Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [475]
Layer 1—achieving agreement on the problem.
Layer 2—achieving agreement on the direction of the solution.
Layer 3—achieving agreement on the solution (that it will bring the desired outcome).
The other two layers will be introduced after the section of NBRs and obstacles:
Layer 4—achieving agreement that there are no negative effects.
Layer 5—achieving agreement that we can overcome implementation obstacles.
The problem is presented by the Cloud.
The direction is accepting the other side’s tactic and breaking the Cloud on my side.
The desired outcome is checked in Step 6—the injection that breaks the C-D′ side by replacing D′ supports the achievement of C and does not hurt the achievement of B.
In the actual communication, we do not have to systematically follow the flow of the layers. We have to be flexible to suit the preference of the other side. The process should be based on a face-to-face meeting. It is not recommended to try to sort out such problems using email.
Come to the meeting and say:
We have a difference of opinions on the issue of . . .
I have been thinking about it and I would like to work with you on finding a workable solution.
You want D and I want D′. These two are not compatible. I suggest we go with your D but we need to ensure that my C is taken care of as well. Do you have any suggestion how we can take care of it?
If the other side comes with any suggestions, you can check them against the potential injections that you have in mind to break the Cloud. If the suggested idea is close enough, you can agree on the solution. If not, continue in search for an amicable solution. Given that you are willing to contemplate suggested injections to your side of the Cloud, this discussion should be amicable and should end on a positive note8.
Reducing Fire Fighting
Managers have a huge impact on the performance of their systems. They need time and stamina to deal with improvements. Their time should be exploited. The opposite of exploitation is waste. One of the common causes for waste of time and disruption to the managerial process is known as fire fighting. In this section, we show how to use the Cloud method to address fire fighting and to improve the system to prevent such fires from reoccurring.
Step 1: Identify the type of problem.
Fire fighting is a common headache for managers. Irrespective of their own plans or issues that they are expected to attend to, they are confronted by a sudden unexpected problem—a fire—that they are expected to solve immediately.
The manager is sitting in his office and then comes a knock at the door. A lieutenant (someone who reports to the manager) enters and says, “Boss, we have a problem.” What he really means is, “Boss, there is a problem and I need you to sort it out now, otherwise something unpleasant will happen to your area of responsibility.”
The nature of such a problem is that the boss has to stop everything and sort out the problem. Fire-fighting problems cause managers to do jobs and tasks that were supposed to be taken care of by their subordinates or not supposed to happen. That leads to the loss of valuable time and energy of management.
Addressing the fire-fighting problems in a systematic way—using the Cloud method—helps the manager to become more effective, less interrupted, and helps him to upgrade his subordinates’ skills and run his area more effectively.
Please note that the name may be a bit misleading. The method that we are about to suggest is not how to solve the fire-fighting problem itself. Fires are happening and the manager must find an immediate way to put the fires out. The idea is to use the incident of the fire for finding ways to prevent them from happening repeatedly. Therefore, a post-event analysis of the conflict is a conceptual one—what actions could have prevented the need of the manager to be sorting out the situation? Why couldn’t the people