"It must be, if we want to plan rather than just react." As I talk I find a much better answer. "Yes, Lou, it must be possible. Look what happened to us with our solution of getting more sales. As a direct result of the French order we threw the plant into a very unpleasant two weeks and we killed or at least delayed a good marketing campaign. If we just thought systematically be- fore we implemented it, rather than after the fact, we could have prevented many problems. Don't tell me that it was impossible. All the facts were known to us, we simply didn't have a thinking process that would force and guide us to examine it early in the game."
"What do we change to?" Lou says.
That throws me off balance. "Pardon me?"
"If the first thinking process should lead us to answer the question 'what to change?' the second thinking process should lead us to answer the question 'what to change to?' I can already see the need for a third thinking process."
"Yes, so can I. 'How to cause the change.' " Pointing to the fifth step I add, "with the amount of inertia that we can expect in the division, the last one is probably the most important."
"So it seems," Lou says.
I stand up and start to pace. "Do you understand what we are asking for?" I cannot contain my feelings. "We are asking for
342
the most fundamental things and at the same time we are asking for the world."
"I've lost you," Lou says quietly.
I stop and look at him. "What are we asking for? For the ability to answer three simple questions: 'what to change?', 'what to change to?', and 'how to cause the change?' Basically what we are asking for is the most fundamental abilities one would expect from a manager. Think about it. If a manager doesn't know how to answer those three questions, is he or she entitled to be called manager?"
Throughout Lou signals that he is following me.
"At the same time," I continue, "can you imagine what the meaning is to being able to hone in on the core problem even in a very complex environment? To be able to construct and check solutions that really solve all negative effects without creating new ones? And above all to cause such a major change smoothly, with- out creating resistance but the opposite, enthusiasm? Can you imagine having such abilities?"
"Alex, that is what you have done. That's exactly what you have done in our plant."
"Yes and no," I answer. "Yes, that's what we have done. No Lou, without Jonah's guidance all of us would be looking for new jobs today. Now I understand why he refused to continue advis- ing us. Jonah said it to me in the clearest way. We should learn to be able to do it without any external help. I must learn these thinking processes, only then will I know that I'm doing my job."
"We should and can be our own Jonahs," Lou says and stands up. Then this reserved person surprises me. He puts his arm around my shoulder and says, "I'm proud to work for you."
AN INTERVIEW WITH ELI GOLDRATT AND OTHERS
by David Whitford, Editor at Large, Fortune Small Business.
DW: The Goal was published 20 years ago. Since then a lot has changed in operations. New, powerful methodologies to im- prove operations, such as LEAN and Six Sigma, are widespread. The emphasis on reducing lead time and improving due-date performance has become the norm. Even The Goal's subtitle - a process of ongoing improvement - is a statement that is now taken for granted by every organization.
So, my first question: Is The Goal still relevant?
EG: How does a scientist go about judging the relevancy of a particu- lar body of knowledge? I believe that the decisive way is to choose an organization where all the competing knowledge is implemented. We should choose a large company that is already using all the new methodologies you mentioned; an organization that is using these methodologies so extensively that there is an institutionalized orga- nizational structure - like a formal "black-belt" central office. The next step is to choose a significant section of that organization, and properly implement in it the body of knowledge in question. In our case it will mean implementing TOC in one of the plants of that large company. Then, compare the performance of the chosen plant with the performance of the rest of the organization. Now we are able to reach a conclusion: if no real difference is detected then the conclusion will be that the examined body of knowledge in question is not relevant. But, if there is a decisive difference, then the conclusion must be that the examined body of knowledge has relevancy; the bigger and more significant the difference, the more relevant it is.
344
DW: Did you conduct such an experiment? And if so can you tell us about the results?
EG: Fortunately, I don't have to initiate such experiments, since many readers of The Goal are kind enough to write to me and share their experiences. From the letters that I received over the years let's pick one that fits our conditions. Since we are discussing relevancy, it must be a recent letter. It should be from a person who implemented TOC in a plant that is part of a large enough organization, an organization that is using black-belts. And it should contain comparisons between that plant and all other plants of that company.
Judge for yourself if this letter fits our bill perfectly.
Dow Corning Corporation
Healthcare Industries Materials Site 635 N. Gleaner Road Hemlock, MI 48626
May 20, 2004 Dear Dr. Goldratt:
I wanted to share with you what we have accomplished within our organization by using the tools presented in your books, "The Goal" and "It's Not Luck."
When a colleague gave me a copy of "The Goal," the plant at which I work was in a similar situation as Alex's plant in the book. At that time, in 1998, our plant's on-time delivery was approximately 50%. We were carrying over 100 days of inventory and we had customers on allocation because we could not meet the demand for orders. In addition, our man- agement had given us six months to turn things around, or else. I was the new production team leader for approximately thirty percent of the plant sales and forty percent of the plant production employees. My units performance was similar to the plant's overall performance.
As I read "The Goal" I quickly realized one person alone could
not solve the problems within my unit, or within our plant. I ordered several copies of "The Goal," and my colleague and I distributed them to our production manager, plant manager and manufacturing and quality engineers. Everyone was eager for a solution to our problems.
Within my unit we identified the bottleneck and began to focus our resources there. Our plant is a non-union facility and many of the workers were also interested in what we were doing. I ordered copies of "The Goal" for everyone who worked for me. By the time the six-month ultimatum came, my unit and another had started to make significant changes, and the plant was spared any ill recourse. However, the expectation was that we would continue to improve. For the five years that followed, we continued to work on breaking our bottlenecks. When one moved, we attacked it again. We got pretty good, and could determine where the bottleneck would occur next. Eventually, the bottleneck moved outside our plant as depicted in "The Goal." However, we knew this would happen ahead of time and had already begun the indoctrination of our sales and marketing group.