Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [305]
FIGURE 15-17 The TOC injections to the when, what, and how CI conflicts.
How to Cause the Change?
Typical Implementation Obstacles and How to Overcome These
Why More Organizations Are Not Adopting a Systems Approach
The logic and results that have been achieved by organizations and individuals that have used TOC’s systems approach or systems thinking are compelling. However, we should ask, “If this way of thinking and this way of improving organizations is as good as they say it is, why don’t more organizations use it?” Well, the typical response to this question from systems thinking/TOC experts normally includes an answer like “. . . because most organizations naturally resist change.” In addition, if asked, “How do you know that this is the main reason?” they are likely to answer, “We know most organizations resist change because most organizations have not yet adopted systems thinking/TOC.” This answer is, of course, a tautology in the same way as saying that the reason why customers use our products is because they like them and then explaining that the way we know that customers really like them is because they use them!
Russell L. Ackoff (1919–2009, an American organizational theorist and Professor Emeritus of Management Science at the University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Business, and one of the pioneers in the field of systems thinking) was one of the first authors in the field to try to answer the question:“Why do so few organizations adopt systems thinking?” (2006). In the article, Ackoff stated that he believes there are two reasons—one general (why organizations in general do not adopt any ideas that are considered paradigm shifts) and one specific (specifically why organizations find it difficult to adopt systems thinking). He claims that in most organizations (and in the minds of most people) failure or making mistakes are a bad thing. People would rather make errors of omission than errors of commission. This tendency is then perceived as “resistance to change,” but it really relates more to the fear of the possible failure (or even lack of success) of a proposed change. Moreover, considering how many of the past changes in organizations were considered failures or were stopped before completion, it makes sense that most people will feel it is safer to not (fully) support any new change, especially ones considered “radical.”
The specific reason, Ackoff claimed, that blocks organizations from adopting systems thinking is simply that there is a knowledge and experience gap especially on the “how to.” Most systems thinking (and probably most TOC) education programs cover only the “what” and “why” but not the detailed “how to.” Giving students and managers theories and success stories without showing which of their specific assumptions about reality will have to change and not providing practical ways (methods, tools, systems, etc.) to apply these theories make them impractical. This does not mean that most of the required logic, methods, and tools don’t already exist. It simply means that education and general awareness, yet again, lag the innovation and field experience that is being obtained by the growing number of practitioners of systems thinking (McDermott and O’Connor, 1997) and growing number of TOC practitioners.
Both the general reason and the specific reason postulated by Ackoff provide a reminder that any change initiative should ensure not only that the principles behind the change are well communicated and understood, but also that these principles