Run the end-to-end operating review

Publish one reconciled version

Use the recovered-input Northstar scenario: demand fifty-one, separate backlog six, stock eighteen, receipt ten before demand, thirty inputs ready, and thirty starts scheduled. The final plan must name its version and clock, not merely say produce enough next week. Keep the original five-unit supply gap in the decision log to explain why recovery approval was necessary.

The review has five questions. Is the demand counted once? Is stock genuinely usable? Are input receipts available before the job? Does the constrained path support the quantity? Does the detailed schedule respect its clock and calendars? Each question belongs to a planning handoff, but the final release needs an answer to all five.

Give each checkpoint a consequence

The machine runs one setup from zero to thirty and thirty starts from thirty to three hundred ninety. For this exercise, inspection of the whole lot occupies a separate inspector from three hundred ninety to four hundred twenty. Packing then takes thirty minutes on its own station and ends at four hundred fifty. These extra steps do not occupy the filler.

The shipping cutoff is minute four hundred eighty. A completed fill is not yet a shipped bottle. The base route leaves thirty minutes before the cutoff after packing. State the quantity that may ship only after acceptance. When actual good output is twenty-eight, the inventory balance still has a one-unit shortage even though all timed tasks finished within the shift.

Feed exceptions back to the right place

A late input receipt changes release time and may push the route beyond cutoff. A yield loss changes available output and the remaining demand balance. A slower run changes the detailed schedule and may require a constraint review. Use those distinctions to send each exception to the right planning owner instead of asking the scheduler to solve every problem by moving bars.

Close the review with a concise decision record: approved scenario, assumptions, schedule, acceptance evidence, open risk, and next trigger. The lab asks you to compare three disturbances independently. A strong answer does not promise success under every event. It states which commitments still hold, which fail, and what new decision would be needed before changing the plan.

Build, test and explain a plan

Use the base table, original demand and stock figures in the sections, all three resources open0-480, and no transfer time. Inspection and packing each take30 minutes for the whole lot regardless of accepted count. Compare independently: input release delayed45 minutes (setup also waits for inputs); run time rises from12 to13 minutes per start; actual accepted count is28. Preserve completed-history logic and draft five handoff notes plus one dispatch instruction. The eight hours are self-paced estimates for modeling, scenario work, checks, and explanation; they have not been experimentally validated.

Use paper or a spreadsheet. The estimates below include the study and worked example already on this page.

Your deliverables

• Input dictionary and checked schedule table.
• Scenario comparison with job-level or quantity-level evidence.
• Decision memo and teach-back record.

Keep these three ideas

• Issue a reviewable release package and feedback loop for the five-track plan.
• Which constraint or metric changes the choice in this case?
• What assumption must be confirmed before this plan can be released?

Common mistakes

• Comparing plans before checking every stated constraint.
• Changing several assumptions at once and losing the explanation for the result.