Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [666]
1. Results in excellent benefits.
2. Is win-win-win for all whose collaboration is needed. This is important because collaboration results in an increased probability of success, and a faster and more sustainable implementation. When it is not win-win-win, forces will erode it over time.
3. The risk associated with implementing the solution, multiplied by the corresponding damage, is not small relative to the benefits of implementing the solution. This is about comparing the level of risk with the level of impact. For example, if the risk is small and the potential level of damage is high, while the benefits are huge we need to consider carefully whether we should implement the solution.
4. It is simpler than what we do now. Why is it important? The more complicated it is, the higher the chances of disillusionment of those needing to implement or support the change. If it is complicated, we do not know if it will work (if there is a chance of implementing it successfully).
5. The sequence of implementation is such that each action or cluster of actions leads to immediate, significant results, thus enabling getting everyone on board (their collaboration).
6. Does not self-destruct. If the solution self-destructs (is not sustainable), the company can be in much worse shape than it was before the solution was implemented.
All of the VV S&T trees ensure that the constraint (the factor most limiting the ability of the organization to achieve its goal) is in management’s control—it is the rate at which the company can grow. The VV S&T trees are focused on achieving a DCE based on meeting a significant need of the clients. As a result, there is no limit to growth except the rate at which management will choose to grow. The S&T tree includes actions to ensure the constraint does not become internal (such as in production or sales) or a market constraint (the level of demand).
How the S&T Tree Relates to Other Thinking Process Tools of TOC
How does the S&T tree relate to the other tools of the TP of TOC? The S&T does not replace the Current Reality Tree (CRT)—the map of all the cause-and-effect connecting the core conflict or root cause to all the undesirable effects (UDEs) in the system—and EC (conflict resolution tool) at all. The S&T tree does include some of the elements of the CRT to show why we used a different direction of a solution than the conventional approaches. The core conflict is addressed in Level 1 of the S&T tree in the PAs. The tactic of Level 1 states that we will achieve both needs of the core conflict without a compromise. The NAs of Level 2 are the assumptions that we are invalidating underlying the core conflict. The core conflicts of the subsystems are also addressed in the lower levels of the S&T tree.
The S&T does not replace the Future Reality Tree (FRT)—the logical map connecting all the injections (solution elements) through cause-and-effect to the desirable effects (thus ensuring no UDEs of the CRT continue to occur). The S&T tree does include all of the injections that are in the FRT.
All of the assumptions in the S&T tree must be facts of life from the CRT and FRT of the system. In other words, the assumptions must be verbalized as fact based on the current cause-and-effect logic of the system. When writing an S&T tree, it is best to conduct a full TP analysis first before writing any of the S&T tree. The core conflict, CRT, and FRT are invaluable in terms of more quickly and more effectively writing an S&T tree.
The S&T tree does replace the Prerequisite Tree (PRT) because the S&T tree addresses the obstacles and how to overcome them. The S&T tree provides much more logic and content than the PRT for causing the change. Two main advantages of the S&T tree to the PRT are the ability to distinguish between the big picture and various levels of detail and the ability to ensure that chupchik (unimportant details) are not included in the plan. This does not mean that the PRT should not ever be used.