Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [450]
Role for TOC Academics/Researchers
We may infer from the broader discussion of the literature, and prior comments, that there is a need for TOC academics and researchers to remain connected with practice, while building academic credibility through rigorous research. In this role, we may suggest that TOC academics should aim:
to link, interpret, and comment on TOC knowledge and practice from an objective perspective;
to further develop TOC knowledge in ways that embed TOC into extant academic disciplinary knowledge and leverage off those other disciplines;
to enhance the academic qualities of TOC knowledge, and the status of TOC in academia; and
to begin a dialog with TOC practitioners on these matters, in the hope that they will find such dialog valuable and useful, as they continually reflect on their practice as part of their own continuous improvement processes.
The next section provides a first step in satisfying these aims, in as much as it seeks to summarize, reinterpret, and build our understanding of the nature of the TOC TP, and TOC as a methodology.
The Nature and Use of the TOC Thinking Processes Revisited
Here, we subject the TOC TP and TOC as a methodology to examination using the classificatory frameworks of Mingers and Brocklesby (1997) and Mingers (2003). As such, we heed Ronen’s (2005) call for more rigor in the TOC domain, and his call to establish the credibility of TOC, by providing an external perspective using the frameworks in a transparent and rigorous fashion. As a consequence, we also work toward Ronen’s goal to close the gap between TOC and the academic world.
In the following section, we first draw on the M-B framework (1997) to provide an alternative perspective of different TOC methods and TP tools, by clarifying their role, function, and purpose. We are then able to relate the methods and tools, and broader TOC methodology to problem content and problem-solving activity—in order to provide a basis for selective comparison with traditional methods. In the subsequent section, we seek to surface and clarify the underpinning philosophical assumptions that support TOC TP, other TOC methods, and TOC as a methodology.
Understanding the Relationship of the TOC TP to Problem-Solving Activity
In Table 23-5, following the M-B classificatory approach, we characterize a selection of the TOC TP tools used within TOC using the descriptions of each of the tools and methods, as a basis for such characterization and classification (see full set in Davies et al., 2005).
The bolding of the TP tool name reflects our view that the tool was developed and designed for purposeful use in a particular phase of the problem-solving process, while the number of “+” signs indicates the extent to which the tool was designed to meet such purposes.
In an illustrative interpretation of the characterization, we note, for example, that the mapping of EC activity to the modified M-B framework (see Table 23-5) demonstrates how the EC method can provide an effective bridge from the problematic current situation to the desired future by contributing to all phases of intervention, but not necessarily across all problem domains.
Similarly, we note that the set of tools and methods of TOC are designed in a way that they may contribute across all phases of problem-solving activity including what we refer to as action or implementation.
In addition, the tools directly target or deliver on all but one of the cells in the M-B grid (see Tables 23-5 and 23-6), namely, the appraisal and evaluation of means of critiquing, contesting, or modifying power relationships in the social domain. In particular, we indicate, by the increasing darkness of shading in Table 23-6, the relative extent to which the collective set