Prioritisation: should we limit the work we start?
In a technical team, several work items can be priorities without being able to progress simultaneously. The management question is specific: should a new item be started whenever someone is available, or should the number of items in progress be limited until existing ones are completed?
What the literature establishes
John D. C. Little (1961, Operations Research) establishes a mathematical relationship between the average number of items in a system, its average throughput and their average flow time. For a stable flow and consistently defined system boundaries, work in progress equals throughput multiplied by flow time. At unchanged throughput, more items in progress therefore correspond to a longer average time between starting and completing them.
The mechanism: controlling the release of work
Wallace J. Hopp and Mark L. Spearman (2004, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management) analyse pull systems by emphasising explicit limits on work in progress. The mechanism is not simply to produce on demand: it makes the release of new work conditional on capacity becoming available within the system. Applied to prioritisation, this logic separates two decisions that are often conflated: recognising that an item matters and authorising its start.
The hasty conclusion
One might conclude that simply reducing the number of open items will speed up all work. Yet Little’s relationship does not demonstrate that an arbitrary reduction in work in progress will preserve throughput: a limit that is too low can leave resources without executable work. The task is therefore to find a limit compatible with technical dependencies, not to make the smallest possible number of open items an absolute goal. (our executive and employee training programmes)
The limits of the evidence and workload boards
These articles provide a mathematical result and an analysis of production systems, not a direct evaluation of team calendars in Neuchâtel. Items of different complexity are not interchangeable units, and a board restricted to active tasks may conceal time spent waiting for approval or measurement. A useful check must track comparable items and include waiting in the observed lead time, without confusing it with actual working time.
A practical check in Neuchâtel
As part of SHR’s “Time Management & Prioritisation” programme, a proposed application for a Neuchâtel team in microtechnology, watchmaking or precision microelectronics is to test an explicit cap on simultaneously open validation cases. Across a baseline period and an equally long trial period, record opening and completion dates, the daily number of cases in progress and weekly completions, while maintaining the same quality criteria. The outcome to check is a shorter average lead time without lower throughput or more cases reopened for non-conformity; unfinished cases must remain visible so that the assessment is not artificially favourable. This comparison provides local guidance for adjusting the cap, not causal proof if case complexity or available resources have changed. To go further: explore the Time Management & Prioritisation training in Neuchâtel, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Time Management & Prioritisation in Neuchâtel
- time management & prioritisation
- Neuchâtel
- research
- training neuchâtel