The foundation of ViewPoint Visual Project Management is expressing the project plan visually with a Visual Project Board (VPB).

Presenting the project as a graphic highlights critical information in ways that can’t be ignored. After a Colorado (US) software company introduced a VPB, an executive responded, “As simple as [a VPB] sounds, to actually see that come to life is a real clarifying moment for the entire organization. Everyone knows exactly where we are every day.”

Brain research shows that we decipher visual information simultaneously to seeing it. In contrast, humans process language and text sequentially.[1] A visual aid drastically reduces the time needed to understand information, promoting rapid understanding of any situation.

[1] Parkinson, Mike, The Power of Visual Communication, http://www.billiondollargraphics.com/infographics.html

"Everyone has a plan: until they get punched in the face"

Mike Tyson

Professional Boxer

To deliver successful projects, you need more than a plan. You must deal with the reality of projects: missed time and cost estimates, unforeseen complications, rework, and everything else that makes a project a project. There is no such thing as a perfect plan, so for successful delivery, you must have a process that compensates for the uncertainties of project life, one that uses the map but is not a slave to it, a process that sees and resolves risk during the project’s life. Think of the visual project board as a map for project delivery. The VPB catalyzes the plan with action at the right time to deliver your project successfully.

ViewPoint uses The Project Execution Maturity Model (PEMM) as the structure of the project delivery process. The PEMM lays out the behaviors and processes needed to deliver your project in a straightforward progression from simple to sophisticated ones. It has three levels of execution capability: Basic Collaboration, Improved Coordination, and Integrated Planning and Execution.

Basic Collaboration is the foundational element of execution maturity, focusing on task completion velocity or flow. It extends to a local workgroup or portfolio, and the timeframe managed extends to completing the tasks presently in progress. The central questions to answer at the Basic Collaboration level are:

• Can we finish our work?
• Can we get it done quickly?
• “Can we complete work in the agreed-upon time?”

Basic Collaboration addresses short-term goals: eliminating task waiting time and increasing productivity. Achieving this level of execution maturity enables the team to shift their focus from reporting on what happened to identifying actions to move the project forward.

The processes at the Basic Collaboration level use the VPB to systematically identify obstacles, risks, and bottlenecks in the workflow. It enables the team to concentrate on the goal of project completion while dismantling organizational silos that hinder prompt action. Conflicts related to priority resources and tasks are addressed constructively without finger-pointing and blame. In essence, the VPB promotes transparency in execution, allowing the team to collaborate intelligently.

Moving from ad hoc execution methods to Basic Collaboration significantly improves financial performance. It typically increases productivity by more than 20%, boosts task completion rates, reduces project duration, and substantially improves on-time delivery performance. Mastering this level of maturity creates a new reality for your project teams and sets the stage for further improvements in project delivery performance.

Defining behaviors involves establishing the rules for managing your project. Well-defined behaviors and outcomes set expectations and enable you to identify issues before they delay the project. The definitions allow you to see delivery risks early and ensure that you meet your customer’s expectations. The Viewpoint methodology lays out accountability through specific, measurable actions and the scope of decision-making. For example, project managers are responsible for identifying opportunities for improvement, but the direction of process improvements is the responsibility of executive leaders. Task managers are accountable for eliminating risk, not project managers. Defining the roles and decision rights helps the team work cohesively and the project sponsors identify where they may need to intervene.

These accountabilities are then posted to the VPB, showing what is to be done and who is accountable for accomplishing the work. There is never any question about who will deliver the work. The image is a sample work package card.

The post What is Visual Project Management appeared first on Projects in Less Time - Mark Woeppel.

Research shows that poor service is the number one reason customers leave (45%), and reliability is the most valued of the five service qualities. In retail or distribution settings, stock-outs are the leading cause of losing business. If you can’t deliver the product when the customer expects it, you will have difficulty making money now and in the future.

The post Production: the Key to a Competitive Edge appeared first on Projects in Less Time - Mark Woeppel.

The post Spot Project Delivery Problems Early Part 2: The Fundamentals appeared first on Projects in Less Time - Mark Woeppel.

The Theory of Constraints (ToC) challenges you to build your company to last – to be ever flourishing; your performance consistently improves, even during challenging times. Your people are happy in their work. Your customers are delighted with your offer. You invariably select the ‘right’ strategic goals – building a successful differentiator and a structure to capitalize on it long-term. Your organization’s people, policies, and practices are aligned with your strategic objectives. The organization is dynamic, constantly pushing to improve its performance.

The principles embodied in the Ever-Flourishing Company (EFC) are to create an organization that will endure, providing long-term security for its stakeholders and societal benefits and informing managers’ strategic thought and actions. They provide leaders with a framework that they can use to create successful strategies and tactics without compromise. Finally, it solves two of the biggest problems for strategists, picking the right objectives and resolving internal conflicts and contradictions.

The principles embodied in the Ever-Flourishing Company (EFC) go beyond mere success; they describe an enduring organization that is a beacon of long-term security for stakeholders and delivers significant customer benefits. These principles are the guiding light for visionary managers, providing a framework that empowers them to craft winning strategies and tactics without compromising their integrity. By embracing the EFC, you unlock the solution to two of the most daunting challenges strategists face: the ability to set the right objectives and the capacity to resolve internal conflicts and contradictions.

In this world of the Ever-Flourishing Company, the possibilities are infinite, and the rewards immeasurable. Escape from mediocrity by embracing the power of the EFC and transform your business into a force that shapes the future.

Four pillars support the Ever-Flourishing Company:

1. A process of ongoing improvement (the organization is constantly driving towards the goal – more now and in the future)
2. At least one Decisive Competitive Edge (the organization has an offer, difficult for competitors to copy, that creates significant and sustainable results for customers, which in turn provides them for the company)
3. Avoids operational risk (the organization offers security for their employees and stability when the market is uncertain)
4. It breaks the Engines of Disharmony (the organization actively works to align authority with responsibility, removing contradictory rewards)

Moving the Organization Closer to Its Goal – A Process of Ongoing Improvement

A ToC strategy embodies the relentless pursuit of ever-increasing performance, a concept famously coined by Eli Goldratt as the Process of Ongoing Improvement (POOGI). But this is no ordinary endeavor; it goes beyond mere operational activity—it’s a strategic imperative. With a systematic approach, visionary leaders forge ahead, developing, implementing, and measuring strategic initiatives that yield extraordinary outcomes.

The Strategic Objective of Improving Performance

Improvement is the driving force of an EFC, encompassing much more than mere efficiency and small wins. It represents a deliberate, resolute journey toward the organization’s ultimate goal. The POOGI is an unwavering commitment to identify and shatter the strategic constraints holding the organization back.

By embracing a POOGI, improvement becomes ingrained in the organization’s DNA; it becomes a way of life. It’s not about sporadic bursts of change; it’s adopting a culture of constant evolution and relentless adaptation.

Green Curve & Red Curve Improvement Paths

The EFC requires both baseline soundness and continuous improvement. The green curve symbolizes the foundation of stability and harmony, while the red curve represents continued improvement.

 The presence of the green curve is necessary for the existence of the red curve; both are essential for organizational success. The EFC strategy is to achieve significant improvement while maintaining stability.

Success requires stability; if it is not already present, the first step is creating it. If your organization’s processes are unstable, there is little room for management attention to improve; managers are caught up in the day-to-day business activity. Put another way, we can’t focus on fire prevention while we’re fighting fires.

A Decisive Competitive Edge

An organization must build a Decisive Competitive Edge (DCE) to get on the red curve. A DCE exists when a company has a decisive, sustainable advantage over competitors.

A Decisive Offer

Decisive means providing customers with unique, meaningful value that competitors cannot easily replicate. A decisive offer is not simply “better” than others; it uses an organization’s operational abilities[1]still far away, indicating that operational excellence with ToC solutions can be the DCE.

It could be changing the product (its physical characteristics or performance), how customers engage with the product, how and when you collect payment for orders, or how the customer receives the product’s benefits—for example, superior supply reliability with penalties that compensate the customer if you don’t keep your delivery promises. 

This offer is decisive in two ways; one, in some markets, few companies deliver 98% on time, and two, few managers will bet they can consistently provide that result. A decisive offer has a superior benefit while blocking competitors from duplicating it.

A Sustainable Offer

An offer is sustainable when it does not stretch or stress the organization to provide it. It can deliver the decisive offer repeatedly without sacrificing its performance in other aspects. For example, lowering prices to gain more sales could create more work with less profit. Entering a new market that requires significant additional capability introduces operational risk. 

The offer doesn’t need to be new, splashy, or expensive (although solving a significant customer problem could be considered splashy). Instead, having a decisive, sustainable offer can be (and has been) created with any of the solutions of the Theory of Constraints.

Avoiding Operational Risk

To move into the growth phase of the red curve, a company must establish operational stability by effectively managing risk. Operational risk is the potential loss due to ineffective or failed internal processes, people, systems, or external events that can disrupt business operations.

Maintaining Adequate Capacity and Reserving Capabilities

The organization’s resource demand fluctuates, causing periods of both under and over-utilization. Managers may optimize labor costs when demand is low by balancing staff levels with demand. Unfortunately, this approach often results in staff layoffs. However, the Ever-Flourishing Company anticipates market variation with strategies that eliminate the need for large-scale layoffs, retaining its skilled workforce even during slower periods. Better planning saves them from incurring the costs of rehiring and retraining new staff when demand eventually picks up again.

The Ever-Flourishing company excels at this by avoiding the trap of over-committing its resources and using its competitors as a buffer (not capturing all of any market they are in). When an organization operates at nearly 100% utilization, operational performance declines, leading to unpredictable and inconsistent outcomes. This inconsistency will negatively impact customer satisfaction, and unreliable suppliers will force customers to seek alternative sources. Even worse, switching costs can prevent customers from returning; even a short-term decline in operational performance can have a long-term effect on future sales. When the company has all (or nearly all) of a given market, any fluctuation in demand affects it.

Financial Support for Operations

If operational risk is anything that exposes an organization to loss of profits, then financial leverage would qualify as such. Debt allows for increased return on investments by increasing asset turnover. Still, it increases risk: (1) debt means future expenses and cash demands- principal and interest, (2) developing new capabilities is not free, and (3) there is uncertainty in the market’s response to a new capability. The EFC uses debt cautiously to build or acquire capabilities only after considering other ways to create new competencies.

Engines of Disharmony

In the early 1980s, Dr. Goldratt recognized a significant obstacle to improving factory performance – conflicting incentives or performance measurements. At that time, he stated, “The goal of a plant is to make money, and the measurements we are seeking should measure progress towards that goal. We have seen that cost accounting measurement [of productivity] not only doesn’t measure real progress towards that goal but provides a disincentive.” Executing the OPT (Optimized Production Technology) software schedules contradicted the commonly held beliefs about lot sizing and setup costs. Managers were often unwilling to follow the software’s recommendations. He wrote The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement to overcome these widely held beliefs. “They flew in the face of accepted policies and procedures, but they were obviously correct…at least to me.”, he later wrote.

In the late mid to late 2000s, Yuji Kishira, a leader in applying and teaching the ToC, trained and led the implementation of the concepts of Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) in many companies in Japan. He noted that managers considered the results in improving human relations and harmonious workplace culture (in Japanese, Wa) more significant than the financial results they achieved. This outcome led to the realization that the true power of the ToC is not the ToC solutions but the solution’s ability to remove the Engines of Disharmony. Goldratt then realized that the foundational element of creating the ever-flourishing company was to improve human relationships. And the obstacles to improving them were the “Engines of Disharmony.” These engines cause conflicting behaviors between individuals and between organizational units (departments).

Managers have long thought that silos in organizations are problematic, but the Engines of Disharmony go deeper than isolated information and warring departments. Silos are not the problem; they are the symptom of the problem. The Engines of Disharmony also lead to conflict between individuals inside and outside an organization. Goldratt stated, “You cannot have an ever-flourishing company with broken relationships…The most important thing in the success of the company is human relationships.”

The ToC eliminates (or reduces) significant sources of friction (the thing that drains most managers’ time) to get things done. Most managers are fighting ‘fires’ caused by friction—the friction they had (inadvertently) created.

The causes of consistent friction are compromises between seemingly necessary conditions, Core Conflicts. A core conflict is a more profound problem – beyond guidelines and methods; for example, short-term versus long-term, centralized versus decentralized, process versus results.

What Goldratt did was identify and name the engines of disharmony. He verbalized them this way:

1. “What is my contribution? Many times, an employee’s effort and its effects on the organization are not specifically connected. Where there is no vision, the people perish. People need to know that their work has value and purpose. If my work doesn’t matter, then why should I make any effort?
2. What is my peer’s contribution? Most people don’t know how many of their colleagues’ activities are essential or at least contributing to the organization. Would you be collaborative if you were in that position?
3. Conflicts. People are operating under conflicts, which may be the results of 1 and/or 2, “making the right decision for my company vs. the right decision for my measures.”
4. Inertia. Many people are required to also do tasks for which the reason no longer exists. People’s intuition is always strong enough to feel it, but not always is it strong enough to convincingly explain it to their superiors.
5. Gaps between responsibility and authority. You, like any other manager, know firsthand – how frustrating it is to have something you are responsible for accomplishing, but you do not have the authority for some of the actions that must be taken to get it done.”

The presence of these engines means that the organization needs to resolve at least one core conflict.

Improving relationships as a path to improved results may seem obvious, but collaboration and teamwork are ephemeral for those who seek measurable causes and effects (what gets measured gets managed). How do you directly measure and thus influence collaboration or better workplace cooperation? We can’t observe all behavior, but we can observe the effects of compromise.

The organization’s architects, its managers, (inadvertently) build engines of disharmony and allow conflicts to exist in their organizations. The biggest obstacle to the EFC is the acceptance of organizational conflicts.

Summary

In conclusion, the Ever-Flourishing Company (EFC) presents a robust framework for building a business that withstands the test of time. By embracing the principles of the EFC, visionary managers can craft winning strategies and tactics while maintaining integrity and creating enduring organizations. The EFC approach revolves around four pillars: a process of ongoing improvement, a decisive competitive edge, avoiding operational risk, and eliminating the engines of disharmony.

The process of ongoing improvement (POOGI) is not just about improving operations but a strategic imperative to continuously and purposefully move the organization towards its goal. It involves developing, implementing, and measuring strategic initiatives to achieve extraordinary outcomes and break through strategic constraints.

A decisive competitive edge (DCE) is crucial for sustained growth. It involves providing customers with unique, meaningful value that is difficult for competitors to replicate.

Operational disruptions can kill the business, and the EFC approach focuses on avoiding such risks. The organization can ensure stability despite market fluctuations by maintaining protective capacity, reserving capabilities, and carefully managing financial leverage.

The engines of disharmony, conflicts and contradictions within an organization, hinder success. The EFC fosters collaboration, teamwork, and harmony within and outside the organization by addressing and eliminating core conflicts.

By adopting the EFC framework, businesses can achieve continuous improvement, establish a decisive competitive edge, mitigate operational risks, and promote harmonious relationships. This approach empowers organizations to create a lasting strength that defies mediocrity.

Bibliography

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (1983), Cost Accounting: The Number One Enemy of Productivity, APICS International Conference Proceedings,

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (1996), My Saga to Improve Production, APICS – The Performance Advantage (USA) Vol. 6, No. 8, pp34-37

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (2002), TOC on Strategy and Tactics, Theory of Constraints a self-learning Program, Goldratt’s Marketing Group

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (2008), The Ever-Flourishing Company – Part One, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv7SCRNZggk

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (2008), The Ever-Flourishing Company – Part Two, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij71X6cxv-I&t=158s

Kishira, Yuji (2009), WA Transformation Management by Harmony, North River Press

Barnard, Alan, (2010), Continuous Improvement and Auditing, in Cox and Schleier (eds), Theory of Constraints Handbook (pp 403-454), McGraw Hill

Barnard, Alan, (2003), New Developments and Innovations in the Theory of Constraints Thinking Process, Conference Presentation at TOCIO Cambridge, UK

Holt, James R. and Boyd, Lynn H., (2010), Theory of Constraints in Complex Organizations, in Cox and Schleier (eds), Theory of Constraints Handbook (pp 983-1013), McGraw Hill

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (2011), Above and Beyond the Competition: A Conversation with Eli Goldratt, Goldratt Consulting, https://vimeo.com/169617632

Cox III, James F., Lynn H. Boyd, Timothy T. Sullivan, Richard A. Reid, and Brad Cartier, (2012), The Theory of Constraints International Certification Organization Dictionary, Second Edition, https://www.tocico.org/resource/resmgr/dictionary/tocico_dictionary_2nd_editio.pdf

S. Patrick Viguerie, Ned Calder, and Brian Hindo, (2021), 2021 Corporate Longevity Forecast, Innosight, https://www.innosight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Innosight_2021-Corporate-Longevity-Forecast.pdf

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (2011), Never Say I Know, the Tangibility of the Green Curve, The Theory of Constraints International Certification Organization 2011 Conference Proceedings Presented by Lisa Scheinkopf

[1]  Interestingly, some companies built their DCE on operational excellence (i.e., reliable delivery or quick response); years later, their competitors are still far away, indicating that operational excellence with ToC solutions can be the DCE.

The post A Framework for Strategy; The Ever-Flourishing Company appeared first on Projects in Less Time - Mark Woeppel.

“Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” – Isaac Newton

The Theory of Constraints. What sort of management strategy is that? Who calls a management approach a “theory”? And “constraints”; isn’t that the same thing as a “bottleneck”? If you’ve read Eliyahu Goldratt’s book, The Goal, then you know that the theory of constraints is just a dressed-up scheduling system. And a derivative one, at that.

You may have heard or thought these comments yourself.

The Theory of Constraints (ToC) might be these things, but it is more than that. ToC, while being a collection of insights and procedures, is also an approach to understanding and designing systems. From its beginnings as a shop floor scheduling system it evolved to a holistic approach to develop and implement strategies for organizations.

Let’s start with the definition; the Theory of Constraints. Often, the word ‘theory’ used synonymously with unproven. That’s not the meaning here. In the scientific realm, a theory explains how things work, as in, the Theory of Relativity. A theory is only “proven” in terms of its logic and experiments, but it’s useful – until something better is found; it generally works in the real world, not just in the abstract. The Theory of Constraints explains how systems work. All systems have constraints, yet they are often unidentified. Especially in complex systems where it seems the ‘Constraint’ is constantly on the move.

ToC processes apply the approach of the hard sciences to the “soft” social sciences. It attempts to employ scientific rigor to organizational (social) problems and behaviors to better understand how systems behave and solve long-standing problems.

In the hard sciences, the simplest solution is often the correct one. Scientists are trained to use Occam’s Razor; The principle that states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. It is the underpinning of all scientific theory building. In the same way, ToC searches for the “inherent simplicity” of system behavior; the fewest assumptions or causes, for the most effects.

In scientific inquiry, one observes a certain behavior or effect. Then, asks “why”. “Why did that happen?”. To understand the cause, the scientist creates a hypothesis that explains the effect.  Then, to test the hypothesis, predicts other effects that must also be present if the hypothesis is correct. If the other effect(s) are observed, the hypothesis is strengthened. This doesn’t mean that it is “correct”, but only “strong. Goldratt said (paraphrasing here) “The true test of a good hypothesis is, that when the hypothesis and causal linkages are presented, the audience must say ‘It’s obvious!’”.

In the same way, the Theory of Constraints is a strong theory strengthened by numerous experiments. However, just as any theory changes with new knowledge, so does ToC. This may seem unsettling for those who are looking for a recipe. Goldratt and his fellow developers of ToC never looked for a particular recipe, even though many were found. They were and are looking for something deeper. An understanding.

The germ of ToC could be found in Goldratt’s ideas for scheduling factories.  He used those concepts to build software that scheduled factory production. In the adoption of his ideas, he ran into obstacles, finding policies that were preventing successful implementation. So, he wrote The Goal, to explain the ideas behind the software (the drum-buffer-rope procedure). However, even though these were successful, they were leading to the next constraint, and the next, and the next. The theory of constraints has evolved from scheduling, to cost accounting, to performance management, to sales, to projects, to strategy.

ToC approach to systems recognizes that we do not live in a world of deterministic outcomes, but rather, of probabilities – ranges of outcomes. We recognize that “Murphy” lives (statistical fluctuations) and we make decisions with this in mind. Uncertainty surrounds us. There is a kind of randomness or chaos built into the universe. Therefore, our solutions and decisions must be characterized by the calculation of differing outcomes that are determined by circumstances beyond our control. From the random crash on the highway that makes us late to our meeting to a decision by OPEC ministers on oil production quotas that ripple through the world’s economies. We should not kid ourselves that we are fully in control of our own or our firm’s destinies. ToC provides an approach and tools to cope with that uncertainty.

There are ample documents and books on the procedures of ToC. What is not well documented is how to put them in a strategic framework. Let’s begin with the fundamental assumptions and build from there.

Strategy is Not…

Strategy is not a new idea or a product like the new iPhone or electric cars. Nor is it a list of improvement projects to reduce costs or open new markets. It’s not an aim or mission like winning the war, being the market leader, or solving world hunger.

A strategy is a theory of the organization. A statement of who is the customer (a profile of the market), their need and those that are unmet. It defines the capabilities, products and methods that will meet those needs. A strategy is not necessarily holistic, it can be narrowly or broadly defined, depending on the organization. It could be a strategy of product offerings—soda vs, “healthy” drinks or sedans vs. trucks. It could be strategic, creating a new segment as Apple did with the iPhone and Southwest Airlines did with low-cost no-frills air travel.

Strategy is not a Plan

A strategy differs from a strategic plan in that the strategy focuses on the outcomes, and the plan is how to achieve those outcomes. It helps an organization focus the energy, resources, and time of everyone in the organization in the same direction towards a common goal. It provides focus and impetus to move from idea to action. It is the formalized road map that describes how your organization executes the chosen strategy; the plan is not the end; it is the means to the end. It’s a map.

Strategy is…

Often, the term ‘strategy’ is synonymous with ‘plan’. Porter posits that strategy is a verb; the creation of a unique and valuable position, involving different set of activities. This becomes the guidance for all activities of the organization. Action, supported by solid arguments.

We can boil a reasonable interpretation of the meaning of strategy down to one thing; doing the things that increase value for the entity, however the entity defines ‘value’.

Criteria for a Good Strategy

In view of this, we can conclude that a “good” strategy:

• Drives the organization closer to its goal. There is enough “meat on the bones” to push the organization into some action towards achievement of the goals of the organization.
• Provides security for the people in the organization; the strategy should strengthen the firm’s position and security, and thus its people.
• Provides satisfaction for other stakeholders. Any strategy that violates stakeholder terms cannot be sustained, and thus violates the first criteria.
  • Customers must be satisfied with the product or service.
  • The community should be enhanced, or at least not harmed.
• Promotes sustainable results; it should build on the organization’s strengths and be self sustaining
• Is robust – allows growth even in times of volatility in the company’s domain or market

ToC verbalizes these criteria in this way:

• Build a decisive competitive edge (DCE). Decisive in that the competitive advantage is far better than other firms’ abilities or capacities. Implied is that other firms cannot or will not duplicate this unique facility. It is like the traditional concept of competitive advantage, except that the DCE is based on solving significant customer problems created by the suppliers. For example, brands dictating a minimum order quantity or full truckload shipment policies that dictate large order quantities.
• And the capability to capitalize on it. A DCE is based on operational excellence (i.e., fast delivery, high quality, low cost, etc.), but that is not enough. One must have or build the policies, systems and processes to leverage these abilities in the marketplace. You don’t have to look far to see the failure of great products done in by poor marketing.
• On big enough markets. Not to be too obvious here, but we hope that if we go to the trouble of the previous two items, we would have a large enough market to make it worth our while.
• Without exhausting the company’s resources. We don’t want to “bet the farm” on any strategy, unless we must. We must leverage our existing resources, shifting them to the DCE strategy almost without effort.
• And without taking real risks. We could substitute the word “real” with “big”. The strategy should ensure stability through volatility; it should remain profitable, even during market turndowns. There should be no sacrificing of critical resources (no mass layoffs – low cost sacrifices) or selling off assets. It should ensure asymmetrical rewards (strong profits during growth, limited losses during downturns).

A ToC Strategic Approach

A ‘ToC strategy’ is built around the organizations’ constraint(s). The strategy would explicitly acknowledge the current constraint and contain the elements to either break or elevate that constraint, including the emergence of and breaking new constraints during the execution of the strategy. For example, if the constraint is the market, we would build the strategy around growing sales, navigating the (planned) changing location of the Constraint (i.e., internal capacity, distribution, back to the market, etc.).

Secondly, a ToC strategy built with the idea that the organization’s performance should be constantly rising. That improvement is a way of life for the organization, not bursts of change, but constant change. This gives rise to the concept of the Ever-Flourishing approach.

Third, a ToC strategy relies on innovation. Innovation is in removing a significant limitation to creating value. Value for your firm, value for partners in the supply chain, and value for the end customer.

Problems with Strategy

A successful strategy has at least three problems to solve: choosing the “right” objectives, developing a plan to realize them, and successful execution of that plan.

There is significant amount of research that show many strategic initiatives do not bear the fruit envisioned. Almost half of all strategic initiatives undertaken fail.

There are significant obstacles to strategic success. Planners often have incomplete information. For example, what buyers “truly” desire and their motivations. There are entire industries devoted to just these 2 questions!  Even among the experts, you’ll find that the strategic information is still not perfect, rife with wishes and bias.  I’m reminded of Henry Ford’s quote, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”

Many strategies fall short because it’s difficult to understand what influences system behaviors. The customer, the competitors, even the organization itself are hard to analyze because of the number of variables and their relationships are difficult to identify and quantify.

Planners themselves are subject to bias and wishful thinking. They create strategies using untested assumptions and fill them with geographical and cultural biases. They hold on to the past, when they should be embracing the future. Think of Kodak’s reliance on film, even though they invented digital photography. Or Chevrolet’s introduction of the Nova in Mexico, where Nova literally means no go (No-Va). We are all subject to the “blindness” and bias. Recognizing it is the difficulty.

Further, strategy failures are tied to the lack of a theory of implementation.  To successfully execute an organization’s strategy, it must have a singular focus of the people (every person?) in that organization. A strategy is incomplete unless there are mechanisms to create, monitor, and reward that focus as it is expressed. Critical implementation questions such as, “How do we know if we’re on track?”, “Who is responsible for each element?”, and “When should we intervene or reevaluate the strategy?” must be answered.

Complex systems hide the relationships that matter to a successful strategy. Planners and executives are often domain experts, but sometimes lack the understanding of how the “system” works. For example, how a firm interacts with its competitors or the reasons why their products are chosen over their competitors. There aren’t many people that can provide a detailed operational map of how a firm delivers its strategic choices to the customer. And understanding how these two systems interact? Most planners are relying on intuition, not a rigorous analysis.

A lot of attention is given to the planning aspect of strategy with little attention to how to manage its execution. Often, the skills to successfully implement the strategy are absent from the strategy itself.  It’s hard to know what you do not know, so sometimes strategies fail because of lack of rigor in implementation planning.

Finally, no strategy can succeed with cross functional conflicts in the organization. Any strategy that has one silo “winning” at the expense of another is doomed.  Conflicting standards of performance, compensation, and rewards (informal & formal) will break any strategy.

What ToC Offers to Strategists

ToC offers a framework that overcomes many of the obstacles that break most strategic initiatives. Whether they are “correct” is a matter of judgement. And a set of tools to overcome many of the obstacles to creating and delivering a good strategy. 

The approach to strategy, with operational excellence as the foundation, then focusing on the problems (undesirable effects) that are inherent in the “standard” way of doing business offers a fresh perspective in arriving at a strategy that will cause success.

With the Thinking Processes (TP), you can analyze and deepen your understanding of complex system behavior, highlighting the cause-and-effect relationships and revealing hidden assumptions. This can go a long way to breaking the complexity obstacle, both in understanding the existing system’s behavior and predicting its future behavior, identifying risks in new strategies. Further, a significant feature of the TP is the ability to identify and resolve cross functional conflicts and establish congruent standards of performance.

To find a “right” strategy and its potential results, ToC recommends a rigorous analysis of the market using the thinking processes of the Current Reality Tree, Evaporating Cloud and Future Reality Tree.

Using the Strategy and Tactics tool provides a theory of implementation and a roadmap to develop the supporting tactics to successfully implement a strategy.

The most important feature of a ToC-based strategy is its focus on the most critical issues—the Constraint(s) and the uncertainty that affects them. The only strategy worth implementing is one that systematically breaks the limitations of higher performance and drives the organization towards its Goal.

Bibliography

Cooper, Marjorie, ToC handbook (2010), Traditional Strategy Models and the Theory of Constraints

Goldratt, Eliyahu, ToC handbook (2010), Introduction to ToC- My Perspective

Spender, J.C., Business Strategy (2014), Oxford Press

Michael E. Porter (2000), What is Strategy, Harvard Business Review

Goldratt, Eliyahu, The Gestalt of TOC (2010), YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQoO8y3En3w

Boston Consulting Group, (2014), Strategic Initiative Management: The PMO Imperative

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (1996), My Saga to Improve Production

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (2011), Building a Blue Ocean Strategy, http://toc.tv

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (2011), Goldratt Satellite Program Marketing – Unrefusable Offers and Market Segmentation

Rumelt, Richard, (2011), McKinsey Quarterly, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/the-perils-of-bad-strategy

Edinger, Scott, (2012), Three Cs of Implementing Strategy, http://forbes.com

The post Theory of Constraints Applied to Strategy appeared first on Projects in Less Time - Mark Woeppel.

Almost every manager is aware of Pareto’s law, the important few – the trivial many which is often thought of as the 80/20 rule. 80% of results are generated by 20% of the actions. To improve your effectiveness, one only need to focus on the 20% and you’ll get almost all of the results (80%). This simple truism is generally true, but not true in systems where there is strong dependency relationship between the entities. In these types of systems, the rule is closer to 99/1. 99% are relatively trivial and only 1% are important. 

This is the world of organizations.

The ToC is the science of making decisions in that world. 

It starts with the articulation of the Goal. The purpose of the organization.

Throughout the literature, the goal of the enterprise is stated as to make more money now, and in the future. This is rooted in the idea of ownership and the rights of owners to establish the direction of the enterprises in which they have an interest. Who gets to establish the purpose of any system? Its owners. For companies that are publicly held, it is clear that the motivation of its owners (stockholders) is profit. Therefore, the enterprise must be directed towards that end.

That’s not to say that the pursuit of increasing profit is exclusive of anything else. The goal is to make money in the future as well. In order to fulfill this aspect of the goal, we recognize that are boundary conditions – necessary conditions that must be met in order to achieve the goal. You can’t mistreat your workers for long, it will sacrifice the future. You can’t disobey the environmental regulations for long, or your profit will be impacted through fines, negative market response, etc.

This goal (making money) is not universal. Charities, governments, churches, schools are (generally) not directed to making more money now and in the future. Maybe your private company is not directed towards that goal. That’s fine. ToC is not about the goal; it’s about pointing the organization to achieve the goal. What is important is that the goal is verbalized, and a measurement is in place to determine whether or not you are getting closer to it. If you’re a non-profit, the goal is not measured in money, but money is a necessary condition to achieve that goal.

The objective of using ToC is to improve your capabilities to move you closer to achieving your goal. More money now and in the future, fewer people without homes now and in the future, mores students better prepared to enter the workforce now an in the future, etc. Your efforts as a manager and leader are to move the organization closer to its goal. Now and in the future. 

Marking the distinction between THE goal and necessary conditions is the first step to focusing. As a matter of focus, the necessary conditions are those factors that are monitored, but not improved unless there is some violation. 

The goal is your “true north” or your chosen strategy to achieve that true north. The necessary conditions are the boundaries. The distinction between the two is found when you satisfy that necessary condition. For example, cash flow. If you have enough, it is not a matter that requires full attention. If you don’t enough, nothing else matters, not even the goal! 

A Chain is Only as Strong as its Weakest Link

Achieving the Goal is a process, subject to dependency and variation. In order to make money, one must have a product, a customer to buy, a system to deliver, and then get paid. How many people does it take to disrupt that process?  Just one. There’s your dependency. We know Murphy lives, so there is your variation.

Making money – achieving your goal is like managing a chain, where each link (action) and resource (strength) is connected to another. We all know that the strength of the chain is determined by its weakest link. Organizations are like chains. There is always the weakest link. The challenge is identifying that link, then moving the organization to strengthen that link. Since the strength of the chain is always determined by the weakest link, there will always be one, if that is strengthened, there will still be a weakest link.  

That weakest link is the Constraint. It determines your profit, your return on investment, your performance in your market. If you don’t know where it is, you are shooting in the dark. Serious pursuit of the Goal implies serious pursuit and breaking of the Constraint. Putting your attention and resources to improve in other places may improve the local situation but will not improve the global situation.

Since the Constraint only exists in the context of its goal, actively breaking the organization’s constraint or moving the it to a ‘better’ location moves the organization closer to achieving its goal (more and more).

A Bottleneck is Not the Constraint

Often, we see our progress blocked by scarcity; not enough resources to accommodate demand. It may seem like the constraint bounces around the organization without rhyme or reason. This is the evidence that you do not have an internal resource Constraint, but rather, your organization does not know where the Constraint lies and thus, cannot react to it. Bottlenecks are temporary, the real Constraint is difficult to move. It’s expensive. Scarce. 

Engines of Disharmony / the Core Conflict

In the early development of the ToC, the Constraint was to be considered a physical thing, like a machine or some capability. This evolved into thinking of the Constraint is a set of rules or policies that govern the utilization of physical resources.  This realization gave rise to the search for a method to identify these ‘erroneous’ policies, and the Thinking Processes were developed.

Over time, ToC practitioners found that erroneous (sub-optimal) policies are a developed as a reaction to resolve a conflict in the system. I.e., short term action vs. long term action, or satisfying customers vs. satisfying shareholders. Typically, the resolutions are compromises between necessary conditions, sacrificing a bit of each to find an acceptable solution. As organizations become more and more complex, these compromises become the fabric of how the organization is run, and the compromises also become more complex. 

These conflicts, where there is a sacrifice of a necessary condition, are thus related to each other, and can be traced to a single, core conflict. Many problems can be traced to this unresolved conflict.  This conflict and the resulting compromises become the Engines of Disharmony, creating friction in the organization, blocking progress. 

This core conflict becomes the true Constraint. Identifying and resolving that conflict is the holy grail of a ToC based strategy.

Strategic Implications of the Theory of Constraints

The strength of any chain is determined by its weakest link. No chain is infinitely strong, therefore the strength of even the strongest chain is still determined by its weakest link.

Your organization will always be constrained.

Strategists should not be chasing the weakest link; they must decide where that link will be. Your strategy and tactics are to move the Constraint to a location where it propels your organization closer to its Goal now, and in the future. You will be anticipating the movement of the Constraint and building supporting structures to support the sustainment of the location, hopefully before it moves.

Breaking Constraints

Is the Constraint internal to the organization or external? Is it the market size (demand) or an internal capability that prevents you from satisfying all the demand?

I’ll show later that the Viable Vision^[1] strategies are built on developing a decisive competitive capability (edge) or improving an area of operation, then exploiting this new capability to gain market share. For example, if there is excess production capacity (the desired Constraint) or underserved market(s), a strategy would be built focusing on customer facing activities like more sales activity (the current bottleneck) in a certain market segment or new products (a Constraint, but not the one that is wanted) that create more demand for segments where there is opportunity. 

The strategy could be driven to achieving a certain objective, like domination of a market, or introducing a new technology. The execution of the strategy would be based on moving the Constraint from one area of the company, like sales capacity to another area of the company, say, product development. 

Understanding the Constraint today versus the desired location helps decision makers choose the best alternatives, moving the organization in a practical way, closer and closer to its goal.

The Applications of the Theory of Constraints

The applications or solutions of the Theory of Constraints are:

• The 5 Focusing Steps
• Drum Buffer Rope, a production scheduling technique
• ToC measurement systems (Throughput, Inventory, Operating Expense), management financial decision making
• Critical Chain Project Management, project scheduling and execution
• Demand-Pull Replenishment (the Distribution Solution)
• ToC in Sales & Marketing
• The Thinking Processes, analyzing, creating solutions, and implementation for complex systems

From a strategic standpoint, we don’t really need to know the details of these solutions, only the rough contours and effects of them.

I want to mention that as we (in the ToC community) understood these applications better over time, we also understood the ToC better. The ToC wasn’t created or even named until a few years after the Drum Buffer Rope solution was developed. Over the years, we struggled with the essence of ToC, and that has probably contributed to its lack of recognition as a tool for strategists. 

5 Focusing Steps

The Focusing Steps of ToC.  A checklist of sorts.

1. IDENTIFY the systems constraint.
2. Decide how to EXPLOIT the constraint. Maximize its use.
3. SUBORDINATE everything else to the decisions made to your exploitation decisions. Ensure the 99% does not get in the way of the 1%.
4. If, in the prior steps, the constraint has not been broken, ELEVATE the system’s constraint.
5. Go Back to step #1.

This may seem a bit tactical – like you’re chasing your constraint all over in infinite loops. When you first apply the ToC, you’ll find yourself in that mode. As you mature in the use of the ToC, you’ll find using these steps in a more conceptual manner as you develop your strategy, choosing the Constraint rather than chasing it. 

Even so, it does imply a sequence to attacking the Constraint. Know where it is. Don’t waste it. Ensure no other resources are preventing its full use. Then get more, break the Constraint. Find the new one.

Strategically, the focusing steps help you sort the types and sequence of actions you’ll be taking. More on using these in a strategic context later.

Drum Buffer Rope

The main idea of drum buffer rope (DBR) is to find the Constraint in a sub-system – production, then follow the focusing steps. This is what happened in the book, The Goal. 

During this process, the characters redefined operational efficiency and showed the impracticality of monitoring everything during execution and introduces the concept of Time Buffers.

What the DBR scheduling method does (over other models of production management) is significantly improve operational efficiency, reduce production lead times and improve delivery reliability.

ToC Measurement Systems (Throughput, Inventory, Operating Expense) 

Also introduced in The Goal, T, I, & OE were used as simplified financial metrics for decision making. What the system accomplishes is eliminate distortions in decision making over cost allocation methods. The metrics for decision making improve alignment in decisions, resulting in better resource allocation throughout the organization.

Critical Chain Project Management

The method of planning, scheduling, and execution of projects is a local solution (projects or portfolios of projects) that identify the constraint as the longest chain of resources and tasks, with the Goal being the delivery of the project.  The methodology further refines the use of time buffers in processes with greater uncertainty and variation.

What CCPM does is dramatically reduce the time to deliver projects, improve productivity and delivery reliability. 

Demand-Pull Replenishment

Sometimes called the “Distribution Solution” of the ToC, this solution combines time buffering management with a demand-based replenishment mechanism to improve availability with less inventory investment. Often a 50% improvement over traditional methods, it solves the bullwhip effect found in supply chains. 

As with the other solutions, the supply chain is dealt with as a sub-system, with the Constraint being shelf space, and the Goal being sales (of SKUs).

ToC in Sales and Marketing

This application is probably the most strategic in the sense that it considers the needs of the customers in other dimensions besides delivery reliability. When the Constraint is in the market, internal capabilities take a back seat. The application is broken into:

• The Un-refusable Offer (sometimes called the Mafia Offer) 
• The Layers of Resistance (sells the offer)

The definition of Un-refusable Offer (URO)is one that is so compelling, has so much value, is so good, that customers cannot say no when presented with the offer. This offer would be created by having a deep understanding the customer, the industry, and identifying the core problems. 

The unique feature of a URO is that it is a complete solution that solves the customers‘ core problem as it relates to doing business within their industry. It is not a restatement of the unique value proposition, although it most certainly fits that definition. Creating a URO typically requires that a supplier of the offer do something different (e.g., make operational improvements) to address the customers’ core problem. 

The Layers of Resistance is a framework for selling the offer and is often used on its own to create buy in to a new idea or solution. The Layers are:

1. We don’t agree on the problem being addressed
2. We don’t agree on the direction of the solution
3. We don’t agree the solution solves the problem
4. We see that the solution, if implemented, causes negative effects
5. We see obstacles blocking a realistic implementation of the proposed solution
6. Fear of the unknown

The steps are to be accomplished in sequence to gain agreement or buy in to the proposed solution. 

What is thought of as resistance becomes a tool for managing organizational change (or selling a solution) to systematically objections and obtain buy-in. 

The Questions on Technology are thematically similar.

• What is the power (capability) of the new technology?
• What limitation does it diminish?
• What are the old rules that supported the limitation?
• What are the new rules that should be used now with the new capability?
• What technology changes are required to support?
• How to cause the change?

The ToC (constraint busting) has been applied to the sales process itself, breaking the Constraint of sales staff interaction with the customer, enabling massive increases in sales productivity.  This approach breaks a fundamental assumption in sales process engineering, that sales should be the sole responsibility of autonomous agents. 

What ToC does for sales and marketing is to identify ‘blue ocean’ strategies to find new market opportunities and re-think the manner in which the solution is sold to the customer; from articulation of value to communicating that value to customers and markets.

The Thinking Processes (TP)

The objective of the TP is to reliably answer the question of where to focus. It makes clear distinctions between causes and effects, exposes hidden assumptions and identifies the relationships among them. Typically used when one is developing a deep understanding of a system with an eye towards improving it. 

The TP is a set of tools answer the 3 questions of change.

• What to change?  Defining the core problem – the elements that are the causes of the undesirable effects (symptoms). 
• What to change to? Defining the changes to be introduced to eliminate the current undesirable effects without creating new ones.
• How to cause the change? Mapping the actions from the current state to the future state without creating new problems.

The TP consists of the Current Reality Tree and Evaporating Cloud, which is devoted to answering the first question. The Future Reality Tree and Prerequisite Trees are used to answer the second, and the Transition Tree is used to answer the third.

A special category of the TP is devoted to the most recent development, the Strategy & Tactics Tree. It is used most frequently to answer the 3^rd question or in situations where the first 2 questions are not necessarily deeply analyzed. 

These capabilities are the typical starting point of ToC based strategy. Anyone can break a single constraint or implement a single solution. The strategy dictates how to create, capitalize upon, then maintain that decisive competitive edge.

Bibliography

Goldratt, Eliyahu & Jeff Cox, (1984), The Goal; Excellence in Manufacturing, North River Press 

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (2011), Theory of Constraints Handbook Chapter 1 Introduction to ToC, McGraw Hill 

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (2012), The Gestalt of ToC Part 1, YouTube

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (2017), Engines of Disharmony, YouTube https://youtu.be/nnejDyoR_Fg

Cox III, James F., Lynn H. Boyd, Timothy T. Sullivan, Richard A. Reid, and Brad Cartier, 2012, The Theory of Constraints International Certification Organization Dictionary, Second Edition, https://www.tocico.org/resource/resmgr/dictionary/tocico_dictionary_2nd_editio.pdf

Roff-Marsh, Justin, 2015, The Machine: A Radical Approach to the Design of the Sales Function (Book 1), Independently Published

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (2008), The Every-Flourishing Company – Part One https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv7SCRNZggk

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (2008), The Every-Flourishing Company – Part Two, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij71X6cxv-I&t=158s

Barnad, Alan, (2016), Applying Theory of Constraints to developing Business Strategy,

^[1] Viable Vision is a strategy with the objective of converting a firm to ever-flourishing. We’ll discuss the different strategy templates associated with the Viable Vision approach in later chapters.

The post An Introduction to the Theory of Constraints appeared first on Projects in Less Time - Mark Woeppel.

Let’s suppose your teams are delivering one project every other month; that’s 6 projects annually.

If each project is worth $600k, your revenue over the year would be $3.6MM

Before I go on, think for a moment about your car. Or cars in general. Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla Motors said, “Most cars are only in use by their owners for 5% to 10% of the day.”

Just like cars, projects are idle most of the time. The work or tasks are not active, they are waiting.

The project duration is comprised mostly of waiting, not working. Waiting for the next job, waiting for approvals, waiting for information; waiting, not working

What would happen if you concentrated your resources to focus on a single project at a time? What if they focused on finishing projects, not finishing tasks?

You could reduce all project durations, and do more.

If you made a modest change – simply changing priorities to focus effort on the completion of the critical chain, you could reduce durations by a third or even half.

Your $3.6MM in revenue could climb to $5.4MM or even $7.2MM. With the same resources.

This is not a fantasy; I have seen this many time with many of our clients, using ViewPoint Visual Project Management and the Theory of Constraints.

FMC Technologies had many remote teams and getting collaboration between design, supply chain, and production was critical to their success. They reduced their project duration from 31 days to 8, increasing shipments 326%, with the corresponding profit increase.

This just one example of real world success. Focus on completions – get more done. Ship more. Bill more. Earn more.

Time is money.

The post Is Time Equal to Money? Part 2 appeared first on Projects in Less Time - Mark Woeppel.

“Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” – Isaac Newton

The Theory of Constraints. What sort of management strategy is that? Who calls a management approach a “theory”? And “constraints”; isn’t that the same thing as a “bottleneck”? If you’ve read Eliyahu Goldratt’s book, The Goal, then you know that the theory of constraints is just a dressed-up scheduling system. And a derivative one, at that.

You may have heard or thought these comments yourself.

The Theory of Constraints (ToC) might be these things, but it is more than that. ToC, while being a collection of insights and procedures, is also an approach to understanding and designing systems. From its beginnings as a shop floor scheduling system it evolved to a holistic approach to develop and implement strategies for organizations.

In the coming pages, I’ll summarize ToC, with an emphasis on strategy and the execution of that strategy.

Let’s start with the definition; the Theory of Constraints. Often, the word ‘theory’ used synonymously with unproven. That’s not the meaning here. In the scientific realm, a theory explains how things work, as in, the Theory of Relativity. A theory is only “proven” in terms of its logic and experiments, but it’s useful – until something better is found; it generally works in the real world, not just in the abstract. The Theory of Constraints explains how systems work. All systems have constraints, yet they are often unidentified. Especially in complex systems where it seems the ‘Constraint’ is constantly on the move.

ToC processes apply the approach of the hard sciences to the “soft” social sciences. It attempts to employ scientific rigor to organizational (social) problems and behaviors to better understand how systems behave and solve long-standing problems.

In the hard sciences, the simplest solution is often the correct one. Scientists are trained to use Occam’s Razor; The principle that states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. It is the underpinning of all scientific theory building. In the same way, ToC searches for the “inherent simplicity” of system behavior; the fewest assumptions or causes, for the most effects.

In scientific inquiry, one observes a certain behavior or effect. Then, asks “why”. “Why did that happen?”. To understand the cause, the scientist creates a hypothesis that explains the effect.  Then, to test the hypothesis, predicts other effects that must also be present if the hypothesis is correct. If the other effect(s) are observed, the hypothesis is strengthened. This doesn’t mean that it is “correct”, but only “strong. Goldratt said (paraphrasing here) “The true test of a good hypothesis is, that when the hypothesis and causal linkages are presented, the audience must say ‘It’s obvious!’”.

In the same way, the Theory of Constraints is a strong theory strengthened by numerous experiments. However, just as any theory changes with new knowledge, so does ToC. This may seem unsettling for those who are looking for a recipe. Goldratt and his fellow developers of ToC never looked for a particular recipe, even though many were found. They were and are looking for something deeper. An understanding.

The germ of ToC could be found in Goldratt’s ideas for scheduling factories.  He used those concepts to build software that scheduled factory production. In the adoption of his ideas, he ran into obstacles, finding policies that were preventing successful implementation. So, he wrote The Goal, to explain the ideas behind the software (the drum-buffer-rope procedure). However, even though these were successful, they were leading to the next constraint, and the next, and the next. The theory of constraints has evolved from scheduling, to cost accounting, to performance management, to sales, to projects, to strategy.

ToC approach to systems recognizes that we do not live in a world of deterministic outcomes, but rather, of probabilities – ranges of outcomes. We recognize that “Murphy” lives (statistical fluctuations) and we make decisions with this in mind. Uncertainty surrounds us. There is a kind of randomness or chaos built into the universe. Therefore, our solutions and decisions must be characterized by the calculation of differing outcomes that are determined by circumstances beyond our control. From the random crash on the highway that makes us late to our meeting to a decision by OPEC ministers on oil production quotas that ripple through the world’s economies. We should not kid ourselves that we are fully in control of our own or our firm’s destinies. ToC provides an approach and tools to cope with that uncertainty.

There are ample documents and books on the procedures of ToC. What is not well documented is how to put them in a strategic framework. Let’s begin with the fundamental assumptions and build from there.

Strategy is Not…

Strategy is not a new idea or a product like the new iPhone or electric cars. Nor is it a list of improvement projects to reduce costs or open new markets. It’s not an aim or mission like winning the war, being the market leader, or solving world hunger.

A strategy is a theory of the organization. A statement of who is the customer (a profile of the market), their need and those that are unmet. It defines the capabilities, products and methods that will meet those needs. A strategy is not necessarily holistic, it can be narrowly or broadly defined, depending on the organization. It could be a strategy of product offerings—soda vs, “healthy” drinks or sedans vs. trucks. It could be strategic, creating a new segment as Apple did with the iPhone and Southwest Airlines did with low-cost no-frills air travel.

Strategy is not a Plan

A strategy differs from a strategic plan in that the strategy focuses on the outcomes, and the plan is how to achieve those outcomes. It helps an organization focus the energy, resources, and time of everyone in the organization in the same direction towards a common goal. It provides focus and impetus to move from idea to action. It is the formalized road map that describes how your organization executes the chosen strategy; the plan is not the end; it is the means to the end. It’s a map.

Strategy is…

Often, the term ‘strategy’ is synonymous with ‘plan’. Porter posits that strategy is a verb; the creation of a unique and valuable position, involving different set of activities. This becomes the guidance for all activities of the organization. Action, supported by solid arguments.

We can boil a reasonable interpretation of the meaning of strategy down to one thing; doing the things that increase value for the entity, however the organization defines ‘value’.

Criteria for a Good Strategy

In view of this, we can conclude that a “good” strategy:

• Drives the organization closer to its goal. There is enough “meat on the bones” to push the organization into some action towards achievement of the goals of the organization.
• Provides security for the people in the organization; the strategy should strengthen the firm’s position and security, and thus its people.
• Provides satisfaction for other stakeholders. Any strategy that violates stakeholder terms cannot be sustained, and thus violates the first criteria.
  • Customers must be satisfied with the product or service.
  • The community should be enhanced, or at least not harmed.
• Promotes sustainable results; it should build on the organization’s strengths and be self sustaining
• Is robust – allows growth even in times of volatility in the company’s domain or market

ToC verbalizes these criteria in this way:

• Build a decisive competitive edge (DCE). Decisive in that the competitive advantage is far better than other firms’ abilities or capacities. Implied is that other firms cannot or will not duplicate this unique facility. It is like the traditional concept of competitive advantage, except that the DCE is based on solving significant customer problems created by the suppliers. For example, brands dictating a minimum order quantity or full truckload shipment policies that dictate large order quantities.
• And the capability to capitalize on it. A DCE is based on operational excellence (i.e., fast delivery, high quality, low cost, etc.), but that is not enough. One must have or build the policies, systems and processes to leverage these abilities in the marketplace. You don’t have to look far to see the failure of great products done in by poor marketing.
• On big enough markets. Not to be too obvious here, but we hope that if we go to the trouble of the previous two items, we would have a large enough market to make it worth our while.
• Without exhausting the company’s resources. We don’t want to “bet the farm” on any strategy, unless we must. We must leverage our existing resources, shifting them to the DCE strategy almost without effort.
• And without taking real risks. We could substitute the word “real” with “big”. The strategy should ensure stability through volatility; it should remain profitable, even during market turndowns. There should be no sacrificing critical resources (no mass layoffs – low cost sacrifices) or selling off assets. It should ensure asymmetrical rewards (strong profits during growth, limited losses during downturns).

A ToC Strategic Approach

A ‘ToC strategy’ is built around the organizations’ constraint(s). The strategy would explicitly acknowledge the current constraint and contain the elements to either break or elevate that constraint, including the emergence of and breaking new constraints during the execution of the strategy. For example, if the constraint is the market, we would build the strategy around growing sales, navigating the (planned) changing location of the Constraint (i.e., internal capacity, distribution, back to the market, etc.).

Secondly, a ToC strategy built with the idea that the organization’s performance should be constantly rising. That improvement is a way of life for the organization, not bursts of change, but constant change. This gives rise to the concept of the Ever-Flourishing approach.

The Ever-Flourishing Organization

An ever-flourishing organization is one that is constantly growing and improving (always relative to its purpose). The idea is often presented as two lines on a graph where performance is on the y axis, and time on the x axis. ToC practitioners have posited that there are two paths, a red curve, with a rapid, almost exponential growth, and a green curve, with a more linear improvement.

A high growth environment (red curve) is perilous, so stability of profit growth (green curve) is a primary consideration in formulating a strategy.  The goal is the red curve—a situation where the rate of improvement INCREASES, but for an ever-flourishing firm, you need BOTH. The strategy resolves these incongruities.

Problems with Strategy

A successful strategy has at least three problems to solve: choosing the “right” objectives, developing a plan to realize them, and successful execution of that plan.

There is significant amount of research that show many strategic initiatives do not bear the fruit envisioned. Almost half of all strategic initiatives undertaken fail.

There are significant obstacles to strategic success. Planners often have incomplete information. For example, what buyers “truly” desire and their motivations. There are entire industries devoted to just these 2 questions!  Even among the experts, you’ll find that the strategic information is still not perfect, rife with wishes and bias.  I’m reminded of Henry Ford’s quote, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”

Many strategies fall short because it’s difficult to understand what influences system behaviors. The customer, the competitors, even the organization itself are hard to analyze because of the number of variables and their relationships are difficult to identify and quantify.

Planners themselves are subject to bias and wishful thinking. They create strategies using untested assumptions and fill them with geographical and cultural differences. They hold on to the past, when they should be embracing the future. Think of Kodak’s reliance on film, even though they invented digital photography. Or Chevrolet’s introduction of the Nova in Mexico, where Nova literally means no go (No-Va). We are all subject to the “blindness” and bias. Recognizing it is the difficulty.

Further, strategy failures are tied to the lack of a theory of implementation.  To successfully execute an organization’s strategy, it must have a singular focus of the people (every person?) in that organization. A strategy is incomplete unless there are mechanisms to create, monitor, and reward that focus as it is expressed. Critical implementation questions such as, “How do we know if we’re on track?”, “Who is responsible for each element?”, and “When should we intervene or reevaluate the strategy?” must be answered.

Complex systems hide the relationships that matter to a successful strategy. Planners and executives are often domain experts, but sometimes lack the understanding of how the “system” works. For example, how a firm interacts with its competitors or the reasons why their products are chosen over their competitors. There aren’t many people that can provide a detailed operational map of how a firm delivers its strategic choices to the customer. And understanding how these two systems interact? Most planners are relying on intuition, not a rigorous analysis.

The Project Management Institute and others give a lot of attention to the execution side of things. Often, the skills to successfully implement the strategy are absent from the strategy itself.  It’s hard to know what you do not know, so sometimes strategies fail because of lack of rigor in implementation planning.

Finally, no strategy can succeed with cross functional conflicts in the organization. Any strategy that has one silo “winning” at the expense of another is doomed.  Conflicting standards of performance, compensation, and rewards (informal & formal) will break any strategy.

What ToC Offers to Strategists

ToC offers a framework that overcomes many of the obstacles that break most strategic initiatives. Whether they are “correct” is a matter of judgement. And a set of tools to overcome many of the obstacles to creating and delivering a good strategy.  I will cover this framework and tools in detail in later chapters.

The approach to strategy, with operational excellence as the foundation, then focusing on the problems (undesirable effects) that are inherent in the “standard” way of doing business offers a fresh perspective in arriving at a strategy that will cause success.

With the Thinking Processes (TP), you can analyze and deepen your understanding of complex system behavior, highlighting the cause-and-effect relationships and revealing hidden assumptions. This can go a long way to breaking the complexity obstacle, both in understanding the existing system’s behavior and predicting its future behavior, identifying risks in new strategies. Further, a significant feature of the TP is the ability to identify and resolve cross functional conflicts and establish congruent standards of performance.

To find a “right” strategy and its potential results, ToC recommends a rigorous analysis of the market using the thinking processes of the Current Reality Tree, Evaporating Cloud and Future Reality Tree.

Using the Strategy and Tactics tool provides a theory of implementation and a roadmap to develop the supporting tactics to successfully implement a strategy.

The most important feature of a ToC-based strategy is its focus on the most critical issues—the Constraint(s) and the uncertainty that affects them. The only strategy worth implementing is one that breaks the limitations of higher performance and systematically drives the organization towards its goal.

Bibliography

Cooper, Marjorie, ToC handbook (2010), Traditional Strategy Models and the Theory of Constraints

Goldratt, Eliyahu, ToC handbook (2010), Introduction to ToC- My Perspective

Spender, J.C., Business Strategy (2014), Oxford Press

Michael E. Porter (2000), What is Strategy, Harvard Business Review

Goldratt, Eliyahu, The Gestalt of TOC (2010), YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQoO8y3En3w

Boston Consulting Group, (2014), Strategic Initiative Management: The PMO Imperative

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (1996), My Saga to Improve Production

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (2011), Building a Blue Ocean Strategy, http://toc.tv

Goldratt, Eliyahu, (2011), Goldratt Satellite Program Marketing – Unrefusable Offers and Market Segmentation

Rumelt, Richard, (2011), McKinsey Quarterly, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/the-perils-of-bad-strategy

Edinger, Scott, (2012), Three Cs of Implementing Strategy, http://forbes.com

The post Theory of Constraints & Strategy – An Introduction appeared first on Projects in Less Time - Mark Woeppel.

Do you have genuine insight into your project’s delivery risk? By risk, I mean, do you know the chance your project has of delivering on time or late? By genuine, I mean, something quantifiable?

Most of the time, managers look at task completion dates or schedule compliance to judge the risk. If you’re on planned timeline, your risk is deemed to be low. The problem is that you can’t know if that plan is a good one. You only know it’s good so far. Good, in that your progress matches the plan. What if the plan is padded with extra time? Your team is only going as fast as the plan tells them to. What if there is risk later in the project? Only “so far” won’t tell you if you can speed up, or if there’s an obstacle ahead.
 
Most managers don’t know if their project will be on time, until it’s not.
 
I’ve written before about the most important measurements in projects and the behavior you need to deliver on time: proactive and speedy resolution of problems. These metrics are based on the premise that behavior is the precursor to results. If you want to know if you’re going to get the results, you should measure the behaviors.
 
Managers are at the core, influencers of behavior. What needs to be done, is done by people, behaving in specific ways to accomplish specific results. Managers exert influence to:

• Increase some behaviors
• Decrease some behaviors
• Initiate new behaviors

No matter what you’re doing, whether you’re improving quality or increasing productivity, it’s the behavior that drives that result. I’ve often said the best project managers are the best negotiators. The best project managers are the ones that know what behavior they need and are successful at getting it.
 
Do you know the behaviors that will deliver projects on time?
 
If you don’t know the behaviors, you can’t measure them; you can’t influence them.
 
Any project worth doing is worth doing quickly. Shorter completion times mean more revenue, sooner. If your project is not moving, the risk of late completion is rising. Therefore, the on-time behaviors to watch and measure are geared towards speed and flow
Several people have roles in keep the project moving: Executives, Project Managers, Functional (Task) Managers, and the Resources that are doing the work.
 
In this post, I’m focusing on just the executives. The owners of the projects. It’s the project manager’s responsibility to manage their behavior, as much as it is to manage the activity of the project.
 
The most critical on time behaviors for the executives are around engagement. They are engaged in the process of delivering projects; governing the portfolio schedule, establishing project priorities and resolving resource allocation conflicts to keep the projects moving. They’re directing and leading process improvements.
 
You could ask, “Why should I care about process improvement?” After all, you’re a project manager, you don’t own the work practices of your resources (engineers, subcontractors, welders, etc.). While the project manager doesn’t “own” anything except the project, you do care about schedule risk. You should care about speed (or flow). Speed is a function of the process. That puts you (the PM) in a kind of governance role, overseeing process improvements. You can’t implement the improvements, but you can make sure there’s a process in place to continuously reduce schedule risk.
 
How do you know if the senior managers are engaged? Not by the number of emails you get, that’s for sure.
 
Measure the blocked and critical tasks, the quantity, and the number of days to resolve them. I keep a list of process improvements and watch if the number of items is stable or falling and the rate of the completion of process improvements
 
If blocked and critical tasks are languishing, it means someone is:

• Not watching the impediments to progress
• Conflicts are not being resolved
• Resolution priorities are not assigned correctly (for speed)

Each of these are governance responsibilities.
 
If you don’t have the right behaviors at the top, you’re not going to get them in the middle or the bottom. As the person accountable for on time delivery, you must know, measure, and manage the behavior to get what you want.
 

The post Spot Delivery Problems Early – Part 1: Governance appeared first on Projects in Less Time - Mark Woeppel.

What does it truly mean? Does time equal money in my project?

If I lose time, I waste money? or If I delay, I get the money later?

If it’s the first definition, you are saying, money is like time. If I waste it, it’s gone forever.

If it’s the latter, you are saying that the delay causes a loss or missing opportunity (during the delay), never to be recovered.

Which is it?

As a practical matter, for a manager delivering a project or results, the main issues are waste and opportunity.

Is all time “wasted” truly lost? How do you know?

Managing Time

Most managers break their projects down into individual tasks with individual deadlines. Like this

Straightforward, isn’t it? Make a list of tasks, estimate durations, link them together and you have your sequence and completion dates. Day to day, your job is to keep those tasks completing on time. To deliver on time, meet all your dates. Don’t be late, each task is important, each resource is important.

Opportunity Time

The problem is that not all task sequences are the same. So, you manage the critical path; if you’re sophisticated, you’ll manage the critical chain. Certain sequences will dictate the overall duration of the project. You’ll give higher priority to one sequence over another.

Here’s the thing about time. By declaring one sequence of tasks more important than another, you are choosing some time to be more crucial than others. Losing time on a non-critical sequence is less important than on the critical sequence. Therefore, in some cases, time is not money. In other cases, time lost is a loss of a LOT of money; the value of the entire project!

During the life of a project, the manager makes tradeoffs between time now and time later. Completing the project delivers a certain value; the value of rental income for a building, the value of a new capability, the value of entering a new market, the value of a new feature, etc. Every project worth doing, is worth doing sooner.

When you’re the project manager, to make an educated decision, you must determine the value of a day. What’s a day worth? And, is the task on the critical chain (which is the shortest time to complete the project)? IF your task is on the critical chain your decisions could be very different than if your task decision is off the critical chain.

Time is Expensive?

You could argue that wasting time on the non-critical tasks costs money. Maybe.

Let’s pick a resource. Let’s say your engineer completes 2 tasks this week, but she can’t do more because she’s waiting for some information. The week before, she was much more productive, she completed 4 tasks. Does that mean that the week where 4 tasks were completed your expenses were lower? Your expenses change only when her pay changes. Only if she was paid less the week 2 tasks were completed. Time equals money only if the expense varies in direct proportion to the work delivered.

For most of us and for most resources, time lost does not equal money lost. People are not paid to produce work; they are paid to show up. The view of the enterprise is that expenses are a function of the number of people on the payroll, not the amount of work that is done. Payroll costs are fixed costs, not variable. Expenses are related to hiring decisions, not production. We can never say time = money when it relates to work, because expenses don’t vary with production. Time = money when look at how many people are on hire per day, week, month, etc.

So, time equals money, sometimes. Not all time is equal. Not all time is costly. Some time is worth a great deal. The cost of time is not the same as the value of time.

Most lost time is simply lost, because most resources are not on the critical chain. And that’s ok. Some lost time affects the critical chain and it’s not ok. What matters is the effect of lost time on the completion of the project, not the completion of an individual task.

The skilled manager must know the difference.

The post Is Time Equal to Money? Part 1 appeared first on Projects in Less Time - Mark Woeppel.