Start with something familiar
A restaurant booking is useful only if the kitchen, room, staff, and guests agree on the same date and party size. A note that says “about thirty” may work for an early conversation but fails when seats and meals must be committed. A supply handoff has the same need for precision. It should say which number is a requirement, which is an expected result, which is a confirmed limit, and who must act if reality differs.
Words to know: Expected yield, Net requirement, Pegging.
Keep starts and good units separate
Northstar’s net requirement is twenty-nine good bottles. Expected production yield is 97 percent. Dividing twenty-nine by 0.97 gives about 29.90 starts, so plan thirty whole starts. Expected good output is thirty times 0.97, or 29.1. This is an average across repeated comparable runs; an individual run may produce fewer than twenty-nine good bottles.
Do not compare the earlier twenty-four good-equivalent supplier cap directly with thirty raw starts. For this handoff exercise, assume recovery has supplied thirty qualified input sets, one per start. State that assumption explicitly. If only twenty-four raw input sets exist, expected good output is 23.28 and the original good-equivalent constraint model no longer applies.
Translate quantity into time
Each start takes twelve minutes, so thirty starts require 360 run minutes. Add one thirty-minute changeover for total load 390 minutes. A usable shift has 480 minutes, leaving ninety minutes of nominal headroom. Usable shift already excludes planned breaks in this example; do not subtract them twice or add unavailable time.
This aggregate check does not prove a detailed schedule. Sequence, maintenance, staffing, material arrival, inspection, and shipping cutoffs may still matter. If there are two changeovers, load becomes 420 minutes and headroom sixty. If yield is 90 percent, thirty-three starts are required for at least twenty-nine expected good units, using 426 minutes with one changeover.
Write a decision that can be executed
A good handoff includes demand version, backlog treatment, net requirement, input availability, planned starts, expected good output, resource load, shipment cutoff, and open risks. Separate confirmed actions from options awaiting a decision. The recipient should know what to release now and what evidence could require a change.
Include a short financial and service view. An approved $35 recovery premium can close a good-equivalent supply gap, but it does not remove yield variation. Assign the remaining yield risk to a specific owner and check time. Explain whether extra buffer, inspection timing, or a customer update is preferred. A plan is complete when its assumptions and contingencies are understood, not when every spreadsheet cell is green.
- Define units and event
- Reconcile eligible inputs
- Apply the stated rule
- Check feasibility
- Explain the decision
Northstar worked decision
All quantities and costs below are fictional and self-contained. Apply the stated timing and unit conventions.
| Input | Value |
|---|---|
| Good units needed | 29 |
| Expected yield | 0.97 |
| Minutes/start | 12 |
| Changeover minutes | 30 |
| Usable shift minutes | 480 |
- 1. Starts = ceil(29 / 0.97) = 30.
- 2. Expected good = 30 × 0.97 = 29.1.
- 3. Load = 30 × 12 + 30 = 390; headroom = 480 - 390 = 90.
Thirty starts imply 29.1 expected good, not guaranteed delivery.
Assumptions
- Use only the quantities and timing stated; no hidden receipts, losses, or substitutions.
- Fractional mathematical results are rounded only where whole-unit or pack rules are explicitly stated.
Where this can fail: This is a transparent teaching model. Confirm calendars, data definitions, and operating constraints before using an analogous policy in practice.
Build, test and explain a plan
Build a four-week handoff. Net good requirements 29, 32, 27, 35; expected yields 0.97 each week; usable shifts 480 each week; run time twelve minutes/start; one thirty-minute changeover/week; raw input sets available 40 each week; shipping capacity forty good bottles/week. Assume independent weekly planning and no carryover. Compute starts, expected good, load, and nominal headroom. The eight-hour allocation is a self-paced estimate, not experimentally validated; it includes model building, scenario testing, a memo, and teach-back.
Use paper or a spreadsheet. The estimates below include the study and worked example already on this page.
| Estimated hours | Activity |
|---|---|
| 0.5 | Study the reading and make a one-page definition sheet. Mark every unit, date convention, and inclusion rule. Explain the difference between the policy input and the outcome being measured. |
| 0.5 | Recalculate the worked example independently, without copying the displayed result. Show intermediate arithmetic and reconcile the answer to the physical story. Note one assumption that could change the decision. |
| 3 | Build a reusable multi-period spreadsheet from the supplied lab data. Build a four-week handoff. Net good requirements 29, 32, 27, 35; expected yields 0.97 each week; usable shifts 480 each week; run time twelve minutes/start; one thirty-minute changeover/week; raw input sets available 40 each week; shipping capacity forty good bottles/week. Assume independent weekly planning and no carryover. Compute starts, expected good, load, and nominal headroom. Keep inputs separate from formulas, add a clear output table, and include a check column that flags any quantity or timing inconsistency. Walk through the first and last rows manually. |
| 2 | Create separate named scenario tabs. Change all yields to 90 percent, then add a second thirty-minute changeover, then combine both stresses. Identify load violations and distinguish expected output from firm customer promises. Preserve the baseline and record both changed inputs and changed outputs. Explain any outcome that stays the same, since a binding constraint or a measurement rule can make an intervention ineffective. |
| 1 | Write a 400-word decision memo naming your recommended action, evidence, assumptions, responsible role, and next check. Compare at least two alternatives using your table. State one limitation that could reverse the recommendation and what additional evidence would resolve it. |
| 1 | Teach the result aloud in five minutes using an original diagram. Then review every formula, answer the module questions relevant to this lesson, and write a short correction log. Use the remaining time to reproduce the key calculation from a blank sheet. |
Your deliverables
- An auditable multi-period workbook with baseline and named stress cases.
- A decision memo with numerical evidence and explicit limitations.
- An original explanatory diagram and a correction log.
Check your practice work
- Thirty starts imply 29.1 expected good, not guaranteed delivery.
- At 90 percent yield, thirty-three starts imply 29.7 good and 426 minutes load.
- Two changeovers at baseline yield use 420 minutes and leave sixty.
- Baseline starts 30,33,28,37; expected good 29.1,32.01,27.16,35.89; loads 390,426,366,474 and headroom 90,54,114,6.
- At 90% yield starts 33,36,30,39; loads 426,462,390,498, so week 4 is eighteen minutes over.
- Two changeovers at 97% yield gives 420,456,396,504, so week 4 is twenty-four minutes over. Combined stresses give 456,492,420,528: weeks 2 and 4 exceed shift by 12 and 48 minutes.
Keep these three ideas
- Reconcile yield, load, costs, service, and unresolved conditions in one supply decision.
- Keep the unit, timing, and denominator visible.
- Treat model outputs as conditional on their stated assumptions.
Common mistakes
- Changing an input definition without changing all affected formulas.
- Presenting an expected or proposed quantity as confirmed usable supply.
Optional video study
Reconcile yield, load, costs, service, and unresolved conditions in one supply decision.
- Keep starts and good units separate
- Translate quantity into time
- Write a decision that can be executed
Second half: application, contrasting scenario, and handoff.
Open the module media & quizPut this idea to use
Carry your assumptions into a practical tool, then compare your result with a short guide.
Open a related planning toolRead the related planning guidePractice with the planning gameThis saves a completion marker in this browser only. It does not verify time spent.