Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [452]
Summary Insights from Classificatory Mapping of the TOC TP
Recognizing and Understanding TOC as a Systems Meta-Methodology
The mapping of the various TOC TP tools and methods to the Mingers and M-B frameworks shows that they not only overlap or substitute for each other to some degree, in terms of purpose and underlying philosophical assumptions, but that they may also be complementary in nature. Indeed, whereas we may expect similar insights to arise from more than one method or frame, in general, there may also be new insights about the problem, and how it should be tackled, arising from each.
As a result, we suggest there will be, in most cases, no one best model, method, or methodology; and as such any implicit search for a “best-fit” model or method should be surfaced explicitly and abandoned. If so, the pragmatic adoption of what may then be a multi-method or multi-methodological approach accords with Burrell and Morgan (1979) and Brocklesby (1993) in their discussion and acceptance of the efficacy of multi-paradigm and multi-methodology development.
Seldom are any of the TOC methods and tools used in isolation. Certainly, for complex problems, several tools may be, and are often used as problem-solving intervention moves through the stages from diagnosis to implementation (Kim et al., 2008). Using the conceptualizations of the M-B framework, we recognize that TOC methods are often used as complements to broaden or heighten, for example, the appreciation phase of intervention, or to complement analysis and assessment/evaluation with a stronger action/implementation phase.
When the full set of TOC tools and methods considered here are mapped to the M-B framework (see Tables 23-5 and 23-6), we note how these methods may comprise a multi-method approach, attending to almost all phases of intervention across all dimensions of the problem domain. Consequently, they can be regarded as a methodological set. We also note the potential for further discussion of whether the broad umbrella of TOC can be regarded as a meta-methodology, a meta-framework, or a multi-methodological approach. We also note the irony in the juxtaposition of the benefits of such potential discussion, and the lack of deep understanding about TOC that prevails.
Observations—A Lack of Deep Understanding Prevails about TOC
There has been an unfortunate lacuna in the TOC literature relating to the nature of methodology and of methodological developments. Consequently, there has been an absence of the necessary base for critical reflection about methodology-in-use. Invoking Argyris and Schön’s (1974) notion of double loop learning which stresses the importance of reflection about experiences for learning to take place (Schön, 1983; Kolb, 1984), we would argue that TOC practitioners are no different from others in needing to be critically reflective about their experiences of using TOC. Such critical reflection is a necessary condition for a deeper understanding of TOC by its users.
One example of a lack of reflection, or of a shortcoming in TOC methodology, relates to the systemic nature of the TP. In particular, it relates to the minimal presence or relative absence of a critical component of systems thinking; that is, feedback and feedback loops. Whereas systems representations embodying CLDs actively search for feedback loops in the depiction of cause-effect relationships, the process by which, for example, a CRT is developed, linking problem symptoms in a chain of causal relations to the root cause, to some extent, mitigates against the identification of feedback loops.
In the building of a CRT, feedback loops tend to be added in the latter steps of the process, almost at the conclusion of building the tree. Moreover, such loops are typically labeled as “negative feedback loops” because they refer to the continuing and “negative” unwanted or desirable nature of the situation being