Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [368]
1. The constraint is really management/support group attention. That is, the biggest gaps in project execution times are reflected in non-modeled resources, whose time and attention are not visible in any project plan. In this case, the fewer the number of active projects (to a point), the more attention that management and support groups can give to the active projects. This will result in fewer gaps in project progress, and gaps will be of shorter durations, thus accelerating the project completion. The POOGI process focuses on a Pareto analysis of what project tasks are waiting for, and focuses on constantly improving the project planning and execution processes in a way that reduces project durations.
2. A different strategic assumption is that the biggest constraint is still caused by behaviors and capacity of one project resource group or skill set. Still, if we reduce the number of active projects so that this resource group can concentrate on a smaller number of projects, their work will progress faster, they will receive better support from other groups, and everything completes faster. The potential danger in this direction for a solution is that the organization assumes that by elevating this resource pool by adding more resources, this will increase the capacity of the organization to do more projects. If the real constraint is caused by lacking management or support group attention, then increasing the number of active projects without increasing management or support capacity will actually decrease project flow of all projects.
FIGURE 18.5 Projects S&T partial structure to four levels. (Used by permission of E. M. Goldratt 2008. Projects S&T © E. M. Goldratt.)
No matter which direction for a solution is chosen, the correct first step in deciding to exploit the constraint is to reduce the amount of active project work in progress (WIP). Therefore, you can see in Fig. 18-5, in order to achieve “Meeting Promises” shown in box 3.1.1, the first step shown below this box, 4.11.1, is “Reducing Bad Multitasking.” This slide is shown in Table 18-4.
Of particular note in slide 4.11.1 is the wording of the strategy—“Flow is the number one consideration.” Flow is measured by how many projects are completed each period. To achieve this, the tactic calls for controlling the number of active projects. Using the S&T viewer, you can view level 5 details, which call for freezing a substantial portion of the active project work. This is done before any critical chain plans are formulated or before any new software is used. This is how TOC seeks quick results.
To achieve results from the actions, the project S&T ties key elements together through a comprehensive cause-effect logic. For example, simply reducing active project work can easily result in no visible improvement. I know of an organization that cut their number of active projects in half, only to have the CEO remark that no one saw any effects. The reason is simple. All the resources were already so busy on the first 11 of their top 40 projects that no tasks on the other active projects were being worked on.
Therefore, if you view level 4 of the S&T (see Table 18-4) through the viewer referenced previously, you will see that immediately following the freezing of project work, the freed up resources are concentrated on remaining open projects, in order to speed them up. If, because of freezing projects, no resources are freed up, then the benefit of freezing is moot. This is an example of why the S&T between levels are inseparable. When an implementation team does not understand the full cause and effect of the entire process, the team and the strategy often fail.
TABLE 18-4 Projects S&T for 4.11.1 Reducing WIP
One of the most significant understandings drawn from the past few years of CCPM experience is that the key to driving benefits is not in planning projects, but in execution. Critical chain has a unique way of taking safety