Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [397]
Layer 1. Disagreeing on the problem
People come from different backgrounds, have different roles, and have different agendas. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect different answers to the question of what should be improved in a given situation. As we mentioned earlier, it is rather difficult to reach an agreement on a solution unless the two (or more) parties agree on the problem first. If we approach Wary Will and say, “Watch out! There’s an alligator behind you!” and he replies, “That’s not an alligator, it’s a vulture!” then what chance do we have to convince him that climbing up the cliff is a good idea? I have heard people say that to avoid wasting time, it is better to discuss the solution right away and go back to Layer 1 only if during the discussion of the solution we realize that there is a discrepancy in our perceptions of the problem. This shortcut is risky because once we place our cards on the table and the other party objects to our solution, it will be harder to get them to admit they were wrong about the problem in the first place. It is therefore better to play our cards close to the chest to avoid giving the other party the opportunity to object until we verify that we are both on the same page, as far as the problem is concerned.
So, how can we agree on the problem? One way to go about it is to discuss openly the party’s assumptions of what the problem is. During such a discussion, we may realize that although we are tackling different problems, they are actually related. It may be that we are talking about the same problem using different terms, or that we are talking about a series of linked problems that should be addressed sequentially. Examining each party’s perceptions of the problem enables us to reach agreement on what should be addressed, at which time we can move on from this Layer. Sometimes, if we cannot reconcile the different points of view, we may resort to negotiating whose problem will be dealt with first. It might work, but it also might result in a stalemate. We may be able to preempt this situation by preparing for it.
Having different roles might mean that different people suffer from different undesirable effects that they mistakenly view as the main problem in the current situation. If we do not deal with the real core problem—the problem that is causing the various undesirable effects—we cannot fully remove those undesirable effects. That is why each TOC analysis begins with a search for the core problem that is causing the undesirable effects in the situation. The TOC thinking tools that are designed to help uncover the core problem are the three-cloud approach and the Current Reality Tree (CRT). The buy-in effort can also benefit from this type of analysis. If we can show the other party that their problems, as well as ours, are all derivatives of the same core problem, we may be able to reconcile our different points of view and get consensus on focusing our efforts on the core problem. Whether it is conveyed in a formal presentation or a systematic conversation, getting people to realize what the core problem is and how it relates to their own undesirable effects is very effective in peeling away this Layer of Resistance and enabling us to move forward.
Here again we must be cautious about blaming. We already mentioned that the people we want on board might be sensitive to the subject we are raising. When we approach them to talk about the problem, we might inadvertently