Strube - 2016 - Theory of Constraints Thinking Processes.pdf

The Thinking Processes of Goldratt's Theory of Constraints enable decision makers to improve and even transform their in-live systems - process-oriented organizations or problems to be solved - with an minimum of effort.

1. Thinking
Processes
Theory of
Constraints
————————
Dominik Strube

2. 2
1. Digital Maturity

Theory of Constraints – The Scope
Domain-specific
applications
Management system and
problem solving tool set
Efficient operativions of an in-
use system
• Production
• Project management
• Accounting
• Logistics, etc.
Effective system improvement /
reconfiguration
• Strategy development
• Change management
• Planning (strategical / tactical)
• Go-to-market

3. 3
1. Digital Maturity
End-to-end thinking – Focus on the intended result
A purpose system‘s task is to deliver the maximum output.
The Thinking Processes consider and tackle
• Dilemata
• Decision making problems
• Questions to be answered, etc.
as flow problems.
Throuput: Performance rate at which a purpose system (an
organization) achieves its goal.

4. 4
2. Impacts
Focusing on one core control parameter
Identification of the constraint
• Pivotal system parameter
• What is the limiting factor which hinders throughput?
• Where does the problem solution stall?
Types of constraints
• physical (also the market)
• political (e.g. a policy)
• psychological (e.g. a bias or an impasse)

5. 5
2. Impacts
TOC‘s Thinking Processes at a glance
The Thinking Processes enable
• problem solving in complexe environments
• support decision making
• development of strategies and tactics
They answer three deceptively simple questions
1. What to change?
2. To what to change?
3. How to cause the change?

6. 6
2. Impacts
TOC‘s Thinking Processes in action
• Integrated analysis
• Stand alone solutions
Domains
Goal Tree
Current
Reality T ree
Strategy &
Tactics Tree
Evaporating
Cloud
Future
Reality T ree
Prerequisite
Tree
Transition
Tree
Negative Branch
(Reservations)

7. 7
2. Impacts
Types of logic within the Thinking Processes
Causality logic
• Current R eality T ree
• Future Reality T ree
• Transition Tree
• Negative Branch R eservation
Sufficient cause thinking
„If A  then B“
Necessary logic
• Evaporating Cloud
• Prerequisite T ree
• G oal Tree
Necessary condition thinking
„A is necessary to obtain B“

8. 8
2. Impacts
Conflict and problem solving
Goal Tree
Current
Reality T ree
Strategy &
Tactics Tree
Evaporating
Cloud
Future
Reality T ree
Prerequisite
Tree
Transition
Tree
Negative Branch
Reservation
• A is necessary to
obtain B.
Necessary logic
N
N
N

9. 9
3. Becoming Agile
Evaporating Cloud: (Core) Conflict solving diagram
• Dilema within two
alternatives of action
• Conflict of interest
• Fire cloud: politics
prevents prudent
situational action
TypesNecessary logic
Objective
Requirement 1
Prerequisite/
Alternative
action 1
Prerequisite/
Alternative
action 2
Requirement 2 Conflict

10. 10
3. Becoming Agile
Evaporating Cloud: (Core) Conflict solving diagram
Example
• To achieve this
<objective>, I ‘ve
to ensure that
<requirement>.
• The <requirement>
that we want to satisfy
by the <action>.

resp.

To satisfy this
<requirement>, we
have to achieve this
<prerequisite>.
Nomenclature
Produce large
lots
Produce small
lots
Minimize
spendings
Maximize
throughput
To maximize
profit
To achieve what?To achieve what?

11. 11
3. Becoming Agile
Evaporating Cloud: (Core) Conflict solving diagram
Example
Produce large
lots
Produce small
lots
Minimize
spendings
Maximize
throughput
To maximize
profit
AssumptionAssumption
Assumption
• Valid arguments as to why an action is required to satisfy a need.
• Assumptions are the
key to the solution.
Assumptions

12. 12
3. Becoming Agile
Evaporating Cloud: (Core) Conflict solving diagram
Proof of concept 1/3
Prerequisite
Prerequisite
Requirement
Requirement
Objective
• Cross check: Do
requirements
jeopardize each other?
• Is the conflict really
a conflict – do
the prerequisites
contradict each other?
Logic checks

13. 13
3. Becoming Agile
Evaporating Cloud: (Core) Conflict solving diagram
Proof of concept 2/3
Prerequisite
Prerequisite
Requirement
Requirement
Objective
• Check of needs: A re
both <requirements>
and <prerequisites>
desirable and
necessary for <goal>?
• Conflict between
<requirement> and
<prerequisite2>?
• Conflict between
prerequisites?
Logic checks

14. 14
3. Becoming Agile
Evaporating Cloud: (Core) Conflict solving diagram
Proof of concept 3/3
Requirement
old
Prerequisite
Requirement
new
Requirement
Objective
• Shifting the
requirement
Proceeding

15. 15
2. Impacts
Resolving dilemmas / conflicts
Goal Tree
Current
Reality T ree
Strategy &
Tactics Tree
Evaporating
Cloud
Future
Reality T ree
Prerequisite
Tree
Transition
Tree
Negative Branch
Reservation
C
C
C
C

16. 16
3. Becoming Agile
Anticipating the impact of solutions/ideas
Effect
Cause
• If A  then B
Causality logic
Assumptions
If, ...
..., then ... .

17. 17
3. Becoming Agile
Anticipating the impact of solutions/ideas
... then
<effect> ....
If <cause>, ...If <cause>, ...

18. 18
3. Becoming Agile
Anticipating the impact of solutions/ideas
... then <effect>
....
If <cause>, ...InjectionIf <cause>, ...
• Injections: Solutions
developed by the
help of the T hinking
Processes.
• Idea injected into
dynamic/active
system.
Applications

19. 19
3. Becoming Agile
Anticipating the impact of solutions/ideas
... then I formally can lead a pro -
cess assessment.
If I‘ve passed the exam
for an process improve-
ment assessor, ...
If have registered with
the registration body, ...
If I can prove the requi-
red evidences of expe-
rience, ...

20. 20
3. Becoming Agile
Clarifying the situation with a Objective Tree
Objective
Critical success
factor 1
PrerequisitePrerequisite
Critical success
factor 1
Critical success
factor 1
For the <objective>, I must ensure / have ...
For the
<CRF>
I need ….


For the
<prerequisite>
I need ….

21. 21
3. Becoming Agile
ToC-Thinking Processes vs Agile
Similarities with agile approaches
• Current system as the starting point
• disciplined approach
Differences with agile approaches
• T oC also clarifies objectives and vision
• Defines target state ex ante
• Blue O cean strategy

 identifies strategic market niches
• Agile: Darwinian
paradigm
• ToC: Newtonian
paradigm
Philosophy

22. 22
3. Becoming Agile
Evaluation: ToC-Thinking Processes
Scope: Answers all key questions
• What to Change?
• T o what to Change?
• How to Change?
Benefits
• Comprehensive management philosophy
• Robustness

 Pragmatism combined with systematics
• Easy communication of results
• Danger of the illusion
of understanding

Shit In, Shit O ut
• Discipline and practice
required

Prepare yourself
thouroughly

Ask for
professional
support first
Caveat

23. 23
3. Becoming Agile
CONTACT
Kugler Maag Cie
Leibnizst. 11
GER-70806 Kornwestheim
[email protected]
www.kuglermaag.de
www.kuglermaag.com
Questions?
With pleasure!