Saturday 17 September 2011

Theory of Constraints - What is this thing called the Theory of Constraints?

Theory of Constraints

“There is Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory” – Kurt Lewin, 1952

What is the Theory of Constraints?

Focus! The core of the Theory of Constraints (TOC) is to focus correctly, on those few critical things that prevent your organization from achieving more of your goal.

In fact, one can identify a goal and two necessary conditions. The goal might be to make money now and more in the future. To do that a business must satisfy their clients* sufficiently (now and in the future) and at the same time their employees must also be sufficiently satisfied (now and in the future). Any one of these three can be the goal; the other two will always be necessary conditions that must be fulfilled!

If you look around your company there are many, many things that can be improved. Organisations use the Theory of Constraints to find which of the possible improvement activities will have the greatest impact on their chosen bottom line. Since Eli Goldratt’s first book ‘The Goal’ TOC has been used to make very significant improvements in many different areas, from production to health care, from project management to distribution, marketing and sales and many more.

Organizations, even those in deep (financial) difficulties find it very difficult to focus their energies on what really counts. Managers and people act but base their actions on erroneous assumptions or paradigms – will these actions really have an impact on the bottom line. A lot of good work gets done, but too little of the effort finds its way to a significant bottom line effect.

To focus an organisation is not easy. Organisations are broken down into departments or divisions and every one of these departments has a target to improve – sales to increase revenues, production to minimize cost (and investment) etc. Management’s working assumption seems to be - if every part of the company is optimal, then the entire organisation will also be optimal. This is never so. An action by the sales organisation can very easily disrupt the factory’s efforts to minimize cost and inventories. Actions in production and the supply chain can easily cancel good sales efforts.

Optimizing all the parts does not result in a global optimum because a business lives in a World of high uncertainty coupled with many dependent events necessary to produce a product or service. The two factors ensure a local optimum can only be achieved in one (or a very few) place(s). Focus must determine where this place is and how it should be exploited.

This leads to the Five Focusing Steps of TOC.

1. Identify the constraint. In the economic environment of 2009 it is quite easy to determine that there is not enough demand from our markets. Businesses need to sell more to be profitable and to have satisfied employees. In many businesses there is something blocking clients from buying more. That something could be customer demand, but it can also be our company not doing things it should be doing or doing things it should not be doing. It is too easy to place the blame on the financial crisis.

2. Decide how to exploit the constraint. This simply asks the question – ‘what should we do in order to maximize the constraint’s performance?’ In today’s World, what would cause clients to buy much more from our company? To what should we change our offering so that our clients (and potential clients) buy much more from us? To lower prices is not the answer!

3. Subordinate everything else to the above decision. This is a difficult step. It says that all resources other than the constraining resource must subordinate (often to sub-optimize their operations) in order to get the absolutely maximum from the constraint. If every department is charged with optimizing their part, then other departments cannot support the constraint properly. The business as a whole will suffer, and consequently so will employees and clients.

4. Elevate the constraint. If the first three steps have been successfully implemented the organisation may find that the constraint has still not been removed. If this is the case, then the time has come to expand the constraint’s capacity. These first four steps help prevent unnecessary investment and when an investment is made it will be done in the correct place.

5. Go back to step 1. BUT do not let your own inertia become the system’s constraint!

The Mafia (or Un-Refusable) Offer

In most industries all competitors are more or less equal – products and service are so equal that significant market share swings do not happen – at least not very often**. Since many industries are well established there is also relatively little market growth. The only way for a business to grow rapidly and at a significantly higher rate than its competitors is through some sort of decisive competitive advantage and therefore market share gains.

While a fantastic new product is always possible, in many industries these are unusual and if they are possible they take a long time to develop and many times they can also easily be emulated. Fortunately products are not everything your clients desire or need. Clients have business problems of their own and, if your offering can solve or significantly reduce your client’s key business problems, then it is possible to achieve a decisive competitive advantage.

A Mafia Offer must meet the following criteria to succeed:

  1. The market must perceive that the value of the company’s products and services (the offering) are sufficiently high.
  2. To be sufficiently high the perceived value of the company’s offering must be much higher than that of any competitor’s offering.
  3. The actions taken to achieve the necessary advantage must be difficult for competitors to copy.
  4. The targeted market(s) must be far larger than the company’s capacity.

This seems to be a very tall order – something almost impossible to achieve. However tools (logical cause-effect-cause analysis) exist to analyse markets in order to discover what a supplier could change to achieve an offering that fulfils the above four points. Generic Mafia Offer templates have been developed and implemented for some typical business issues as product availability, shorter reliable lead-times and others. These have to be adapted to specific environments.

Examples of possible Mafia Offers:

Product availability: Clients want a product when they need it - immediately. Distributors and clients often have to deal with unreliable supply because their own forecasts are poor, replenishment lead-times are (often) too long and suppliers are often not reliable enough. To secure supply, distributors and clients hold too much stock – their investment in materials and components is too high and from time to time they still cannot get what they need.

Would distributors and clients buy more from a company if products were always available when needed? If the supplier guarantees availability with a penalty and he lives by his promise wouldn’t clients prefer him to others? If penalties were high enough, would competitors dare to copy the offering?

New Product Development: Most businesses develop new products continuously – technologies advance. If a business achieves the capability to deliver more new developments in a shorter space of time to much more reliable due dates and without having to add additional resources***  - would such a company gain a significant advantage over its competitors? There are an increasing number of companies achieving such an advantage.

These are just two (unsubstantiated) examples that could lead to a significant competitive advantage. There are more and probably many others yet to be developed

Why are these Scenarios Possible?

We are all programmed to believe that, “A resource standing idle is a major waste.” If a resource is not working, a manager will make sure that it has something to do. Employees also feel the same pressure – with little to do they feel they may not be needed and look for more work. There is the added pressure of, ‘the sooner we start, the sooner we will finish’. Many things are started far too early resulting in significant traffic jams in production and project environments.

Little’s Law****  proved that the flow of goods is much faster when there is LESS work in process (WIP). Our experience tells us that with less work in process, a factory will get shorter lead times and is able to produce at least as much as it did with high amounts of WIP. In many factories one can easily cut lead-times in half by cutting WIP by the same amount. Cutting lead-times can lead to a significant competitive advantage. However the suggested change goes against common practice and is often difficult for production management to accept!

In projects the situation is not much different. Project times can be cut by 25% while due date performance increases to about 90% while any late project is much less late.

Cutting work in process is just one simple tactic. There are several more that enhance these results. Several of them fly in the face of common practice*****  – but they are just common sense.

Why are such Solutions Difficult to Copy?

The simple explanation is that the changes necessary, while they are very much common sense, go almost 100% in the opposite direction to common practice.

It is usually very difficult for a production manager to accept to have some of his resources standing idle. It goes so much against the grain that competitors will not copy changes such as those suggested above – at least it will take quite a long time until they do. Offering high enough penalties increases the hurdle for competitors.

The Impact

The current economic crisis has forced many companies to resort to short workweeks. This practice is a transfer of funds from employees and the population as a whole to support companies in difficulty. The cost of such operations must be repaid sometime in the future and will be borne by the country, through higher taxes (or inflation) or by postponing other needed expenditures – for education, infrastructure, healthcare etc.

If what has been indicated is true, then companies could weather the storm of many economic crises without having to resort to short workweeks or the reduction of their workforce. They will have prepared for such an event by their focus on those few but essential things rather than trying to improve everything. A company can soften the blow by finding those effective strategies and tactics that give it a decisive competitive advantage.

*Clients include those to whom products are sold plus the other external stakeholders like the social, political and physical environment.

** A competitor with a significant competitive advantage must gain market share rapidly – at least until the other competitors have caught up.

*** And the quality of the development work does not suffer!

**** John Little is a professor at MIT, USA http://web.mit.edu/sgraves/www/papers/Little's Law-Published.pdf

*****  Lean and 6-sigma are two commonly used improvement methodologies. What we are proposing here is a focusing technique that together with Lean and 6-Sigma makes them far more powerful. The combination of the Theory of Constraints, Lean and 6-Sigma has been shown to be far more powerful than any one on its own.

Goldratt's book "What is This Thing Called Theory of Constraints and How Should It Be Implemented?" is available at Amazon and other bookstores.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Weakest link

The Weakest Link is the Key!

Saturday 10 September 2011

More Projects – Risk Free

Intuitively we know that too many tasks or projects slow down project completion rate. We should reduce the number of active projects!
“A resource standing idle is a major waste.” Management should find enough work to keep all resources 100% busy. We should increase the number of projects until everyone is continually busy. Not only management, but also almost every employee believes this quotation. Everyone acts accordingly. We tend to increase the number of active projects.
The drive for efficiency and effectiveness prevents limiting the number of active projects. Bad multitasking is prevalent. (One company (Omron in Japan) killed or froze (stopped for a time) over 90% of active projects with only beneficial bottom line results.
What is the risk if we prioritize and then stop some lower priority projects for some time? From the perspective of business results none – things can only improve. However, the boss might discover a favourite project is not being worked on. So, simply make sure the key management projects are top of the priority list, or make sure that management prioritizes projects - which is their responsibility in the first place!
Can there be any other risk?

Bad Multitasking

Bad Multitasking occurs whenever a resource (especially a key resource) switches between tasks without completing his current task. When he returns to the original task the resource will lose time as he familiarizes himself with the stated work. The more tasks a resource switches among, the higher the percentage of valuable resource time lost. The time required for a task increases – even more for intellectually difficult tasks.
Everyone is aware of the effect. People that interrupt their reading take some time to get back into the subject whenever they interrupt. Nevertheless the pressure to keep everyone busy, the pressure to do just one more project, the pressure to show efficiency, the pressures on cost; all cause management to overload their resources to the extent that those businesses that do stop bad multitasking often get startling results – productivity can triple , lead-times can be cut to one third.
62139938 94b4e251cd o


          
                   The drawing is probably not far off reality considering the following:
  • The Israeli Air Force multiplied capability by 7.
  • HP cameras tripled their performance. Many have has similar results.

The Cause and Effect of Bad Multitasking

Management is constantly under pressure to make their part of the business efficient and effective. There are many ways to measure efficiency, but almost all measure a resource’s time – how much of the resource’s available time is used to produce (busy working).
Workers at all levels feel the pressure to be effective and efficient. If they are not busy they seek out work. They ask for work (projects or tasks) to be released to them so that they can be “productive”.
A fact of life in every business or operating system is the existence of a constraint – a factor or resource that limits the capability of the entire organization. No matter how hard other resources work, an organization cannot produce more than whatever its constraint allows. (By producing items that do not need the limiting factor an organization can produce more, but it can also create a second limiting factor that may well disturb (and waste) the primary constraint’s capacity).
If work is released at a greater rate than the limiting factor can actually manage, then work piles up and must wait. If other projects (not using the limiting factor) are launched, then other resources become more loaded and potentially a second constraint is created.  Work also piles up there. The consequence is even more pressure on now both limiting factors to switch between jobs in order to satisfy various ‘customers’. Every switch at the limiting factor costs capacity – the company’s capacity to earn money. How much capacity is lost depends on how difficult it is to re-start (re-set-up) a job and the frequency of task switching.
Projects Vicious Circle 1
Follow the arrows on the graphic on the above – beginning with “Resources are limited” and “There are always opportunities for more projects”. The arrows flow logically from high work in process to lead-time increase to project delays – delays that are accentuated by uncertainty (Murphy)! Finally the situation causes the pressure to start all projects as soon as possible (because of the erroneous belief that the sooner we start the sooner the project will be delivered. And the cycle repeats and gets worse and worse – as illustrated by the graphic below.
Projects Vicious Circle 2 jpg


Consequences – The Damage

The resource, especially the capacity determining resource wastes time switching and in to set up activities when he returns to a job. The capacity lost is that of the company – either opportunities are lost or unnecessary (but costly) or resources must be added.
Switching projects delays every project – a project not worked on is not progressing and therefore (bottom line) results will be delayed. Multitasking causes tasks to complete more or less at the same time – the time it takes to complete all tasks. However, one (the most important one) could have been finished much sooner and therefore produced its benefits (profit) that much sooner. Had resources not multi-tasked, then even the last task or project would be finished much sooner.
Switching back and forth also has a detrimental impact on quality. The original plan and concept for a task is often remembered only vaguely – the resource has to “reinvent” his solution – through his frustration there is an increased risk of poor quality. Poor quality and changes in solution design can easily lead to re-work and more pressure on task time; leading to even more multitasking. We have a negative spiral that strongly amplifies the situation.
The consequence is longer project times, less business due to lead-times, higher cost per project, lost capacity and generally less job-satisfaction for employees. The size of the damage can be seen in the results of companies that did succeed to dramatically reduce bad multitasking. HP camera was able to increase new product development 3-fold while at the same time they delivered their new products 100% on time. The Israeli air force was able to improve their maintenance operation 600%.
Resources did not work any harder. The worked much more effectively because they stopped multi-tasking. Job satisfaction improved accordingly.
Imagine the impact to your bottom line through this kind of reliable speed and free capacity. Even a small part of the potential has huge impact.

Diagram of the Logic

Projects Vicious Circle 3 jpg
Not only does the logical diagram show 5 negative effects, there are also 2 negative feedback loops that (powerfully) strengthen the system and its effect on a project organization. (Touch Time is the amount of time needed to complete tasks and projects.)

A Few Easy Steps

  1. Prioritize all active projects according to their importance for the business as a whole.

  2. Freeze at least 25% of them. In many companies 50% or more can be frozen with only beneficial effects to project speed and the number completed per period.

  3. Project team members follow this rule: Once a task is started it is (almost) always finished before a new one is started.

  4. No task or project is started without ‘Full Kit’ – all necessary materials and information must be available before starting.

  5. Management resists pressures to start more projects. If they do, then ALL projects – even those they delayed – will be completed earlier than otherwise. There is NO risk of getting less done. The organization will deliver more and better quality work.

  6. New projects are started after an active one is completed, truly completed!
  7. Frozen projects are defrosted when projects are completed – 1 for 1 in terms of the load on the constraint capacity.


Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Multitasking the single best way to screw up b mug p1687069136334478752phgd 4001 300x300 thumb

Friday 9 September 2011

Learning from Experience VI

Nov 11th, 2011 Eli Schragenheim will lead a workshop on Learning from Experience. The purpose is to learn how to understand the cause and effect (the why) of disturbing and unexpected results from our actions AND, more importantly to take and apply the important lessons we learn.
The stories in these posts are all about unexpected effects that someone has experienced and that he or she could not properly understand. With Eli, we will look at such problems (bring your own!) and analyse them.
If you are interested The Workshop (in English) will be at the hotel Schiller in Olching (near Munich) followed by the TOC4U Meeting (mostly German) on Saturday Nov. 12th. You can register here: Register or call +49 6252 795 3070 if you have problems with the German registration page.

Six Sigma auf dem Rückzug! The Retreat of Six Sigma

QZ-Frage im Juli



6 Sigma














That Six-Sigma is retreating in Germany is not surprising. But, what is the reason and what can we learn from it?
The people that launched six-sigma on the World said something very significant. The told everyone that to be successful a company’s black and green belts must accomplish many, many smaller projects. Where I used to work projects should deliver about 250’000€ each. With 100 such projects the improvements would reach 25 million Euros – to the bottom line.
The sad part was and probably still is, that it is not possible to identify the impact to the bottom line – there apparently was only a small positive impact to companies’ bottom lines. The size of the bottom line impact was insufficient to justify the huge investment and certainly not enough to motivate employees. No wonder Six-Sigma is retreating in Germany. I wonder what is happening elsewhere in the World?
The graphic below is a possible description of what is happening to Six Sigma (the green ovals represent an and – all the entities that pass through an and are required for the next logical entity. The graphic is a summary; there may be assumptions (we believe realistic) and logical ‘leaps’ (again we believe realistic).)
The graphic shows that since Six Sigma (and many other continual improvement methodologies) is not focused on the businesses limiting factor a lot of effort is wasted – at least for now. Bottom line impacts are delayed, managers are disappointed and eventually everyone moves to some other way of achieving personal targets. The effect is enhanced because there is a negative reinforcing loop (the red line) thatensures any continual improvement programme not focused on the limiting factor is certain to fail sooner or later. It is unfortunate because Six Sigma and other such methodologies have a lot to offer any business – production, project or service oriented.
Why 6Sigma failsWhat is missing is the correct focus on the limiting factor(s). In any business there are not many limiting factors at all – often-just one! If what I have just said is true, then the opportunity for success is great. The rules to follow will be something like:
  1. Identify the limiting factor.
  2. Decide how to exploit (get the most from; how to use the limiting factor in the best possible way) the limiting factor.
  3. Subordinate everything else (the rest of the organisation, the policies, work behaviours etc.) to the decision you just made. This is not an easy thing to implement. Not easy because it means focus on one place instead of improvement everywhere.)
  4. Eventually the limiting factor will be operating at its maximum capability. If it is still the limiting factor, now is the time to expand it.
  5. If during a previous step the limiting factor has moved to another resource then go back to step 1 and start over. (Make sure that your own inertia become the limiting factor – when the limiting factor moves, ALL the experience you have is most likely invalid – go back to step 1.)
These 5 simple rules make Six Sigma, Lean and other improvement methodologies much more effective. The bottom line will receive a very significant boost; managers and employees get a motivation boost and reports of “Six Sigma auf Rückzug” will be replaced by the positive results achieved.
Kermode bear tree 37821 990x742

Beautiful picture from National Geographic

Instead of giving up on Six Sigma lets use a valid focusing mechanism to identify where scarce resources should focus their efforts. 

If we can learn how to do that how much more will continual improvements achieve for the bottom line?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,