THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS

certainly cannot be the case, since in such a situation, the impactof doing an additional setup would not be an increase in OperatingExpense but rather a much more devastating impact, adecrease in Throughput. So let's assume that the situation theyhave dealt with, is one in which none of the resources involvedin the setup is a bottleneck. In such a case the impact of doingan additional setup on Operating Expense is basically zero.What we see is that exposing the hidden assumption is sufficientfor us to understand that the whole problem revolvedaround a distortion in terminology. What is our answer to thebatch size now? Where should we have large batches? On thebottlenecks and everywhere else? Let's have smaller batches.Small, to the extent that we can afford the additional setups,without turning the other resources into bottlenecks.What I would like to demonstrate is that every arrow can bechallenged. But since I don't want to turn this into the 10,001book on batch sizes, let me demonstrate it by concentrating onwhat is perceived to be the most solid arrow in the diagram—the arrow of the conflict itself. What is the assumption behind"large batch is the opposite of small batch"? That large is theopposite of small? To challenge this means to challenge mathematicsitself. So the only avenue left open is to challenge theassumption, that the word batch does not belong to that categoryof words having multiple meanings. Here, it seems that weare at a loss, where the only way out is to ask ourselves if weknow of any environment, in which the concept of batch doesnot fit. Yes, we all know of such environments—flow lines, continuousproduction, assembly lines. It seems to reason that batchsizing is not applicable in such environments, because in thoseenvironments the distinction between the two meanings of theword batch is so big that we cannot possibly group them together.What is the batch size in a dedicated assembly line, dedicatedto the assembly of one type of product? Of course it's one; weare moving the products along the assembly line in batches ofone. But on second thought, another answer is there as wellHow many units do we process one after the other, before we51