Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [479]
2. The person/function that raises the problem—they want to perform their jobs in a way that will acknowledge their contribution. They are blocked by a lack of authority. They do not necessarily demand more authority, but they do not want to experience the negative consequences of their inability to perform their job.
3. The person/function that represents the need that triggered the procedure—they are generally in favor of the existing procedure as it supports the objective or deliverables of their jobs. Therefore, they may not be that happy to incorporate changes to the procedures.
Here is a suggested flow for conducting the communication to the above parties:
1. Preparation—Write down the Cloud and assumptions. Ensure that for A-B and AC you have strong and agreeable assumptions, for B-D and C-D′ you have fortifying assumptions as well as assumptions that should be challenged (at least one of each), and that you have D-D′ assumptions. Write down the amendment to the procedure you want to propose. You do not necessarily want to present your work. It may better to talk through it without showing diagrams and using TOC terminology (at least at the early stages of using TOC for managing people).
2. Meeting with the person (Shipping Clerk) who has raised the problem:
Present the incident causing the fire.
Present the entities of the Cloud following the sequence. A→B→D and then A→C→D′.
The sequence is based on the fact that A is commonly accepted. Then, we move to presenting B and D to radiate to the Shipping Clerk that his views are accounted and understood. Thereafter, we move to present the system view C and D′.
Get acceptance for the logic and wording. Make notes for yourself if there are comments that should be incorporated in the Cloud.
Ask the person for his or her ideas for permanently solving the problem.
If the suggestion is close to your solution, acknowledge and thank the person for the contribution. If it is different, check if it is a win-win, and if it is better than the one you thought about, then you can accept it. Otherwise, propose your solution and listen to remarks and reservations. The objective is to come up with a consolidated view for both of you.
3. Meeting with the key person (Customer Account Manager) associated with the procedure:
Present the incident causing the fire.
Present the entities of the Cloud following the sequence: A→ C→D′ and then A→B→D.
The sequence is different as compared to the communication to the Shipping Clerk. We start with the A, and then we move to the views of the system that are represented by the Customer Account Manager C and D′. Then we move to present the views of the Shipping Clerk B and D.
Get acceptance for the logic and wording. Make notes for yourself if there are comments that should be incorporated in the Cloud.
Present the suggested amendment to the procedure and listen to reservations.
If the person agrees, then you are done. Otherwise,
If the person raises negative implications of the amendment, ask for suggestions for trimming the negative and consider incorporating them in the amendment.
If the person comes up with an alternative idea and it is a good one, you may adopt it.
Warning: This is one problem of many that exist in the environment. Do not allow it to become a major and complex initiative. We need simple, practical, and rapid solutions that do not generate new problems. The check for win-win and trimming negative implications will generate good enough solutions.
We can conclude that the Fire-Fighting Cloud is probably the best tool managers can have in systematically sorting out problems that block the smooth operation of the areas under their responsibility.
Dealing with the Undesirable Effects (UDEs)—the UDE Cloud
The UDE
Before we move to the UDE Cloud, let’s look at a UDE itself.
The UDE is a cornerstone in the full analytical work for developing any functional or strategic solution the TOC way.10 It is