TOC at Edica printing company · Case study
Implementing TOC at Edica printing company changed how orders, production capacity and decisions between departments were managed. Instead of improving each area separately, the organisation focused on the flow of the entire system, protecting delivery dates and throughput generated per working hour.
Anonymised data. Results are presented as percentage changes and indices. We do not publish baseline values, amounts, margins or operational details that could disclose the company’s confidential information.
Implementing TOC at Edica: the starting point
The printing company operates in a highly variable environment. Seasonality, different print runs, a wide product mix and frequent changes to the sequence of orders mean that the process load is uneven. The constraint can move between operations, and a well-utilised machine locally does not necessarily improve the performance of the whole system.
Initially, some orders were at risk because the quoted lead time was too long to be acceptable. At the same time, individual functions used their own measures: sales looked at order value, planning at load, production at resource utilisation and finance at costs. There was no single criterion for quickly assessing which order best supported the company’s performance.
An apparent choice
Either reduce labour costs and monitor local efficiency, or maintain sales, flexibility and on-time delivery with the available resources.
The TOC question
How can decisions be aligned with one system goal, existing production capacity be used and throughput increased without moving the problem into the next department?
From local problems to a picture of the whole system
The change began with a cause-and-effect diagnosis. A Current Reality Tree helped connect apparently separate symptoms: lost orders, difficulty committing to delivery dates, delayed decisions, moving constraints and disagreements about order profitability. A Conflict Cloud identified the assumptions behind cost pressure and the need to protect sales and flow.
The most important conclusion was simple: the company did not need maximum utilisation of every resource. It needed a system that increased the likelihood of achieving the goal of the entire organisation. Read more about this logic in what is TOC — the Theory of Constraints and on the Goldratt Consulting website.
Four elements of the implementation
1System diagnosisProblems were connected in a single cause-and-effect picture, separating symptoms from constraints affecting the performance of the whole company.
2S-DBR and a time bufferOrders began to be released and monitored using Simplified Drum–Buffer–Rope logic, with buffer consumption serving as the signal for action.
3Throughput AccountingTruly variable costs were separated from throughput, and orders were assessed by their impact on performance, including per working hour.
4Shared decision rulesSales, planning, production and finance received linked criteria. Discussion shifted from ‘who is right?’ to ‘what will improve system performance?’.
S-DBR: simpler flow control
Simplified Drum–Buffer–Rope does not require loading every operation to its maximum. It protects delivery dates through a time buffer and directs attention to where risk to the entire order is increasing.
Release work deliberatelyDo not introduce more work into the system than the flow can safely handle.
Protect the delivery dateThe time buffer shows how much protection remains and which order needs attention.
Respond to the signalPriority follows the risk to flow, rather than a local queue or whoever makes the loudest request.
One language for sales, planning, production and finance
A major part of the change was not the planning tool itself, but agreement on how decisions would be made. Each function retained its responsibilities while starting to use measures that led towards a shared goal.
SalesAssessing how much throughput remains after truly variable costs are deducted and whether the delivery date is realistic.
PlanningComparing throughput per unit and throughput per hour of the required production capacity.
OperationsProtecting flow and making decisions that improve performance now without weakening the system’s future capacity.
FinanceA common denominator for assessing options instead of disputes over different definitions of local profitability.
TOC results at Edica — without disclosing company data
The presentation shows multi-year rolling 12-month indicators. To preserve confidentiality, we set the baseline to an index of 100 and show only the relative change to the final period analysed.
| Metric | Baseline | Final period |
|---|---|---|
| Throughput per working hour | 100 | 137 |
| Revenue per working hour | 100 | 134 |
Both indicators also reached higher periodic values during the observation period. More important than any individual peak, however, is the durability of the change: after almost five years, the indicators remained clearly above the baseline.
- Order decisions began to be linked to available production capacity and throughput.
- The time buffer provided a shared operational signal of delivery risk.
- Sales, planning, production and finance received consistent criteria for assessing options.
- Management attention shifted from local efficiency to the constraint and flow of the whole system.
The most important change was not finding a single permanent bottleneck. It was building a management approach that helps identify the current constraint, protect flow and direct attention towards decisions that matter to the entire system.
What can other manufacturers take from this case study?
- Variability is not an exception. The system should be designed to make it visible and use a buffer to set priorities.
- Local efficiency can harm flow. More work in progress and full loading of all resources do not mean better company performance.
- Measures shape behaviour. When each department optimises a different indicator, conflicts are natural. A common denominator shortens discussion and accelerates decisions.
- The constraint can move. TOC is therefore an ongoing management process rather than a one-off diagnostic exercise.
- Management attention can be the scarcest resource. It should be directed towards the problem that truly limits achievement of the goal.
Frequently asked questions
What did TOC change at Edica printing company?
TOC connected flow control, a time buffer, Throughput Accounting and shared decision rules. The organisation stopped treating the utilisation of individual resources as its primary goal and began looking at the performance of the entire system.
What is S-DBR?
S-DBR, or Simplified Drum–Buffer–Rope, is a simplified production control mechanism. The pace of order release is aligned with system capacity, while a time buffer protects delivery dates and indicates priorities.
Why are the results shown as an index?
An index shows the scale and durability of improvement without disclosing the company’s internal amounts, cost levels or other financial information. A value of 100 represents the adopted baseline.
Would you like to use TOC in your organisation?
We help identify the constraint, organise flow and link operational decisions to the performance of the entire system. Discover how we work with the Theory of Constraints in manufacturing.
To explore the topic further, see also TOC training for manufacturing (in Polish) and the recap of Breaking Down Silos: Lean and TOC (in Polish).
Source and scope of this publication. This article is based on the case study presented by Przemysław Gębala at ‘Breaking Down Silos: Lean and TOC’, organised by LeanBiz on 24 September 2026 in Wałbrzych. Financial and operational data are anonymised: the relative scale of the changes has been retained without disclosing baseline values or confidential details of Edica’s operations.
