Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [324]
Agreement on “Why Change?” is achieved by identifying the current and future gaps (between the demand—tons of solid waste created everyday by citizens and businesses—versus the supply—tons of solid waste actually collected and disposed of) and getting each stakeholder to share their view of the negative consequences on all stakeholders if the gap is not closed soon. Figure 16-6 shows an example of what the current and future gaps (based on expected growth in population of the city) looks like. Typical “consequences of not closing this gap” include disease, increased demand on already stretched health services, environmental time bombs, etc.
FIGURE 16-6 Current and future gaps of waste created versus collected in City A.
Before moving to the next question (What to Change to) stakeholders are then asked to identify the UDEs that make it difficult for them to contribute to closing the gap (e.g., either by reducing the tons of waste created or by increasing the tons of waste collected) and to share what initiatives have been put in place in the past to deal with these problems. Of course, the fact that the UDEs still exist means that these past initiatives were not successful or, at most, were partially successful. Table 16-2 shows an example of the typical UDEs raised by stakeholders, what the common belief is on the root causes of these UDEs, and the traditional solutions that have not been effective at removing these UDEs.
Getting stakeholders to agree that the past “solutions” such as more budget or more education have not made a significant impact on closing the gap is an important step before moving to “What to Change to”; otherwise, there is a risk that previous assumptions of root causes and solutions will simply be tabled again.
Day 1 ends with each of the stakeholders presenting their list of UDEs and why they are “undesirable” based on their impact on the rest of the system.
TABLE 16-2 Conventional Way to Deal with UDEs in Waste Management in African Cities
Step 2—Getting Agreement on What to Change?
Day 2 starts with the TOC expert facilitator introducing the TOC definition of a problem not only as a gap between reality and expectation, but as a set of unresolved conflicts related to closing the gap. An example of a common UDE such as high inventory in a retailer can be used to get stakeholders to experience the process of verbalizing the symptomatic conflict for the one having to deal with the UDE (e.g., Sales under pressure to reduce prices to get rid of the inventory) and verbalizing the systemic conflict for the one being blamed for the UDE (e.g., Purchasing under pressure to continue to buy large quantities to secure volume discount).
Each of the stakeholders then selects the three UDEs they think contribute most to the current gap and then work in their group to verbalize their symptomatic and systemic conflicts. Once completed, a representative of each stakeholder presents it to the whole group. We have found that this dual cloud approach is not only an effective way to verbalize the “real problem,” but it also forces each stakeholder to look at their problem (their list of UDEs) from the view of the one they are currently blaming (i.e., they can show understanding for the conflict in which the one being blamed is stuck). This approach plays a critical part in rebuilding the trust between the stakeholders.
For City A, there were four stakeholders (City Council, CBEs, contractors, and residents). Figures 16-7 and 16-8 list the four sets of systemic conflicts and symptomatic conflicts for each of these stakeholders. Note that the [D] actions in the systemic conflicts are the actions being blamed for causing the UDEs in the first place while the [D] actions in the symptomatic conflicts are the actions the specific stakeholder feels most pressure to take to deal with their UDEs. In the case