Critical Chain - Eliyahu M. Goldratt [39]
"No matter how well the two methods are accepted, a scientist's instinctive conclusion will be that there is a faulty assumption underlying one of the methods used to measure the height of the building. All their energy will be focused on finding that faulty assumption and correcting it.
"Should we do the same?"
He pauses, and then asks, "Can we do the same?"
As he returns to the podium he keeps on asking, "Can we, who deal with human-based systems, believe that conflicts cannot exist?
"How can we? Conflicts are all around us."
In a conversational tone he continues, "This is probably the most daring assumption of TOC. One of its foundations is that whenever we witness a conflict, it is a clear indication that someone has made a faulty assumption, a faulty assumption that can be corrected, and by doing so the conflict removed. What do you think about it?"
"I don't buy it," Rick whispers to himself.
"Do you believe in win-win solutions?" Jim asks him.
"I guess so."
"So you do accept what Johnny just said."
Rick doesn't see the connection clearly, but now Johnny continues.
"Let's use our conflict to demonstrate how powerful this approach, called ‘evaporating cloud,' is." And he moves back to the overhead projector.
"Let's expose some hidden assumptions," he says. "We claim that in order to control cost, managers must try to manage according to the cost world. Why? Because we assume that the only way to achieve good cost performance is through good local performance everywhere." As he speaks he adds the assumption to his diagram.
"And why do we claim that in order to protect throughput managers must try to manage according to the throughput world? Because we assume that there is no way to achieve good throughput performance through good local performance everywhere." When he finishes adding it to the diagram, he pauses to give everyone time to digest.
"Where do we stand? We now have three alternatives. We can challenge the upper assumption, we can challenge the lower one, or we can continue to look for a compromise. What do you think we should do?"
Probably Johnny regards his question as rhetorical, because he continues to ask, "Who thinks that the upper assumption is wrong? That the assumption that the only way to achieve good cost performance is through good local performance everywhere, is wrong? Please raise your hands."
About five people raise their hands. After a moment, a dozen or so join them.
"Don't be too hasty," Johnny warns them. "Those who think this assumption is wrong, do you know what you're claiming? You are actually claiming that most organizations, since the industrial revolution, were wrong. Do you still want to raise your hand?"
Almost everyone who raised their hand before defiantly raises it again.
"Your prerogative," Johnny smiles. And then he continues, "Who thinks that the lower assumption is wrong? That the assumption that there is no way to achieve good throughput performance through good local performance everywhere, is wrong? Please raise your hands."
To Rick's astonishment, nobody does.
"The vote is clear," Johnny announces. "Unfortunately, such questions are not resolved by a democratic vote. We have to prove what we claim. How can we prove that the upper assumption is wrong?"
"And now we are going to see some fancy mathematical model," Rick sighs. "Wake me when it's over."
But Johnny doesn't use any mathematics. "You are still the bottleneck and you are the non-bottleneck." He points to his two volunteers. "The same scenario as before. We all agreed that the non-bottleneck should produce only ten units an hour. Why? Is it because we want to protect the throughput? Think about it.
"If the non-bottleneck will produce fifteen or even twenty, will it prevent the bottleneck from producing his ten?
"So why are we so adamant about restricting the non-bottleneck to only ten units an hour? Maybe the non-bottleneck is willing