The Theory of Swift, Even Flow

(excerpted from On Theory in Operations Management, by Roger W. Schmenner and Morgan L. Swink, Journal
of Operations Management, 1998, 17, 97-113.
The Theory of Swift, Even Flow holds that the more swift and even the flow of materials through a
process, the more productive that process is. Thus, productivity for any processbe it labor productivity,
machine productivity, materials productivity, or total factor productivityrises with the speed by
which materials flow through the process, and it falls with increases in the variability associated with the
flow, be that variability associated with the demand on the process or with steps in the process itself.
To understand this theory one must understand several theoretical concepts.
i. The first concepts are value-added and nonvalue-added work. According to the theory, all work
can be divided into either value-added work or nonvalue-added work. Work that transforms materials
into good product is considered value-added, while work that moves materials, catalogues them, inspects
them, counts them, or reworks them is not regarded as value-added. Anything that adds waste to the
process is non-value-added, including the classic seven wastes of Shigeo Shingo: overproduction,
waiting, transportation, unnecessary processing steps, stocks, motion, and defects. Given this
understanding, materials can move more swiftly through a process if the non-value-added,
wasteful steps of the process are either eliminated or greatly reduced.
ii. Similarly, materials can move swiftly only if there are no bottlenecks or other impediments to
flow in the way. To capture this, the theory clings to another concept, throughput time, as a useful measure
of the speed of the flow from the point where materials for a unit of the product are first worked on
until that unit is completed and supplied to either the customer or to a finished goods warehouse. Other
things equal, the theory urges the process to reduce the clock time spent in this way - the throughput
time.. Throughput time is particularly useful as a mechanism to isolate where flows have become retarded
or blocked.
iii. For materials to flow more evenly, one must narrow the variability associated with either the demand
on the process or with the processs operations steps. Variability is measured by the variance or
standard deviation of the timing or quantities demanded or of the time spent in various process steps.
Variability is narrowed when the demands placed on the process are even and regular. Level production
plans are more compatible with productivity than are production plans with irregular quantities or due
dates. Such steadiness of demand demonstrates lower variances of both timing and quantities demanded.
Variability is also narrowed whenever like things are processed together. Hence, whenever like things can
be worked on together, without slowing down the process, then productivity will increase.
Scientific methods
Scientific methods are means by which nonvalue-added motions and steps are removed from
what labor does and by which value-added steps can be done more quickly and with less exertion. They
serve to speed up the flow of materials without, helpfully, putting more physical stress on the workforce.
Scientific methods make little difference, according to the theory, when applied to non-value-added
work. One should thus expect to see varying success with scientific methods depending upon the
steps in the process to which they are applied. They should have their biggest impact on bottleneck operations.
Quality
Among the most disruptive things to a process are snafus - temporary bottlenecks, if you will - caused by
quality problems that force rework, scrap, machine downtime, interrupted flow of materials, and the
like. Good quality is essential to the swift, even flow of materials as it helps both to lower variability and
to avoid bottlenecks.

Factory focus
Factory focus groups like products, and less commonly, like processes, together. It is thus a mechanism
for reducing variability. Moreover, factory focus is a means for allowing flows to surface within
the process. By grouping like products together, the flows of materials for those products are exposed to
view more easily and naturally and this permits the identification of bottlenecks and of non-value-added
steps and facilitates their removal.
The Theory of Swift, Even Flow thus provides a broad explanation that unifies the variously identified
probabilistic laws of scientific methods, quality, and factory focus and shows how they work. It is
consistent, as well, with the deductive laws of variability and of bottlenecks. The Theory of Swift,
Even Flow does not nullify Microeconomic Theory, but, for this factory-specific phenomenon, it offers a
more complete explanation and thus augments that theory.
Comparisons with MicroeconomicTtheory
The Theory of Swift, Even Flow offers a variety of qualifications to microeconomic theorys implications
for the factory. These qualifications do not argue against microeconomic theory whose implications
are far-ranging; they merely discuss instances where microeconomic theory, as it relates to factory
productivity, is limited. For example, microeconomic theory argues that labor productivity, e.g., units per
man-hour, will be augmented with the substitution of capital for labor. The Swift, Even Flow theory argues
that capital-for-labor substitution does not, of itself, imply higher productivity but only if such a
substitution leads to faster, steadier flows. Continuous flow processes are nearly always both more
capital-intensive than other types of processes and more productive. However, the Swift, Even Flow
theory argues that it is not the capital of the continuous flow process that is important to its high productivity,
but it is rather the continuous, less variable nature of the flow.
In a similar vein, microeconomic theory supports the inclusion of labor savings in the justification of
new capital equipment. After all, according to the theory, substituting capital for labor leads to productivity
advance. The Swift, Even Flow theory, on the other hand, dismisses labor savings as a justification
in favor of a justification based on what the new capital equipment does for the flows in the process.
Are the flows swifter and more even? Post-audits of new capital equipment should reveal that the less
successful new capital investments were also the ones that did not effect swifter, more even flows
within the process.
Microeconomic theory also argues for new, better capital investments and higher skilled labor. Both of
these policies can lead to enhanced productivity according to the Swift, Even Flow theory. However,
they do so because they either speed up the flow of materials or they reduce the variability of the process.
Microeconomic theory also prizes new technology and scale economies as possible sources of
productivity gain, although the exact nature of these is rather ambiguous. The Swift, Even Flow theory
can value technology as well, but, again, only if it leads to faster, less variable flows of materials. The
Swift, Even Flow theory does not lean one way or another with respect to scale economies. Increasing
the scale of a process is not unambiguously good if it has no beneficial consequence on flows.
Other Implications
There are a number of facets of any operation for which the Swift, Even Flow theory would predict
augmented productivity. For example, the theory is much in favor of the creation of cells and of compact
layouts. Cells highlight flows and, often increase the speed by which a product is made. And, by grouping
like products together, cells reduce variability. Indeed, one can view factory focus as cells writ large.

The theory also favors reducing work-in-process inventories, as they can bog down the swift flow of
materials and thus raise throughput times to high levels. The theory offers no implications for either
raw materials or finished goods inventories.
Several other policies are favored by the theory because they either speed flows or reduce variation,
or both. Among them: cross-training of the workforce, quicker changeovers of equipment, smaller
batches of materials to process, and regular preventive maintenance. A pull system, according to the
theory, would stand a better chance at being productive than a push system, especially if demands on the
process are steady. With a pull system, smooth flow is more assured because upstream operations cannot
act without the authorization of downstream operations and thus cannot flood the operation with workinprocess inventory. And, because work-in-process inventory levels are capped by the number of containers
or spaces permitted, throughput times are assured to be low. In short, the Swift, Even Flow
theory is very much in tune with the just-in-time manufacturing philosophy that owes so much to
Japanese such as Taiichi Ohno. Indeed, the success of JIT provides strong support for the theory.
The theory also argues for the coordination of the supply chain. The smoother the links and the faster
the flow from initial materials to the end customer, the more productive all aspects of the supply chain
should be.
In addition to these policies, the Swift, Even Flow theory argues for the abandonment of numerous
performance measures. Measures such as machine utilization or labor efficiency, standard hours of
labor relative to actual hours, are not measures of either flow or variability. For this reason, the theory
argues that they should be abandoned as measures in favor of measures of throughput time and variability
- say, delivery performance to plan. Indeed, there is some confirmation that machine utilization and labor
efficiency are not associated very much with productivity.