Goldratt's Thinking Proc

7/28/2019 Goldratt's Thinking Proc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/goldratts-thinking-proc 1/42

1

Goldratt’s Thinking Process andSystems Thinking

James R. Burns

Fall 2010



5/28/2002

THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS:GOLDRATT

1. Identify the system constraints

2. Decide how to exploit the system

constraints3. Subordinate everything else to that

decision

4. Elevate the system constraints5. When this creates new constraints, go

back to step 1



5/28/2002 3

Reference(s)

Dettmer, H. William, Goldratt’s Theory of

Constraints, ASQ, 1997.



5/28/2002

THE ISSUES ARE:

What to change?

• {What is the core problem?}

What to change to?

• {Where to look for the breakthrough idea?}

How to effect the change?

• {How to bridge from a breakthrough idea to afull solution?}



5/28/2002 5

Goldratt’s TP (Thinking Process)

An excellent methodology to facilitatesessions during the initiation phase

(definition and conceptualization stage) ofa project



5/28/2002

Strategy for change

Create the tree

Critique the tree



5/28/2002

Why trees??

To get a complete picture of what is goingon

To model all of the causation involved

To see what is related to what

To identify the core problem

To validate a proposed injection



5/28/2002

What to change?

Team constructs a current reality tree(CRT)

Team starts by listing all undesirableeffects (UDE’s)

Team inter-relates these by use of a tree,

called a CRT In the current reality tree, the team traces

UDE’s back to a core problem (CP)



5/28/2002

EXAMPLES OF UDE’s

Due dates are often missed

It is difficult to respond to urgent demands

There is too much expediting

Inventory levels are too high

There are frequent material shortagesSafety stocks are inadequate



5/28/2002 10

Symptoms, Root Causes & a CoreProblem

Rather than reacting to symptoms, weshould be finding root causes

We consider undesirable effects to besymptoms

We look for a ―common cause‖ that is the

source for most of the undesirable effects



5/28/2002 11

A CRT for software development

Only 28% of software projects aresuccessful — on-time, within budget and

with full functionalitySoftware projects are always the slowest

projects to be completed• TI merged two divisions of the firm….

– It took 6 months to do all logistics

– It took 18 months to reconcile all of the softwaredifferences



5/28/2002 12

Example Current Reality TreeManaging Software

Development Projects

Is rarely successful

Software Development

Projects take too longSoftware Development

Projects cost too much


Projects have quality

problemsA



5/28/2002 13


Projects take too long



Fixing changes

takes time

There are many late-

breaking changes torequirements

Fixing changes

costs money

Users discover newfeatures they want

included in the software

Users don’tknow what

they want

Users changetheir

minds

Users are untrained and not sophisticated



5/28/2002 14

Users are untrained and not sophisticatedLate in the lifecycle

Users discover new

features they want


Project Managers do not

utilize “early discovery”

techniques with users

Project Managers

Do not train and teach

Users about software

development

Software Project Managers

Are poorly trained

And unaware of pitfalls in

Software projects


do not encourage use of

walkthroughs through

testing

Software is of poor

quality and takes

Much time/money to debug

A



5/28/2002 15

We conclude….

That the core problem is with poorlytrained software project managers



5/28/2002 16

The next construct is theEvaporating Cloud {EC}

The Evaporating Cloud is used to addressthe question…

What to Change to….



5/28/2002

Core problems are studied further byuse of an evaporating cloud

Evaporating clouds (ECs) will surfaceassumptions

Breaking an assumption leads to a

breakthrough called an injection

At this point the team is unconcerned withthe practicality of the injection



5/28/2002

What is an injection?

a solution to the core problem

a strategy that will mitigate all of the UDE’s

Injections that appear impossible toachieve are called flying pigs



5/28/2002 19

Example Evaporating Cloud

Many well-trained

Project Managers

Are available now

Training takes

much time/money,

requires trainers

Project Manager

expertise is

required now

Instant

Project Manager

expertise required

Project training is

long and arduous



5/28/2002 20

What have we learned from theEC above?

Many expert project managers are needednow

Creating well-trained project managerstakes time

Instant project management expertise is

required nowSOLUTION: Expert system for project

management



5/28/2002 21

INJECTION

Create a PM expert system

• An advisory system that novice Project

Managers can seek and obtain advice from.



5/28/2002

What to change to?

From the CRT and ECs, a Future Reality Tree(FRT) is constructed

One purpose of the Future Reality Tree is to validate that the injection will achieve thedesired effects (DE’s)



5/28/2002

Examples of DE’s

Due dates are rarelymissed

Demands are met 99% ofthe time

There is little expediting

Inventory levels are low

There are no materialshortages

Production lead times areshort or satisfactory

Due date perf. is high

Customers rely on quick

responses There is little expediting

Inventory levels arereduced significantly

Material is available when needed

Customers rely on quick responses



5/28/2002

Building the Future Reality Tree

Start by turning the UDE’s around and writing them with a positive tone as DE’s

Place DE’s at the top of the limbs in the FRT At the bottom of the FRT place the injection

Building the FRT is a two-phase process

• Build considering only positive, ideal links, andassuming win/win strategies

• Add negative loops later



5/28/2002

What to change to, Cont’d?

The idea here is to get a picture of how aninjection (a breakthrough) might affect the

overall performance of the system.The Future Reality Tree is the validation

that a collection of injections will turn all of

the UDE’s into DE’s



5/28/2002 26

Future Reality Tree for our example

Managing Software

Development Projects

Is usually successful


Projects take reasonable

lengths of time


Projects aren’t too

costly


Projects create quality

productsA



5/28/2002 27







Fixing changes

costs money




they want

Users changetheir

minds








Fixing changes

costs money




they want

Users changetheir

minds



Projects take reasonable

Lengths of time


Projects aren’t too

costly

There are few late-


Fixing changes

costs money

Users discover no newfeatures they want



they want

Users rarelychange their

minds

Users are more trained and sophisticated

Fixing changes

takes time



5/28/2002 28

Users are trained and sophisticatedLate in the lifecycle

Users rarely discover

features they want


Project Managers

utilize “early discovery”

techniques with users

Project Managers

Do train and teach

Users about software

development


use an expert system

To avoid pitfalls in

Software projects


encourage use of

walkthroughs through

testing

Software is of good

quality and dubbing

is inexpensive and quick

A



5/28/2002 29

Last Question….

How to cause the

change?

We will use two more trees



5/28/2002

How to cause the change?

The prerequisite tree

The transition tree

These help to get buy-in

These help us to develop a strategy for

achieving a flying pig (an injection thatappears impossible to achieve orimplement)



5/28/2002

The Prerequisite Tree

Place INJECTIONS at the top

List the obstacles that are expected

For each obstacle that is overcome, anintermediate objective is achieved

• Each obstacle gives rise to an intermediate objective

The intermediate objectives need to besequenced

The prerequisite tree does the sequencing



5/28/2002 32

OBSTACLE INTERM. OBJECTIVE

No well-defined ES

Architecture

There are manycommercially-

available ES Shells

Pick an appropriate

ES Architecture

Select an appropriateES Shell



5/28/2002

The Prerequisite Tree, Cont’d

Takes an impediment or obstacle approach

This approach enables dissection of the

implementation task into an array ofinterrelated, well-defined, intermediateobjectives



5/28/2002 34

The Prerequisite TreeOur Example

Create Project

Management

Expert System

Test Project

Management

Expert System

A

Objective



5/28/2002 35

Construct Project

ManagementExpert System

Select Expert

System Shell

Codify PM Body

of Knowledgeinto Expert

System Shell

Obtain PM Body

of Knowledge

Decide upon

Expert System

Architecture

A

No well-defined PMBody of Knowledge

No well-defined ES

Architecture



5/28/2002

The Transition Tree

We know where we stand

We identified the core problem

We found an injection (one or more) thatproduces the desired effects

We found the milestones of the journey--

the intermediate objectives (IO’s) The question now is What specific actions

must we take?



5/28/2002

The Transition Tree, Cont’d

We must focus, not on what we plan to dobut on what we plan to accomplish

For each IO, a specific action or set ofactions are determined and initiated

Causing a specific change in reality is the

imperativeThe transition tree provides a ROAD MAP forgetting from here to there!



5/28/2002 38

The Four-Element Transition Tree

Expected

effect

Condition of

reality

Unfulfilled

need

Specific

action



5/28/2002 39

Expected

effect

Condition of reality

Unfulfilledneed

Specificaction

Unfilledneed

Condition of

reality

Unfulfilled

need

Specific

action



5/28/2002 40

The Transition TreeOur Example

Create Project

Management

Expert System

Test Project

Management

Expert System

A



5/28/2002 41

Th t’ it f G ld tt’ C iti l



5/28/2002 42

That’s it for Goldratt’s Critical

Thinking

To get the full version, you have to go toNew Hampshire (Goldratt Institute) , spend

two weeks and $10,000To learn more, please refer to…

www.eligoldratt.com

http://www.eligoldratt.com/

http://www.eligoldratt.com/

Documents

Goldratt's Thinking Proc