• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 2734 0

different from one another. In Layer 5, we have not yet agreed that the solution about which we are talking is a good solution. We are still debating about whether it has negative ramifications. In Layer 6, we have already agreed that this is a good solution and we are contemplating how to implement it. People tend to confuse these two Layers more than they confuse any of the others, which results in an ineffective bouncing between objections and a frustrating delay in the buy-in effort. The logical order in which to address these two layers is clear: There is no sense discussing obstacles in the implementation before we agree that this is a change we wish to implement. So, once we go into the “Yes, but…” phase, we need to tune our ears to identify to which Layer the objection belongs, agree with the other party to first address all the negative ramifications, and only then talk about obstacles to the implementation. The way to distinguish between the two types of “Yes, but…” is to ask ourselves, “Is this something that might happen if we implement the change?” (negative ramification), or “Is this blocking me from achieving the change?” (obstacle).

Needless to say, if the other party doesn’t believe that our solution is practical, then there is little chance that they will give us their blessing, so we have no choice but to address all of the obstacles they bring up. As in Layer 5, we have the option between cursing them silently for being a pain or thanking them for making us plan better and face less unpleasant surprises once we go into action. Usually the bigger the change, the more obstacles we face. And once the obstacles start to mount, we need to sort them out—which obstacles can be tackled in parallel and which have to be dealt with in sequence. The TOC tools that might help at this stage are the Prerequisite Tree (PRT) or, in large projects, the Strategy and Tactic Tree (S&T).

Layer 7: Disagreement on the details of the implementation

As in the case of Layers 3 (direction for solution) and 4 (details of the solution), Layers 6 (obstacles to the implementation) and 7 (details of implementation) should be addressed separately when planning large-scale changes. In small changes, they tend to merge into one Layer that covers our attempt to reach an agreement on the implementation plan. At Layer 7, we discuss and get consensus on the little details: schedules, due dates, assigning roles and responsibilities, budget, resources, etc.

Deciding “who does what” is something we all do fairly well. However, we should not neglect the “why.” Explaining the logic behind our decisions is not only helpful in convincing people that our plans make sense, it also facilitates high performance. We can be as nitty-gritty as we possibly can, detailing exactly what to do where and when, but reality may not turn out the way we expect it to and these details might be worthless. Change holds considerable uncertainty and the effective way to handle it is not by presenting tiny specifications but by providing the “why.” If people understand why we want them to do something, what each step is aimed to achieve, and why they need to do it before moving to the next step, they will be in a much better position to improvise successfully when reality doesn’t turn out the way we expected it to. The TOC tool that may be helpful in conveying the “why” of the various Implementation steps is the Transition Tree (TRT). Delegating tasks in this way tends to motivate people, which also has a positive impact on their willingness to collaborate.

Layer 8: You know the solution holds risk

As we go through Layers 6 (obstacles to the implementation) and 7 (details of the implementation), the other party may become aware of possible risks that we take if we decide to go ahead with the change. Wary Will realizes that we want him to climb up a shaky ladder and he immediately responds, “I don’t know about that, I might break a leg.” As long as the other party believes the risk is not worth it, we are in trouble. It is up to us to discuss each risk