Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [399]
It might seem like putting together a list of criteria for a good solution is just a hassle. Why not simply discuss each solution to judge its merit? Many times putting this list together is indeed an “overachievement,” where an intuitive discussion would suffice. But sometimes taking this extra step can make or break our problem solving. It is easy to imagine scenarios involving, well, human nature: If we start comparing solutions, the discussion bears the risk of becoming personal (and emotional) fairly quickly (“mine is bigger than yours!”—sound familiar?). The more we compare and judge, the harder each participant will hold on to and fight for their solution, which makes it much harder to maintain a civil discussion, let alone reach a consensus. A list of good criteria upon which everyone agrees in advance before reviewing any of the solutions serves as a logical fencepost to which we can all refer back. Looking at each solution alongside the list of criteria will help us conduct a practical, rather than personal, discussion. This way we hope that we can let go of the directions that are less desirable and get consensus on one direction. Once we are in agreement on which direction we should take, Layer 3 is peeled away and we can move on.
Layer 4. Disagreeing on the details of the solution
It’s important to peel away Layer 3 (the direction for solution) and Layer 4 (the details of the solution) separately when we are facing a change on a large scale that probably has more than one direction for solution and in which there are many details involved in each direction. With smaller, simpler changes, the direction and the details tend to merge into one discussion about the solution, and trying to keep them separate becomes superficial.
In this Layer we may hear people say, “Your solution is not good enough,” “It does not address the entire problem,” “This is a terrible solution! It doesn’t cover x, y, or z.” People agree to our direction for a solution, but claim the solution is not yet complete; it does not achieve all the desired results. Instead of spelling the doom of our project, such objections actually enable us to check whether we have constructed a comprehensive solution to the problem or we have missed something. We should swallow our resentment toward the other party for poking holes in our precious solution, and instead evaluate their comments as openly (and neutrally) as possible. If their concern is not valid, we should further explain our solution until they see that it is designed to achieve the benefit they pointed out. And if they were right, we should thank them for opening our eyes at this early stage and alter our solution in accordance with their suggestions.
What if we fail to resolve the other party’s issues? If it seems that our plan will fail to achieve a significant benefit, we have to be open enough to re-evaluate our solution and see if it is as good as we thought it was. Maybe we should go back to Layer 3 and choose a different direction for the solution. If we want the other side to evaluate the merit of our suggested change objectively, then we, too, must be objective about it, not blinded by our enthusiasm or sense of ownership.
The other party may bring up more than one desired outcome they suspect is missing. If we are determined to get the other party’s full collaboration (and get the most out of the change), we should listen to what they have to say, determine which significant benefits are missing, and discuss how to modify the change in order to achieve these outcomes as well. One way