Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [308]
As with many breakthroughs, this breakthrough started with a simple question by Goldratt (Goldratt et al., 2002): If “strategy” is really at the highest level of an initiative or organization and defines the direction that dictates all activities, and “tactics” are lower down in an initiative or organization and define the activities that are needed to implement the strategy, then where does “strategy” end and “tactics” begin?
Goldratt realized that answering this question required that the words “strategy” and “tactic” had to be defined more clearly than before. His new definitions were inherently simple, yet powerful. He decided to define “strategy” as, simply, the answer to the question:“What for?” (The answer is the objective of a proposed change.) “Tactic” is defined as, simply, the answer to the question “How to?” (The answer is the details of the proposed change.) From these definitions, it is clear that every strategy (What for?) should have an associated tactic (How to?) and therefore strategy and tactic must always exist in “pairs” and must exist at every level of the organization.
FIGURE 15-18 Traditional versus Goldratt’s definition of S&T.
Figure 15-18 shows the implication of the changes to the definitions of strategy and tactics proposed by Goldratt.
Goldratt’s proposed Strategy and Tactic tree (Goldratt et al., 2002) therefore can be viewed as simply a logical tree of the proposed changes that should be both necessary and sufficient to ensure the synchronized achievement of more goal units for the organization. However, any logical tree is only as valid as the assumptions on which it is based. Therefore, it is the responsibility of managers at every level in the organization to not only contribute to defining and communicating the strategy and tactic for each proposed change, but also to define and communicate the logic of the proposed change. This includes, why the proposed change is really necessary to achieve the higher level objective and ultimately the goal of the company, why they claim it is possible to achieve the objective (strategy) of the change (especially considering it has probably never been achieved before). They must then address why they claim their proposed change (tactic) is the best or even the only way of achieving the strategy of the change, and finally, the advice or warning they would give to their subordinates to ensure the sufficiency of the implementation of the proposed change.
Each S&T node in the S&T is therefore simply a proposed change that should answer:
1. Why the change is needed (Necessary Assumption)?
2. What the specific measurable objective of the change is (Strategy)?
3. Why we claim the strategy is possible and what specific requirements, potential negative branches, or obstacles must be considered when selecting from the alternative ways (tactic) for achieving the strategy (Parallel Assumptions linking Strategy with Tactic)?
4. How to best achieve the objective of the change (tactic); for example, what changes should be made to processes, policy, IT systems or measurement?
5. What advice or warning should be given to subordinates, which, if ignored, will likely jeopardize the sufficiency of the steps they would take to implement this tactic and which is likely to be ignored (without the warning) (Sufficiency Assumption)?
FIGURE 15-19 S&T level 4.11.5 for achieving a process of ongoing improvement.
Figure 15-19