Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [291]
4. We can assume that there is inherent certainty by looking for optima points according to some textbook formula (limiting) or we can assume that since uncertainty is inherent, we should rather find a logical solution and a “good enough” starting point and use feedback to detect and correct cases of “too much” or “too little” (enabling).
5. We can assume that bad choices or bad behavior are made by bad people and that we should get rid of such people (limiting) or that since we believe that people are good, we assume that bad choices or behavior are made by good people with bad assumptions, so we rather find and get rid of the bad assumptions.
Summary of What to Change
There are three generic conflicts managers face in deciding when, what, and how to change to achieve ongoing success for their organizations. Within each of these conflicts, there are key assumptions that can and need to be challenged to enable managers to know how to break these conflicts in a win-win way. These “limiting” assumptions when used to make decisions on how best to deal with constraints, complexity, conflicts, uncertainty, and bad choices can result in errors of omission, commission, detection, or correction. A new set of “enabling” assumptions is proposed by TOC (and other systems approaches) that can help prevent these management errors. The famous line of Qui-Gon Jinn of Star Wars: Episode I—The Phantom Menace fame can summarize the enabling assumptions, “Your focus determines your reality.”
FIGURE 15-6 Limiting versus enabling paradigms to deal with five improvement challenges.
Focus on everything that can be improved and the possible becomes impossible. Focus on the few things that must be improved now (to get more goal units), and the impossible becomes possible.
What do we mean by focus? Simply doing what should be done and not doing what should not be done—the opposite of the mistakes or errors of omission (not doing what should be done) and errors of commission (doing what should not be done), which provides the simple answer to “What to change?”
The next section explores the answer to the question “To what to change?”
To What to Change?
Introduction
To answer “To what to change” in a TOC analysis, we have to answer four questions which we will apply to our analysis on designing a holistic CI and auditing system:
1. What are the criteria we should use to judge a real breakthrough solution?
2. What is the direction of the solution that will break the core conflict and prevent (or at least reduce) the major undesirable effects within the current reality we are trying to improve on?
3. How do we translate the generic solution into a specific solution for various applications?
4. What changes will be needed to prevent the new solution from causing unintended negative consequences (potential UDEs) through either its failure or success?
Criteria to Evaluate a New Solution
In a previous section, we listed the gap and major UDEs that make it difficult to close the gap in both CI and auditing of organizations. Therefore, the criteria of a new solution (the desired effects, or DEs) can simply be stated as the opposite of the gap and UDEs defined in “Why change?” The DEs for a holistic CI and auditing system include:
1. Know where to focus scarce resources for the best result (despite complexity).
2. Provide a way to quantify the likely impact of changes (despite uncertainty).
3. Raise expectations especially with top management to ensure full support (despite obstacles).
4. Each stakeholder can actively contribute to ensure the change will result in a system improvement.
5. No complacency, inertia, or fear of failure.
6. Ongoing alignment/synchronization of contributions toward the goal of the organization.
7. Ensure a higher success rate of change initiatives (rather than 70 percent failure rate, we should target and achieve a 70 percent success rate).
8. Reduce the time to detect and time to correct