Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [318]
Using TOC’s Strategy and Tactic Tree to Guide Holistic Implementations
One of the important lessons learned by studying what worked well and what did not work well within the Viable Vision projects specifically and within other holistic TOC implementations was the need for a mechanism to define, validate, and communicate all the necessary and sufficient changes needed for achieving growth and stability as well as the sequence in which these have to be implemented. Goldratt realized this challenge could be solved with the Strategy and Tactic (S&T) tree, a TP tool he invented in the 1980s but formally documented in 2002 (Goldratt, Goldratt, and Abramov, 2002).
In 2006, Goldratt started investing time into developing generic S&T trees for the types of organizations that can turn a TOC logistical implementation into a decisive competitive edge. The intent of these S&Ts was not only to provide a mechanism to capture all the latest “how-to” knowledge related to each of the TOC applications, but also to prevent the two most common mistakes in holistic implementations (Ackoff, 2006): Errors of Commission (doing what should not be done) and Errors of Omission (not doing what should be done).4
However, is there a “one-recipe-fits-all” or simple roadmap that organizations can follow when considering implementing TOC in a holistic way, especially considering the differences between types of organizations and differences between organizations from the public and private sectors?
Catering to Differences within the Private and Public Sector
There are many differences between private and public sector organizations, but they share the fact that there is always a limiting factor—a system constraint—to achieving more goal units and that success is defined by both survival (stability) and growth. The decisions or actions needed to satisfy both the requirements for achieving growth and stability frequently result in conflicts within these organizations. Conflicts such as implementing changes or making decisions to satisfy the short-term needs of stakeholders but which could jeopardize long-term needs for the same or other stakeholders, or implementing changes or making decisions to improve one part of the organization that could result in the performance of other parts (or even the organization as a whole) being compromised. Probably the most important commonality is that both types of organizations, now more than any other time in history, are under incredible pressure to find innovative ways to “achieve more (goal units) with less or the same (resources) in less time.”
For private sector organizations, this challenge manifests in the continuous pressure to close the gap between actual and expected short- and long-term returns for shareholders. For public sector organizations, the challenge manifests itself in the ongoing pressure to close the large and frequently growing gap between the deteriorating levels of service delivery and infrastructure and a growing demand for such services in the areas of health, safety, education, energy, and telecommunications—especially in the developing countries around the world.
It is these gaps between the expectations of stakeholders and the current performance of an organization or system that can result in vicious cycles of over- and under-reactions or that can be the catalyst for challenging the status quo and achieving sustainable improvement. These gaps serve as a constant reminder that there must be a simpler, faster, better, and more reliable way to identify where and how to improve our organizations.
However, the realization that a large (and potentially growing) gap exists and that scarce resources should be focused