Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [490]
Step 5: Check on the “backbone” from bottom up where the positive injection turns into a possible negative effect.
The structure of the NBR is provided in Fig. 24-16a.
Step 6: Develop a supporting injection to trim the negative outcome and insert it into the diagram.
Step 7: Check that the supporting injection removes the negative outcome.
The outcome of the NBR process is shown in Fig. 24-16b.
Example: Continuation of the fire-fighting story discussed in the section on Clouds.
The Customer Service Manager came with an amendment to the procedure that states that whenever shipment on time is at risk from inadequate delivery location information and the Customer Account Manager is not available, then Shipping Clerk has the authority to contact the customer about this information.
FIGURE 24-16 The negative branch and solution structure.
The manager presented the problem and the proposed injection to his team. The Customer Account Manager who was involved in this incident raised his reservation.
“Yes, but . . . if we adopt this amendment, the customer will perceive me (the Customer Account Manager) as irresponsible and unprofessional.”
Step 2: Surface logical arguments for the possible negative.
If [Injection] then [The customer will perceive the Customer Account Manager as irresponsible and unprofessional] because . . .
1. The customer will think that the Customer Account Manager did not pass on all necessary information.
2. The Shipping Clerk will tell the customer that they do not have the delivery information.
3. The customer feels that the Customer Account Manager covered all these details.
Step 3: Build the backbone with entities that will happen.
Entities [1] and [2] will happen as an outcome of the injection and hence they belong to the “backbone.” Entity [2] will cause [1] and [1] will cause the negative outcome. The logical sequence of cause-and-effect is: [Injection]→ [2]→[1]→ [Negative outcome].
Step 4: Position existing entities on the side of the backbone.
Entity [3] exists in the current reality and therefore it is a supporting assumption for the causality explaining how entity [2] leads to entity [1].
It reads: IF [2] AND [3] THEN [I].
IF [the Shipping Clerk tells the customer that they do not have the delivery information] AND [The customer feels that these details were covered by the Customer Account Manager] THEN [the customer will think that the Customer Account Manager did not pass on all this information].
Step 5: Check where on the backbone it turns into negative.
The backbone turns negative in entity [1]. Entity [2] this is what is expected to be done by the Shipping Clerk when such situation arises. However, this causes [1] the customer will have the wrong perception about the Customer Account Manager and that is already negative for him.
Step 6: Develop the supporting injection to trim the negative outcome.
Supporting Injection:
The Shipping Clerk tells the customer that in order to provide the quickest, best service possible they would like to re-check the delivery information.
Step 7: Check that the supporting injection removes the negative outcome.
“The Shipping Clerk tells the customer that in order to provide the quickest, best service possible they would like to re-check the delivery information” is an action that can trim the negative outcome.
The negative branch for the Customer Account Manager with the trimming injection is provided in Fig. 24-17.
However, it still may not be that great as the customer may be caught by surprise by the unexpected call and may react in an unpleasant way.
An alternative supporting injection could be:
The customer is advised in advance that on rare occasions, when the shipping instructions are not clear and the Customer Account Manager is not available (sometimes