• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 2779 0

will be disagreement on how to change and how not to change as long as some stakeholders believe that the earlier we start, the earlier we finish—an assumption that is true only when we are not bad multitasking. Other related assumptions that will result in this type of conflict is whether to wait until we get full consensus or can fully resource the initiative, or when some believe that failure is bad and therefore any attempts to audit or stop any changes not making the planned progress should be resisted. To break this conflict, we need a way to validate (or invalidate) that starting new initiatives (that share resources with existing initiatives) sooner will not simply result in both the current and new initiative finishing later (see Chapters 3, 4 and 5 on the effects of bad multitasking). Or further, that not reviewing or not stopping initiatives that are not delivering will be a lose for all stakeholders especially when these initiatives consume scarce resources.

Identifying Limiting versus Enabling Paradigms in Continuous Improvement

We can classify the types of assumptions that need to be challenged by organizations wishing to continuously improve based on the five generic improvement challenges (Barnard, 2007) faced by managers of any form of complex system.3 The assumptions and related beliefs used by managers to decide how to best deal with these five challenges can turn the challenges into either obstacles (that lock-in current performance) or opportunities that will allow managers to see and unlock inherent improvement potential within their organization. The five challenges include:

1. How to deal with constraints, especially those considered “out of your control,” when setting targets and expectations for improvement.

2. How to deal with the inherent complexity of your organization, especially when deciding where to focus your improvement efforts and scarce resources or when trying to predict the impact of changes on the organization as a whole.

3. How to deal with strategic and day-to-day policy or resource allocation conflicts within your organization between stakeholders from the same or different parts of the system, especially in environments where there is significant distrust.

4. How to deal with the uncertainty and potential risk when having to decide on which changes are needed, what the impact of these changes will be (on achieving more goal units), when to start these changes (to not trigger bad multitasking or resistance to change), and when to stop a change if there are insufficient resources or it is not delivering the expected benefits (errors of detection and correction).

5. How to deal with “bad behavior” of people that has resulted or could result in significant UDEs for the system, especially in cases where the way we deal with such people could have other repercussions (e.g., union strikes, etc.).

We have a choice as to which set of assumptions (paradigms) we use to make decisions related to these five challenges and on what we focus as a result. Figure 15-6 provides a summary of the limiting (traditional/conventional) versus enabling (systems approach/TOC) assumptions or paradigms that govern how a manager will deal with these five challenges and whether the challenge is viewed as a major obstacle or a major opportunity on which to be capitalized.

1. We can assume that constraints are inherent (limiting) or that there is always inherent potential for improvement—that all constraints can be overcome (enabling).

2. We can assume that the best way to improve complex systems is to break up these systems into simpler parts and improve each part (limiting) or instead, that the best way is to find the inherent simplicity—the constraint in physical flow or the few root causes that explain most UDEs in any system—the leverage points of the system (enabling).

3. We can assume that the best way to deal with conflicts is to compromise or focus on the win for you even if it causes a win–lose (limiting) or we can assume that a winwin is always possible when we collaborate