E Goldratt - The Goal

"Yes," I agree, "That's the question, no doubt."

340

Looking at the board I add, "What's written here is still valid. Identifying the system's constraint is the first step. What we now understand is that it also translates into a mandatory de- mand for a technique by which to do it. Lou, that's it. We found it."

The excitement causes me to stand up. "Here it is," I an- nounce, "here is the answer to Jonah's question. I'm going to call him right now. You can imagine my first sentence: Jonah, I want you to teach me how to identify the core problem."

As I turn to leave I hear Lou, "Alex, I think that it might be a little premature."

"Why?" I ask, my hand on the doorknob. "Do you have any doubt that that is what I must learn first?"

"No," he says. "On that I'm quite convinced. I just think that maybe you should ask for more. Knowing the core problem ex- actly might be far from sufficient."

"You are right again," I calm down. "It's just that I was look- ing for the answer for so long."

"I understand, believe me, I understand," he smiles.

"Okay Lou." I sit down. "What else do you think I should ask Jonah to teach me?"

"I don't know," he answers. "But if the five steps are valid, maybe what you should ask for are the techniques required to enable us to carry those steps out. We already found the need for one technique, why don't we continue to examine the other four steps?"

"Good idea," I say enthusiastically. "Let's proceed. The sec- ond step is," I read from the board, "decide how to exploit the system's constraints. That doesn't make any sense to me. What is the point in trying to exploit an erroneous policy?"

"It makes sense only if the constraint is physical, but since we do deal with policy constraints, I guess we'd better move to the next one," Lou agrees with me.

"Subordinate everything else to the above decision," I read. "Same reservation. If the constraint is not physical this step is meaningless. The fourth step is, 'Elevate the system's con- straint^).' Hmm, what are we going to do with this one?"

"What's the problem?" Lou asks. "If we identify an errone- ous policy we should elevate it, we should change the policy."

"How lovely. You make it sound so simple," I say sarcasti-

341

cally. "Change the policy! To what? Is it so simple to find a suit- able replacement? Maybe for you, Lou, not for me."

"For me neither," he grins. "I know that cost accounting is erroneous, but that doesn't mean I've completely figured out what to replace it with. Alex, how does one go about correcting an erroneous measurement or any other policy?"

"First, I think that you need the light-bulb idea, the break- through. The management techniques that Jonah talks about must include the ability to trigger such ideas, otherwise those techniques can't be used by mere mortals. You know, Lou, Julie predicted that as I come to it I'll recognize that we are not dealing just with techniques but actually with thinking processes."

"It started to look like it," Lou agrees. "But triggering break- through ideas by itself is not enough. An even bigger obstacle is to verify that this idea really solves all the resulting bad effects."

"Without creating new ones," I add.

"Is it possible at all?" Lou sounds very skeptical.

"It must be, if we want to plan rather than just react." As I talk I find a much better answer. "Yes, Lou, it must be possible. Look what happened to us with our solution of getting more sales. As a direct result of the French order we threw the plant into a very unpleasant two weeks and we killed or at least delayed a good marketing campaign. If we just thought systematically be- fore we implemented it, rather than after the fact, we could have prevented many problems. Don't tell me that it was impossible. All the facts were known to us, we simply didn't have a thinking process that would force and guide us to examine it early in the game."

"What do we change to?" Lou says.

That throws me off balance. "Pardon me?"

"If the first thinking process should lead us to answer the question 'what to change?' the second thinking process should lead us to answer the question 'what to change to?' I can already see the need for a third thinking process."

"Yes, so can I. 'How to cause the change.' " Pointing to the fifth step I add, "with the amount of inertia that we can expect in the division, the last one is probably the most important."

"So it seems," Lou says.

I stand up and start to pace. "Do you understand what we are asking for?" I cannot contain my feelings. "We are asking for

342

the most fundamental things and at the same time we are asking for the world."

"I've lost you," Lou says quietly.

I stop and look at him. "What are we asking for? For the ability to answer three simple questions: 'what to change?', 'what to change to?', and 'how to cause the change?' Basically what we are asking for is the most fundamental abilities one would expect from a manager. Think about it. If a manager doesn't know how to answer those three questions, is he or she entitled to be called manager?"

Throughout Lou signals that he is following me.

"At the same time," I continue, "can you imagine what the meaning is to being able to hone in on the core problem even in a very complex environment? To be able to construct and check solutions that really solve all negative effects without creating new ones? And above all to cause such a major change smoothly, with- out creating resistance but the opposite, enthusiasm? Can you imagine having such abilities?"

"Alex, that is what you have done. That's exactly what you have done in our plant."

"Yes and no," I answer. "Yes, that's what we have done. No Lou, without Jonah's guidance all of us would be looking for new jobs today. Now I understand why he refused to continue advis- ing us. Jonah said it to me in the clearest way. We should learn to be able to do it without any external help. I must learn these thinking processes, only then will I know that I'm doing my job."

"We should and can be our own Jonahs," Lou says and stands up. Then this reserved person surprises me. He puts his arm around my shoulder and says, "I'm proud to work for you."

AN INTERVIEW WITH ELI GOLDRATT AND OTHERS

by David Whitford, Editor at Large, Fortune Small Business.

DW: The Goal was published 20 years ago. Since then a lot has changed in operations. New, powerful methodologies to im- prove operations, such as LEAN and Six Sigma, are widespread. The emphasis on reducing lead time and improving due-date performance has become the norm. Even The Goal's subtitle - a process of ongoing improvement - is a statement that is now taken for granted by every organization.

So, my first question: Is The Goal still relevant?

EG: How does a scientist go about judging the relevancy of a particu- lar body of knowledge? I believe that the decisive way is to choose an organization where all the competing knowledge is implemented. We should choose a large company that is already using all the new methodologies you mentioned; an organization that is using these methodologies so extensively that there is an institutionalized orga- nizational structure - like a formal "black-belt" central office. The next step is to choose a significant section of that organization, and properly implement in it the body of knowledge in question. In our case it will mean implementing TOC in one of the plants of that large company. Then, compare the performance of the chosen plant with the performance of the rest of the organization. Now we are able to reach a conclusion: if no real difference is detected then the conclusion will be that the examined body of knowledge in question is not relevant. But, if there is a decisive difference, then the conclusion must be that the examined body of knowledge has relevancy; the bigger and more significant the difference, the more relevant it is.