Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [330]
There Really Are Similar Types of Core Conflicts and Constraints for the Same Type of System
The expectation after the first workshop with City A was that we would find very similar, if not identical, core conflicts and constraints elsewhere because the same (erroneous) rules were used to manage these systems. This expectation was validated as the process was rolled out to the other three cities. The only observed deviation is when additional stakeholders (e.g., politicians) are introduced. This adds one more core conflict (for that stakeholder) that needs to be broken. We will soon get to a point where “analysis/discovery” becomes more of a “validation” against known causes and solutions. Already, after the second workshop (when we proved that the same generic core conflicts existed), I could hand over the facilitation to a cofacilitator, something that would not be possible so quickly if a “new discovery” was needed each time.
It Is Possible to Train-the-Trainer with the New Simplified TOC Process
One of the major concerns after the first successful five-day workshop in City A was whether someone else could take over the facilitation, especially someone without years of TOC experience. The realization, therefore, that we really did identify generic core conflicts at City A was very good news, since the scalability of this type of initiative is to a large extent governed by the availability of experienced TOC experts (that can identify new patterns) that are also good facilitators—a resource that is generally quite scarce. By showing that the major emphasis will move to validation rather than analysis and discovery, it meant that good facilitators could be trained relatively quickly through “train-the-trainer” programs especially if we can provide such facilitators with detailed Strategy & Tactic trees. Nevertheless, working in the multi-stakeholder environment of the public sector requires facilitators who are sensitive and understand and accept the specific dynamics and decision-making structures.
Successful Implementation Requires Follow-Up and Follow-Through
In order to be sustainable, Capacity Building on the municipal level requires (like any important change initiative) active follow-up (prioritization and monitoring progress) and follow-through (identifying and overcoming implementation obstacles) by both stakeholder representatives and for example the TOC experts. This process should go together with enhancing the national financial institutions’ capacities to identify and prioritize investments in basic infrastructure that also follow constraint oriented thinking. The same is true for the national development plans. We also learned that the change management process needed to transform a dysfunctional system into a functional system can take longer than the normal term of the local governments’ leaders. This implies risks of discontinuity that can even stop the process. The multi-stakeholder steering committees that have been established in the participating cities have been trained in TOC thinking and are supported by local TOC junior experts capacitated during the project. They are an important element that contributes to securing long-term sustainability of the process. These Steering Committees are crucial and should be constituted by “self-selection” by all participating stakeholders at the end of the 5-Day Constraint Analysis Workshop. This committee should be responsible for prioritization and monitoring progress (i.e. serve as the Program Audit Committee), institutionalizing the new changes and help contributing stakeholders identify and overcome implementation obstacles. Through these projects, it has also been shown that S&T can be used as an effective internal and external auditing tool and for testing key