Working with Intuition - The 2016 Odyssey Program Exercise

In the first part of my thinking backwards exercise I figured out what will make for a successful TOC Odyssey training. So the next step should be to keep working backwards and highlight the actions that need to be taken for these results to unfold.Logical, right?

Well, yes and no.

If you recall, I left the plan hanging at:

My first inclination was to go backwards to:

Then I got thinking.

It seems trivial. In TOC TP we call such trivialities "Oxygen". Since oxygen is always needed for human activity it is not necessary to state it in the logic diagram. Everybody knows it and it does not add information for our analysis. Oxygen statements should be handled with care. The mere fact something came up as an idea should be an indication that a double-check is in order, as one would rarely consider the need for oxygen under normal circumstances. In other words, the fact we have been thinking of the need for oxygen may point out that the conditions are not standard and this should be accounted for,

OK, so the fact that everybody should be in the room for the session to start could be an oxygen fact. It seems very logical, everybody should know this without me telling them, clearly there will be earlier steps that will take care of attendance. I should skip this step, it is redundant.

Or is it? I was stuck in a loop for some time, pondering this, wondering what is going on - why am I still thinking about this point after I figured it out? 

Well, turns out it was my intuition guiding me to a spot I missed. It is not enough to have a full enrollment. Life happens and we will surely have a few last minute cancellations. I know all our registrants will loath missing the session, but sometimes you just can't help it. So, if I want the session to be a real hit and create real value for all, I need to take care of this point and this is just the right place in my plan to inject a place holder for the results of those actions. Makes sense?

Here is what I came up with - In order to have a good kick of we need:

Which will happen if these prior steps happen (remember, we are in reverse order, the top box will happen after the bottom):

All graphics were done using Flying Logic

Well, I actually reached a task. It is going to be located very far into the future of this "project", of course and I expect to find it has some predecessors, but it is still exiting to move to that practical part. 

Next step will be to keep working from the definition of success back to the tasks that need to be done. I am expecting this will no longer be linear and I will be working on parallel tracks soon. Stay tuned and let me know if you have any ideas for making the Odyssey a hit.

Thinking Backwards - The 2016 Odyssey Program Exercise

So, if you remember my last post I suggested we need to prepare our mental muscles for the hard labour of TP and one of the exercises I suggested was thinking backwards. Now, this is not the TP's transition tree, which is also constructed backwards. It is also not the usual managerial focus of let's plan with the end in mind, which usually ends up being a forward construciton exercise. It's a free formed process that starts at the end and moves forward by imagining a probable route.

Here I will share the results of my recent use of this process. I have volunteered to make the 2016 TOC Odyssey happen. It will be in Jaffa during the first weeks of April, 2016 (Save the dates - April 3-7 for the Freshman session, April 10-13 for the Alumni, dates are currently estimates). It is my wish to make this session a big success - fun, enriching and enlightning for everyone. To make this happen I am starting out with thinking backwards (as suggested in Purple Curve Effect by Jeff Kinsey - see my book review here) to see what I can learn from it,

First of - my goal, the end result:

Can I imagine how reaching this goal would feel? yes, I can, right down to that pleased-embarrased feeling as everybody claps. This is a big issue, a lot of times I start this exercise and realise I have no clue what the end result looks and feels like. Just try this out right now - is there a change you would like to do in your life? lose some weight? go to bed earlier? spend more time with someone? learn something? OK, that's great. Now - can you imagine vividly, in your mind's eyes, the end point scene? what will you wear, say, feel, do?

So, I can see this goal coming to life. Great! Now what? Well, what could have or should have happened before that to make it possible? What was the step before the goal? Here is my answer:

Can I imagine achieving this milestone? again I can, I can even hear Alan Barnard's distinct accent as he tells me how much he enjoyed leading the session. Great! Now ask again - How did that happpen? What could have happened before that? Basically we are looking for possible causes to create the wanted effect.

And so I get on a backward roll:

All graphics were done using Flying Logic

So far, so good. This is where I got a bit sidetracked, as this is the stage where several predessessors converge. It is also where I move from reaping the future results to defining the work that needs to be done in order to make it happen. So this exercise seems to have been quite un-productive so far, doesn't it? Well, that's not true. This part has made it clear that this is a very just cause, quite worthy of my investment. Now I am really motivated to make the 2016 Odyssey one to be remembered! 

Next step - to take the next leg of down the future memory lane - what did I do to make it happen? Check out what happened here!

Building The Clear Thinking Skill

After my presentation on the 6 Questions of Technology (yes, I will share more on this) at the TOCICO Conference, one of the people in the audience came up to me and said how happy he was with the work model we suggested, until the trees came out. They are so hard to construct, he said. I could hear the despair. I could also understand it and relate to it. The TOC TP are a set of highly potent tools, of course but they are very hard for many (present company totally included) to use.

This week I started testing out a new point of view I had been thinking of since my trip to S. Africa - problems are just opportunities in the rough (and yes, I will share more on this as well, you really have a lot of great things to come back to this blog for). As a result I had given my self several mind games and exercises to work on. Then it dawned on me - just like we wouldn't expect anyone to run a marathon before the have run several shorter distances in the weeks and months leading to the race, why should we expect people to take on TP without first building up to them through mind clearing workouts?

You wouldn't be doing this the first day of your workout program, would you? (Source - Wikipedia)

My point is that many of us are not used to thinking about things the way that is required by the TP. While we spend our lives thinking, we are still not trained to the level TP requires. It is very similar in yoga where although you have breathed all your life, you are not trained to breath the way yoga demands and you have to learn and practice it. So, it may be that before we venture into logic trees we have to build our brain muscles with easier exercises to prepare us for it.

Now, this is just a theory and I don't have a progression of exercises mapped out, just a few preliminary ideas. So I really need you help and inputs.

Here are the exercises ideas I already have and have been practicing:

1. Beginner - learn to ignore all or nothing thinking by creating a 100 list - think of a block that you feel is in your way to achieve something then create a list with 100 things you can do to achieve it despite the block (so if you feel you can't get a good job because you don't have enough experience in your resume, then think of 100 ways to make you noticeable to recruiters in and out of your resume). I managed about 30 ideas in the first 24 hours and got to 44 on the second day. Once you are at 50, I suggest you start acting while keeping the list going until you get to the 100 mark, don't use it as an excuse.
2. Intermediate - clear your thinking from emotions by putting yourself in places where you are uncomfortable, like not reacting to a question by your spouse when that question is "illegal" - e.g. asking you what your kid's preferences are when said child is present. The idea is not to to stop you from feeling but to help you separate your thoughts about what needs to be done from your emotions about a situation.
3. Advanced - practice result oriented thinking by mapping a process backwards - think of an interaction you are planning to have and then map it from the desired end state back to the beginning. So first you must figure out how you want that interaction to end at a level you can visualize it. This means you have to take your goal or desired outcome and turn it into a concrete result (say I want my adult kid to move out, my end state visual would be of her saying "You know what, mom, I'll get my own place within the month"). Now figure out and visualize what had to happen just prior to that (perhaps she said "Staying with you and Dad isn't good for me, it doesn't help me become a capable adult"). Credit to this exercise goes to Jeff "SKI" Kinsey and his book "Purple Curve Effect" I covered in this review.

I'll update you if I get new workout ideas. 

Let me know what you think - will it make any difference if we address the TP tools more gradually? What else can and should we try?

Dominoes and Root Causes

Have you ever asked yourself how can it be that the small changes TOC calls for can create such a significant reaction, I think I found the answer.

Now, don't get me wrong, I know those changes are extremely hard, but how can you call a change that costs no money and can be done in less than a week, such as changing priorities on the shop floor, anything but a small change? All the TOC solutions are based on these small changes - hold inventory at a different point in the supply chain, start doing things at a different time, change the way you plan, measure different things. These are not technology based solutions (as in "Buy this technology and all your problems will be solved", which we all know doesn't work out like that, ever) but solutions that sometimes need technological support. So the solution isn't based on investment, although it might sometimes be required. OK, I think you get my drift.

So how do they do it? Well, TOC talk and the TP talk are all about causality and using this causality to find the root cause of things. this means they are full of chains and chain reactions. This always remind me of dominoes and that's what led me to this clip:

At first I did not see any connection between this and the TOC chain reactions but then I realized this holds a very basic truth - it takes very little effort to start the chain reaction going and once started, each step releases all the energy stored in it, amplifying the effect. The amplification can sum up FAST. It also confirms what we all know, intuitively,that it's much harder to fix the big things at the end of the chain and much easier to fix the small things at the beginning, which is why TP has you looking for the root cause - the smallest domino. The only main difference from this dominoes example is that real life seems to recharge on it's own, at least partially. You do not have to pick up each and every domino in order to start a new chain reaction.

Do you think the physical explanation hold true for real life situations? please share your thoughts.

Sugar bag logic - teaching children to think

My younger son, who is eight, and I sat in a coffee shop for breakfast today. As we were waiting for our food, I figured I might as well make some use of the time we had together. I had wanted to start working on logical thinking with him for quite some time but I never got around to it. My plan, of course, was to do something structured, maybe use the children's' workbooks I got at the Goldratt House. Well, I know that if you fail to plan you plan to fail. There's another part that's always left out. That is that even if you plan you may fail, but fail to execute, and you will absolutely, no doubt about it, get nothing done.

So back to the coffee shop. I decided to wing it. I told him that I know he'd like to be a scientist (he actually means inventor, but I won't be petty), so I'd like to present to him the most important tools for such a vocation. The tools are experiments and logic. Happy to make conversation with me, he told me right away that logic is an important part of his life, since whenever something doesn't make sense he works to fix it. That threw me off a bit so I inquired into it and, as he was finding it hard to explain himself, I requested an example. That was easy. He told me how one of the characters in his computer game seemed to have more than the fare share of something, so he investigated until he found out the details he was unaware of and realized the rules were adhered to.

That was not quite what I had in mind, but you do not want to go around putting your kid down, so I kept my thoughts to myself as much as I could. There is a more basic tool in logic, I told him, and that's the understanding of what causes what. That drew quite a blank stare from him.Good start. So I took a few bags of sugar from the dispenser and I put one down saying: "If you vex your older brother then...", I put the next one after it and he jumped in and said "I get punished". "Not quite, we aren't there yet, though it could lead to that" I say, "this process is like a ladder, you can't skip steps and you want to take small steps to feel secure". I go back to the small bags of sugar "If you vex your older brother then", the second bag of sugar goes down, "your brother gets annoyed, and if your brother gets annoyed then...", another sugar bag is added to our trail, "your brother retaliates, and if your brother retaliates then", another bag, "you get upset, and if you get upset then", another bag and he picks up, "I beat him up". Now we are working as a team, "If you beat him up then?", I put another bag down and he finishes up "I get punished".

"It's like your dominos, Mom", he says. Whenever their quarrels heat up and require parental intervention I use the domino effect to explain why I think they are both to blame. You each had multiple chances to stop this from escalating, I tell them, all you had to do was take 1 domino out. So, he was right, my trail of sugar bags did resemble the domino effect. Ah, the glory of true understanding. We managed to do a couple of AND conditions ("If we quarrel" AND "Grandma finds out" THEN "Grandma is not happy with us" - his example) and then the food was ready.

So, here's what I found out this morning, while waiting for breakfast at a coffee shop: That learning doesn't need a classroom, a format or even much time, that children can grasp logic very easily, that logic is pretty simple to start off with and that small bags of sugar make great entities in a logic diagram.

Have you ever tried to get your kids to think logically? well, that's probably the worst time to teach them. Take 10 minutes when everything is calm to set the stage and plant the seeds for the future.

If you liked this post, please share it with other parents and comment with your own experience. 

What SEO practices reveal about Theory Of Constraints

[Disclaimer - this post does not address SEO how to. To learn SEO - follow my affiliate link and view the offer there]

Intro (skip this paragraph if you'd like to get right to business, it's the background story)

It's funny how things roll about. I am a bit obsessive about this blog's statistics (I'm an Industrial Engineer by nature - I obsess about all my graph-able data), so I noticed when a new referral URL showed up on my list and went over to check the site, maybe there's some new Theory of Constraints content for me to enjoy and share. Well, what I encountered was a total surprise. It was a 1-page static site built in Blogger in order to promote a "get rich blogging" offer. Seems the owner encountered my blog and liked it, so she linked back to it. I am, of course, much obliged. And so I came face to face with this offer to get all the inside info of making money by blogging. As you can see, I am not ashamed to admit I'd like to make a bit of extra padding from this blog, so the offer sparked some interest in me. Normally, though, I would brush these kind of offers to the side, assuming they were aimed at making someone else rich... I know not what was different this time, other than the very low risk associated (1$ for the first 7 days), but I decided to risk it. I enrolled to the website and started looking over the information it offered. It was a complete, step-by-step guide to building marketing blogs to create affiliate income. I liked what I saw and decided to stick around there for a bit and even became an affiliate of his offer (you can find more info through my affiliate link, please note I have no plans to promote it in this blog, this is just FYI). Going through all the SEO (Search Engine Optimization) techniques and trying to apply them for Theory Of Constraints I started seeing some disturbing patterns. After some more research here is what I've come up with.

The Facts

Almost a year ago to the day, in this post, I pointed out that the interest in Theory Of Constraints is on the decline. Well, there has been no improvement since then, as this graph shows clearly:

Note - the number 100 represents the peak search interest.
Before I went off to dig deeper I checked if there is any search term predominant within the Theory Of Constraints world and this is what I got:

All things Theory Of Constraints are more or less equal in the interest they have been generating in the last few years.
Using the analysis tools over on Google's Adwords website, I found that 'Lean Six Sigma' generated 800 keyword combinations. Of these, over 200 combinations that are in high demand for PPC (Pay Per Click) campaigns and over 300 combinations are searched 6,500 times a month or more. Using the same analysis for all the Theory Of Constraints topics combined I generated only 100 keyword combinations. No combination was in high PPC demand and the top 8 most searched combinations were either not relevant (they were actually relevant to lean six sigma) or suspected as such. Running a Google search on "Lean six sigma" yielded 19.5 million results. Running a Boolean OR search containing the words "Goldratt", "Goldratt the goal", "Theory of Constraints", "Critical Chain" and "Thinking Process" yielded 26.8 million results. I also did a few searches of  global terms that could be relevant to Theory Of Constraints such as "process improvement" or "project management" and there is no Theory Of Constraints content to be found in the results, paid or natural, in the first few and critical pages.

My Thoughts
Assuming the internet, as reflected by Google, is a good representation of reality then, clearly, the information is out there. Not so many are interested in it and, it would seem, no one is trying to generate the interest. This leads me to the assumption that the Theory Of Constraints community has become a closed community. This means that even if we, as a group, are happy and willing to accept new comers the group is still experiencing a "negative birth rate". Which is weird, since Theory Of Constraints practitioners are not working in the community, they are distributing the knowledge to companies outside this tight knit group. Perhaps that explains the leveling of the interest visible in the graphs from 2009 to the present. I have no answers here, I just know what the data is showing and I'm trying to relate this to the reality I am encountering.  So, yes, newcomers are accepted happily but they are aliens, which feels weird and uncomfortable, leading them to opt out.
Should this trouble the Theory Of Constraints community? I think it should but is it my prerogative? If we, as a community, want to change this around, we should, of course, do that by using the TP tools. After all - we all want to practice what we preach. I can't decide for the whole community, so, just for now, I'll leave it at that and only share my basic intuitive reactions, perhaps they will come in handy in the future. First, is the need to regenerate wide interest, which requires we look at Theory Of Constraints through the new audience's eyes, with the inevitable conclusion that we must and stop using our jargon when talking to them. Second, to my humble opinion, is the need to create a multiple stream of smooth and easy processes that lead from laymen to proficient. My personal experience shows that every time I look for ways to progress I find that, other than self learning everything (with or without a mentor), almost everything is either too basic or aimed at specific populations such as top managers and therefore at such a premium I can't afford  Why aren't there mid-way options?


Conclusion
This was a hard post to write. Not because it required research and analysis, but because I'm stepping out of my comfort zone. I am posting this knowing that some who may read it will not agree with me, that some may feel hurt or angry. While I tend to shy away from such uncomfortable situations, I decided that, since Theory Of Constraints is important to me, this is worth putting out in the open. Please feel free to comment or reply to me privately with any piece of information that I may be missing. I'd love to come back here just to say I was wrong. 

You Need a Conflict to Evaporate a Cloud

Earlier today, for some reason, I remembered my first (and last, as of today) try to get my boys (Then 9 and 6) to use the EC tool. Even tough we managed to reach a solution it was a total failure as the solution worked just once, and probably because I made it work. Today as this experience popped into my mind I realized what went wrong.

Here is the story, in short: Once a week, early in the morning, the boys get a magazine in the mail box. Every week they would rush to get it and then start quibbling right away over who gets to read it first, while getting ready for school and on the drive there. So on the week I was at Goldratt House doing the "TOC for the Ever Flourishing Organization" workshop, I decided to use the tools and help them solve this conflict. I sat them down, listened to each and tried to write the cloud. We came out with something lame. The wants were clear - each wanted to be first. The needs they stated were, at least to me, not relevant and somewhat foolish. The real issue was the common goal, I had to force one on them - this should have been a huge blinking warning sign for me, but I was a Mama with a mission, I ignored.

Well, thinking it over I realized that I was trying to draw a cloud where there was no conflict. They had no problem with the situation, perversely enough (in my eyes, totally natural by any other point of view) they wanted those quarrels to go on. The problem was, of course, mine and the conflict was, sure enough, between me, wanting peace and quite as I drive them to school and them, wanting to keep up the good fun of having the other blow up.
Looking at the situation from this angle the first thing to pop up is the common goal (easy after reading Lisa Scheinkopf's example about her daughters). It was "make sure Mom doesn't lose her temper". The wants I already know and there is really no point in trying to figure out the needs - they are no longer fighting over this....

Tool update - Gliffy.com

Just wanted to share that I'm working on my first TP project and I came across this web site that offers a Visio-like, web based, tool. All I had to do was register and start working. The tool is easy to use, for some reason I find it a bit less frustrating than Visio and, graphically speaking, the results are great.
The free account lets you hold up to 5 public diagrams on the server. So if you need more diagrams or privacy you'll have to pay a monthly fee and upgrade. I'm still in my 30 days trial so I can define documents as private. Another great feature is the ability to collaborate with others as you build your diagram. The site sends them a link to connect and they can edit the document as well.
There are no TOC specific abilities, of course, but if you are not ready to commit or know you'll just need a tree here and there it seems like a great tool. Here's an example of how it looks:

Of course I could have taken on  Flying Logic's 30 days trial (I reported on the TP training in their tutorial here) but I don't feel ready for that commitment. At the end of that trial period I'll have to make up my mind - pay or leave and I am not expecting enough TP work in the coming weeks to support that decision, so a TP supporting tool will just have to wait and I'll just have to work a bit more. If you decide to purchase  check it out in Amazon.

Using a simple problem to demonstrate the TP

Looking through my blog's statistics, it is very clear that Thinking Process is the most interesting topic for people. I know it is the part of TOC I found the most mystifying. So I did a bit more web digging and found this little gem in a site filled with TOC examples – a simple example of all the steps of the thinking process. This example takes a very very simple problem and runs it through all the steps. Now we are talking a very simple problem (did I mention the problem is simple?), so putting it through the full TP process seams silly and at first leaves the impression that somebody really lost their common sense and any sense of proportion at the same time. Yet once I have gone through it I immediately had those lovely "A-Ha" moments when everything just clicks in place AND I finally figures out what's a transition tree. So I have to hand it to whoever did all the hard work setting up all those trees – Great Job!

I do want to warn you that some things, though, didn’t work so well, this being a very simple problem (I'm starting to feel like a broken record). First, the use of the Three Cloud Technique (which, by the way has you write 4 clouds; 3 from the UDEs and a generalized one), in this example this step is totally redundant and all 4 clouds ended up being virtually the same cloud with slightly different wording. Second, although once the general cloud was ready, you can easily understand how it was turned into the CRT this CRT has no root cause in it since it starts with the common goal and builds up from it. This CRT basically explores what is the expected reality if we choose to implement only one side of the conflict or the other. Third, the FRT is built from an injection defined in the general cloud phase and is very simply the CRT's negative. This feels way too simplistic and is probably not representative of the way the CRT and FRT will look and feel when using this process on a complex problem.

Hope you find this helpful and I'd be glad to know what you think.

Great learning source for Thinking Process

I've just found this great tutorial of TP. It's great because it uses real examples along the technical and theoretical material. This is great to make the learning process accessible for both the "learn then do" crowd and the "learn by doing" crowd. I've only skeemed this one, as I'm BMT as it is (taking time off from other tasks because I've run out of concentration), but I'm certain it's a keeper.

The source is agilecoach.net. I am not really sure who wrote the tutorial, but looking for the right name to thank, I also found this terrific EC presentation which added to my understanding of conflicts - did you know there are 3 types of conflicts? 

Anyways, I'm naming agilecoach.net a gold-digger's paradise – lot's of treasures, not to clear at first sight. Happy digging!

Learning The Basics Of Thinking Process

Flying Logic is a software designed to help graph the logic trees used in TP. I have not tried it yet and right now I think it comes with a very high price tag with regards to what it does. The tool can also be purchased on Amazon at a better price point.

Their site offers a few free documents, including a PDF book called "Thinking with Flying Logic" by Robert McNally that covers the basics of TP, but about half way through it becomes a Flying Logic user manual whith a bit of technique thrown in. It gives a good overview and can help fill in the blancs. It is important to note that their present a slightly different logic than the one presented by GC people in some aspects. For example - they require all the assumptions in a cloud connector to be refuted in order for the cloud to evaporate, GC claims refuting one should be enough. Another point that bothered me is the option to combine solutions when evaporating a cloud, I have a hunch this will open the door wide open to compromises (which are considered lose-lose solutions)

Links to TOC web resources

As I try to improve my understanding and capabilities in all things TOC I have been searching the web for resources and I'm coming up with more and more useful stuff. I'll share my thoughts on anything I have already checked out when I can.
Here is a PDF of a 2001 article by H. W. Dettmer titled "Applying the Thinking Process - Managing Expectations" which discusses the time a TP proccess will take, why and how to manage your clients through it. Well written and clear it will not add to your knowledge of TOC or TP.

More articles from the same source are found here, not all of them are TOC related.