Complete firstClear boundary
Set system goal, flow unit, period, demand, and boundary; capture capacity and actual throughput in the same unit.
Without a boundary, cases, periods, or variables become mixed.
Method guideDecision Making
Constraint Analysis
A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.
ComplexityLow
Time30-90 min
Participants2-8
FormatWorkshop + async
MaturityEstablished
01
Prerequisite
What needs to be finished first
Complete firstEvidence access
System goal and boundary, throughput/demand data, process or dependency map, constraint register, and test access
Missing sources remain visible as uncertainty.
02
Preparation
What needs to be ready before start
Materials
System goal and boundary, throughput/demand data, process or dependency map, constraint register, and test access
People / roles
System owner · process participants · data owners · constraint owner · facilitator
Pre-read
Set system goal, flow unit, period, demand, and boundary; capture capacity and actual throughput in the same unit.
Time needed
90–150 minutes for one bounded system flow; measurement and test extra.
Setup
Prepare a workspace with Boundary · Register · Binding · Test · Decide; separate example from live data.
03
Core question
The one question this method answers
Which limit currently binds the system goal, which apparent limits are rules or assumptions, and what does a controlled relief test show?
04
Flow
Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall
Constraint analysis classifies boundaries by their binding force and distinguishes changeable limits from conditions that must be worked around. This makes the available design space and its dependencies visible.
Constraint Analysis · working structure
Fictional example
Fictional values show the actual method fields.
| Limit | Type | Upper bound | Evidence | Buffer pattern | Binding? | Relief test | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PreparationAdd evidence and rationale. | Capacity | 14 units/h | Time study over four Saturdays | No buffer before; 11 wait after handoff later | Yes after test | Observe after handoff relief | Protect as new constraint |
| HandoffAdd evidence and rationale. | Policy/capacity | 9 units/h with one lane | Scanner and handoff log | 11 units before; pickup idle after | Yes before test | Second lane 60 min → system 14/h | Set lane standard and owner |
| Warehouse feedAdd evidence and rationale. | Capacity | 18 units/h | Warehouse log | No persistent buffer | No | No test needed | Monitor only |
1. Type
- Preparation
- Capacity
- Handoff
- Policy/capacity
- Warehouse feed
- Capacity
2. Upper bound
- Preparation
- 14 units/h
- Handoff
- 9 units/h with one lane
- Warehouse feed
- 18 units/h
3. Evidence
- Preparation
- Time study over four Saturdays
- Handoff
- Scanner and handoff log
- Warehouse feed
- Warehouse log
4. Buffer pattern
- Preparation
- No buffer before; 11 wait after handoff later
- Handoff
- 11 units before; pickup idle after
- Warehouse feed
- No persistent buffer
5. Binding?
- Preparation
- Yes after test
- Handoff
- Yes before test
- Warehouse feed
- No
6. Relief test
- Preparation
- Observe after handoff relief
- Handoff
- Second lane 60 min → system 14/h
- Warehouse feed
- No test needed
7. Action
- Preparation
- Protect as new constraint
- Handoff
- Set lane standard and owner
- Warehouse feed
- Monitor only
All values are fictional.
- 1
Boundary
System frame
Goal
System frame: Set system goal, flow unit, demand, period, and flow start/end.
Inputs for this step
- Set system goal, flow unit, period, demand, and boundary; capture capacity and actual throughput in the same unit.
- System goal and boundary, throughput/demand data, process or dependency map, constraint register, and test access
Actions
- Set system goal, flow unit, demand, period, and flow start/end.
Output
System frame
Set system goal, flow unit, demand, period, and flow start/end.
Quality check
Are demand, throughput, and capacity stated in the same unit and period?
Pitfall
Local utilisation is compared without a system goal. Set one flow unit and one end-to-end goal.
Timing: 15–20 minutes
- 2
Register
Constraint register
Goal
Constraint register: Capture physical, capacity, policy, and assumed limits with evidence, upper bound, and slack.
Inputs for this step
- System frame
Actions
- Capture physical, capacity, policy, and assumed limits with evidence, upper bound, and slack.
Output
Constraint register
Capture physical, capacity, policy, and assumed limits with evidence, upper bound, and slack.
Quality check
Is each limit phrased as a measurable condition rather than a problem word?
Pitfall
Every difficulty is called the constraint. State upper bound, observed throughput, and system effect for each limit.
Timing: 20–30 minutes
- 3
Binding
Binding limit
Goal
Binding limit: Test candidates against demand and system throughput; observe blockage before and idle time after.
Inputs for this step
- Constraint register
Actions
- Test candidates against demand and system throughput; observe blockage before and idle time after.
Output
Binding limit
Test candidates against demand and system throughput; observe blockage before and idle time after.
Quality check
Does the limit explain system throughput and buffer position?
Pitfall
The slowest rated capacity is selected without observing flow. Measure WIP/buffer before and idle time after the candidate.
Timing: 20–30 minutes
- 4
Test
Relief finding
Goal
Relief finding: Protect or relieve the constraint and set a measurable prediction and stop rule beforehand.
Inputs for this step
- Binding limit
Actions
- Protect or relieve the constraint and set a measurable prediction and stop rule beforehand.
Output
Relief finding
Protect or relieve the constraint and set a measurable prediction and stop rule beforehand.
Quality check
Does the test change only the binding condition and measure system throughput?
Pitfall
A local gain is assumed to be a system gain. Measure end-to-end throughput, quality, and the new buffer.
Timing: 20–45 minutes
- 5
Decide
Constraint plan
Goal
Constraint plan: Record binding limit, exploit/elevate action, and next constraint search with owner and review.
Inputs for this step
- Relief finding
Actions
- Record binding limit, exploit/elevate action, and next constraint search with owner and review.
Output
Constraint plan
Record binding limit, exploit/elevate action, and next constraint search with owner and review.
Quality check
Is the new binding limit and review trigger clear?
Pitfall
Analysis ends after the first gain. Check the new buffer and continue the cycle at the new constraint.
Timing: 15–25 minutes
05
Artifact
What comes out at the end
Sketch: what the artifact looks like
Form
Evidence-based constraint register with binding limit, buffer effect, relief test, new limit, and decision rule.
Versioning / ownership
Record date, owner, source state, and review date; preserve prior versions.
Tool alternatives
- Flow and capacity map
- Constraint register
- Relief and measurement log
constraint-analysis-working-template.md
Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
Constraint Analysis: Worksheet
Question
To be confirmed
Desired outcome
To be confirmed
Scope
Complete run Time: 90–150 minutes for one bounded system flow; measurement and test extra.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
Preparation for this scope
Method setup
- Materials: System goal and boundary, throughput/demand data, process or dependency map, constraint register, and test access
- Roles: System owner · process participants · data owners · constraint owner · facilitator
- Advance information: Set system goal, flow unit, period, demand, and boundary; capture capacity and actual throughput in the same unit.
- Overall time needed: 90–150 minutes for one bounded system flow; measurement and test extra.
- Setup: Prepare a workspace with Boundary · Register · Binding · Test · Decide; separate example from live data.
Prepare for the work steps
Boundary: System frame
- Set system goal, flow unit, period, demand, and boundary; capture capacity and actual throughput in the same unit.
- System goal and boundary, throughput/demand data, process or dependency map, constraint register, and test access
Register: Constraint register
- System frame
Binding: Binding limit
- Constraint register
Test: Relief finding
- Binding limit
Decide: Constraint plan
- Relief finding
Constraint Analysis · working structure
| Limit | Type | Upper bound | Evidence | Buffer pattern | Binding? | Relief test | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preparation | |||||||
| Handoff | |||||||
| Warehouse feed |
- Preparation: Add evidence and rationale.
- Handoff: Add evidence and rationale.
- Warehouse feed: Add evidence and rationale.
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
Reference · original teaching example
Boundary: System frame
Expected artifact: System frame
Set system goal, flow unit, demand, period, and flow start/end.
Entry:
...
- Are demand, throughput, and capacity stated in the same unit and period?
Register: Constraint register
Expected artifact: Constraint register
Capture physical, capacity, policy, and assumed limits with evidence, upper bound, and slack.
Entry:
...
- Is each limit phrased as a measurable condition rather than a problem word?
Binding: Binding limit
Expected artifact: Binding limit
Test candidates against demand and system throughput; observe blockage before and idle time after.
Entry:
...
- Does the limit explain system throughput and buffer position?
Test: Relief finding
Expected artifact: Relief finding
Protect or relieve the constraint and set a measurable prediction and stop rule beforehand.
Entry:
...
- Does the test change only the binding condition and measure system throughput?
Decide: Constraint plan
Expected artifact: Constraint plan
Record binding limit, exploit/elevate action, and next constraint search with owner and review.
Entry:
...
- Is the new binding limit and review trigger clear?
Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/constraint-analysis/run-sheet
06
Example output
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.
constraint-analysis-beispiel.md
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Fictional teaching example: Constraint Analysis · working structure
| Limit | Type | Upper bound | Evidence | Buffer pattern | Binding? | Relief test | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preparation | Capacity | 14 units/h | Time study over four Saturdays | No buffer before; 11 wait after handoff later | Yes after test | Observe after handoff relief | Protect as new constraint |
| Handoff | Policy/capacity | 9 units/h with one lane | Scanner and handoff log | 11 units before; pickup idle after | Yes before test | Second lane 60 min → system 14/h | Set lane standard and owner |
| Warehouse feed | Capacity | 18 units/h | Warehouse log | No persistent buffer | No | No test needed | Monitor only |
07
Pitfalls
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow
- System frameLocal utilisation is compared without a system goal.View in phase
- Constraint registerEvery difficulty is called the constraint.View in phase
- Binding limitThe slowest rated capacity is selected without observing flow.View in phase
- Relief findingA local gain is assumed to be a system gain.View in phase
- Constraint planAnalysis ends after the first gain.View in phase
Trap
System frame
Symptom
Local utilisation is compared without a system goal.
What to do
Set one flow unit and one end-to-end goal.
Trap
Constraint register
Symptom
Every difficulty is called the constraint.
What to do
State upper bound, observed throughput, and system effect for each limit.
Trap
Binding limit
Symptom
The slowest rated capacity is selected without observing flow.
What to do
Measure WIP/buffer before and idle time after the candidate.
Trap
Relief finding
Symptom
A local gain is assumed to be a system gain.
What to do
Measure end-to-end throughput, quality, and the new buffer.
Trap
Constraint plan
Symptom
Analysis ends after the first gain.
What to do
Check the new buffer and continue the cycle at the new constraint.
08
Stop criteria
When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach
Stop Boundary: Are demand, throughput, and capacity stated in the same unit and period?
Stop Register: Is each limit phrased as a measurable condition rather than a problem word?
Stop Binding: Does the limit explain system throughput and buffer position?
Stop Test: Does the test change only the binding condition and measure system throughput?
Stop Decide: Is the new binding limit and review trigger clear?
Finished the method guide?
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.