Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [478]
Step 6: Construct a solution.
The purpose of using the Cloud method for the fire-fighting problems is the desire to exploit the management time better by removing the disruption caused by these problems. Therefore, we want to find a good and permanent solution to the problem, and for that we need to decide which arrow is better to break.
Ideally, we do not want to choose a solution that will violate the procedure. If we break the C-D′, this means throwing out the existing procedure.9 This will be like “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” The solution has to be a combined injection that addresses three arrows at the same time: B-D, C-D′, and D-D′.
In the example, the Customer Service Manager was forced to put out the fire. This is the first priority. In such situations, it is too late to find a win-win solution. The manager has to make a decision on the spot. In the example, the manager decided to call the customer himself. As such, B was salvaged but the customer may have been unhappy, which means that C could have been endangered. We do not want to pass judgment on the manager’s decision, we just want to learn from it what can be done systematically to prevent it from reoccurring. If we allow someone other than the Customer Account Manager to call, it means we break C-D′. If we do not allow the Shipping Clerk to always call, then we break B-D.
If one action or one injection breaks both B-D and C-D′, then it means that the injection also breaks at least one of the assumptions underlying D-D′; in this case, it breaks the assumption that the procedure is rigid and must be adhered to no matter what the circumstances. The injection also challenges the perception that the procedure is comprehensive and covers all possible scenarios.
The direction for addressing fire-fighting situations (using the Cloud method) is to integrate the emergency solutions into the existing procedures. This direction stems from the appreciation that good ideas are invented and used in emergencies but are not accepted for regular times. As such, these ideas stay as the “assets” of the individuals and do not become a part of the organization’s expertise.
Conclusion: Develop the solution by examining the actions used in emergencies, upgrade and formalize the actions so that they support both needs of the Cloud, and integrate them into the existing procedures.
In the example, the injection is the suggested amendment to the procedure:
Whenever on-time shipment is at risk from inadequate delivery location information and the Customer Account Manager is not available, then the Shipping Clerk has the authority to contact the customer about this information.
Check for win-win:
This amendment sorts out the specific situation of this fire problem. The Shipping Clerk can call the customer and the details are obtained. The customer will get the order on time. B is protected. But what about C? What about the assumption that the customer will be irritated if someone other than the Customer Account Manager approaches them? For that, we have to ensure that the customer is made aware in advance about this change to the procedure through explaining that this action will be done with the view of protecting the interest of the customer and will be used only in rare cases. The customer should accept that.
Step 7: Communicate the solution.
There are two major steps in communicating the solution—getting the consensus with the relevant people and formally making the amendments to the procedures. The second part has to be done according to the company’s way of making changes to the procedures. Let us start with getting the consensus. There are at least three parties involved in the solution for the fire-fighting case:
1. The manager who is prompted to put out the fire—the manager has the desire and stamina to sort out the problem as he or she is interrupted by the problem and suffers the consequences. As such, the manager should look for the views of the other parties and incorporate them in