Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [326]
Step 4—Getting Agreement on How to Cause the Change?
Step 4 (typically done on Day 4) deals with the identification of the two types of “Yes, but...” reservations—reservations on why the new injections or solutions might hurt one or more of the stakeholders (predicted undesirable effects or PUDEs) or why it might be too difficult to implement (implementation obstacles or OBSs).
FIGURE 16-10 Service provider’s core conflict, conflict, assumptions, and injections.
In the traditional TOC TP, the Type 1 “Yes, but…” will be identified and shown in the Future Reality Tree (FRT) process that uses sufficiency logic to show the cause-effect of how each of the injections should result in the desired outcomes (the desired effects or DEs) as well as what PUDEs these injections can cause if the injections are implemented as they were originally defined in Step 3. Part of the process to build an FRT is, therefore, to identify these PUDEs as well as the additional requirements (that would be added to the main injection) to prevent these PUDEs.
In the traditional TOC TP, the Type 2 “Yes, but...” reservations are identified in the Prerequisite Tree (PRT) process that uses necessity logic to show the necessary conditions for achieving the successful implementation of the main injections. To identify these necessary conditions, the TOC expert and group of stakeholders tried to identify likely obstacles (OBSs) and how to overcome these with intermediate objectives (IOs); these will serve as implementation milestones.
To simplify these processes without jeopardizing the completeness of the analysis, a new simplified process (done in groups) was developed to get each stakeholder to help contribute “Yes, but...” reservations and suggestions on how to prevent or overcome these. All stakeholders are asked to participate in this process with the justification that the more of the “Yes, but...” reservations we can identify and proactively prevent during the analysis phase, the less surprises we will get in the implementation and therefore the higher the probability of success.
FIGURE 16-11 Four injections to break the four core conflicts for City A’s SWM stakeholders.
To obtain the contribution of all stakeholders, they are divided into cross-functional groups. The members of each group are then encouraged to identify all the stakeholders that can be affected negatively or whose help will be required for the implementation. For each of these stakeholders, participants are then encouraged to contribute as many PUDEs of the planned changes and how these can be prevented (to ensure new solutions are really winwin) as well as contribute as many potential OBSs and how to overcome these (adding additional injections or additional conditions to already agreed injections). Figure 16-12 shows the new simplified framework to enable participants to identify and overcome both of the “Yes, but…” reservations in a single step.
The answer to the question “How to Cause the Change?” is provided by the final implementation plan, where stakeholders help to sequence all the inputs from Steps 3 and 4 initially into a simple implementation roadmap showing the sequence and responsibilities for implementing the major injections. They then translate this high-level roadmap into a detailed S&T tree that will be used for validating the analysis and solutions (to close the gap and keep it closed) with other stakeholders and other levels as well as for planning and monitoring the execution.
FIGURE 16-12 New simplified framework to enable participants to identify and overcome “Yes, but…” reservations.
Step 5—Getting Agreement on How to Measure the Change and Achieve a POOGI?
The last day was scheduled for agreeing on exactly what changes each stakeholder will make or contribute (especially those that must be implemented in the next three to six months), how the impact of these changes or contributions can be measured, and what additional capacity building and/or