Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [781]
24The TOCICO Dictionary (Sullivan et al., 2007, 46) defines the thinking processes (TP) as “A set of logic tools that can be used independently or in combination to address the three questions in the change sequence, namely, 1. What to change? 2. To what to change? and, 3. How to cause the change? The TP tools are: evaporating cloud, current reality tree, future reality tree, negative branch reservation, prerequisite tree, and transition tree.” See Chapters 34 and 35. (© TOCICO 2007, used by permission, all rights reserved.) See Chapters 34 and 35, this volume.
25A recent CRT analysis incorporated the UDEs given by 65 staff. If these people were to schedule 30-minute interviews to voice their concerns with each other, it would have consumed over 2000 people hours and they would not have discovered the underlying core problem of their facility.
1This definition is consistent with Eliyahu M. Goldratt’s definition of complexity, “Complexity is a result of the number of interactive constraints—constraints that impact each other.” (Goldratt 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, Chapter 5, “How Complex Are Our Systems,” 1.)
2In CCPM with single projects, all conflict is removed from the plan by moving tasks earlier in time, which extends the project but gives an aggressive yet feasible plan with high probability of completion within the project buffer. In sequencing multiple projects, there are frequent resource conflicts between projects. Trying to resolve the conflict between projects would force the projects to move conflicting tasks backward in time, which lengthens the individual projects and increases the idle time of many resources. Yet, as soon as the projects start, early or late task completions create new conflicts between the projects. It seems you cannot win, even with longer and longer project plans. The CCPM multi-project solution (1) schedules individual projects by CCPM without conflict, (2) sequences the projects according to a fixed point (or strategic resource or task), (3) manages all projects with BM, and (4) assigns resources to projects (and tasks) as needed to benefit the overall organization.
3Figure 33-4 follows an approach first used by Alan Barnard in his presentation, “Insights and updates on the theory of constraints thinking processes” at the first Theory of Constraints International Certification Organization (TOCICO) Conference held in Cambridge, England in 2003.
4See, for example, Section II on Critical Chain and Section III on Drum-Buffer-Rope and the Distribution/Replenishment solution.
5See Chapter 14—Resolving Measurement/Performance Dilemmas.
6© E. M. Goldratt used by permission, all rights reserved.
7Note: The use of CCPM here shows how the overall project for ideas should be planned. That is, there is a 50 percent project buffer protecting the critical chain and 50 percent feeder buffers for the feeding chains. However, the concern of the complex organization is to meet the expected delivery dates (promises) from one group or department to another. The project “ideas” can be managed as a whole according to CCPM methods, but the complex organization must deliver according to plan or there will be major disruptions to the whole system. This will become more obvious later in this chapter. The solution for the complex organization is an overriding measurement system that will govern the flow of all groups and departments, not just the project, production, and distribution worlds that are part of the complex organization.
8TDD is discussed in The Haystack Syndrome, Chapter 24 (Goldratt, 1990); The Theory of Constraints Journal, 3:17–18 (Goldratt, 1988a); TOC Insights for Distribution, Parts 10 and 11, Measurements of Execution (Goldratt et al., 2006); and in the TOCICO Dictionary (Sullivan et al., 2007). (©TOCICO 2007, used by permission,