2003 Determining The Cause And Effect Relationships example essay topic

Allied Academies International Conference page 9 Proceedings of the Academy of Strategic Management, Volume 2, Number 2 Las Vegas, 2003 THE APPLICATION OF GOLDRATT'S THINKING PROCESS TO PROBLEM SOLVING Lloyd J. Taylor, , P.E., Ph. D., University of Texas taylor R. David Ortega, University of TexasABSTRACTThe "Thinking Process" as introduced Dr. Elijah Goldratt, in The Goal and further expounded upon in, It's Not Luck, is based on the Socratic teaching method of if... then reasoning. This type of deductive reasoning is extensively used in the field of medicine, in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and for determining clinical pathways and other fields of science. Even though medical professionals find it easy to map out the cause and effect relationships when dealing with disease process, few have explored the benefits of using their highly developed intuitive thinking skills in the area of solving problems in management. This paper will detail the use elements of the Thinking Process, as outlined by Dr. Goldratt, in an attempt to elicit a logical, comprehensive solution to a multifaceted, intricate problem. INTRODUCTION The emphasis of this paper concerned it's self with the Thinking Process brought to light, by Elli Goldratt.

Goldratt feels that companies should not be broken up to create efficiencies at any part of production. He suggests that by disturbing a link in the chain of production one could cause problems with production (Goldratt 1992-c). GOLDRATT AND THE THINKING Processing the 1980's, Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt [1992-c], a physicist, wrote a book entitled "The Goal". In his book, Goldratt relates the story of an embattled plant manager searching for ways to improve plant performance.

With the help of an old college professor, the plant manager not only learns how to improve the performance of his plant but also a new method of identifying and resolving problems. Goldratt's Theory of Constraints (TOC) focuses on the efficiency of all processes as a whole rather than the efficiency of any single process. The principles of the Theory of Constraints and the Thinking Process are not new to the world. They have been used for many years in the sciences and medicine. What is new is the fact that Goldratt has applied the process to manufacturing and other areas of the business world. Dettmer [1998], Lepore and Cohen, [1999] and Roybal, Baxendale, and Gupta [1999], all report the Theory of Constraints (TOC) is an emerging philosophy that offers some distinct advantages, both page 10 Allied Academies International Conference Las Vegas, 2003 Proceedings of the Academy of Strategic Management, Volume 2, Number 2 theoretical and practical.

While TOC was developed for manufacturing through Goldratt's Thinking Process, the Thinking Process system holds true for all processes and problems whatever the situation may be. In the study of Goldratt's Theory of Constraints, a given group of processes will have a slowest process and the slowest process controls the rate of system production. In order to maximize the system production, the slowest process must be improved and all other processes regulated to the speed of the slowest process. The slowest process is referred to as the constraint. In the case of outsourcing, there are several steps involved. In order to be successful in outsourcing, all steps must be examined together to determine the constraint.

Since the constraint is not always obvious, Goldratt [1992-c] developed the Thinking Process, which is a series of steps to locate the constraint (What to Change? ), determine the solution (What to change to?) and how to implement the solution (How to make the change? ). It is these steps that are actually referred to as the Thinking Process. Goldratt's next book "Its Not Luck" [1994] describes the Thinking Process in much more detail. WHAT TO CHANGE? If the symptoms of a root cause are undesirable effects (UDE's), then the undesirable effects must be brought on by the root cause itself.

This root cause needs to be exposed and eliminated. The methodology employed in the search for root causes is based on a cause and effect relationship. This cause and effect relationship is the method used to uncover the core problem associated with the UDE's. The core problem is also the weak link in the operation when it concerns obtaining the goal of the organization. By determining the true core problem in a situation, it is helpful to write the current state ina diagram format. This displays a logical picture of the situation.

With practice and logical based common sense, the major UDE's can be interconnected through cause and effect relationships in a Current Reality Tree (CRT). Creating this tool brings about this process of determining "What to change". Goldratt [1992-a] claims, the analytical method of the CRT is used in the attempt to reveal the Archimedes point - the identification of the root cause. This method of analysis also provides us with a tool to understand the existing nature of the cause. It does this by discussing and scrutinizing our basic intuitive sense, which exists in our environment.

This method of analysis is somewhat different from the management approach of correlation and classification. All past unsuccessful efforts to eliminate the undesirable effects failed to attack and eliminate the core problem. That's why the symptoms returned. In general, employees want to do a good job.

They want to do what is best for the organization but don't always feel current procedures allow for core problem elimination. UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS Goldratt [1994-c] states that the first step of the process is to list several UDE's that exist currently. The process of building the CRT does not focus on the severity or ranking but on the effect-cause-effect relationships of the list of UDE's. These UDE's were then used to create a CRT. Allied Academies International Conference page 11 Proceedings of the Academy of Strategic Management, Volume 2, Number 2 Las Vegas, 2003 Determining the cause and effect relationships of the various UDE's is what allows the CRT to be developed. Once these relationships were mapped out, it was possible to identify the one core problem that was under the control of the facility.

The core problem, as defined by Rack [1992] as the UDE, that when solved, will have the biggest positive impact on the performance of the entire chain. THE CURRENT REALITY TREE The current reality tree is comprised of all of the undesirable effects (UDE's) that are in the current situation. They are linked together by effect-cause-effect relationships that naturally occur in a system of problems. Insufficiencies and charities are added to aid in the logical thought-flow of the tree.

Insufficiencies are bits of information that are coupled with UDE's that assist in the flow of effect-cause-effect analysis. Charities are bits of information that are inserted between two UDE " sor charities that allow for a smoother flow of the effect-cause-effect analysis. After the entire tree is constructed there will emerge one undesirable effect that stands alone at the bottom of the tree. This UDE is considered the core problem of the system. Once the core problem is identified an evaporative cloud must be constructed. After organizing the UDE's in an effect-cause-effect analysis, a tree took shape that will identified the UDE at the bottom of the tree as the core problem.

To read the CRT, you start to read from the bottom up using if... then statements in a logical format. WHAT TO CHANGE TO? A conflict generally emerges in the CRT and usually pulls the employee in two directions. The most common tendency in managing conflict has been to compromise in some fashion. If compromise were a true alternative, the conflict would have been eliminated a long time ago. Therefore the tendency to look for a compromise should be overcome and the true core problem should be eliminated.

Goldratt [1992-a] writes, since a vacuum does not exist, eliminating the core problem means creating a new reality, in which the opposite of the core problem exists. To eliminate the core problem, a tool called the Evaporating Cloud (EC) should be used. An EC, according to Goldratt [1993] is the thinking process that enables a person to precisely present the conflict perpetuating the core problem, and then directs the search for a solution through challenging the assumptions underlying the conflict. The EC starts with an objective, which is the opposite of the core problem. From the objective, the requirements (minimum of two) are listed. Each requirement will have at least one prerequisite.

It is the prerequisites that depict the tug-of-war. All the requirements and prerequisite are based on assumptions that have been ingrained in our minds overtime. It is these assumptions that keep us in this tug-of-war environment. What is needed is a set of injections that can be used to break the validity of any one of the assumptions.

This is the first step in freeing our self from the binding controversy. page 12 Allied Academies International Conference Las Vegas, 2003 Proceedings of the Academy of Strategic Management, Volume 2, Number 2 EVAPORATING CLOUD The EC is the tool that is used to determine what action is needed to resolve the conflict of alleviating the export of our competitive advantage and thereby eliminate all of the undesirable effects experienced during the process. Once the EC was developed, and then each assumption was scrutinized to find the one that seemed susceptible to questioning. Injections were identified that could break the validity of one of assumptions. Goldratt holds that compromising does not solve the core problem though short-term success may be realized. He suggests using the EC to search for real solutions that are win-win for everyone. HOW TO CAUSE THE CHANGE Next consider whether the injections will direct the desirable effects.

With the injections and the logical based common sense cause and effect relationships, the desired effects can be connected and the future outcome developed. This technique is called building the Future Reality Tree (FRT). The FRT according to Goldratt [1993] is the thinking process that enables a person to construct a solution that, when implemented, replaces the existing undesirable effects by desirable effects with out creating devastating new ones. Goldratt [1992-b] goes on to add, the analytical method of the FRT is used to construct and scrutinize such a solution. Step-by-step the solution is created, and each stem is scrutinized to guarantee that over-enthusiasm doesn't carry us into dreamland. This tool will logically show that once the injections are implemented, the desirable effects can be accomplished.

When the EC is broken, the FRT is built using the injections from the EC. The injections are connected with the effect-cause-effect logic and use charities and insufficiencies where additional information is required. This process tests the solution and is enhanced by criticism and negative comments. If criticisms, negative comments and UDE's can be overcome by the proposed solution then this provides proof of the solution and leads to the next step in the process. This process taps into the natural tendencies of criticism and negativity.

FUTURE REALITY TREE FRT is constructed in an effort to assure that all of the UDE's would be eliminated using the injections identified in the EC. The FRT is essentially the same as the CRT; however the injection (s) identified in the EC are placed into the tree to create a vision of the "future reality". The FRT is read from the bottom up using if... then statements in a logical format just as the CRT. SUMMARY This procedure, although somewhat different from the normal methods of analysis, is so practical, that it can be applied to any problem anywhere at anytime.

According to Goldratt [1992-b], you start with an effect in reality. Then hypothesize a plausible cause for the existence of that effect. Since the aim is to reveal the underlying causes that govern the entire subject, try to validate the hypothesis by predicting what else this hypothesis must cause. Once such predictions are found, Allied Academies International Conference page 13 Proceedings of the Academy of Strategic Management, Volume 2, Number 2 Las Vegas, 2003 concentrate efforts to verify whether or not each prediction holds water by asking questions. If it turns out that one of the predictions doesn't hold up, find another hypothesis. If all of them hold up, continue until the entire subject is understood through the bonds of cause and effect.

Bob Fox [1989], (past) President of the Goldratt Institute, states: I do not believe any longer that the challenge is the technology of what to do. That has been well developed - maybe not disseminated very well yet, but developed. The issue is the resistance to change once we know what to do, and I believe there is a solution to that. This method of problem solving requires ability that everyone has and stems from the systematic methods and thinking processes. It provides you with the framework necessary to direct these efforts and to verbalize your intuition to gain a better understanding of managements 'intestinal sensations. ' Everyone has self-doubt.

This self-doubt makes it very difficult to use the scientific method of analysis. Goldratt [1992-b] reveals, the scientific method involves reaching into the unknown; speculating a cause and determining predicted effects probably requires an awkward personality that thrives on the unknown. But we are dealing with the known, with current reality. There must be an equivalent method, a thinking process that facilitates building a current reality tree within the known, and we can effectively use it on any subject that we have intuition for and care about.

This cause and effect approach is used in many areas of science and math. The demonstrated thinking process is what managers need the most. To carry out a successful process of ongoing improvement there is nothing more important than the ability to answer: What to change, What to change to, and How to cause the change. The results are well worth the required investments.

Bibliography

Dettmer, H.W., (1998), "Breaking the Constraints to World Class Performance", Milwaukee, WI, ASQ Quality Press.
Fox, Robert E., (1989), 'The Constraint Theory,' Internal working paper, Avraham Y.
Goldratt Institute, New Haven Connecticut. Goldratt, E.M., (1992-a), 'An Introduction to Theory Of Constraints: The Production Approach,' Avraham Y.
GoldrattInstitute. Goldratt, E.M., (1992-b), 'An Introduction to Theory Of Constraints: THE GOAL APPROACH,' Avraham Y.
GoldrattInstitute. Goldratt, E.M., (1992-c), The Goal, (2nd revised edition), Massachusetts, North River Press.
Goldratt, E.M., (1993) 'What Is The Theory Of Constraints?' A PICS The Performance Advantage, June 1993.
Goldratt, E.M., (1994), It's Not Luck.
Massachusetts: North River Press. Lepore, D., and Cohen O., (1999), "Deming and Goldratt, The Theory of Constraints and the System of Profound Knowledge", Great Barrington, MA, North River Press Publishing Co.
Rack, Kevin, (1992), "Using The Theory of Constraints The Systems Thinking Approach" Managing Change Inc, December, pp.
1-20. page 14 Allied Academies International Conference Las Vegas, 2003 Proceedings of the Academy of Strategic Management, Volume 2, Number 2 Roybal, H.
Baxendale, S.J., and Gupta, M., (1999), "Using Activity-Based Costing and Theory of Constraints to Guide Continuous Improvement in Managed Care", Managed Care Quarterly, 7, 1-10.