The Theory of Constraints and the Make‐or‐Buy Decision: An Update and Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY The make‐or‐buy decision has traditionally been made using standard cost accounting methods. In this Journal, Gardiner and Blackstone (1991) made a strong case for incorporating the bottleneck capacity into the decision. However, their method did not guarantee the best solution for the more complicated make‐or‐buy problem. Additionally, their approach in some cases allowed organizations to forego opportunities for profit improvement. Since the publication of the Gardiner and Blackstone research, spreadsheets with in‐built Linear Programming (LP) based optimizers allow for quick “what‐if” analyses that encourage efforts toward optimal solutions for complicated problems. This article is a review and update of the Gardiner and Blackstone methodology based on spreadsheet LP that provides enhanced solutions in complex environments with multiple products and bottleneck situations. Specific managerial implications are offered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".