Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [511]
5. The CRT is completed by establishing the cause-and-effect linkages between the core problem and the UDEs.
FIGURE 25-24 Template for UDE Clouds.
FIGURE 25-25 EC for bank UDE 13.
To What to Change
My interest is in the future because I am going to spend the rest of my life there.
—Charles F. Kettering
We will utilize a few of the TP tools to answer the question, To What to Change? The Cloud that has already been constructed is used to surface assumptions, identify those that are invalid, and define the initial injection for the solution. We will then complete the solution with the FRT and NBR.
FIGURE 25-26 EC for bank UDE 12.
FIGURE 25-27 EC for bank UDE 1.
TABLE 25-4 Converting the Bank’s Individual UDE Clouds to a Generic Cloud
FIGURE 25-28 Generic Cloud template.
FIGURE 25-29 Bank Generic Cloud based on three clouds.
Evaporating Cloud
There are three ways of dealing with difference: domination, compromise, and integration. By domination only one side gets what it wants; by compromise neither side gets what it wants; by integration we find a way by which both sides may get what they wish.
—Mary Parker Follett
Earlier in the chapter, as well as in Chapter 24, we learned how to surface assumptions and identify injections using the Cloud. Therefore, let us go directly to the bank case. The bankers used the Snowflake Approach to build their CRT and the Cloud they used was the summary Cloud (Fig. 25-22). The team examined the various necessary condition relationships, and when they reached the assumption that held D and D′ as being in contradiction with each other, they realized that they had found the key to the solution. The reason that the bank was unable to raise the pay levels of entry-level employees and raise the pay levels of existing employees was that the bank’s budget for hiring, training, and raises couldn’t be increased. Nobody at the bank had the authority to increase the total budget for hiring, training, and raises. However, the branch manager did have authority over the total budget. What would happen if they were able to shift money from hiring and training to salaries? If such a shift could enable the bank to pay new employees more, and also enable the bank to better reward existing employees, then the turnover would be reduced, and the volume (and thus the cost) of hiring and training would be reduced!
The injection the bank used to begin to develop its solution was, “The bank uses monies for hiring and initial training to raise the pay for entry position pay levels.” We now use this initial injection as the starting point for the full solution that will be detailed in the FRT.
Future Reality Tree and Negative Branch Reservation
A human being fashions his consequences as surely as he fashions his goods or his dwelling. Nothing that he says, thinks or does is without consequences.
—Norman Cousins
The FRT and the NBR are both processes that model the predicted effects of injections. The FRT is used to model the intended effects—the desired improvements—that comprise the full solution. FRTs typically contain several injections and many entities. They show the cause-and-effect model of how the injections enable the achievement of the objective of the Cloud and the opposite of (elimination of) the UDEs that were described in the CRT. The NBR is used to show how an injection would lead to undesired consequences, and then modify the idea (by modifying an injection or adding additional injections) to the degree that predicted undesirable consequences would be prevented. The guideline is to build the FRT first, and then use the NBR process to modify and solidify the solution to ensure that it is win-win-win.
The steps to construct an FRT and NBR are shown in Table 25-5.
The FRT (inclusive of the resolved NBRs) of the bank is shown in Fig. 25-30. As with the CRT, when you examine the