Skip to main content

Implementing Process Of On Going Improvement (POOGI) Part 3 - Introduction to Resource Utilization

During organization/system improvement you may face a dilemma of Resource Utilization. Common understanding of Resource utilization is that you should use resources to their fullest capacity, some managers set special policy such as 100% Utilization across organization for every single resource. Before I go ahead and say how stupid is such decision, I would like to first define Resource Utilization and Resource Activation. These two terminology are not synonym.
100% Capacity(or maybe this is 90%) - Regardless of the street all are full. Same will happen if you go to 100% Activation without knowing the resource state (Constraint vs non-constraint)

Utilizing a resource, as Dr. Goldratt defines, means making use of a resource in a way that moves the system toward the goal. (Check this Blog) Activating a resource is like pressing the ON switch of a machine, it starts no matter if there is any benefit that can be gained from the work it is doing. For example, activating a non-bottleneck resource to its maximum is an act of maximum stupidity, as described by Dr. Goldratt in the Goal business novel.

Therefore, utilization of 100%, or 90% or any other number is meaningless unless it is based on the constraint of the system. The questions you need to ask is; If I keep all resources busy to their maximum, will I move toward system/organization goal?

The idea of Utilizing a resource to its maximum may come from the belief that to improve a system , you need to optimize every resource and element in the system. However, Goldrat proves that such a Locale Optimum is in fact very inefficient and unnecessary.

Before resource utilization, you must first identify the type of the resources you have. Which resource is a constraint (bottleneck) and which resource is a non-constraint. As described briefly before a resource constraint is a resource that has lower capacity than demand and a non-constraint is a resource that has higher capacity than demand, and both are equally important for the entire system.

Activating a non-constraint resource ,that feeds directly or indirectly to a constraint resource, to its full capacity will cause the constraint resource to block the whole flow. On the other hand, not utilizing the constraint resource to its full capacity will cause the system to increase inventory and work in progress which it will result to lower throughput and higher operational expenses, and as result it take the system (organization) away from it's goal.

When you realize that dependent events and statistical fluctuation phenomenons impact system predictability and a system (or organization) always includes constraint and non-constraint resources, then 100% resource utilization type of polices will seem not only stupid but insane!

Similar and Related Blogs

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Escalate, Escalate, Escalate!

What is escalation at organizations? Is it a way to solve problems? Is it a way to report things? Is it a way to put more pressure? Is it a CYA technique? What is it? How do you use it at your organization? How other colleagues of yours use escalation? Really, think about it and observe.

At IT service companies, leadership measures the performance of IT Help Desk by number of escalated work items over a period of time. The less escalation the better. The reasons are simple:

It is cheaper for companies if an IT Help Desk Specialist resolves an issue than an experienced technical specialist at one or two level higher. This is simple math, one gets $X and the other get $X*2And when client gets result fast, he/she will be happier. So, less escalation equals happier client in IT Services. Client raise an issue, IT Help Desk Specialist resolve it, BOOM, Next!

At organizations, It is amazing (sadly) to see how much lower level managers escalate problems, that they and their fellows can resol…

Moving from Basic DAD Scrum Based LifeCycle to Continues Delivery (Kanban Based) Lifecycle

I was thinking what the title of this blog post could be, I had couple of options to select from and decided to use a title that uses Disciplined Agile (DA 2.0) Lifecycle. Other options for titles were: Moving From Scrum to KanbanFrom High Performing Scrum Teams to Hyper Performing Kanban  The bottom line is that at some point you may want to move away from Time boxes to a flow of work and service oriented teams and improve performance and throughput without massive and sudden organisational change.  As always, I only share my experience and this may not apply to all situations, context is important. 
Another reason that I selected “Moving from Basic DAD Scrum Based LifeCycle to Continues Delivery (Kanban Based) Lifecycle” as the title, was that for many it is a question mark how to navigate through DAD life cycles. and I think this blog post could be one of the ways to navigate. 
Context: A Delivery Team started with Type A Scrum with 2 weeks Sprints. After a while, they deploy their …

New Organisational Model For Project Based Companies

Elliot Goldratt suggested a Strategy Tree for project based companies. While that may work for some companies, it will not work for knowledge based workers or Software Development Companies, or Digital Agencies. On the other hand traditional resource planning and resource allocation is also not effective despite all the effort one put into it to make it less of a command and control model - Here I assume we know who are knowledge workers and how their productivity works, Peter Drucker has a fantastic article about Knowledge Workers that I highly recommend you to read, if you have not read it yet:
Also, it has been proven that stable teams work better together on long term projects in software development. However, almost majority of software development companies or digital agencies break teams and reassemble them based on new projects or clients. This creates unnecessary complication and waste w…