Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [322]
FIGURE 16-2 Systemic versus symptomatic conflicts related to an undesirable effect.
5. Assuming that there is always only one core conflict for a system, when in fact there is one core conflict for each stakeholder. This is the conflict that most contributes to blocking that stakeholder from contributing in a way that can help better exploit or elevate the system constraint.
6. Attempting to break conflicts using the traditional TOC TP approach of identifying and challenging all the many assumptions associated with the core conflict rather than focusing on finding and challenging only the one or few “conflict assumptions” using the four methods7 as proposed by Barnard (2003) that if removed, will “evaporate” the core conflict.
7. Not ensuring the injections needed to break the conflicts have been defined as “Actionable Information,” which means each stakeholder can clearly verbalize how they will contribute to implement the injections agreed upon to break the core conflicts blocking better exploitation, subordination, or elevation of the system constraint.
8. Not having a simple and fast mechanism to enable stakeholders to raise both types of “Yes, buts…” that can block each stakeholder from making the contributions needed to improve the system. The first “yes, but...” relates to concerns about significant predicted UDEs that could impact one or more stakeholders if the agreed injections are implemented. The second “yes, but...” relates to concerns about significant implementation obstacles that must be overcome to implement the agreed injections. Frequently, these two types of concerns or reservations are not dealt with or confused during the analysis resulting in significant rework later or even project failure.
9. Not agreeing on what the prime measurements will be that must be implemented to validate whether the gap in goal units (e.g., between demand and supply) is really closing and the secondary measurements to validate whether each stakeholder is able to make their agreed contribution.
To ensure that organizations can get all the stakeholders together to do a TOC analysis on their “system” can get the best possible start by not making any of the mistakes listed above (especially when in most cases we will not get more than one attempt at it), a new TOC TP Roadmap was needed.
As a result, a new simplified TOC TP Roadmap was designed (see Fig. 16-3) to address each of these nine problems in a way that would rebuild trust and ensure the active contribution of all stakeholders and which can be completed (with an experienced TOC facilitator) in only five days (one day for getting agreement on each of the five change questions provided previously in Steps 1–5).
The next section provides a detailed example of how the new simplified TOC TP analysis process was used in the five-day workshop to get full agreement on the necessary and sufficient changes that must be implemented by the various stakeholders (to help close the gap) and in what sequence they have to be done.
Detailed Case Study: Analysis on Solid Waste Management in City A
This section provides an overview of how the simplified 5-Day Constraint Analysis Process was tested in the first cities (A and B) as well as providing a summary of the outcomes achieved and generic lessons learned from the application of this process with other cities.
FIGURE 16-3 Barnard’s new simplified TOC analysis roadmap.
FIGURE 16-4 Typical buildup of solid waste due to service delivery gap in informal areas.
Current Reality within the Management of Solid Waste in City A
In most African cities, local governments are responsible for ensuring that garbage (solid waste) is collected, transported, and disposed of in a safe and environmentally friendly manner. Common practice is for private contractors to collect waste from private businesses and households