Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [309]
1. Why the change is needed (necessary assumptions),
2. What the specific measurable objective is for the change (strategy),
3. Why the objective is possible and why the tactic is the “best” way (parallel assumptions), and
4. How (the new procedure for implementing the change).
The most recent update on the applications of TOC’s BM as a POOGI can be found in the generic S&T trees12 released by Goldratt. The relevant POOGI parts of the S&Ts for manufacturing companies, distribution companies, and projects companies are included in these generic S&T trees. Each of the POOGI processes typically have three components: (1) recording reasons for red and black buffer status, (2) conducting a Pareto analysis on reasons for identifying the primary causes of delays/unavailability, and (3) developing and implementing improvement projects (e.g., Kaizen events) to address the primary causes of delays/unavailability.
TABLE 15-6 Engines of Disharmony versus Engines of Harmony
Using the S&T Tree to Achieve Harmony within Organizations
How much of this knowledge is defined properly, documented, communicated, and systematically validated/invalidated within a typical organization? Field experience shows that very few organizations, if any, have taken the time to develop their business strategy and tactic to this level of detail. Unfortunately, there is a price to pay for managers and employees at all levels for not being able to answer these simple questions for their area of responsibility. The price you pay is the risk of what Goldratt, in recent public events, has called “disharmony” in the organization. Goldratt identified five “engines of disharmony” that make achievement of CI culture and harmony within any organization difficult and to which a well-defined and communicated S&T can provide the engines of harmony (Table 15-6).
Using the S&T to Monitor Execution
Edison’s famous quote, “Vision without execution is a hallucination,” is a reminder of the simple fact that without follow-up and follow-through, we will not get the desired results.
Since the S&T contains all the objectives that have to be achieved (strategies or “know-what”), and the necessary changes that have to be implemented (tactics or “know-how”) at each level and within each part of the organization, as well as all the related assumptions (“know-why”), the S&T can be used as a primary auditing tool. Are we achieving our objectives? Have we implemented the agreed tactics? If not, which of the assumptions that were made are no longer valid and how can or should this be corrected?
Using the S&T to Identify and Systematically Remove CI Conflicts
Anyone who has tried knows the challenges in creating an S&T. There is the challenge of knowing which questions to ask to identify the necessary and sufficient changes and the sequence in which these changes must be implemented, the challenge of answering these questions (using solid cause-effect), and finally the challenge of verbalizing the answers in a way that will ensure that the proposed changes are communicated clearly as “actionable information.” However, can we use the other TOC TP to help overcome some or even all of these challenges?
Over the past two years, a new process to use traditional TOC TP (such as UDEs and the Conflict Cloud) has been tested as part of a CI and auditing process to validate or even create new S&T blocks (Barnard, 2009). Figure 15-20 shows this new process applied to managing projects. The process can be initiated at any level within the organization where a clear gap in performance exists that currently limits the achievement of the higher-level goal for the organization.
Step 1 involves identifying this performance gap, validating the extent and consequence of not closing this gap in relation to the goal of the organization (e.g., using the impact of the gap on the organization