Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [303]
The second method, frequently referred to as the scientific method of “trial and error,” is to test the hypothesis by acting. Leonardo da Vinci said, “I am always impressed with the urgency of doing. Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Being willing is not enough; we must do.” It is only once we apply that we can really test the necessity and especially the sufficiency of our hypothesis (new solution). That is why our “injection” to reduce errors of omission and commission includes “. . . unless acting is the only way of checking.” This realization is critical to overcoming disagreements or fear. For example, it might be that the only way of really checking how customers will react to a new offer or product is by actually presenting this offer. Of course, such “tests” should be designed as an experiment and reviewed with the same rigor rather than wasting time arguing in the boardroom whether they will like it or not, or whether to first do more market research (what Goldratt calls “just a sophisticated way of procrastinating”).
Overcoming the Fear of Uncertainty
In studying the success stories such as Toyota, Walmart, and GE, it is noticeable that each of these had a leader/leadership team willing to take the responsibility to decide which philosophy or methodology to use rather than leaving it up to levels 3, 4, or 5 to decide. Not only did they decide on the philosophy, but also on the vision and made sure the connection between the two was clear to every level and every function in the organization and then empowered everyone to contribute (within the boundaries of the philosophy) to achieving the vision or goal. These leaders also showed that they are continuously challenging their own patterns of thinking and want those around them to do the same—not randomly, but in a systematic process using the scientific method.
Why is this important? It helps overcome the fears and prevent the mistakes related to the decisions and conflicts of when to change, what to change, and how to cause, sustain, and continuously improve on the change.
What can organizations do who find themselves almost paralyzed by the fear of changing (due to a culture that seems to punish failure and not recognize the courage to invent and test new ways of doing things) unless competitors made it necessary for it to do so?
This deficiency in organizations can be eliminated by taking the following steps (Barnard, 2001; Ackoff, 2006).
1. Record every important decision, including the ones not to do something because of reasons such as “we still have time” (when you’ve run out), “the cost or risk of doing is too high” (ignoring the cost or risk of not doing), etc.
2. The Decision Record should include (a) the event that triggered the need for change, (b) the expected effects of the decision and by when they are expected, (c) the assumptions on which the expectations are based, (d) the inputs to the decision (information, knowledge, and understanding), and (e) why the specific decision was made (the logic) and by whom.
3. Monitor the decisions to detect any deviation of fact from expectations and assumptions. When a deviation is found, determine its cause and take corrective action (to reduce the time to detect and correct mistakes).
4. The choice of a corrective action is itself a decision and should be treated in the same way as the original decision; a Decision Record should be prepared for it. In this way, one can learn how to correct mistakes; that is, learn how to learn more rapidly and effectively. Learning how to learn is probably the most important thing an organization or individual can do.
The decision by an organization not to adopt systems thinking/holistic approach of TOC should be treated in this way. Making explicit the assumptions on which such a decision is based and monitoring them can lead