Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [447]
We note the similar importance of system goals or purpose in the effective use of the 5FS approach, the EC process, and more generally within TOC of identifying What to Change to? We also note the underpinning assumption in the development of GEC that the seemingly initial different worldviews of analysts can be accommodated in a single generic cloud. These matters beg the question, notwithstanding the importance of defining the system goal, of whether the system goal can be objectively defined or whether the system goal remains an ill-defined phenomenon whose definition and description varies according to the questioner/observer.
Other Decision-Making Tools
There are many other cause-effect based tools and decision-making models available, each of which has its advantages. For example, the Theory for Inventive Problem Solving (Altshuller, 1973), known by its Russian acronym, TRIZ, provides a useful method for generating solutions to dilemmas (or contradictions), and may be usefully employed in tandem with the EC (Mann and Stratton, 2000; Dettmer, Chapter 19 this volume). Why-Because Analysis (WBA) provides an alternative method of constructing a fault analysis to root cause, and has also been used in tandem with and compared with TOC5 (Doggett, 2004; 2005; Zotov et al., 2004). In addition, process mapping has also been used to aid CRT construction, and other techniques, including Lean, quality management, and process engineering, have been found to be mutually supportive of, and certainly not mutually exclusive of TP tool use (Watson et al., 2007).
Lessons for TOC from the Literature
Issues Emerging from the TOC Literature
Ronen (2005), in his guest editorial introducing the special issue on TOC published in the Journal of Human Systems Management, bemoans TOC’s low profile in academic research journals, and offers some reasons why this may be the case:
TOC is heuristic oriented, in line with Simon’s et al. (1987) “satisficing.” Many academic journals prefer process-optimizing, quantitative approaches, while the goal of TOC is simplicity.
TOC processes are cause-effect driven. Academic journals prefer field studies or empirical data.
TOC originated in practice—not enough academics have been exposed to its full contribution.
TOC is often misperceived as a simplistic toolkit that does not need thorough research.
TOC is viewed as a cult and thus inaccessible to the academic community.
Ronen called on academics to apply academic methodologies to TOC concepts and confirm or improve its methods, and to apply academic rigor to research on TOC. More specifically, Watson et al. (2007), in their “Silver Anniversary” review of TOC, identified two common problems with TP:
The reliance on subjective interpretation of perceived reality and the qualitative nature of the subject matter makes the tools inherently unreliable, which leads to a perceived lack of reliability and validity in TP analyses.
The TP tools are criticized for not being user friendly.
These matters are outlined further in the next section.
The Nature of the TOC Literature Vis-à-Vis Other Literatures
We now comment more broadly on the nature of the TOC TP literature, its distinctiveness, and similarities and differences with the literature of other OR/MS and other problem-solving methodologies. In order for TOC to increase its visibility—and acceptability, especially within academia—there is a suggested need for TOC practitioners and academics to target publication of refereed journal articles and book chapters in edited volumes, to counterbalance the many non-refereed books and conference papers on TOC, to build that greater visibility