|
|
|
|
|
|
Related: articles on Theory of Constraints
Is the Theory of Constraints (TOC) a Theory?:
There are strong ties between Deming’s ideas and the pragmatic philosophy; one paper offers a nice overview: Deming and Pragmatism.
I like George Box’s quote “All Models Are Wrong But Some Are Useful” This can also be dangerous when people don’t understand the limits of usefulness. A danger is that people believe the model is more true than it is (they don’t understand the limitations).
The pragmatists were concerned with the theory of knowledge - how we know what we know. They were very concerned with evaluating thought and beliefs. They believed in testing to determine whether theories were correct. This thinking underpins the Shewhart/Deming/PDSA cycle.
I believe the question raised in the original post is very similar to the struggle Shewhart went through in developing the control chart and Shewhart cycle. He wanted to address the exact issue of finding things that not only appear to be useful (which includes many instances of things that appear to be useful but in fact are not - we people are prone to this in many ways) but are predictably useful.
Related: The Illusion of Understanding - Illusions - Optical and Other - Management is Prediction - Experiment and Learn
From a new, interesting, Theory of Constraint blog by Kevin Fox - Multi-Tasking: Why projects take so long and still go late
via: Silk and Spinach. Related: articles on Theory of Constraints - Multitasking is not Part of Standard Work - Flow - Fast Cycle Change in Knowledge-Based Organizations - single piece flow
Lean-based Metrics for Agile CM Environments by by Brad Appleton, Robert Cowham and Steve Berczuk:
I agree measuring individuals is normally not an effective way improve. And “measuring up” can often be valuable. Often a fixation on small process measures can result in improvements that don’t actually improve the end result. But rather than the measure up view, I find looking at outcome measures (to measure overall effectiveness) and process measures (for viewing specific parts of the system “big picture”) the most useful strategy.
The reason for process measures is not to improve those results alone. But those process measures can be selected to measure key processes within the system. Say finding 3 process measures that if we can improve these then this important outcome measure will improve (using PDSA to make sure your prediction is accurate - don’t fall into the trap of focusing on improving that measure even after the data shows it does not result in the desired improvement to the overall results that was predicted).
Also, process measures are helpful in serving as indicators that something is going wrong (or potentially going better than normal). Process measures will change quickly (good ones can be close to real time) thus facilitate immediate remedies and immediate examination of what lead to the problem to aid in avoiding that condition in the future.
(more…)
Interesting paper - The Dynamics of Crowd Disasters: An Empirical Study (also see the supplemental materials). Systems thinking allowed the engineers to design a solution that wasn’t about enforcing the existing rules more but changing the system so that the causes of the most serious problems are eliminated.
Every system has variation. Common cause variation is the variation due to the current system. Dr. Deming increased his estimate of variation due to the system (common cause variation) to 97% (earlier in his life he cited figures around 80%). Special cause variation is that due to some special (not part of the system) cause.
The control chart (in addition to other things) helps managers to avoid tampering (taking action on common cause variation as though it were a special cause). In order to take action against the results of common cause variation the performance of the system the system itself must be changed. A systemic improvement approach is needed.
To take action against a special cause, that isolated special cause can be examined. Unfortunately that approach (the one we tend to use almost all the time) is the wrong approach for systemic problems (which Deming estimated at 97% of the problems).
That doesn’t mean it is not possible to improve results by treating all problems as some special event. Examining each failure in isolation is just is not as effective. Instead examine the system that produced those results is the best method. The control chart provides a measurement of the system. The chart will show what the process is capable of producing and how much variation is in the system now.
If you would like to reduce the variation picking the highest data values (within the control limits) and trying to study them to figure out why they are so high is not effective. Instead you should study the whole system and figure out what systemic changes to make. One method to encourage this type of thinking is asking why 5 times. It seeks to find the systemic reasons for individual results.
Related: SPC - History - Understanding Variation by Tom Nolan and Lloyd Provost (highly recommended) - Deming on Management - Responding to Variation: Common Causes
Shmula Goes Camping: Drum-Buffer-Rope
The Drum
The Bottleneck or Constraint, acts as a Drum — it sets the rhythm that the whole system should follow. In Lean Manufacturing, this is also called “Takt Time.”
David Anderson’s post, Lean vs. TOC - No Conflict, is an excellent addition to the previous post here: Lean Thinking and Management.
David refers to a post, looking for a conflict, that is definitely worth reading:
I like the way the post looks at this question. I must admit, my personally view is that the conflict is not as stark as it may appear. (more…)
Thoughts on TOCICO by David Anderson:
Related Posts:
Management Science for Software Engineering:
Read the full paper by David Anderson, Microsoft, From Worst to Best in 9 Months - Implementing Drum-Buffer-Rope in Microsoft’s IT Department:
(more…)
Email lists have been going out of style, but they can be a useful way to interact with a shared community (when moderated properly). The Theory of Constraints (TOC) email list (Yahoo group) CriticalChain, is useful for those interested in TOC concepts.
The target audience for this discussion list is broad, consisting of:
Those who are experienced with Critical Chain (either by living with it or by helping others implement it),
Those who are attempting to implement Critical Chain in their project(s),
Those who are curious about Critical Chain and the implications it could have for their project environment
and . . .
Those who have heard about Critical Chain and think that it is either misguided or that there is nothing really new about it, but are willing to discuss it with an open mind. It’s this last target group that can add real spice to the discussion. (After all, as Eli Goldratt has said, “The strongest force FOR improvement is resistance to change.”)
Another good email list is the Deming Electronic Network list.
Measures of Success interview of Alex Knight by Michaela Rebbeck. The interview discusses a model of measurement based on Theory of Constraints ideas.
This implies you must know what was expected, a great reminder of Deming’s statement that Management is Prediction.
Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog curiouscat.com 2005-2007 powered by WordPress - management improvement jobs
