A Guide to Implementing the Theory of
Categories of Legitimate Reservation
The categories of legitimate reservation are proof-reading tools for logical cause and effect trees. As such they seem to have a dual purpose;
(1) Raise valid concerns about cause and effect rigor.
(2) Not raise resistance or defensiveness of others in the process.
Noreen et al., published the first concise description of the legitimate categories of reservation, and since then several more detailed descriptions have also been published (2, 3, 4). The following is a concise summary of each of the reservations. Please refer to the more detailed texts for further information.
Requesting additional explanation, not fully understanding the cause and effect relationship or the individual entities.
Questioning the existence of the cause or effect entity.
Questioning the existence of the causal link between the cause and the effect.
Using another effect (B) to show that the hypothesized cause does not result in the initial effect (A).
Explaining that an additional non-trivial cause (B) must exist to explain the observed effect.
Explaining that an additional cause which adds to the size of the observed effect must exist. Neither cause by itself can account for the effect.
Being redundant in stating the cause and effect relationship.
To return to the previous page press Alt key + left arrow.
(1) Noreen, E., Smith, D., and Mackey J. T., (1995) The theory of constraints and its implications for management accounting. The North River Press, pg 161.
(2) Dettmer, H. W., (1997) Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints: a systems approach to continuous improvement. ASQC Quality Press, pp 30-61.
(3) Dettmer, H. W., (1998) Breaking the constraints to world class performance. ASQ Quality Press, pp 57-68.
(4) Scheinkopf, L., (1999) Thinking for a change: putting the TOC thinking processes to use. St Lucie Press/APICS series on constraint management, pp 41-67.
This Webpage Copyright © 2003-2009 by Dr K. J. Youngman