 |
Reducing the variability of the constraint and the main processes |
| Step Six |
|
Reducing the variability of the constraint and the main processes |
| Step Six |
Reducing the variability of the constraint
Dealing with change
Reducing
the variability of the constraint
We know that variation is our number one
enemy in achieving continuous improvement.
If we try to reduce variation in every
single one of our processes, we embark on an arduous and exhausting task.
This is not wrong, but how can we fuel
the constancy of purpose required for such an effort?
We do so by increasing Throughput.
By identifying and subordinating to the
constraint of our organization, we focus on continuously improving our
limiting factor and the processes most closely connected to it.
This allows us to maximize the results
of our efforts.
We can use Buffer Management to identify the constraints we need to work on. These can be:
Capacity constraints
Policy and measurement constraints
Authority constraints
Sales constraints
Human relationship constraints
When our processes gain in stability, we can reduce buffer time. This means reducing manufacturing lead time and increasing Throughput.
Once we have achieved a stable system,
reducing variation is even more demanding; the forces acting on our system
have achieved an intrinsic balance. The way out of inertia is a rigorous
application of Deming’s PDSA cycle. This must be coupled with a way of
overcoming people’s resistance to change as we progressively intervene
in what were once familiar processes.
Every solution is a change. If we want to implement our solutions successfully, people must understand
what the change is
why they are doing it
how they have to adapt their behavior
This means communicating the solution to people so they can understand it and help to build it.
Goldratt has identified six layers of resistance
to change. There is a Thinking Process Tool that corresponds with each
layer and helps to overcome it.
Layer One: Disagreement about the problem (it’s not my problem)
Thinking Process Tool: Core Conflict
Cloud; Current Reality Tree
Layer Two: Disagreement about the direction of the solution
Thinking Process Tool: Injection (solution that breaks core
conflict)
Layer Three: Lack of faith in the completeness of the solution
Thinking Process Tool: Future Reality Tree
Layer Four: Fear of negative consequences generated by the
solution
Thinking Process Tool: Negative Branch Reservation
Layer Five: Too many obstacles along the road that leads to
the change
Thinking Process Tool: Intermediate
Objectives/ Prerequisite Tree
Layer Six: Not knowing what to do
Thinking Process Tool: All tools as necessary to overcome personal
obstacles
