In my last post we completed our discussion on the various types of constraints that exist within most systems. In today's post, I will begin a new series of posts on something referred to as the Goal Tree (aka Intermediate Objectives Map (IO Map)). As a reminder, this material is taken from my newest book, The Focus and Leverage Improvement Book - Locating and Eliminating the Constraining Factor of Your Lean Six Sigma Initiative, published by Routledge/Productivity Press.
The Goal Tree
Many people who have gone through training on the
Theory of Constraint’s Thinking Process (TP) tools, have come away from the
training somewhat overwhelmed and somewhat speechless to a degree. Some
“get it” and some just don’t. Let’s face
it, the TP tools are pretty intimidating and after receiving the training, I
have seen many people simply walk away, feeling like they were ill-prepared to
apply whatever it is they had supposedly just learned. Even for myself,
when I completed my first iteration of this training, I had this same
feeling. And in talking with others,
there was a general confusion about how to get started. For the average
person, the TP tools are just not easy to grasp, so they end up kind of putting
them on the back burner, rather than taking a chance on making a mistake using
them.
The other complaint I have heard many times is that a
full TP analysis typically takes many days to complete, and let’s face it, a
regular executive team typically doesn’t have that kind of time to spend on
this activity, or at least they feel like they don’t. Well for everyone who
feels the same way, or maybe have gone through the same Jonah training as I did,
and feel somewhat hopeless or confused, I have hope for you. That hope
for you is another logic diagram, currently known as the Goal Tree.
We say currently, because the man responsible for creating the Goal Tree, [1]
Bill Dettmer, originally referred to this tool as an Intermediate Objectives
Map (IO Map), but has elected to change its name in recent years. Before going any further, I want to make sure
everyone understands that I am a huge proponent of TOC’s Thinking Processes!
But having said that, I am an even bigger fan of the
Goal Tree. Why? Because most people grasp what the Goal Tree
will do for them right away, and how simple it is to learn, construct, and apply.
Many of the people I have trained on the Goal Tree, have emailed me, telling me
they wished they had learned this tool many years ago. They learn it and apply it right away!
Bill Dettmer, who happens to be my favorite author of all time, tells us of his first exposure to IO Maps/Goal
Trees was back in 1995 during a management skills workshop, conducted by
another TOC guru, Oded Cohen, at the Goldratt Institute. In recent
years, Dettmer has written much about the IO Map (now referred to as a Goal
Tree) and now uses it as the first step in a full Thinking Process
analysis. Bill is passionate about this tool and believes that it defines
the standard for goal attainment and its prerequisites, in a much more simple
and efficient way. I happen to agree with Bill and believe that the Goal
Tree is a great focusing tool, to better demonstrate why an organization is not
meeting its goal. And because of its simplicity, it is easy not only
learn, but also, it’s much easier to teach others in your organization how to
use it than the full TP analysis.
There are other advantages of learning and using the
Goal Tree, including a better integration of the rest of the TP tools, that
will accelerate the completion of Current Reality Trees, Conflict Resolution
Diagrams and Future Reality Trees, if you choose to use them. But what I
really like about the Goal Tree, is that it can be used as a stand-alone tool,
resulting in a much faster analysis of the organization’s weak points, and then
a rapid development of an improvement plan for your organization. I have
been teaching the Goal Tree for quite a few years, and can state unequivocally,
that the Goal Tree has been the favorite of most of my classes and workshops.
One of the lessons I always encourage my students to
do, is that they should always learn a new tool and then make it their
own. That message simply means that even though the “inventor” of a tool
typically has a specific use in mind, tools should be continually evolving, and
such was case for me with the Goal Tree. Personally, I have attempted to
transform this tool into one that most people grasp and understand in very
short order, and then see its usefulness in a matter of minutes or hours,
rather than days.
When using any of TOC’s Thinking Process tools, there
are two distinctly different types of logic at play, sufficiency and necessity.
Sufficiency-based logic tools use a series of if-then statements, that connect cause and effect relationships
between most of the system’s undesirable effects. Necessity-based logic
uses the syntax, in order to have x, I
must have y or multiple y’s. The Goal Tree falls into the category of
necessity-based logic and can be used to develop and lay out your company’s
strategic and tactical actions that result in successful improvement efforts.
As mentioned earlier, the Goal Tree dates back to at
least 1995 when it was casually mentioned during a Management Skills Workshop
conducted by Oded Cohen at the A.Y. Goldratt Institute, but it was not part of
that workshop, nor did it ever find its way into common usage as part of the
Logical Thinking Process (LTP). It was described as a kind of
Prerequisite Tree without any obstacles.”
Dettmer tells us that he never thought much about it
for the next seven years, until in late 2002, when he began grappling with the
use of the Logical Thinking Processes (LTP) for developing and deploying
strategy. At that time, Dettmer had been teaching the LTP to a wide
variety of clients for more than six years, and had been dismayed by the number
of students who had substantial difficulty constructing Current Reality Trees
(CRTs) and Conflict Resolution Diagrams (CRDs) of sufficient quality. According
to Dettmer, they always seemed to take a very long time to build a CRT, and
their CRD’s were not always what he would characterize as “robust.” He
claimed they lacked reference to a “should-be” view of the system—what ought
to be happening. It occurred to Dettmer that the Goal Tree he’d seen
in 1995, could be modified and applied to improve the initial quality of
CRTs. As time went on, Dettmer began to
realize that the Goal Tree could serve a similar purpose with CRD’s. In
2007, Dettmer published a book, [2] The Logical Thinking Process: A Systems
Approach to Complex Problem Solving that introduced the world to this
wonderful tool and I always highly recommend this book.
In my next post, we will continue our discussion on the Goal Tree.
Bob Sproull
No comments:
Post a Comment