TOC elements in OSCM
research and in the routine of firms.
The paper also extends the literature approaching the relationship
between the operations strategy and the implementation of continuous
improvement methodologies. For example, outcomes indicated a non-
significant relationship between TOC practices and the high quality
dimension. This result may be explained because the TOC does not have
specific methods or tools directly associated with the concepts of Quality
Management. Therefore, the findings provide further support for the
hypothesis that the combination of TOC with Quality Engineering/
Management methods (e.g., Six Sigma) carries the potential to influence
operational performance in the quality dimension, ensuring the stability
of the process within the stages of the production system and along the
supply chain. It is assumed that an increase in stability will enable the
firm to explore the full potential of the bottlenecks of the system by
applying appropriate TOC solutions.
Likewise, findings indicated a non-significant association between
TOC and the low cost dimension. A general speculative hypothesis, in
this case, is that the TOC practices related to inventory management
(Scheduling Process, TOC Replenishment for Distribution, Process Scheduling
and Dynamic Buffer Management) exert an indirect influence upon the
cost dimension. It is possible to hypothesise that the costs reduction in
operations might be considered a collateral effect of the financial savings
obtained after the successful implementation of inventory-related ini­
tiatives (e.g., higher inventory turnover) facilitated by the TOC elements
associated with inventory management, at firm and supply chain levels.
These assumptions are in line with previous works (Modi et al., 2018;
Golmohammadi, 2015; Cheng et al., 2012; Atwater and Chakravorty,
2012).
Overall, this paper extends the existing knowledge concerning
whether and how TOC practices affect the competitive dimensions and
how to select the appropriate TOC elements by themselves or in com­
bination with other management philosophies (e.g., Lean, Six Sigma) to
increase the operational performance of the firm. The investigation
contributes to bridging prescriptive research gaps by proposing a con­
ceptual model to support managers in implementing the TOC according
to the competitive priority required by the market and the strategic goals
of the firm or business unit. The paper extends our understanding of how
the operations strategy can create capabilities and better results to
achieve positive business outcomes, although more detailed discussions
directly connecting the competitive dimensions and the TOC practices
are still clearly missing in the literature on OSCM.
The major findings of this paper were substantiated in a multi-
method approach, combining both qualitative and quantitative
research procedures for data collection and analysis, including several
statistical analysis stages. Mixed method approaches are essential for
quality research in Operations Management (Boyer and Swink, 2008).
The scientific value of this study is its contribution to the field of the TOC
and operations strategy, refining and extending the available literature
discussing the performance of the TOC. Findings contribute to those
companies interested in establishing a multi-dimensional performance
improvement systems matching their operations mission, as advocated
as a latent need in competitive business environments (Panizzolo, 2017;
Narkhede, 2017), as well as clarifying some strategic aspects of opera­
tions within firms. This study may contribute to expanding the TOC
understanding to other areas of knowledge in OSCM as provocated by
literature (Ikeziri et al., 2018). To the best of our knowledge, the present
study is a pioneering effort in this research topic and open opportunities
for new investigations analysing the TOC in operations strategy. The
conclusions, limitations and the suggestions for future research to
enlarge this research area are discussed in the next section.
13
International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955
6. Conclusions and research directions
This research project examined the impact of TOC practices on the
competitive dimensions, high speed, on-time delivery, high flexibility,
low cost, and high quality in the operations strategy context. Although
we cannot generalize the findings obtained, the conclusions outlined
make relevant contributions to the current OSCM and operations strat­
egy literature. First, this paper offers a better comprehension of the
significant overlap existing between various TOC practices and their
simultaneous influence on the competitive dimensions. Second, findings
provide support to the prioritisation of investments and managerial ef­
forts while implementing TOC practices by themselves or combined with
other managerial philosophies. Third, the findings enhance our under­
standing concerning how to improve managerial decision-making pro­
cesses and increase the firm’s competitiveness through the lens of
operations strategy.
The research design was delineated through a mixed method
approach for data collection and analysis through the following primary
stages. First, previous studies regarding the main competitive priorities
in operations strategy and the set of elements that currently comprise
the TOC were identified in the relevant literature. Second, the set of TOC
elements was identified and validated by recognised experts. Third, the
specialists’ opinions about the elements that comprise the TOC scope
were consolidated. In the fourth stage, a questionnaire was organised to
relate and measure the impact of TOC practices on each competitive
dimension. Fifth, the survey was validated and sent to a large group of
by experts and researchers, in accordance with the approach investi­
gated. Finally, rigorous validation of the data and statistical analysis was
accomplished by applying nonparametric statistical procedures per­
forming multiple comparison tests that aimed to detect statistically
significant differences. The primary results achieved after these
analytical steps allowed a better comprehension of the overlaps that
exist between various TOC practices, indicating the competitive di­
mensions that are directly and indirectly influenced by TOC practices.
This paper also has limitations, which could be seen as opportunities
to organise future research. First, this study aimed to compare groups in
a given metric variable, like the competitive dimensions. In order to
complement this study, an initial possibility is to consider the TOC
practices as dependent variables. For example, production systems
adopting simultaneous repeat operations, such as in a typical Make To
Order environment, and non-repeat operations, such as in a typical
Engineering To Order, could implement both DBR/S-DBR and Critical
Chain Project Management to improve the performance of each system.
Therefore, further studies could discuss which combination of depen­
dent TOC practices might provide an increase in the competitiveness of
production systems.
Second, we also suggest that future studies may undertake research
efforts to apply parametric tests, PLS-SEM or Item Response Theory for
testing alternative relationships in a theoretical model, as a continuation
of our research. This may be interesting because comparing the results of
such studies with those obtained in our research could be an interesting
strategy to consolidate the understanding of TOC practices regarding
competitive dimensions. Moreover, considering that TOC is a constantly
evolving approach, it is possible that the TOC elements utilised in this
research may need to be updated over time.
Another interesting research opportunity is regarding an analysis
based on literature review and experts’ opinions. In this sense, a survey
involving companies operating in different systems (e.g., Make to Order,
Assemble To Order, Engineer To Order, etc.) that use TOC elements is
another research possibility. The approach used in this paper was
exploratory, helping to identify and test a set of measures not previously
tested. Therefore, aligned with the exploratory research design, the re­
sults obtained in this work could be verified by further analysis and
different methodological procedures. On the whole, our findings
contribute to advancing the understanding the knowledge regarding
whether and how TOC practices impact the competitive dimensions and
D.A.J. Pacheco et al.
enable decision-makers and practitioners to evaluate practices adopted
as part of the operations strategy. The results also motivate practitioners
and managers to adopt different operational performance practices to
improve each competitive dimension. In sum, by informing academic
and professionals, the paper extends the current literature regarding the
effectiveness and utility of the TOC as a management philosophy in
OSCM.
CRediT author statement
Diego Augusto de Jesus Pacheco: Conceptualization, Methodol­
ogy, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
Project administration. José Antonio Valle Antunes Junior: Concep­
tualization, Data curation, Supervision, Project administration. Celso
Augusto de Matos: Validation, Formal analysis, Methodology.
Declaration of competing interest
There are no personal or financial conflicts of interest associated with
this study.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Editor of the International
Journal of Production Economics, the Guest Editors of this Special Issue
and the three anonymous reviewers for the efficient handling and the
valuable comments and constructive feedback improving this research
for publication. We thank for Prof. Daniel Pacheco Lacerda for the
comments in the first version of this research project.
Appendix. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107955.
References
Anderson, J.C., Cleveland, G., Schroeder, R.G., 1989. Operations strategy: a literature
review. J. Oper. Manag. 8, 133–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(89)
90016-8.
Aryanezhad, M.B., Badri, S.A., Rashidi, A.K., 2010. Threshold-based method for
elevating the system’s constraint under theory of constraints. Int. J. Prod. Res. 48
(17), 5075–5087. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540903059505.
Atwater, J.B., Chakravorty, S.S., 2002. Study of utilization of capacity constrained
resources in Drum-Buffer-Rope Systems Production. Prod. Oper. Manag. 11 (2),
259–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2002.tb00495.x.
Avella-Camero, L., Fernandez-Sanchez, E., Vazquez-Ordas, C.J., 1999. The large Spanish
industrial company: strategies of the most competitive factories. Omega 27,
497–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(98)00073-5.
Batun, S., Maillart, L.M., 2012. Reassessing tradeoffs inherent to simultaneous
maintenance and production planning. Prod. Oper. Manag. 21 (2), 396403. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2011.01250.x.
Bernardo, S.M., Anholon, A., Novaski, O., Silva, D., Quelhas, O.L.G., 2017. Main causes
that lead strategies to decline at execution phase: an analysis of Brazilian companies.
Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 66 (3), 424–440. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-09-
2015-0126.
Bisogno, S., Calabrese, A., Ghiron, N.L., Pacifici, A., 2017. Theory of constraints applied
to scheduled and unscheduled patient flows: does it improve process performance?
Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 26 (3), 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJSOM.2017.10002779.
Blair, R.C., Higgins, J.J., 1980. “A comparison of the power of Wilcoxon’s rank-sum
statistic to that of Student’s t statistic under various nonnormal distributions.
J. Educ. Stat. 5, 309–335. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986005004309.
Bogner, W.C., Barr, P.S., 2000. Making sense in hypercompetitive environments: a
cognitive explanation for the persistence of high velocity competition. Organ. Sci. 11
(2), 212–226. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.2.212.12511.
Boyer, K., Swink, M., 2008. Empirical elephants - why multiple methods are essential to
quality research in operations and supply chain management. J. Oper. Manag. 26,
338–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.03.002.
Boyd, L., Gupta, M., 2004. Constraints management: what is the theory? Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 24 (4), 370–371. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570410524631.
Brown, S., 1999. The Role of manufacturing strategy in mass customization and agile
manufacturing in Kanda. In: International Conference POMS-99 on Operations
Management for Global Economy: Challenges and Prospects. Phoenix Publishing
House, New Delhi, pp. 33–50.
14
International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955
Cheng, G., Ettl, M., Lu, Y., Yao, D.D., 2012. A production–inventory model for a push–
pull manufacturing system. Prod. Oper. Manag. 21 (4), 668–681. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1937-5956.2011.01303.x.
Clegg, B., 2018. Perceptions of growth-impeding constraints acting upon SMEs’
operations and the identification and use of transitionary paths to elevate them. Int.
J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 38 (3), 756–783. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-2015-
0736.
Conover, W.J., 1999. Practical Nonparametric Statistics, third ed. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Corbet, C., Wassenhove, L.V., 1993. Trade-offs? What trade-off? Competence and
competitiveness in manufacturing strategy. Calif. Manag. Rev. 35 (4), 107–122.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41166757.
Corrêa, H.L., Corrêa, C.A., 2011. Administração de produção e operações: manufatura e
serviços: uma abordagem estratégica, 2 ed. São Paulo, Atlas, p. 690p.
Cox III, J.F., Blackstone, J.H., 1998. APICS Dictionary, 9a Ed. APICS, Alexandria, VA.
Creswell, J.W., Clark, V.L.P., 2017. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research,
vol. 3. SAGE Publications.
Dalkey, N.C., 1972. The Delphi method: an experimental study of group opinion. In:
Dalkey, N.C., Rourke, D.L., Lewis, R., Snyder, D. (Eds.), Studies in the Quality of Life:
Delphi and Decision-Making. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 13–54.
Dangayach, G.S., Deshmukh, S.G., 2001. Manufacturing strategy: literature review and
some issues. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 21 (7), 884–932. https://doi.org/10.1108/
01443570110393414.
Dangayach, G.S., Deshmukh, S.G., 2006. An exploratory study of manufacturing strategy
practices of machinery manufacturing companies in India. Omega 34, 254–273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.10.009.
De Meyer, A., 1992. An Empirical Investigation of Manufacturing Strategies in European
Industry. Manufacturing Strategy Process and Content. Chapman and Hall, London,
pp. 22l–238.
Demsar, J., 2006. Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J. Mach.
Learn. Res. 7, 1–30. http://www.jmlr.org/papers/v7/demsar06a.html.
Derrac, J., García, S., Molina, D., Herrera, F., 2011. A practical tutorial on the use of
nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and
swarm intelligence algorithms. Swarm Evol. Comput. 1, 3–18. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.swevo.2011.02.002.
Díaz, E., Martín, M.L., 2004. Configurations in manufacturing strategy: an application to
Spanish Industries. In: Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM
Conference. Cancun, Mexico.
Dubeya, R., Gunasekaran, A., Helo, P., Papadopoulos, T., Childe, S.J., Sahay, B.S., 2017.
Explaining the impact of reconfigurable manufacturing systems on environmental
performance: the role of top management and organizational culture. J. Clean. Prod.
141 (10), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.035.
Eisenhardt, K., Bourgeois, L., 1988. Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity
environments: toward a midrange theory. J. Acad. Manag. 31 (4), 737–770. http:
//www.jstor.org/stable/256337.
Escobar, V.G.A., Garrido-Vega, P., Zamora, M.G., 2016. Applying the theory of
constraints to the logistics service of medical records of a hospital. Eur. Res. Manag.
Bus. Econ. 22, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedee.2015.07.001.
Fahoome, G.F., 2002. Twenty nonparametric statistics and their large sample
approximations. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 1 (2), 248–268. https://doi.org/
10.22237/jmasm/1036110540.
Ferdows, K., De Meyer, A., 1990. Lasting improvements in manufacturing: in search of a
new theory. J. Oper. Manag. 9 (2), 168–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963
(90)90094-T.
Fine, C.H., Hax, A.C., 1985. Manufacturing strategy: a methodology and an illustration.
Interfaces 15 (6), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.15.6.28.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., Flynn, E.J., 1999. World class manufacturing: an
investigation of Hayes and Wheelwright’s foundation. J. Oper. Manag. 17, 249–269.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00050-3.
Friedman, M., 1940. A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of
m rankings. Ann. Math. Stat. 11 (1), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/
1177731944.
Frohlich, M.T., Westbrook, R., 2001. Arcs of integration: an international study of supply
chain strategies. J. Oper. Manag. 19, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963
(00)00055-3.
Fusco, J.P.A., 1995. “Consumer behavior versus operations strategy - the bridge client –
company. J. Bus. Adm. 3 (4), 42–51.
Goldratt, E.M., Cox, J.F., 1984. The Goal. 1. Nobel, São Paulo.
Golmohammadi, D., 2015. A study of scheduling under the theory of constraints. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 165 (7), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.03.015.
Golmohammadi, D., Mansouri, S.A., 2015. Complexity and workload considerations in
product mix decisions under the theory of constraints. Nav. Res. Logist. 62 (95),
357369. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.21632.
Groop, J., Ketoki, M., Gupta, M., Holmström, J., 2017. Improving home care: knowledge
creation through engagement and design. J. Oper. Manag. 53 (56), 9–22. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2017.11.001.
Gundogar, E., Sari, M., Kokcam, A.H., 2016. Dynamic bottleneck elimination in mattress
manufacturing line using theory of constraints. SpringerPlus 5 (1276), 1–15. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2947-1.
Gupta, M.C., Boyd, L.H., 2008. Theory of constraints: a theory for operations
management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 28 (10), 991–1012. https://doi.org/
10.1108/01443570810903122.
Hair Jr., J.F., Money, A.H., Samouel, P., Page, M., 2007. Research Methods for Business.
John Wiley & Sons, USA, p. 466.
Hair Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2014. Multivariate Data Analysis,
seventh ed., p. 739 London, UK.
D.A.J. Pacheco et al.
Hasuike, T., Ishii, H., 2009. On flexible product-mix decision problems under
randomness and fuzziness. Omega 37 (4), 770–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
omega.2008.07.005.
Hayes, R., Wheelwright, S., 1984. Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing through
Manufacturing. John Wiley e Sons, New York.
Hayes, R., Pisano, G., Upton, D., 2008. The Quest for Competitive Advantage. Bookman,
Porto Alegre.
Hill, T.J., 1987. Teaching manufacturing strategy. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 6 (3),
10–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054762.
Hallowel, M.R., 2007. Techniques to Minimize Bias when Using the Delphi Method to
Quantify Construction Safety and Health Risks. Construction Research Congress.
https://doi.org/10.1061/41020(339)151. April, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Huang, H.-H., Pei, W., Wu, H.-H., May, M.-D., 2013. A research on problems of mixed-
line production and the re-scheduling. Robot. Comput. Integrated Manuf. 29 (3),
64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2012.04.014.
Hsu, Chia-Chien, Sandford, Brian A., 2007. The Delphi technique: making sense of
consensus. Practical Assess. Res. Eval. 12 (10), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-
th90.
Ikeziri, L.M., de Souza, F.B., Gupta, M.C., Fiorini, P.C., 2018. Theory of constraints:
review and bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (15–16), 5068–5102. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1518602.
Inman, R.A., Sale, M.L., Green Jr., K.W., 2009. Analysis of the relationships among TOC
use, TOC outcomes, and organizational performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 29
(4), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570910945819.
Ivanov, D., Tsipoulanidis, A., Schönberger, J., 2017. Production strategy. In: Global
Supply Chain and Operations Management Part of the Series Springer Texts in
Business and Economics. Springer International Publishing, pp. 121–140.
Janosz, M., 2018. The Theory of Constraints as a method of results optimization in
complex organization. Arch. Foundry Eng. 18 (4), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.24425/
afe.2018.125169.
Jingshan, L., Semyon, M.M., Liang, Z., 2013. Production systems engineering: main
results and recommendations for management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (2324),
7209–7234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.757667.
Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Turner, L.A., 2007. Toward a definition of mixed
methods research. J. Mix. Methods Res. 1 (2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1558689806298224.
Kathuria, R., 2000. Competitive priorities and managerial performance: a taxonomy of
small manufacturers. J. Oper. Manag. 18 (6), 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0272-6963(00)00042-5.
Kaveh, M., Dalfard, V.M., Karami, G., 2013. Extension of an algorithm for product mix
problems with fuzzy conditions. Appl. Math. Model. 37 (23), 9688–9697. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.05.018.
Khurana, A., Talbot, B., 1998. The internationalization process model through the lens of
the global color picture tube industry. J. Oper. Manag. 16 (2–3), 215–239. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(97)00039-9.
Kim, J.S., Arnold, P., 1996. “Operationalizing manufacturing strategy – an exploratory
study of constructs and linkage. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 16 (12), 45–73. https://
doi.org/10.1108/01443579610151751.
Kim, Y., Lee, J., 1993. Manufacturing strategy and production systems: an integrated
framework. J. Oper. Manag. 11 (1), 3–15.
Kopcazk, L.R., 1997. Logistics partnerships and supply chain restructuring: survey results
from the US computer industry. Prod. Oper. Manag. 6 (3), 226–247. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0272-6963(93)90029-O.
Krippendorff, K., 2004. Content Analysis: an Introduction to its Methodology. Sage
Publications second ed.. Thousand Oaks, California, (USA).
Lacerda, D., Rodrigues, L.H., 2007. Understanding, Learning and Action: Addressing the
Thinking Process Theory of Constraints. Proceedings SEGeT, Resende, RJ.
Leong, G.K., Snyder, D.L., Ward, P.T., 1990. Research in the process and content of
manufacturing strategy. Omega 18 (2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-
0483(90)90058-H.
Linhares, A., 2009. Theory of constraints and the combinatorial complexity of the
product-mix decision. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 121 (1), 121–129. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.04.023.
Lowalekar, H., Ravi, R.R., 2017. Revolutionizing blood bank inventory management
using the TOC thinking process: an Indian case study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 186,
89–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.02.003.
Mabin, V.J., Balderstone, S.J., 2003. The performance of the theory of constraints
methodology: analysis and discussion of successful TOC applications. Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 23 (6), 568–595. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570310476636.
Martín-Peña, M.L., Díaz-Garrido, E., 2008. A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies in
Spanish companies. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 28 (5), 455–477. https://doi.org/
10.1108/01443570810867204.
Mehra, S., Inman, R.A., Tuite, G., 2005. A simulation-based comparison of TOC and
traditional accounting performance measures in a process industry. J. Manuf.
Technol. Manag. 16 (3), 328–342. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380510583635.
Miller, J.G., Roth, A.V., 1994. A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies. Manag. Sci. 40
(3), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.40.3.285.
Mills, Platts, J.K., Neely, A., Richards, H., Bourne, M., 2002. Creating a Business Winning
Formula. Cambridge, Cambridge.
Myrelid, A., Olhager, J., 2019. Hybrid manufacturing accounting in mixed process
environments: a methodology and a case study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 210, 137–144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.024.
Modi, K., Lowalekar, H., Bhatta, N.M.K., 2018. Revolutionizing supply chain
management the theory of constraints way: a case study. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (11),
3335–3361. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1523579.
15
International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955
Nanfang, C., Kaijun, L., Wendy, T., 2008. Rapid response with TOC methodology. In:
International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, pp. 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSSSM.2008.4598561. Melbourne, VIC, 2008.
Naor, M., Coman, A., 2017. Offshore responsiveness: theory of Constraints innovates
customer services. Serv. Ind. J. 37 (3–4), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02642069.2017.1303047.
Naor, M., Bernardes, E.S., Coman, A., 2013. Theory of constraints: is it a theory and a
good one? Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (2), 542–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2011.654137.
Narkhede, B.E., 2017. Advance manufacturing strategy and firm performance: an
empirical study in a developing environment of small- and medium-sized firms.
Benchmark Int. J. 24 (1), 62–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2015-0053.
Pacheco, D.A.J., Pergher, I., Antunes Junior, J.A.V., Roehe Vaccaro, G.L., 2019.
Exploring the integration between lean and the theory of constraints in operations
management. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 10 (3), 718–742. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJLSS-08-2017-0095.
Pacheco, D., Pergher, I., Vaccaro, G.L.R., Jung, C.F., ten Caten, C., 2015. 18 comparative
aspects between lean and Six Sigma: complementarity and implications. Int. J. Lean
Six Sigma 6 (2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-05-2014-0012.
Paiva, E.L., Carvalho, Jr. J.M., Fenterseifer, J., 2009. Production and Operations
Strategy. Bookman, Porto Alegre.
Panizzolo, R., 2017. Practices and performance in constraints management production
planning and control systems. In: Brennan, L., Vecchi, A. (Eds.), International
Manufacturing Strategy in a Time of Great Flux. Measuring Operations Performance.
Springer, Cham, pp. 153–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25351-0_8.
Petroni, A., Zammori, F., G Marolla, G., 2017. World class manufacturing in make-to
order batch-production SMEs: an exploratory analysis in northern Italy. Int. J. Bus.
Excel. 11 (2), 241–275. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEX.2017.081434.
Plenert, G., 1993. Optimizing theory of constraints when multiple constrained resources
exist. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 70 (1), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)
90237-H.
Puche, J., Costas, J., Ponte, B., Pino, P., la Fuente, D., 2019. The effect of supply chain
noise on the financial performance of Kanban and Drum-Buffer-Rope: an agent-based
perspective. Expert Syst. Appl. 120, 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2018.11.009.
Puche, J., Ponte, B., Costas, J., Pino, R., de la Fuente, D., 2016. Systemic approach to
supply chain management through the viable system model and the theory of
constraints. Prod. Plann. Contr. 27 (5), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09537287.2015.1132349.
Rahman, S., 2002. The theory of constraints’ thinking process approach to developing
strategies in supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 32 (10), 809–828.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030210455429.
Rahman, S., 1998. Theory of constraints: a review of the philosophy and its applications.
Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 18 (4), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/
01443579810199720.
Rosenzweig, E.D., Roth, A.V., Dean, J.W., 2003. The influence of an integration strategy
on competitive capabilities and business performance: an exploratory study of
consumer products manufacturers. J. Oper. Manag. 1 (4), 437–456. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0272-6963(03)00037-8.
Rosenzweig, E.D., Easton, G.S., 2010. Tradeoffs in Manufacturing? A meta-analysis and
critique of the literature. Prod. Oper. Manag. 19, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1937-5956.2009.01072.x.
Roth, A.V., Velde, M.V., 1991. Operations as marketing: a competitive service strategy.
J. Oper. Manag. 10 (3), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(91)90071-5.
Roth, A.V., Miller, J.G., 1992. Success factors in manufacturing. Bus. Horiz. 35 (4),
73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-6813(05)80165-X.
Schragenheim, E.H., Dettmer, W.J., Patterson, W., 2012. “Drum-Buffer-Rope: simplified
approach (S-DBR) complications. Encycl. Supply Chain Manag. https://doi.org/
10.1081/E-ESCM-120048048.
Shieh, G., Jan, Show-Li, Randle, R.H., 2007. Power and sample size determinations for
the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. J. Stat. Comput. Simulat. 77 (8), 717–724. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10629360600635245.
Siegel, S., 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill
Series in Psychology.
Siegel, S., Castellan, N.J., 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences,
second ed. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
Simatupang, T.M., Wright, A.C., Sridharan, R., 2004. Applying the theory of constraints
to supply chain collaboration. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 9 (1), 57–70. https://doi.
org/10.1108/13598540410517584.
Skinner, W., 1969. Manufacturing – the missing link in corporate strategy. Harv. Bus.
Rev. 12–25. May–June.
Skinner, W., 1974. The focused factory. Harv. Bus. Rev. 113–121. May–June.
Skinner, W., 2007. Manufacturing strategy: the story of its evolution. J. Oper. Manag. 25,
328–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.10.008.
Slack, N., 2000. The Manufacturing Advantage: Achieving Competitive Manufacturing
Operations, 2ed. Management Books, Cirencester.
Slack, N., Lewis, M., 2003. Operations Strategy. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Slack, N., Lewis, M., 2015. Operations Strategy, 4 ed. Pearson.
Souza, F.B., 2005. From OPT to the Theory of Constraints: myths and advances.
Production 15 (2), 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-65132005000200005.
Spearman, M.L., 1997. On Theory of Constraints and the goal system. Prod. Oper. Manag.
6 (10), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.1997.tb00412.x.
Stalk Jr., G., 1998. Time - the next source of competitive advantage. Harv. Bus. Rev.
101–109. November-December.
D.A.J. Pacheco et al.
Sweeney, M.T., Szwejczwski, M., 1996. Manufacturing strategy and performance: a study
of the UK engineering industry. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 16 (5), 25–40. https://doi.
org/10.1108/01443579610113924.
Tatikonda, M.V., Terjesen, S.A., Patel, P.C., Parida, V., 2013. The role of operational
capabilities in enhancing new venture survival: a longitudinal study. Prod. Oper.
Manag. 22 https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12038, 1401 e 1415.
Telles, E.S., Lacerda, D.P., Morandi, M.I.W.M., Piran, F.A.S., 2020. Drum-buffer-rope in
an engineering-to-order system: an analysis of an aerospace manufacturer using data
envelopment analysis (DEA). Int. J. Prod. Econ. 222, 107500. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.09.021.
Tiwari, V., Sandberg, W.S., 2016. Perioperative Bed Capacity Planning Guided by Theory
of Constraints”, Winter Simulation Conference. WSC, Washington, DC, pp. 1894–1903.
https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2016.7822235.
Thürer, M., Stevenson, M., 2018. Bottleneck-oriented order release with shifting
bottlenecks: an assessment by simulation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 197, 275–282. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.01.010.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Palminder, S., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J.
Manag. 14, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Umble, M.M., Srikanth, M.L., 1995. Synchronous Manufacturing: Principles for World
Class Excellence. South-Western, Cincinnati.
Umble, M., Umble, E., Murakami, S., 2006. Implementing theory of constraints in a
traditional Japanese manufacturing environment: the case of hitachi tool
engineering. Int. J. Prod. Res. 44 (10), 1863–1880. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207540500381393.
Upton, D., Hayes, R., Pisano, G., Wheelwright, S., 2004. Operations, Strategy and
Technology: Pursuing the Competitive Edge. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Verma, R., 1997. Management science, theory of constraints/optimized production
technology and local optimization. Omega 25 (2), 189–200. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0305-0483(96)00060-6.
Vickery, S.K., Droge, C., Markland, R.E., 1993. Production competence and business
strategy: do they affect business performance? Decis. Sci. J. 24, 435–455. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1993.tb00482.x.
Ward, P.T., Leong, G.K., Boyer, K.K., 1994. Manufacturing proactiveness and
performance. Decis. Sci. J. 25, 337–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5915.1994.tb00808.x.
Ward, P.T., McCreery, J.K., Ritzman, L., Sharma, D., 1998. Competitive priorities in
operations management. Decis. Sci. J. 29 (4), 1035–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1540-5915.1998.tb00886.x.
Watson, K.J., Blackstone, J.H., Gardiner, S.C., 2007. The evolution of a management
philosophy: the theory of constraints. J. Oper. Manag. 25 (2), 387–402. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.004.
Wahlers, J.L., Cox III, J.F., 1994. Competitive factors and performance measurement:
applying the theory of constraints to meet customer needs. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 37
(2–3), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/0925-5273(94)90173-2.
Wei, Z., Song, X., Wang, D., 2017. Manufacturing flexibility, business model design, and
firm performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 193, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2017.07.004.
16
View publication stats
International Journal of Production Economics 235 (2021) 107955
Wu, K., Zheng, M., Shen, Y., 2020. A generalization of the Theory of Constraints:
choosing the optimal improvement option with consideration of variability and
costs. IISE Trans. 52 (3), 276–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/
24725854.2019.1632503.
Wu, H.-H., Lee, A.H.I., Tsai, T.-P., 2014. A two-level replenishment frequency model for
TOC supply chain replenishment systems under capacity constraint. Comput. Ind.
Eng. 72, 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.03.006.
Ye, T., Han, W., 2008. Determination of buffer sizes for drum–buffer–rope (DBR)
controlled production systems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46 (10), 2827–2844. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00207540600922948.
Yenradee, P., 1994. Application of optimized production technology in a capacity
constrained flow shop: a case study in a battery factory. Comput. Ind. Eng. 27 (1–4),
217–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-8352(94)90274-7.
Yin, R.K., 2004. Case Study: Plan and Method. 2ed. Porto Alegre. Bookman.
Yung-Chia, Chang, Wen-Tso, Huang, 2014. An enhanced model for SDBR in a random
reentrant flow shop environment. Int. J. Prod. Res. 52 (6), 1–19. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00207543.2013.848491.
Zupancic, D., Buchmeister, B., Aljaz, T., 2017. Reducing the time of task execution with
existing resources - comparison of approaches. Int. J. Simulat. Model. 16 (3),
484–496. https://doi.org/10.2507/IJSIMM16(3)10.394.
Prof. Diego Pacheco received his PhD in Industrial Engineering at the Federal University
of Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS, He has 18 years experience in industry and 10 years
experience in academy duties as a Professor, Head of Department of Production Engi­
neering, Department of Industrial Engineering Management, Department of Mechanical
Engineering and Academic Manager. His primary areas of research interest include Op­
erations Management, Production Strategy, Digitalization and Innovation. He has more
than 150 articles published on Operations/Service Management, Production Strategy and
Continuous Improvement.
Prof. José Antônio Valle Antunes Junior is a PhD in Management from the Federal
University of Rio Grande do Sul (1998). He is a Full professor at Department of Production
Engineering and Systems at the University of the Sinos Valley. Prof. Antunes has published
several articles and books in Operations Management in international journals. He has
forty years in experience in Operations Management, acting on the following topics:
Theory of Constraints, Toyota Production System and Innovation.
Prof. Celso Augusto de Matos received his PhD at the Federal University of Rio Grande do
Sul, Brazil. He is an associate professor of marketing and Head of the Graduate Business
Program at Unisinos Business School, Unisinos University, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. His
research interests include strategic marketing and consumer behavior in B2B and B2C
contexts. His work has been published in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Journal of Service Research, The Service Industries Journal, among others.