Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [455]
It may also be worth investigating whether the conventional sequenced use of TP tools should be followed “blindly.” While Dettmer (2007) promotes sequenced use of the TP tools, Schragenheim (1999) advocates a freer form of diagramming using the principles of the TP logic without confining it to specific diagrams. In addition, the TP tools can also be used individually to improve performance in a variety of situations, while many different combinations of TP tools used in different orders have been found to be effective, as reported in the literature (see Tables 23-1 and 23-2). It could be helpful to identify the circumstances in which particular combinations or sequences may be most effective.
Ronen (2005) has issued the challenge to TOC researchers to confirm and improve TOC methods and apply academic rigor to TOC-related research and research on TOC. In this chapter, we have drawn on our classificatory examination of the philosophical underpinnings of the TOC TP and their relationship to different phases of problem solving (Davies et al., 2005) to show how such tools and methods purposefully attend to different issues and surface different insights, using different kinds of information sourced in different ways. We have shown how the choice and use of a TOC TP tool reflects, in essence, a deliberate attempt to represent, frame, or model a problem situation in a certain way, each representation being used with specific intent, thereby highlighting certain aspects while downplaying or ignoring other aspects. These matters are reflections not only of what the tool or method is intended to do, but what it assumes to exist—its ontological base—and the nature of what is represented or modeled, with what kind of information; that is, its epistemology. Consequently, we also see value in research that embraces such philosophical and methodological foundations to consider future developments of TOC methodology that may occur (1) via evolution of new tools, for example, new TOC TP; (2) via those tools that have yet to reach the peer-reviewed public domain, such as the S&T trees7; or (3) via the development of new application areas. Such research would need to embody the academic rigor necessary to build the academic stature of TOC.
We also see value in research that addresses shortcomings of the TP, as for example, the surfacing, representation, and definition of feedback. In addition, research that targets new classes of problems and applications would be welcome, as would research to address matters of practicability and ease of use. Related research that seeks to aid reflection and learning about TOC methods-in-use, reasons for success or failure, etc. would prove useful for practitioners and underpin longitudinal work on the effectiveness of TOC tools and methods. Similarly, research that explores the psychological and technical barriers to the use of TOC TP tools would not only benefit practitioners, but also contribute to the development of strategies and resources for teaching TP in the TOC for Education8 program. Finally, given such an extensive agenda, there is a related need to coordinate such research efforts if they are to add to the TOC body of knowledge.
The classificatory mapping of the various TOC frames, models, 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, not only in nature, but also in terms of insights generated about the problem. As stated elsewhere (Davies et al., 2005), the recommended pragmatic adoption of