|
A Guide to Implementing the Theory of
Constraints (TOC) |
|||||
|
How Many Layers? The layers of resistance are an integral and – I would
argue – pivotal part of implementing any Theory of Constraints application;
logistical, non-logistical, corporate or personal. There are in fact a number of different
verbalizations by various authors and each of these seeks to make finer
subdivisions than the original 5 layers.
Let’s work through these verbalizations to ensure that we are familiar
with them all. Then we will attempt to
synthesize a composite verbalization that is both compact and useful. Then, at the end of this page, we will present
a table to map all of the verbalizations onto the appropriate Thinking
Process tool. Let’s have look then. The earliest public domain verbalization of the 5
layers of resistance appears to be in Goldratt’s My Saga
dating from 1996 (1). However, the
concept predates this by some several years. (1) Raising problems having one thing
in common – it’s out of our hands. (2) Arguing that the proposed solution
cannot possibly yield the desired outcome. (3) Arguing that the proposed solution
will lead to negative effects. (4) Raising obstacles that will
prevent the implementation. (5) Raising doubts about the
collaboration of others. In this first published verbalization we see the
basic framework; the problem, solution, reservations, obstacles, and
leadership issues. However, it wouldn’t be too long before other people
began to see additional subtlety and introduce additional layers. Lepore and
Cohen published a 6 layer version of the layers of resistance in their Decalogue (2). Here the second layer – the solution – is
broken into two; disagreement about the direction of the solution, and lack
of faith about the completeness of the solution. Let’s have a look. (1) Disagreement about the problem. (2) Disagreement about the direction
of the solution. (3) Lack of faith in the completeness
of the solution. (4) Fear of negative consequences
generated by the solution. (5) Too many obstacles along the road
that leads to the change. (6) Not knowing what to do. In addition to the new subdivision we can also see additional
richness in the last 3 layers as well. Chad Smith, in an appendix to Debra Smiths’ The Measurement Nightmare wrote an additional
verbalization of the 6 layers of resistance (3). Again the original second layer – the
solution – has been broken into two. (1) Disagreement about the nature of
the problem. (2) Disagreement about the direction
of the solution. (3) Disagreement as to whether the
solution will result in the desired effects that are necessary for the
organization. (4) Disagreement that the solution has
no disastrous side effects. (5) Disagreement that the solution is
viable in the environment. (6) Unverbalized fear. We saw how this particular verbalization had been
rephrased in the language of agreement on the page that we came from – the page
on agreement to change. Now we enter “internet territory.” Efrat Goldratt is credited with developing
9 layers of resistance, but I only have a transcript of the event (4). Never-the-less let’s include it until a
more official source is located. Here, the original first layer – the problem – is
now broken down into 3 parts. The
original second layer remains broken into two parts as above. The original forth layer – obstacles – is
now subdivided as well into; obstacles, and communicating/implementing the
intermediate objectives that overcome the obstacles. (1) There
is no problem (2) I
think the problem is different (3) The
problem is not under my control (4) I
have a different direction for a solution (5) The
solution does not address the whole problem (6) Yes,
but the solution has negative outcomes (7) Yes,
but the solution can not be implemented (8) It
is not exactly clear how to implement the solution (9) Undefined
/ fear This is the
most complete verbalization to date.
Once you have seen each of these layers in action you won’t forget the
sequence. If we have a good 9 layer verbalization, why
compress things back into 5 layers?
Well, in part because the sequence; the problem, the solution,
reservations, obstacles, and leadership is fundamental. It is also easier to understand and
remember without prior experience. If
we need more detail we can always come back to one of the more extended
verbalizations presented here. Firstly, I want to “borrow” Lepore and Cohen’s
second layer subdivision of “direction” and “completeness” of the solution
and make them one composite layer.
Secondly, I want to keep the third to fifth layers as simple as
possible. Thirdly, I really want to
make a fundamental distinction in the first layer. The distinction does exist in Efrat’s 9
layer version, but it is not sufficiently explicit. This distinction is based upon experience in one
large factory – in fact the largest factory of its kind in the world – where
there was an MRP system that finite scheduled one group of machines as a
constraint. This was interpreted by
the management as a quasi drum-buffer-rope solution and thus neither heaven
nor hell was going to allow a true drum-buffer-rope modification to be
implemented. What to do? There was no disagreement (after about a week) on
the extent of the problem – very long lead times and huge work in
process. But clearly there was real
disagreement about the nature of the cause, the nature of the problem. The constraint machines were considered to
be identified and fully exploited already so they couldn’t
be the cause. Therefore the “nature”
of the problem was identified as batching policy. Therefore the “direction” of the solution
became a change in batching policy and we could show how this would
substantially reduce many of the problems (but not all because we didn’t
address the real core issue). Thus I find the previous verbalizations lacking in
this distinction between the extent of the problem and the true nature and
cause of the problem. Therefore I want
to construct a composite first layer that addresses this. This is what I have come up with. (1) We don’t agree about the extent or nature of the
problem. (2) We don’t agree about the direction or completeness
of the solution. (3) We can see additional negative
outcomes. (4) We can see real obstacles. (5) We doubt the collaboration of
others. This is simple and compact without detracting from
the richness of the more involved verbalizations. Moreover, it allows us to examine the
richness in the first and second layers.
And to do this we really need an appreciation of Senge’s detail and
dynamic complexity (5). In essence we can subdivide layers 1 & 2 into
two; (1a) We don’t
agree about the extent of the
problem – detail complexity. (1b) We don’t agree about the nature of the problem – dynamic
complexity. (2a) We don’t
agree about the direction of
the solution – dynamic complexity. (2b) We don’t
agree about the completeness
of the solution – detail complexity. When we reach the discussion on the Thinking
Processes we will see that there is one tool that is especially suited to
dynamic problems – the cloud. There
are two tools that are more especially suited to the detail of the problem
and of the solution, the current reality tree and the future reality
tree. These three devices together
allow us to determine the problem and to determine a solution. However the key is the cloud. We have presented a number of verbalizations of the
layers of resistance and derived a compact synthesis that will be useful
later in these pages. For the time
being, let’s map these various verbalizations against the Thinking Process
tools and see if that better helps to understand the interrelationships.
Five layers, six layers, or nine layers; it doesn’t
really matter too much. Remember, most
people will automatically relate to the original 5 layers based upon their
own experience. However, people who
are facilitating the process should be aware of some of the finer
subdivisions. To return
to the previous page press Alt key + left arrow. (1) Goldratt,
E. M., (1996) My Saga to improve production, Avraham Y. Goldratt Institute, 7
pp. (2) Lepore,
D., and Cohen, O., (1999) Deming and Goldratt: the theory of constraints and
the system of profound knowledge. The
North River Press, pp 83-88. (3) Smith, C.,
In: Smith, D., (2000) The measurement nightmare: how the theory of constraints
can resolve conflicting strategies, policies, and measures. St Lucie Press/APICS series on constraint
management, pp 156-159. (4) Bakker, P., (2000) Notes from the 4th Annual TOC
For Education International Conference, Monterrey, Mexico, August. Seminar delivered by Rami Goldratt on the 9
layers developed by Efrat Goldratt. (5) Senge, P. M.,
(1990) The fifth discipline: the art & practice of the learning
organization. Random House, pp 3, 23,
71-72. This Webpage Copyright © 2003-2009 by Dr K. J. Youngman |