Satisficing and the Siren's Song - Same or Different?

In a post about avoiding change I shared my experience and presented the concept of the "siren". I then recalled a much older post about Satisficing. At first there seemed to be a contradiction. I mean, how can I tell you not to fall for the spell of the siren while I'm the one telling you to be a satisficer? Seems like double standard, but it isn't. So, I figured clarification is in order.

First off, let's recall the overcoming resistance to change video, where change is basically compared to climbing a mountain to reach the "pot of gold". I'll use mountain climbing to explain my point, then. So let's agree that we set our goal to be climbing up a very tall mountain. Not a very hard mountain, no tricky technique needed, it's all just walking up a mountain. That's not to say it won't be hard. The elevation is high and there will be oxygen considerations, for example.We have defined what we want to achieve - we want to reach the highest peak of the mountain. our pot of gold is quite clear then, the sense of achievement.

Kilimanjaro

Now that we have our goal set out and defined well we make a plan - we need to get in shape, train, learn the necessary skills, purchase equipment. There is stuff to be done, targets and milestones to achieve in the quest to the top of the mountain.

The optimizer will go into analysis paralysis quiet early in the process. This character will do a full research on everything - tents, sleeping bags, garments, training protocols. The need is to know what is the best of anything and everything. Time goes by and there is no progress because things aren't perfect. How can you start training if you don't know what is the best protocol and what is the best nutrition? When, at last, things do start happening they are slow because everything has to be perfect. You can't move to the next stage or the next piece of equipment until you get this stage or this piece just right. When climbing the mountain, anything but getting to the very top will be considered a failure for this type. Even if the "pot of gold" has been discovered, the peak must still be conquered, and an exhaustive search must be undertaken to ensure that the pot of gold is THE pot of gold and there is no other, better, pot.

The satisficer will move quite briskly through the paces. The targets are there for a reason and that reason defines the bar to achieve. So if a tent is called for, it's because sleeping out at night will be cold on the mountain, so a tent good enough for the expected temperatures is needed. Find out a good source of knowledge about tents, get an answer which is good enough for these temps and get a tent, on to the next task. Is this the best tent there is? Who cares, It is good enough, it'll do the job needed. Training will be handled much the same way. Each phase is there for a reason, a certain bar that must be attained. Once you reach that bar, the fact that more can be achieved is not a hurdle. The satisficer may try to improve the result, but it is not imperative so if there is time for more training it will be done, but if there is not, no problem. Then, on the mountain, this type will have a point where, having gone this far, finding a pot of gold, she will feel accomplished. So, while going all the way to the top is an appealing option, she will have no problem finishing the climb earlier if need be. When I prompt you to be a satisficer, this is what I'm talking about - go for good enough.

A person under the spell of the siren song will do nothing, no preparation, no training, no climbing. This person will want to reach the summit, will envy those who do and even those who try. Still, nothing will be done. The current situation seems safe and comfortable. So even though there is a desire, no effort is put forth, not even a little try, one that comes at basically no risk. No looking at equipment, no training that's good for your health anyways. Nothing. Not even climbing a small hill, just for fun. This person is stuck in the "comfort" of the bland current situation - settling for far less than possible.

It is clear now that the satisficer is not under the sirens spell. The satisficer makes change happen and balances effort with reward, leaving the optimizer and those listening to sirens song far behind.

I have more ideas on this subject but first I'd like to know can you relate to this? let me know what you think and subscribe to get more post from this blog.

Stop waiting - ask and you shall recieve

I've always wanted a mentor. You could say I have a father figure issue and I'd be the first to agree but it's not relevant. I've recently figured out that in the Theory of Constraints you may learn from the past but other than that you basically let it be gone. It doesn't make much difference how you got to where you are, the thing that's really relevant is how to get to where you're going. So, as I was saying, I've always wanted a mentor.

After I began writing in the TOC groups and in this blog I, subconsciously of course, started a waiting game. I was waiting for someone to pick up a cue of my need, step forward and offer to help me. Impudent, I know (oh, the wonders of retrospect), but I was terrified of asking. Why? basically a whole load of excuses, no real valid reason. I just felt I had no right, it wasn't polite and that kind of hogwash. I told you all I have are excuses. The only thing I can say is I was afraid of consequences without putting a moments thought into why.

Another thing I realize in retrospect is that I have been offered the help I wanted many times in the past. Thing is, just as my requests were not straightforward so were the offers. I was weary of asking straight out in case I would offend someone or be turned down. In much the same way the people who were reaching out to me did not state it straight out, probably in order to make sure not to offend me if they misunderstood. Well, I hope I'm done with playing that kind of immature game. Better late than never. This doesn't change the facts, though - I was stuck, not in a very good place and I was not liking it. Still, I waited. Still, I was afraid to change anything.

When I look now at Goldratt's 4 quadrants of change, I guess I was under the spell of "The Siren". Do you remember that, in some sea going folklore, sirens are mermaids that tempt the sailors and then drawn them?
Well, as I see it, this holds true in daily life as well. The "siren" is that comfortable settling for less, the place where fear of change glorifies the current situation way beyond its truthful value and at the same time vilifies the risks of change to the extreme. When the "siren" sings, the minuscule risk of getting a negative answer that will simply leave things as they are (=nothing to lose, no?) will seam unbearable, best leave things as they are and not risk it.....

There is a parable going around email kingdom. It is about a guru that forces his student to kill the only cow of a poor family. When the student returns, full of guilt, to right the wrong he has done at his guru's bidding, he finds the family became reach. The family explains that when they had the cow and it gave a little milk, they made do with what they had. One day the cow died and they could no longer make do, they had to figure out another way and when they did they realized they could do so much more and have so much more. So sometimes we are forced out of the spell of the siren, someone comes along and "kills" our "cow". That does not happen often.

My claim is that we should not let the spell of the siren control us. We should not wait helplessly for others to come and free us. If ever we are paralyzed by the idea of change or of taking a risk, if ever we encounter a rejection to a change we offer that seems to come from a place of paralysis, we need to use our logic, the analysis tools and a little courage and break free.

So I want to thank Jim, Lisa and the others for offering so kindly to help me out. Thanks Jim for all the help and for leading me to success. It was a lot of hard work but it was not hard as I made it out to be!!!

Have you ever struggled to overcome the siren? Please share your experience. Do you know someone still under the spell? Please send them this post.

The Theory of Constraints Change Process

Everywhere we go people are talking about the need for a change, be it a small, local change like finally maintaining a healthy weight or having a better environment at the office or a big, global change like reducing poverty or illiteracy. Sometimes this talk translates into action - we go on a diet, the boss sends out an email with a new policy, people take to the streets to demonstrate.... sometimes a revolution erupts. But after the dust settles and as time goes by we repeatedly find out that the "after" picture is just as unappealing as the "before" picture. Efforts have been put forth - blood, sweat, tear, sometimes lives, to generate a totally unsatisfying result. In business speak, we'd call that a negative Return On Investment (ROI). Not exactly investment best practice, even if money did not come into play.

A main reason for these poor results is incomplete planning. We've all heard it - fail to plan and you plan to fail. But how do you plan?  Theory of Constraints calls for a 3 stage planning process:

1. Define what you want to change
2. Define what you want to change to
3. Define how to change

I see way too many change processes, at all levels, where people "put the pedal to the metal" half way through stage 1. So we figured out, sort of, what we dislike in the current situation and off we go to "do something about it". Yes, of course I'm as guilty as hell of this, aren't you? 

It's just like a trip or a hike. Step 1 is our starting point, step 2 is our end point and step 3 is the planned route. Notice this is the logical order - if you do not know where you plan to start and finish you can't decide on the route. Of course, we can always go out and stroll aimlessly, but if the starting point has been defined as unsatisfactory then such a stroll, that could easily lead back to the starting point, is counter productive.

What will happen if we go through the whole process before we begin changing things around? I don't have an answer to that, the process seems logical so I would expect a high return on investment, but I have to try it out myself before I can make any statements. In the book "We All Fall Down" Julie Wright and Russ King clearly show the negative loop this kind of behavior creates.

In the mean time, here is an example. The story line represents the order of execution - 1-3-2. See if you can deduct all the stages from the clip and if you can figure out better (or more efficient) solutions.....

Seeing The World Through Another's Eyes

TOC promises a lot of benefits to those who embrace it, be they individuals or organizations. Yet those promises can materialize only if change occurs. And we all know change is hard. We've seen and remember that people don't resist change just because it is change. If the change is right for them they embrace it. Yet, the fact still remains that changing is hard and considering 'no man is an island' (John Donne), this change is most likely going to require the cooperation of others. To get this cooperation 'they' will need to see how this change fits them, and it is 'our' job to show them, as this is 'our' change. Only after we have proven that this change truly fits, will there be a chance of 'them' taking ownership.

In order to get others to buy in to the change, clearly we need to see things from their point of view. We must look at the current reality and the proposed reality through their eyes. Understand what constitutes a valuable pot of gold for them not for me (or us). Understand what are their risks, not ours.  Find their mermaid and crocodile and understand the impact these have on them.  Not an easy thing to do. No sir.

Now, I know it is not easy to see the move to TOC through your team members eyes. These are people you know, people who have many similarities to you, people who communicate with you. So, if that's hard, how hard will it be to see things through your customer(s) eyes? Horrible, isn't it? Horrible, but essential if you want to develop an Un Refuse-able Offer (URO), if you want to create your Decisive Competitive Edge (DCE), even if you just want to improve sales.

Well, I'll admit it is not easy in any way, but I will also remind you that that's what the TP tools are for and that to make it a bit easier you can always start by deliberately analyzing your view point and then, once you've gotten that out of the way, you can concentrate on the more important 'THEM'.

Anyways , a few years ago Best Buy put out a campaign just before Christmas that, for me, epitomizes seeing the world through another's eyes. It seems clear to me that the ad agency behind this campaign truly understood Best Buy's customers and the people they buy gifts for. I hope you find this as inspirational as I do.

How We Communicate is Important

When  was in Kiev (yes, I know you know I went to the conference, but I WAS in Kiev when this happened) I kept thinking of you, the readers of my blog and how I will post this and post that. One thing I thought about was this advertisement clip. The post was clear to me, the subject, the connection to Theory of Constraints, everything. But by the time I got around to digging it up I could not remember what got me going in the first place. It still feels right, though.

I find this clip has a very powerful message about communication and conflict situations. I suggest you watch it first with the audio OFF! Now before you run it again with the audio on, let me tell you these two actresses are doing a great job here. Of course there is a catch, but I won't tell you what it is, turn on the sound and hear for yourself.

{BTW, I noticed a lot of readers view this blog through a translating site, so if English is not for your ears, I've added a transcript below for the translating tool, as the text is relevant}

Here's what I see here, when we find ourselves conflicting with others we many times get into a "fight" mode. Think back about arguments and fights you've had over the years. As soon as the disagreement starts we become entrenched in our own corner, defending our needs or wants or point of view with all our might. This is greatly intensified if, coming into the 'discussion', we predict the other side will not react as planned. We are armed and ready and so we are ready to misinterpret any of her reactions as a declaration of war. Now, as soon as we go into "fight" mode we turn off "communication" mode and thus we stop listening to others and start listening only to our inner voice. We hear only those things that can serve as "ammunition" in the next "round". Do you remember this Magritte painting?

Well, can you agree that an argument is not communication, then?

As stated here, the Theory of Constraints requires change and it requires cooperation from others. To get others to cooperate with the change offered communication must be used to get buy in and commitment. You can't argue your way into convincing them that you understand and that you have a valuable offer.

Satisficing

Theory of Constraint talks a lot about avoiding local optima, about maximizing the system and not its parts. This leads to road runner ethics, to making sure we are not trying to be more accurate than the noise in the system and so forth. The Theory of Constraints solutions tell us what to do at a good enough granularity. The rules are simple. Don't protect every step, protect the system by protecting the constraint, maintain flow. The tools are there. DBR and sDBR, CCPM, Logistics. So what's the problem?

The problem is there is still a void, although it seems to be just a verbal one. If we are not optimizing, if we are not "doing the best we can", than what are we doing? We can't just brush this off as being "just a verbal thing, just definitions", definitions are the starting point of clear thinking, as Dr Goldtratt taught us repeatedly.

There is another reason that makes this important. While the human logic can accept fuzziness, our subconsciousness can't, and that's where it counts the most, since most of our decision making is actually done there, at the most instinctive level. There are no voids in the subconscious mind and there are no gray areas. Like Master Yoda said in one of the Star War movies: "Do, or do not, there is not try". That's your subconscious mind for you.

So, for our subconscious mind not "doing the best we can" is, actually "not doing the best we can" or, if we'll put English grammar aside for a second, "doing NOT the best we can". Which sounds bad, doesn't it?
So, we really need a good name for not optimizing. That name, to me, should be "satisficing", a term I first heard during my MBA from Prof. Boaz Ronen, a TOC disciple in the academic world.
Satisficing means being good enough, not perfect. It has lots of merits. It reduces "analysis paralysis" and stress levels, allows for better flow through faster outputs  (I demonstrated this while discussing the hiring process here) and it sounds good.

What do you think?

Edited to add:
Following the replies I got here and on LinkedIn, I guess satisficing needs a bit more elaboration. Here's an easy example - say I have to prepare a birthday bash for a 6 years old and my goal is to make that 6 years old as happy as possible. I know I'll make a chocolate cake, cover it with chocolate cream and decorate it. Once the cake is ready I can make this cake:   decorated with M&Ms and a sugar paste "Happy Birthday". Time invested is about 1 hr and child is very happy.

On the other hand, I can make this cake: covered with sugar paste and decorated with sugar paste designs. Time invested 4-5 hrs (at least) and child is very happy, perhaps a bit more than with the first cake but not significantly so.

Both cakes are eaten up at about the same rate.


(yep, I made both of these cakes, and other "optimizer" cakes you can see here.There is room for hobbies in this wold, IMHO)

What we see is that I can go for a satisfactory cake or an optimal cake. The result, in goal units of child happiness, will not vary substantially, the only difference is the effort I put in. The first cake demonstrates satisficing - doing the necessary, the sufficient and nothing over that. The second cake demonstrates optimizing - doing the necessary, the sufficient and everything else, trying to be perfect.

One last thought (Thanks Henry for bringing it up) - whatever you do, it has to move you in the right direction. It is not enough to "do it right", you have to "do the right thing right"

I'd love to hear what you think about this.

Using TOC for a hiring process

Let us begin by defining the goal of the process as finding a good enough candidate for the job. This is how a "Satisficer" would look at this. An "optimizer" will look for the best candidate possible and thus will take much more time and effort to fill up the opening – is this beneficial for the organization? I dare say it is not, since not only is the job open for a longer time, meaning that required output is delayed, the recruiting team also spends more time on this task and thus is not available for other tasks.

To recruit a good enough candidate you first must define the characteristics of a good enough candidate. It is important to keep some slack in these definitions to allow for variability between candidates, so recruiters have a real choice. In order to get a good understanding of necessary characteristics, just get a good understanding of the job this candidate will be doing.

Adding a person to the company's staff is a process of change and should be handled like such (as discussed here). Hiring managers should consider all 4 quadrants of this change first at the general level of hiring someone and then at the specific level of hiring a certain candidate. Throughput considerations should be used.

At the general level consider:

	+	-
Hire new person (change)	"Pot of Gold" - increased throughput by manning position	"Pain" – losing throughput by paying more salaries (increasing OE) without sufficient return
Don't hire (don't change)	"Mermaid" – low OE, business as usual, no need to train and bring someone up to speed….	"Alligator" – overloaded workers, missing capabilities….

This would be valid even when the manager leading the process is very willing to hire the new person. Also notice that these are very generic possibilities and should be replaced with the specifics of each situation in real life.

At the specific level each candidate is different so a generic analysis is not relevant. One point to consider, though, is how would the analyses differ between a candidate that is an acceptable fit on all parameters and one that is a very good fit on some parameters but poor on others. Which parameters are the most important to your throughput?

Continued here

Overcoming Resistance to Change - Isn't It Obvious?

A lovely video by Goldratt's people. I truely found this to be an eye opener.

When you need to conduct a change - first analyse it from your point of view in all 4 quadrants, then try to understand the other party's point of view and figure out, in advance, how to minimize the risks and loses. While Dr. Goldratt has a book by the same name, the topic of this video is hardly covered in it.