Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [468]
Diagonal check: [D′] jeopardizes [B] because if this decision is taken it will jeopardize the need B as Bill will not release Mary to perform her project tasks unless he meets with the project manager. Yet, to clearly express that D-D′ are in a direct conflict we suggest to write in D′: “Do not approach Bill on this matter.”
Read the Cloud again to ensure it is logically sound. Now we have the upgraded Cloud as shown in Fig. 24-2.
Step 5. Surface the assumptions that cause the conflicting tactics (actions and decisions). To better understand the conflict/dilemma and as a prerequisite for finding a solution, one should look for the reasoning behind the logical statements (of the arrows) and especially those that are leading to the conflicting entities of D and D′. The explanations behind the arrows state clearly why each of the boxes of the Cloud is absolutely necessary. In TOC terminology, we call them underlying assumptions. The way to surface them is by checking:
In order to have . . . (tip of the arrow), I must . . . (base of the arrow), because . . . Everything we state after the “because” is an assumption.
This is used for surfacing the horizontal arrows: A→B, A→C, B→D, and C→D′.
Please avoid repeating what is already stated by the existence of the arrow. Stating that in order to have C we must take action D′ because the action D′ is the only way to achieve C does not add any more understanding. Assumptions that explain only one part of the arrow also do not help the understanding. The assumption should establish the direct causal connection between the two parts of the arrow. Check that some of the words of the assumption refer to one box and some words refer to the other box.
Example:
B→D:
In order for me (the project manager) to have secured resources (especially Mary) I must see Bill myself because . . .
[B-D I]: Bill controls what Mary works on. This statement causally connects Bill to Mary.
[B-D 2]: Bill is blocking Mary from completing my project tasks. As far as I know, Bill does not release Mary from her daily duties to perform tasks assigned to her according to our project plan.
[B-D 3]: Bill needs to be approached personally to get his collaboration on sharing his resources. This statement fits the syntax of an assumption as it explains the causal connection between B and D. It connects Bill and his “conditions” for releasing his people. Yet, the assumption is a bit one-sided and contains slightly negative views about the person involved. This statement can be reverbalized as: Bill usually wants to be consulted before releasing his resources.
C←D′:
In order to have respect for my position as the chosen project manager, I should not approach Bill because . . .
[C-D′ I]: Yielding to local politics undermines my position.
[C-D′ 2]: Bill is not my boss, sponsor, or a customer of the project. (As Bill is not a part of the project community, approaching him will just weaken my position as the project manager and will be a loss of face.)
Surfacing assumption underlying D-D′:
These assumptions have to state clearly the reasons for the existence of the conflict. They have to explain why the two tactics stated in D and D′ are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist. They have to explain why the conflict cannot be resolved and what is causing the conflict to exist.
The statements that can help in surfacing the D-D′ assumptions are:
D and D′ are in conflict because . . . or,
I cannot resolve this conflict because . . . .
The logical arguments explaining the existence of the conflict can reveal different mind-sets, organizational behaviors, policies, or procedures that drive opposing actions or decisions. It can reveal a shortage of something in common (like resources) and it can highlight a lack of mutual appreciation or confidence.
Example: D-D′—See Bill myself is in conflict with Do not approach Bill at all because . . .
[D-D′ 1]: There is no procedure in the company that addresses a clash between a project assignment and routine departmental work of resources.