IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v33y2005i6p506-524.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The theory of constraints: a methodology apart?--a comparison with selected OR/MS methodologies

Author

Listed:
  • Davies, J.
  • Mabin, V.J.
  • Balderstone, S.J.

Abstract

Mingers (J. Oper. Res. Soc. 54 (2003) 559; Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 7 (2000) 673; J. Mingers, A. Gill (Eds.), Multimethodology: Towards the Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science Methodologies, Wiley, Chichester, 1997), Mingers and Brocklesby (Omega--Int. J. Manage. Sci. 25(5) (1997) 489; Systemist 18(3) (1996) 101) and others have sought to develop classificatory frameworks that would be useful in understanding the nature and characteristics of Operational Research/Management Science (OR/MS) methodologies and the philosophical assumptions underpinning them. This paper extends their work to the domain of methods and methodologies known as the Theory of Constraints (TOC). In particular, the paper helps position TOC methods and tools in relation to traditional OR/MS methodologies, methods and tools, and provides a basis for continuing multi-methodological development across the two domains. The paper concludes that the tools, techniques and methods of TOC can be viewed as a methodological set of complementary hard and soft tools and methods that contribute to all phases of activity and across all three social, personal and material dimensions of the Mingers-Brocklesby framework, and share the ontological and epistemological characteristics and assumptions of extant OR/MS methodologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Davies, J. & Mabin, V.J. & Balderstone, S.J., 2005. "The theory of constraints: a methodology apart?--a comparison with selected OR/MS methodologies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 506-524, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:33:y:2005:i:6:p:506-524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(04)00109-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Brocklesby, 1993. "Methodological Complementarism or Separate Paradigm Development—Examining the Options for Enhanced Operational Research," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 18(2), pages 133-158, December.
    2. N Ahituv & Y Elovici, 2001. "Performance evaluation of a distributed application," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 52(8), pages 916-927, August.
    3. Ovidiu Vlad, Marcel & Mackey, Michael C., 1995. "Maximum information entropy approach to non-markovian random jump processes with long memory: application to surprisal analysis in molecular dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 215(3), pages 339-360.
    4. M D Troutt & G P White & S K Tadisina, 2001. "Maximal flow network modelling of production bottleneck problems," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 52(2), pages 182-187, February.
    5. J Mingers, 2003. "A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(6), pages 559-570, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lowalekar, Harshal & Ravi, R. Raghavendra, 2017. "Revolutionizing blood bank inventory management using the TOC thinking process: An Indian case study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 89-122.
    2. Sommer, Kim A. & Mabin, Victoria J., 2016. "Insights into the eldercare conundrum through complementary lenses of Boardman's SSM and TOC's Evaporating Cloud," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(1), pages 286-300.
    3. Ana Gabriela Ramírez-Gutiérrez & Pedro Pablo Cardoso-Castro & Ricardo Tejeida-Padilla, 2021. "A Methodological Proposal for the Complementarity of the SSM and the VSM for the Analysis of Viability in Organizations," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 331-357, June.
    4. V J Mabin & J Davies & S Kim, 2009. "Rethinking tradeoffs and OR/MS methodology," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(10), pages 1384-1395, October.
    5. Ankur Goyal & Dinesh Chandra Vaish & Rajat Agrawal & Sonal Choudhary & Rakesh Nayak, 2022. "Sustainable Manufacturing through Systematic Reduction in Cycle Time," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Brocklesby, John, 2009. "Ethics beyond the model: How social dynamics can interfere with ethical practice in operational research/management science," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1073-1082, December.
    7. Machado, Mariana Paim & Abreu, Jaqueline Lilge & Morandi, Maria Isabel Motta & Piran, Fabio Sartori & Lacerda, Daniel Pacheco, 2023. "Exploratory decision robustness analysis of the theory of constraints focusing process using system dynamics modeling," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    2. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    3. M den Hengst & G-J de Vreede & R Maghnouji, 2007. "Using soft OR principles for collaborative simulation: a case study in the Dutch airline industry," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 669-682, May.
    4. William Jones & Mahesh Sooriyabandara & Mike Yearworth & Angela Doufexi & R. Eddie Wilson, 2016. "Planning For 5G: A Problem Structuring Approach for Survival in the Telecoms Industry," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 301-321, July.
    5. P Keys, 2006. "On becoming expert in the use of problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 822-829, July.
    6. Z Zhu, 2011. "After paradim: why mixing-methodology theorising fails and how to make it work again," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 784-798, April.
    7. Luke Houghton, 2013. "Why Can't We All Just Accommodate: A Soft Systems Methodology Application on Disagreeing Stakeholders," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 430-443, July.
    8. Michael Yearworth & Sarah E. Cornell, 2016. "Contested Modelling: a Critical Examination of Expert Modelling in Sustainability," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 45-63, January.
    9. Mingers, John & White, Leroy, 2010. "A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1147-1161, December.
    10. J Mingers & W Liu & W Meng, 2009. "Using SSM to structure the identification of inputs and outputs in DEA," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 168-179, February.
    11. Ion Georgiou & Joaquim Heck, 2021. "The emergence of problem structuring methods, 1950s–1989: An atlas of the journal literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 756-796, November.
    12. Frank H Gregory, 2003. "Mingers on the classification of philosophical assumptions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(12), pages 1301-1302, December.
    13. Mingers, John, 2011. "Ethics and OR: Operationalising discourse ethics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 114-124, April.
    14. White, Leroy, 2009. "Understanding problem structuring methods interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 823-833, December.
    15. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2014. "The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 932-945.
    16. J Mingers, 2005. "Classifying philosophical assumptions: a reply to Ormerod," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(4), pages 465-467, April.
    17. Howick, Susan & Ackermann, Fran & Walls, Lesley & Quigley, John & Houghton, Tom, 2017. "Learning from mixed OR method practice: The NINES case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 70-81.
    18. White, Leroy, 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 827-841.
    19. J-R Córdoba, 2006. "Using Foucault to analyse ethics in the practice of problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(9), pages 1027-1034, September.
    20. Santos, Sérgio P. & Belton, Valerie & Howick, Susan & Pilkington, Martin, 2018. "Measuring organisational performance using a mix of OR methods," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 18-30.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:33:y:2005:i:6:p:506-524. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.