Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [456]
Our reviews of the TP literature show that seldom are the TP tools used in isolation. Certainly, for complex problems, there is evidence that several tools may be used as problem-solving intervention moves through diagnosis to the implementation phase. Such multi-method use is in keeping with the findings of analysis using the M-B classificatory framework, where we recognize that TOC methods can be used as complements to broaden or heighten the appreciation phase of intervention, or to complement analysis and assessment or evaluation with a stronger action or implementation phase.
Indeed, when the full set of TOC tools and methods discussed are mapped to the M-B framework (see Tables 23-5 and 23-6), we note how TOC methods comprise a comprehensive multi-method approach, and can be regarded as a methodological set, a multi-methodological approach, a meta-methodology, or a meta-framework. We also see TOC and the TP tools as offering a complementarity that others have sought through the development of multi-method and multi-methodological approaches combining hard and soft OR methodologies and methods (Davies et al., 2005).
TOC can be described as a methodology that offers methods that embrace the whole range of activities or phases from problem identification and representation, the setting of appropriate objectives, generation and evaluation of alternatives, through to implementation. In forming this view, it has been instructive to surface and clarify the various activities embraced by TOC (see Table 23-6), as well as the nature of the philosophical assumptions, ontological and epistemological, that underpin the various methods and tools that make up TOC (see Table 23-7).
As previously noted, various authors have identified elements additional to the familiar TOC questions of What to Change?, To What to Change?, and How to Change? Research is needed to explore further all phases of problem-solving that contribute to improvement in organizations, to go beyond the What to Change?, To What to Change?, and How to Change? questions and phases, and to extend these questions to include and begin with Why Change? and to follow them with How to Sustain the Change? and How to Establish a Process of Ongoing Improvement (POOGI)? Articles defining these elements and logically connecting them as a system for improvement would be of value. These questions are, of course, preceded by questions relating to: What the System is, What the System Goal is, and How Progress Toward the Goal will be Measured.
As such, our analysis has helped clarify the potential supplementary or complementary role of the TP tools in relation to traditional OR/MS methodologies and methods. In a general sense, we have commented on the seeming equivalence between TOC TP and soft OR methodologies like SSM. In particular, we have noted the equivalent roles filled by rich pictures within SSM and the CRT within Dettmer’s (2003) broader use of the OODA process for strategy development. As such, there is much to be gained from reconceptualizing TOC and the TOC TP as being within the broader domain of problem-solving methodologies such as OR/MS, or within the specific domain of soft OR, not just as an academic discipline worthy of study, but as a meta-methodology that offers a set of methods for use alongside traditional OR/MS methods and other PSMs.
TOC methods have yet to be fully understood or endorsed by the OR/MS community. Similarly, we suggest that TOC methods have yet to be fully understood by the TOC community, in terms of their philosophical underpinning, their systemic nature as a multi-methodological set, and their multi-methodological use with other OR/MS and systems methodologies. The TOC community has yet to identify with the OR/MS and other kindred communities. Yet TOC embraces and can be embraced by OR/MS and soft OR. A next step