如果 TOC 是一种至高无上的管理方法，为何我们在推广它时如此困难？
If TOC is a supreme management approach how come we have such difficulty to market it?
我相信这是所有 TOC 爱好者最常见的问题。这一生活事实指出了通用方法中的一个潜在漏洞。我听过许多解释，包括来自高德拉特本人的，以及来自 TOC 圈子之外的人的解释。当前 TOC 状态的关键不良影响（UDEs）是：
I believe this is the most common question of all the TOC enthusiasts. It is the one fact of life that points to a potential hole in the generic approach. I have heard many explanations, including from Goldratt himself, as well as from people outside of the TOC circle. The key undesired effects (UDEs) of the current state of TOC are:
- 已故的高德拉特博士一直是且仍然是 TOC 领域唯一公认的、具有影响力的领袖和导师。
The late Dr. Goldratt has been and still is the ONLY leader, guru, truly known and influential figure in TOC. - TOC 挑战了太多范式。
TOC challenges too many paradigms. - 关于 TOC 的定义尚未达成一致。
There is no agreed-upon definition what is TOC. - TOC 的评分相对于其出现的时间仍然较低。
The rating of TOC is still low relative to the time since its appearance. - 似乎只有少数人对 TOC 的广泛范围感到满意。
Only few people seem to be content with the wide scope of TOC. - TOC 包含了许多由 Goldratt 开发的发人深省的概念，这些概念缺乏整体清晰的统一性，并且缺乏实施整个范围的有效方法。
TOC includes many thought-provoking concepts, developed by Goldratt, which lack overall clear unity and lack effective ways to implement the whole scope.
我从许多人那里听说了前五个 UDE（未期望结果）。第六个是我自己的观察，它与高德拉特（Goldratt）临终前的看法不同。高德拉特认为 TOC（约束理论）已经达到了可以放入模板并重复应用的稳健知识水平。我不认为这是当前的状况，但我相信这是有可能实现的。
I have heard from many people the first five UDEs. The sixth one is my own observation and it differs from what Goldratt believed just before his death. Goldratt view was that TOC has reached the level of robust knowledge that can be put in a template and be repeated. I don’t think this is the current state, but I believe it is possible to achieve it.
我已根据我的观点和理由概述了当前 TOC 状态的 CRT。当然，欢迎大家挑战树中的每一个环节。这导致了两个重大的损害：
I have outlined the CRT of the current state of TOC based on my views and rationale. Of course you all are invited to challenge every link in the tree. There are TWO resulting big damages:
许多潜在客户和学者拒绝学习 TOC
Many potential clients and academics refuse to learn TOC
和 and
TOC 今天产生的实际总体价值有限
The actual overall value generated by TOC today is limited
后者是当前状态的终极衡量标准。问题在于，它与成千上万的高德拉特人、学生和追随者的信念相矛盾：
The latter one is the ultimate measure of the current state. The problem is that it is in contrast with the belief of thousands of Goldratt people, students and followers that:
TOC 有潜力为绝大多数组织带来巨大的价值
TOC has the potential to bring HUGE value to the vast majority of the organizations
我们目前缺乏一位具备魅力、智慧和品格的人来接管 TOC 社区的领导权，最终实现将 TOC 作为公认的管理方式，并由此创造巨大价值的目标。
We currently lack a single person that has the charisma, intellect and character to take over the leadership of the TOC community to eventually achieve the goal of having TOC as the recognized way to manage, and by that generate huge value.
我们真的需要一位领导者来推动 TOC 前进吗？
Do we really need ONE leader to carry TOC ahead?
由此产生的个人核心冲突在于，每个人是依据自身的力量和知识深度独立行事，还是与众多他人同步协作，以克服 UDEs（未期望的不良效应），特别是统一知识，使之在市场营销、销售和实施中发挥效力，从而创造巨大价值。
The resulting personal core conflict is between every person operating individually according to his/her power and depth of knowledge, or collaborating in a synchronized way with many others to overcome the UDEs and especially unifying the knowledge to be effective for marketing, sales and implementation that would deliver huge value.
TOCICO 提供了一些必要条件，以引领 TOC 社区取得新的成就。它通过各种方式让新人接触知识，并提供了基础设施，使人们能够在年度会议上与来自世界各地的人会面，这为 TOC 专家展示自己的能力提供了机会。但是，TOCICO 不发起业务，不进行教育，也不支持任何实施。TOCICO 已经启动了白皮书流程以推进知识体系的发展，但到目前为止，它还没有产生太多响应和新知识。
TOCICO supplies some of the necessary conditions to lead the TOC community to new achievements. It allows new people access to knowledge in various ways and it provides the infrastructure to meet other people from all over the world in an annual conference, which gives the chance for TOC experts to demonstrate their own abilities. But, TOCICO does not initiate business, does not educate and does not support any implementation. TOCICO has initiated the white-paper process to progress the body of knowledge, but so far it has not yield much response and new knowledge.
以下是 TOC 顾问的基本策略的一些选项：
Here are some options for the basic Strategy for a TOC consultant:
- 自行操作。
Operate on your own.- 依靠 TOC、高德拉特和《目标》的名声来获得更多项目机会，这些项目根据所使用的方法论命名：S&T、TP、TOC 方式的供应链或 CCPM。
Rely on the name of TOC, Goldratt and ‘The Goal’ to get better chance to get projects, which are entitled according to the methodology used: S&T, TP, Supply Chain in the TOC Way or CCPM. - 停止使用 TOC 的名称，将自己展现为一个多才多艺的问题解决者，处理客户的任何重大问题或重大机遇。你可以使用 TOC 的技术来提供价值，也可以不使用。
Stop using the name of TOC and present yourself as a versatile problem-solver, tackling any major problem or major opportunity of the client. You may, or may not, use the techniques of TOC to deliver the value. - 将 TOC 与其他方法论（如精益或 DDMRP）结合，并将这种结合作为你的独特优势提供。
Combine TOC with other methodologies, like Lean or DDMRP and offer the combination as your own special advantage.
- 依靠 TOC、高德拉特和《目标》的名声来获得更多项目机会，这些项目根据所使用的方法论命名：S&T、TP、TOC 方式的供应链或 CCPM。
- 创建或加入一个更大的实体或虚拟组织，通过这种方式，由于更多高技能人才的参与，能够为客户提供更高的创造真实价值的机会。
Create or join a larger real or virtual organization, and by that be able to offer higher chance of generating real value to the client as more highly skilled people are involved.- 大型组织在开发知识中缺失的部分方面可能更为有效，并提供审计作为一种保持正确轨道的机制。
A large organization can be more effective in developing the missing parts in the knowledge and offer auditing as a mechanism to keep the right track.
- 大型组织在开发知识中缺失的部分方面可能更为有效，并提供审计作为一种保持正确轨道的机制。
让我说明一下，大型咨询公司并不局限于特定的方法论，但它们通过规模庞大和经验广泛获得了竞争优势，其中一些公司甚至获得了真正决定性的竞争优势。
Let me just state that the big consulting companies are not attached to a specific methodology, but they gain a competitive edge, some of them a truly decisive competitive edge, by being big with wide experience.
TOC 在国际上有着非常广泛的传播，如果我们能够成功将其整合，累积的经验将非常丰富。
TOC has very strong international spread, and the accumulative experience is pretty wide if we succeed to bring it together.
任何可能让你，一位 TOC 顾问，获得决定性竞争优势的其他想法？
Any other idea that might lead you, a TOC consultant, to achieve a decisive competitive edge?
组织内致力于实现真正变革以带来绩效飞跃的实践者，必须谨慎应对若干威胁：
A practitioner within an organization who strives to make a real change that would yield a leap in performance has to be careful in dealing with several threats:
- 被视为 Goldratt 的狂热信徒。
Being viewed as a Goldratt zealot. - 未能理解其他职能的不同观点。
Failing to understand the different perspectives of other functions. - 忽略组织内部的个人权力游戏，这取决于从业者在组织结构图中的位置。
Ignoring the personal power game within the organization depending where the practitioner is located within the organization chart. - 未能识别风险，因此未寻求降低风险。
Failing to identify the risks and thus not looking to reduce them.- 风险是造成重大损害的可能性。
A risk is a probability for a considerable damage.
- 风险是造成重大损害的可能性。
我主张，在内部实施中引入外部 TOC 顾问能提供更高的成功几率，即使内部 TOC 倡导者非常博学。外人的表面客观性减少了内部紧张。另一个原因是，外人更有可能带来在特定行业内并不常见的新范式。新范式有潜力创造巨大价值，因为竞争对手消化这些范式较慢。
I claim that involving an external TOC consultant in internal implementations offers higher chance of success even when the internal TOC champion is very knowledgeable. The seemingly objectivity of an outsider causes less internal tension. The other reason is that an outsider has a bigger chance of coming with a truly new paradigm that is not common within the specific business sector. New paradigms have the potential of generating huge value, because the competition is slow to digest the paradigm.
让我们就这个我们共同面临的问题进行一次公开讨论。请通过评论您认为的解决方向来回应。
Let’s have a public open discussion about the problem that is common to all of us. Please respond by commenting what direction of solution you see.
Eli Schragenheim 
亲爱的 Eli Dear Eli
一如既往，你的分析无可挑剔。继 Eli G 之后，我们期待 Eli S 的指导和领导。
As usual your analysis is immaculate. After Eli G, we look up to Eli S for guidance and leadership.
我的两分钱： My 2 cents:
TOC 实践者/布道者宣扬 FOCUS。我想我们必须自食其果，实践 FOCUS。
TOC practitioners / evangelists preach FOCUS. I guess we must eat of own dog food and practice FOCUS.
我提出 FOCUS 的重点在于——交付结果的 SPEED。
I propose the point of FOCUS as – SPEED of delivering results.
在我看来，TOC（约束理论）应当能够快速交付成果。即便成果的价值并非巨大，但如果能在几天或几周内展示出其他方法需要数月乃至数年才能达成的效果，那么学习和关注 TOC 的兴趣与动力将会迅速增长。我认为，接下来的 TOCICO 和 TOCPA 会议应着重于那些成果实现得非常迅速的案例研究和实施知识分享。
TOC in my understanding is supposed to deliver FAST. Even if the value of results is not gigantic, if the results can be demonstrated in matter of days and weeks which other approaches would take months and years, then the level of attention and interest to learn TOC would gather momentum. I believe next TOCICO and TOCPA conferences should focus on case studies and knowledge of implementations where results were achieved very FAST.
在接下来的几年里，作为一个社区，TOC 实施者和实践者通过共识采纳了一条信息——交付成果的速度。
For next few years, as a community TOC implementers and practitioners by consensus adopt one message – SPEED of delivering results.
我们必须事先讨论并制定实施计划，迅速执行以追求速度。在每一个论坛上传播关于采用这一理念的成功经验。
Upfront we must talk about it and create implementation plans and execute for SPEED. Spread the word about successes on each and every fora about this aspect of adopting a philosophy.
我确信我们可以为这次注射创建一个 FRT 和 PRT。
I am sure we can create an FRT and PRT for this injection.
Like喜欢 Like
Deepak，获取首次结果的速度对用户来说是最重要的价值吗？快速获得结果的价值在于支持实施的持续进行。我们仍需将“金罐”作为真正的目标，并确保能够维持早期的收益。
Deepak, is the velocity of getting the first results the most important value for the user? The value of getting fast results is to support the continuation of the implementation. We still need to have the “pot of gold” as the real target, and we need to make sure we can sustain the early benefits.
在我看来，TOC 最重要的信息是整体方法，加上由此产生的简洁性和专注性，这使得整体视角成为可能。我们还可以补充说，它能非常迅速地取得一些成果。这是否过于宽泛？
The most important message of TOC, to my mind, is the holistic approach coupled with the simplicity and the focus derived by it, which make the holistic view possible. We can add also getting some results very fast. Is it too broad?
Like喜欢 Like
干得好，Eli。这是一个值得比已经获得的相当多的关注还要更多关注的好课题。
Well done Eli. It is a good subject that deserves even more than the considerable consideration it has already received.
我想知道的是，我们这些“拉动”倡导者是否依赖于“推动”方法来实施 TOC？我知道我们所做的很多事情都有“拉动”的方面，比如 TOCICO 提供的知识和演讲，人们可以根据自己的兴趣从中汲取。
What I am wondering is are we “pull” advocates relying on a “push” approach for TOC? I know that many things we do have “pull” aspects, like TOCICO’s offer of knowledge and presentations from which people can just draw according to their interests.
我认为 TOC 咨询的时机尚未成熟，因为需求不足。我建议我们让 TOC 倡导者变得非常富有——像红曲线那样富有，使他们获得与比尔·盖茨和沃伦·巴菲特同等的国际关注。而且，我想强调这必须是一位 TOC 倡导者，而不是 TOC 倡导者的客户，因为客户在致富过程中会感谢很多人（很少是 TOC 顾问），尤其是他们自己。TOC 倡导者可能会抵制“这都是我的功劳”的想法，并将功劳归于 TOC。这对其他人来说是一种强大的“吸引力”，将为 TOC 咨询创造市场。
I think the time for TOC consulting has not yet arrived for lack of demand. I suggest that we make TOC advocates very rich – Red Curve rich that they gain the same type of international attention as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. And, I want to reinforce that this must be a TOC advocate, not the client of a TOC advocate, because the client will have many to thank (and seldom the TOC consultant) for his or her rise to fortune, particularly him or herself. A TOC advocate MAY resist the “it was all me” and give credit to TOC. This is a powerful “pull” to others which will make a market in TOC consulting.
我们中的一些人已经在处理红曲线的平坦部分了。更多的人应该加入进来——水温正合适！
A few of us are already working on the flat part of a Red Curve now. More should jump in – the water s warm!
游击战建议利用敌人的力量来对抗他。在使用 TOC 取胜的情况下，先行者拥有巨大的优势，因为很少有竞争对手意识到正在被用来对付他们的概念。
Guerrilla warfare suggests using the enemy’s strength against him. In the case of winning using TOC, early movers have the huge advantage that few competitors are even aware of the concepts which are being used against them.
Like喜欢 Like
如果许多 TOC 顾问变得富有，我会非常高兴，因为他们让他们的客户变得富有。有几家咨询公司，例如 Vector Consulting Group，真正成功地做到了这一点。在我帖子中的总结 CRT 中，我包含了 UDE，即只有少数 TOC 人员对 TOC 知识的广泛范围感到满意。现在，我主张为了为客户组织带来非常高的价值，我们需要广泛的 TOC 思维和工具到位。在 Goldratt Schools 的日子里，我们试图培训越来越多的人，让他们能够满意地使用各种工具和见解。我认为我们做得越来越好，但可能还不够。我们现在有类似的东西吗？
I’d be very happy if many TOC consultants become rich, because they make their clients rich. There are several consultants, Vector Consulting Group, for instance, that truly succeed to do it. In the summary CRT in my post I have included the UDE that only few of the TOC people are content with the wide-scope of the TOC knowledge. Now, I claim that in order to yield very high value to a client organization we need a wide-scope of TOC thinking and tools to be in place. In the days of Goldratt Schools we tried to train more and more people that would be content using the variety of tools and insights. I think we got better and better, but maybe not quite enough. Do we have something equivalent now?
Like喜欢 Like
Eli,
我是 TOC 顾问的客户。我对我的实施、所学到的知识以及我的顾问感到非常满意，虽然还有很多工作要做，但我已经取得了非常好的成果。
I am a client of a TOC Consultant. I am very happy with my implementation, with what I have learned and with my consultant, there is still a lot of work to be done but I have gotten already very good results.
我建议采用更多的“开源”方法。目前，在网上或其他任何地方都很难找到关于 TOC 的信息。TOC 目前仅或主要依赖顾问，而顾问们自然担心透露太多信息，因为可能“他们就不再需要我们了”，这实际上适得其反，损害了他们及其业务。现有的组织都围绕着顾问，没有（据我所知）面向客户的组织，没有 TOC 基金会等。TOCICO，全球主要的 TOC 组织，是一个认证机构。如果采用开源方法并公开更多信息，免费提供，人们会感兴趣，在线学习一些 TOC 知识，但他们总会转向顾问进行实际实施，会有更多人寻找顾问来实施解决方案，而不是顾问们四处奔波说服客户他们需要他们。目前，顾问们大部分时间都在教育客户，而不是实际实施解决方案。 采用这种方法，客户可以转向其他学习资源，并在实施过程中向顾问寻求专家支持。
I would recommend to apply more of an “open source” approach. It is currently very difficult to find information on TOC online or anywhere for that matter. TOC is currently relying only or mostly on consultants, and there is a natural fear that consultants have, to give out too much information away because maybe “they won’t need us anymore”, and that is actually counterproductive and hurting them and their business. The only organizations that exist are all revolving around consultants, there is no (that I know of) organization for clients, no TOC foundation, etc. TOCICO, the main TOC organization worldwide is a certification organization. If you apply an Open Source approach and put more information out, freely available, people would get interested, learn a little about TOC online, but they would always turn to consultants for an actual implementation, and there would be more people looking for consultants to implement solutions, instead of consultants having to go everywhere and convince clients that they need them. Currently consultants spend most of their time teaching clients instead of actually implementing solutions. With this approach clients could turn to other sources for learning and turn to the consultant for the expert support on an implementation.
开源方法也将有助于 TOC（约束理论）状态的发展，因为如前所述，顾问通常对自己的信息非常保密，如果他们发现了改进，很可能会将其保留给自己和客户，不会轻易与其他顾问分享，因为他们的业务依赖于这一点。
An open source approach would also help the state of TOC to evolve, because as stated before consultants are usually very jealous with their information and if they find improvements they are going to, most likely, keep it to themselves and their clients, their are not going to share with other consultants as easy, because their business depends on it.
我希望我没有偏离主题，并且我的想法有所帮助。
I hope that I am not way off base, and that my thoughts are helpful.
Like喜欢 Like
Ary，请让我理解你所说的“开源”是什么意思。从我的角度来看，TOC 上有很多开源内容。你读过我博客上的文章，现在大约有 100 篇，都是开源的。还有其他几个类似的博客，比如 Kelvyn Youngman 的。此外，还有许多关于 TOC 的书籍。它们在哪些方面不是开源的？那本大部头的《TOC 手册》呢？《TOC 词典》呢？
Ary, please let me understand what you mean by “open source”. From my perspective there is a lot of open source on TOC. You read my post in my blog, now containing about 100 posts, all are open source. There are several other similar blogs, like the one by Kelvyn Youngman. Then there are many books on TOC. In what way they are not open source? What about the huge book The TOC Handbook? What about The TOC Dictionary?
现在，TOCICO 的标题中带有“认证”，但它主要是一个由对 TOC 感兴趣的人、从业者、顾问、学者和喜欢学习的人组成的国际协会。TOCICO 提供了其年度会议上演讲视频的大量开源资源。它每年都会举办会议。2018 年的会议将于 4 月 30 日至 5 月 1 日在拉斯维加斯举行。
Now, TOCICO has the ‘certification’ in the title, but it is mainly an international association of people interested in TOC, practitioners, consultants, academics and people who like to learn. TOCICO offers huge open source of videos of presentations at its annual conferences. It runs conferences every year. For 2018 it is going to be at Las Vegas, April 30 – May 1st.
我知道一些非常有知识的 TOC 专家，他们不是顾问：他们是经理、学者和/或投资者。
I know of some very knowledgeable TOC experts who are not consultants: they are managers, academics and/or investor.
我确实认为顾问首先应该领导实施——而不仅仅是教育。我甚至写了一篇关于顾问角色的文章，你可以在我的博客中找到。
I do think that a consultant should, first of all, lead an implementation – not just educate. I even write a post about the role of the consultants that you can find in my blog.
那么，你正在寻找的“开源”是什么？请给我更多解释。
So, what is the “open source” you are looking for? Please, give me more explanation.
Like喜欢 Like
嗨，Eli Hi Eli
经过长时间的深思熟虑，我认为我可能找到了一个解决方案的方向，但还需看团队是否同意。我曾考虑走技术问题的路线，但后来决定放弃，因为这可能无法产生我认为推动前进所需的洞见。基于之前的评论，我想指出，从定位的角度来看，个人或咨询公司需要决定他们想要在哪个领域运作。你是否相信或希望将自己定位为一个快速反应团队，即扭转公司局面或提供短期快速改进。从营销的角度来看，应该开发一个审计模板，使你能够清楚地识别差距和潜力，并根据差距的潜力、差距的缩小以及增加的底线效应和顾问的一次性收益来提出报价。短期扭转限制了项目的外部曝光和市场变化。迄今为止，我们在这种方法上大多未能取得可重复的成功。
I have given it a lot of thought over a significant period of time I think I may have a direction of a solution but we will have to see if the group agree. I thought of going the technology questions route but then decided against it because it may not create the insights i think is needed to move forward. Based on the previous comments I would like to point out that from a positioning point individuals or consultancy houses needs to decide where they want to operate. Do you believe or want to position you as a swat team ie turning around companies or provide short term fast improvement. From a marketing point one should then develop an audit template that will enable you to clearly identify the gap and the potential and make an offer based on the potential of the gap and the closing of the gap and the increased bottom line effect and a one time benefit for the consultant. Short term turnaround limits the external exposure and market changes on the project. To date we have been mostly unsuccessful in this approach to achieve repeatable successes.
这可能出于多种原因，从对行业不了解到无法做出正确全面的差距评估，但如果我们能做好这一点，应该有一个无限的市场可以挖掘。
This could be for many reasons from not knowing the industry to not being able to make a correct complete assessment of the gap but if we can do it well there should be an unlimited market to tap into.
在第二点上，我遇到过一些人，他们理解这些原则并将其作为自己的实践——因此他以“明星”身份闻名，并获得了许多好处。所以我认为第二个建议发生的可能性很小，但我可能错了。
On the second point I have met with people that understood the principles and implemented as his own – so he was known for being the “star” and receive a lot of benefit. So I believe the second suggestion has very little chance of happening but I can be wrong.
第三种选择是实现 Eli G 的梦想，即让 TOC 成为公认并被采纳使用的业务改进手段。这意味着我们必须理解所有改进技术的适用场合及方法，并在适当的地方运用它们（如精益、六西格玛等），若我们自身缺乏相关技能，则需能够引入专家来完成那部分改进工作。我们需要将 TOC 融入公司的 DNA 中。这一目标极难推销，唯有当 CEO 完全接受并理解该解决方案，知晓所需及应行之事，并亲自推动时，方能成功。我们已有数家这样的公司取得了成功，但获取这些合同的过程离不开 Eli G 的指导、市场营销及其信誉的支撑。
The third option is to achieve Eli G dream and that is to make TOC an acknowledged and appropriated use as part of the business improvement. This means we have to understand where and how all the improvement technologies fit in and use them where appropriate (ie Lean, 6Sigma etc) and if we do not have the skills for it we must be able to pull in specialist to deliver that part of the improvement. We need to get TOC in the DNA of the company. This is very difficult to sell and will only be successful if the CEO has fully bought into the solution and understand the solution and whats needed and what should be done and drives i personally. We had a number of those companies as successes, but getting these contracts was a process under the guidance and marketing and credibility of Eli G.
在我们继续之前，让我们先理解实施 TOC 时我们真正在做什么。所以让我先说明我们不做什么。作为 TOC 实践者，我们不会改变现有的业务价值链/活动。那么我们做什么呢？这对我来说是一个领悟。Eli 总是谈论政策，而我一直在努力在公司内部找到它们，直到我意识到我们在 TOC 中所做的是
SO before we continue lets start to understand what we really do when we implement TOC. So let me state what we do not do. We as TOC practitioners does not change the existing business value chain/activities. Then what do we do? This has been an insight to me. Eli always talked about policies and I have struggled to find them within companies until I realize that what we do in TOC is
1. 确定合适的流动模型
1. Identify the appropriate flow model
2. 实施适当的 TOC 政策
2. Implement the appropriate TOC policy
3. 实施缓冲区管理
3. Implement buffer management
第一步可能会有些复杂，因为世界有时会给我们提供混合情况，我们需要为特定的流程找出正确的策略。第二部分是为约束条件编写策略。这是否意味着涉及很多人？我认为不是，让我们以分销解决方案为例。有多少人在为补货下订单？只有少数人，或者可能只有一个人！！再来看看制造业——我们需要影响多少人？同样，我们可能只需要与向工厂发布工作的计划员互动。如果他发布了正确的工作（这只是我们编写的一个发布策略），在制品（WIP）将会减少，流程也会得到改善。
Step one can have some complexity because the world sometimes provides us with a mixture and we need to figure out the correct policies for that specific flow. The second part is to write the policy for the constraint. Now is this supposed to be a lot of people? I think not lets look for eg a a distribution solution. How many people is placing orders for the replenishment? only a few or maybe just one!!. Lets look at manufacturing – how many people do we have to impact? Again we probably only need to interact with the planner that release the work to the plant. If he releases the right work, (this is just a release policy we have written) WIP will be down and flow will improve.
那么，为什么实施起来如此困难？为什么没有更多的公司采用 TOC？是管理层的障碍吗？还是因为它太简单，以至于我们无法为咨询工作开出好价钱？
So why is it so difficult to do? Why do we not have more companies using TOC. Is management the obstacle? is it so simple that we cannot ask a good price for the consultancy work?
我期待一些反馈
I look forward to some feedback
此致 Regards
阿尔伯特 Albert
Like1 人点赞 Liked by 1 person
阿尔伯特，这是对 TOC 顾问所面临的困难和困境的一个非常好的表达。正如你所说，最终你和其他许多顾问所做的是：1. 确定合适的流程模型 2. 实施适当的 TOC 政策 3. 实施缓冲管理。你还提到，你不会改变现有的业务价值链。
Albert, this is a very good expression of the difficulties and dilemmas of a TOC consultant. As you have put it what eventually you many other consultants do is: 1. Identify the appropriate flow model 2. Implement the appropriate TOC policy. 3. Implement buffer management. You also stated that you don’t change the existing business value chain.
好的，这对一些组织来说很有价值。其他人声称他们也能改善流程，因此存在竞争。改善现有流程加上缓冲管理的价值不错，但可能不是很大，因为营销和销售以及围绕产品的服务没有改变，所以影响并不全面。
OK, this is of good value to some organizations. Others claim that they can improve the flow as well, so there is a competition. The value of improving the existing flow plus buffer management is nice, but maybe not so big, because marketing and sales, and the services around the products have not changed so the impact is not full.
如果你不仅能挑战流程，还能挑战产品创造的价值呢？销售这样的项目很困难，而当你确实获得项目时，诊断、认同和实施也同样困难——甚至更加困难。但是，如果你确实克服了这些困难，那么无论对你的客户还是对你来说，价值都会大得多。
What if you would be able to challenge not just the flow, but the value created by the products? Selling such a project is difficult, and so are the diagnosis, buy-in and implementation when you do get the project – much more difficult. But, if you do overcome the difficulty the value, both for your client and for you, is much bigger.
如果你的客户方式得到了一个由 TOC 专家组成的国际虚拟组织的支持，这将增加获得项目的可能性，并通过与其他不直接参与的顾问讨论问题获得实际支持（客户在组织中主要看到的仍然是你）？
What if your way with the client is being supported by an international virtual organization of TOC experts, providing more likelihood of getting projects and then receiving real support by discussing the issues with other consultants, who are not directly involved (the client continues to see mainly you at the organization?
让我们从客户的角度来思考。客户需要以某种方式对顾问产生信任。客户也会遇到一些并非所有 TOC 顾问都有经验的常规问题。例如，工会即将发起全面罢工。如果你能倾听双方意见并提供双赢方案来解决问题呢？毕竟，作为一名经验丰富的 TOC 顾问，你不能告诉客户管理层罢工是他的问题！这无疑也是你的问题，你需要尽可能多的支持来帮助你的客户，以及你自己，以最佳方式面对问题。如果你做到了——难道你不认为客户会认可你的贡献并对你产生信任吗？
Let’s think from the client point of view. Somehow the clients needs faith in the consultant(s). The client also faces problems that are not part of the regular group of problems all TOC consultants have experience with. For instance, the worker union is about to call a general strike. What if you are able to listen to both sides and offer a win-win to overcome the issues? After all you, as an experienced TOC consultant, cannot tell the management of the client that the strike is his problem! It is definitely yours as well and you need all the support you can get to help your client, and yourself, to face the problem in the best way. If you do – don’t you think the client would recognize your contribution and have faith in you?
Like被 1 人点赞 Liked by 1 person
嗨，Eli。是的，上述情况属实，但我发现很多时候问题不在于缺乏解决方案，而在于缺少一套“如何做”的工具箱。LEAN 和六西格玛拥有丰富的工具，许多组织已经开发了工具箱和培训材料，以帮助实施者掌握实际操作中的“如何做”。
Hi Eli. Yes the above is true, but I find that in many cases it not the lack of a solution, but the lack of a toolbox of how. LEAN and Six Sigma has a plethora of tools and many organization’s have developed the tool boxes and training materials to assist the implementers with the practicalities of How.
Like喜欢 Like
Eli,
正如你所深知的那样，这个课题几十年来耗费了大量精力，却仍未得到广泛认可的解决方案。似乎大多数人对此都有自己的见解，有些人正在追寻他们自己的解决方案……我也是其中之一。
As you know so well, this subject is one that has received a great deal of energy for decades with no widely accepted solution. It seems as if most everyone has thoughts on this, and some are pursuing their own solutions … I am one of those.
同时，我愿意公开声明，即使对于这一挑战的一小部分，我也没有明确的解决方案。
At the same time, I am willing to publicly state that I do not have a clear solution to even a small segment of this challenge.
从我的角度来看，我认为需要投入大量精力来理解这个问题及其几个基础。
From my perspective, I propose that a great deal of effort will need to go into understanding the question and several of the basis for the question.
我只从个人经验出发，并不声称这些经验全面无遗。在讨论初创公司时，我喜欢从 G 博士的深刻见解开始。他提出了一个简单的问题：“我的解决方案减少了哪些限制？”
I begin only from my personal experience which I do not claim is anywhere near comprehensive. I like to start with the fantastic insight of Dr. G when discussing a start up company. He proposed the simple question of “what limitation does my solution diminish?”
那么 TOC 减少了什么限制？我们应该明确具体的对象。
So what limitation does TOC diminish? We should be specific as to the constituency.
如果您对以这种方式处理讨论感兴趣，我们可以从 CEO 的选区开始。
If you are interested in this way to address the discussion, may we start by using the constituency of the CEO.
TOC 减少了 CEO 的哪些限制？
What limitation of a CEO does TOC diminish?
记住：为了保持一定的纪律性，我们或许应该这样思考我们的答案，就像我们即将对下一位遇到的 CEO 说出这些回答一样。
Remember: to maintain a bit of discipline, we probably should think of our answers as if we said our answers to very next CEO we meet.
我们真的想对一位 CEO 说“我们克服了有缺陷的思维”或“我们解决了管理注意力的问题，尽管你不知道这是什么或为什么这是个问题”之类的话吗？
Do we really want to say to a CEO something like “we overcome flawed thinking” or “we solve the problem of management attention even though you have no idea what this is or why its a problem.”
最重要的是，我们需要记住，我们必须用“当且仅当”来测试我们的解决方案。
On top of it, we need to remember that we will have to test our solution with “if and only if.”
Like喜欢 Like
迈克尔，我在之前的帖子中已经表达了我对顾问所创造价值及其局限性的一些相关看法。我个人的原则是，我从不告诉一位 CEO“我会解决你的问题！”而是告诉他“我们共同努力，识别问题并克服它的几率会大大增加。”在这句话中，我考虑到我确实有一些想法，这些想法通常来自与我当前处理环境不同的其他环境，经过一些调整后可能适用。我也考虑到，CEO 应该比任何人都更了解自己的具体情况，而我作为一个外来者，拥有来自其他环境和其他人（如 Eli G.）的知识和想法，我们之间的开放对话至关重要。我越来越意识到，我们“知道”的领域是有限的，即使是一位真正伟大的 CEO，也难以深入评估情况并做出明确的决策。讨论我们所知和未知的内容，有可能揭示不确定的情况，并找到一个平均而言能产生非常好结果的解决方案，同时我们也意识到，有时我们会失败。
Michael, I have expressed some relevant views of mine in my previous post on the value consultants generate and also the limitations of it. My own school is that I never tell a CEO “I’ll solve your problem!” I tell him “together we have considerably higher chance to identify the problem and overcome it.” Within that saying I take into account that I do have ideas, usually taken from other environments than the one I deal with now, that MIGHT work with some changes. I also take into consideration that an open dialogue between a CEO, who should know about his specific situation more than anybody else, and me who is an outsider with knowledge and ideas from other environments and other people (like Eli G.). I realize more and more that our area of “I know” is limited and even a truly great CEO has difficulty to evaluate the situation in depth and come up with clear decision. Discussing what we know and what we don’t has the potential of highlighting an uncertain situation and come up with a solution that, on average, yields very good results, while being aware that sometimes we lose.
我在这里看到了 TOC 顾问的真正价值，他们愿意从整体情况出发，与拥有最佳信息和直觉的人讨论什么是更优的举措。
I see here a real value of TOC consultants that are ready to look on a holistic situation and discuss with the one with the best information and intuition what is the superior move.
Like喜欢 Like
我喜欢迪帕克关于速度的评论。也同意速度是必要的，但并不足够。
I like the Deepak’s comments about speed. Also agree that speed is necessary but not sufficient.
在营销主题中，当我们将潜在客户吸引到我们所做的事情时，会出现一些冲突……
There are a few conflicts that come up in the marketing subject, when pulling prospects towards what we do…
称之为 TOC / 不要
Call it TOC / don’t
推广其历史悠久且稳健 / 推广其新颖
Promote that it’s old & robust / promote that’s it’s new
尽早暴露范式断裂 / 推迟范式断裂的讨论
Expose the paradigm breaks early / defer the paradigm breaks discussions
狙击步枪 / 霰弹枪（关于项目重点）
Sniper rifle / shotgun (wrt to project focus)
从高层开始 / 从中层管理开始
Start at the top / start with middle management
谈论结果 / 谈论行动
Talk about outcomes / talk about actions
我确信还有更多，但我在手机上打字，所以就不多说了。
I’m sure there are more, but I’m typing on a phone so won’t ramble on.
我喜欢你的 CRT，但我觉得主题空间是市场营销，所以我刚才阐述的冲突应该反映当前现实中的使用情况。由此产生的反馈循环必须表明，这会导致 TOC 倡导者在市场营销中失败，因为他们妥协了这些冲突下的需求。
I like your CRT but I feel that the subject space was marketing and so the conflicts I’ve just articulated should reflect udes in that current reality. And the resulting feedback loops must show that this causes TOC advocates to fail in marketing, by compromising the needs lying under those conflicts.
在此讨论中，我们还应区分营销与销售
We should also distinguish marketing from sales, in this discussion?
Like喜欢 Like
我同意你提到的所有潜在冲突。虽然 CRT 应该呈现当前状态而不涉及太多细节，但出现的问题是我们如何处理没有领导的基本冲突，这引发了个人关于该做什么的冲突。
I agree to all the potential conflicts you mention. While the CRT is supposed to present the current state without too many details, the emerging question is how do we deal with basic conflict of no leadership, which raises the individual conflicts of what to do.
我专注于市场营销而非销售，因为在我看来这是最直接的障碍。一旦我们掌握了营销方法，可能会发现销售面临更多障碍。
I’ve focused on Marketing, not on Sales, because it seems to me the most immediate obstacle. Once we know how to market we might find out that selling poses more obstacles.
Like喜欢 Like
这里的问题是否在于 TOC 顾问的工作方式？当我用相同的 UDE 处理 CRT 时，我得到了不同的树。也许是因为我站在了篱笆的两边——既是客户又是顾问。
Could the problem here be how TOC consultants work? As I work through a CRT with the same UDE’s, I get a different tree. Perhaps it is because I have viewed both sides of the fence – as a customer and as a consultant.
TOC 顾问彼此是竞争对手，很少为 TOC 的整体利益而合作。虽然他们可能会分享一些高层次的信息，但他们并不真正愿意一起工作。如果我想向另一位 TOC 顾问学习，他会要求我付钱给他。
TOC Consultants are competitors to each other, and rarely work together for the good of TOC as a whole. While they may share some high level information, but they don’t really want to work together. If I want to learn from another TOC consultant, he will ask me to pay him.
因此，永远无法有人取代 Eli Goldratt 的位置。这可能意味着构成 TOC 社区的大批顾问们不得不承认，他们的某个竞争对手比他们更优秀。这或许会非常困难。
So there can never be a replacement for Eli Goldratt. This would probably mean that the large group of consultants that make up the TOC community would have to acknowledge that one of their competitors is better than they are. That might be very difficult.
与此同时，大多数顾问在使用其中一种工具赚钱（他们的目标或目的——动机 1）方面取得了一些成功。他们希望销售自己掌握的解决方案（动机 2）。但他们也希望决定如何经营自己的业务（保持自主性——动机 3）。因此，TOC 可能看起来挑战了太多范式，因为有太多不同的人提出了部分（非系统或整体）的 TOC 解决方案。但事实证明，存在强烈的动机不合作、不共同学习。
At the same time, most consultants have had some success making money (their goal or purpose – motivator 1) with one of the tools. They want to sell the solution they have mastered (motivator 2). But they also want to decide how to run their business (to be autonomous – motivator 3). So TOC may look to challenge too many paradigms, because they are so many different people presenting partial (not systemic or holistic) TOC solutions. But it turns out that there is strong motivation NOT to work together and learn together.
竞争对手在学习 TOC 其余部分时，也将面临时间损失和可能的收入损失的双重困扰。我是应该更多地销售和实施我所知的内容，还是停下来花钱学习另一种工具？我应该付钱给竞争对手之一来教我这些新材料吗？这种冲突会让人难以对 TOC 这一广泛的知识领域感到满意。对于这些顾问来说，TOC 看起来范围太广，工具太多。这种看法可能会传递给他们的客户。
Competitors also will struggle with both the loss of time and possible loss of income while learning the rest of TOC. Should I be doing more sales and implementation of what I know, or stop and spend my money to learn another tool? Should I pay one of my competitors to teach me this new material? This conflict would make it hard to be content with a wide scope of knowledge that is TOC. For these consultants, TOC looks too wide, and there are too many tools. And this perception may be passed on to their customers.
这些个体竞争者能否共同努力，帮助界定 TOC 是什么或不是什么？他们能否共同制定明确的统一性和有效的方法来实施整个范围？如果他们不能合作，他们就无法做到。
Can these individual competitors work together to help define what TOC is or is not? Can they work together to develop clear unity and effective ways to implement the whole scope? If they can’t work together, they can’t.
在所有这些情况下，任何希望开展这项工作的组织中都必然存在大量冲突。TOC-ICO 治理中也是如此吗？那些背景深厚的顾问是否正在离开这个圈子，可以这么说吗？
With all of this going on, there has to be a lot of conflict in any organization looking to do this work. Is that true in TOC-ICO governance? Are consultants with a strong background leaving the fold, so to speak?
TOC 的范式，因为它发人深省，使得仅仅复制任何削减成本的改进计划变得更加困难。TOC 需要刻意练习（我想到了掌握树和云所需的所有时间），这很难！因此，随着社区中的分歧，以及理解 TOC 所需的更多工作，TOC 的评级将继续低于其他方法，并可能继续下降。
The paradigm of TOC, because it is thought provoking, makes it more difficult that copying any improvement program that just cuts costs. TOC required deliberate practice (I think of all the time it took to master trees and clouds), which is hard! So with the discord in the community, and the more work it takes to understand TOC, the rating of TOC will continue to be low as compared to other methods, and may continue to decline.
我们是否需要一种全面的方法？当然需要，但我们可能需要一个团队为了 TOC 的利益共同努力，而不是一群竞争者为了争夺萎缩市场的一部分而相互对抗。
Do we need a holistic approach? Certainly, but we may need a group working together for the good of TOC, not a group of competitors working against each other to capture part of a shrinking market.
Like喜欢 Like
凯文，你问：“这里的问题是否在于 TOC 顾问的工作方式？”
Kevin, you ask: “Could the problem here be how TOC consultants work?”
让我反问您：TOC 顾问之间的竞争是否限制了 TOC 产生的整体价值，还是缺乏强有力的领导所导致的结果？
Let me ask you back: Does the competition between TOC consultants limit the overall value generated by TOC, or it is the resulting effect from not having strong leadership?
咨询顾问的本质是独立工作，因此彼此之间经常处于竞争状态。像麦肯锡这样的大型咨询公司成功建立了工作关系的层级结构。随后发生的情况是，成功的顾问离开麦肯锡，寻找自己的项目，但总体上只对麦肯锡构成较小的竞争，因为麦肯锡的规模和累积经验是其决定性的竞争优势。
The nature of consultants is to work by themselves, thus be in constant competition with each other. The big consulting companies, like McKinsey, succeed to create a hierarchy of working relationships. What happens then is that successful consultants leave McKinsey and look for projects of their own, but overall create only minor competition with McKinsey, whose size and accumulative experience is their decisive-competitive-edge.
我看到了一个略有不同的解决方案，即由几位国际知识渊博、经验丰富的 TOC 专家组成一个大型国际虚拟组织，来支持 TOC 项目。当然，当提供此类支持时，顾问产生的部分 T 必须与支持者共享。但是，这与顾问必须投入时间和金钱去学习不同——这仅在他/她从项目中赚钱时进行。
I see a somewhat different solution where several international knowledgeable experienced TOC experts, organized as a large and international virtual organization, support TOC projects. Certainly when such a support is given then part of the T generated by the consultant has to be shared with the supporters. But, this is not similar to a consultant having to invest time and money to learn – this is done only when he/she are making money from a project.
负面分支是什么？
What are the negative branches?
当然，顾问的个人自我得到了他人的支持。我找不到解决非理性自我影响的方法。我认为，如果我们能消除理性的负面影响，那么我们就可以与那些对自己的自我有一定控制力的人继续前进。
Certainly the personal ego of a consultant getting support from someone else. I don’t find a solution to the irrational ego impact. I think if we do evaporate the rational negatives then we can go ahead with people who have a certain control on their ego.
一个更合理的潜在负面分支是，当支持的老顾问不是项目的正式成员时，支持的质量问题，客户不了解他，因此他所知道的一切都基于顾问报告。我认为价值仍然很高，但在某些情况下，也许老顾问应该成为正式审计员，以便了解更多项目细节。当然，需要信任老顾问绝不会对现任顾问的声誉和尊重产生任何怀疑。如果老顾问是项目提案的一部分，那么我认为获得项目的机会更高。
A more rational possible negative branch is the quality of the support when the supporting veteran consultant is not an official part of the project, the client does not know of him, so everything he knows is based on the consultant reports. I think the value is still high, BUT in some cases maybe the older consultant should become an official auditor in order to know more of the details of the project. Certainly there need to be trust that the older consultant would never put the reputation and respect for the active consultant in any doubt. If the older consultant is part of the proposal for a project, then I assume the chance of getting project is higher.
好的，这是我提出的解决方案。我首先从我的理由出发阐述了问题，并且我仍然提出这个问题：
OK, this is my proposed solution. I have presented first the problem, from my rationale, and I still pose the question:
你对缺乏领导力以及由此产生的总体价值有限和 TOC 评级低的问题有何解决方案？
What is YOUR solution to the problem of lack of leadership and the consequences of generating limited overall value and low rating of TOC?
Like喜欢 Like
嗨，Eli。 Hi, Eli.
你的文章对我很有帮助，因为我多次阅读它，每次都能从中获得关于 TOC 知识、社区、思维过程示例的不同信息，而现在我又得到了一个新的启示——关于我们在 TOC 内部交流中使用的语言。
Your article comes good for my, because I read it for many times and each of it comes with different messages about future of TOC Knowledge, community, thinking process example and now I’he got a new one — about language we use in communication inside TOC.
开发了像不同种类树木一样的完美沟通工具。逻辑组件清晰易懂，易于使用，并且不会用大量事实轰炸用户的注意力——只呈现最重要的信息。
There was developed a perfect tools for communication like different kinds of trees. It’s clear to understand logical component, easy to use and don’t bomb user’s attention with tons of facts — only most important.
我们已经忘记了这一点，我们的消息伴随着大量文本，与树状结构相比，需要更多时间来理解其逻辑。
We have forgot about it, our messages comes with lot of text and demands a more time to understand it’s logic in comparison with trees.
对吗？ Is it right?
Like喜欢 Like
维克多，你已经阐述了使用树状图的好处。但在日常交流中使用它们也存在障碍和负面分支，主要障碍在于习惯问题。主要的负面分支是，编写树状图需要更多时间，且需要软件辅助，将树状图附加到评论中也很棘手。文档的关键在于它们适合表达一条清晰的思路。当论点朝多个方向发展时，问题就出现了。我们过于习惯将论点视为仅朝一个明确方向发展，这种习惯阻碍了更广泛地使用树状图来表达观点。云图比树状图方便得多，它们能代表两个对立的方面，这已经是巨大的进步。
Victor, you have expressed the benefits of using trees. There are also both obstacles and negative branches in using them, especially for daily communication. The main obstacle is to get used to it. The main negative branche is that it takes much more time to write and you need the aid of software and it is tricky to attach a tree to a comment. The point with documents is that they fit one clear line of thought. When the argument is going in several direction then it becomes problematic. We are used, way too much, to look on arguments as going in one clear direction only and this habit is an obstacle to much more use of trees to express an opinion. Clouds are much more handy than trees and they represent two conflicting sides, which is already huge improvement.
Like喜欢 Like
一篇非常有趣的文章，也是我这个社区相对新人自己思考过的事情。对我来说，TOC 必须不仅仅是一种谋生手段。背后必须有一个更美好世界的愿景，但谁在推动这个愿景，团结社区，集中我们的努力..
A very interesting post and something I as a relatively newcomer to the community have pondered myself. To me TOC must be more than just a means to earn a living. There has to be a vision for a better world behind, but who is driving that vision, uniting the community, focusing our efforts..
如果 TOC 社区，甚至只是其中的一小部分，在其余人的支持下决定在几乎任何类型的业务中创办一家公司，我们能以多快的速度创造一个无法被忽视的巨大成功？
If the TOC community or even just a small part of it, supported by the rest decided to start a company within almost any kind of business, how fast could we create a success so big that it could not be ignored?
Like喜欢 Like
Rasmus，我认为依赖自愿努力来实现一个关于新美好世界的愿景将是一个错误。如果我找到一种为他人带来价值的方式，并由此也为自己带来价值，我认为这是一个足够强大的共同目标，足以使其实现。
Rasmus, I think it is going to be a mistake to rely on voluntary efforts to materialize a vision about new better world. If I find a way to bring value to others, and by this also to myslef, I think this is strong enough common cause to make it happen.
Like喜欢 Like
嗨，Eli， Hi Eli,
一如既往的有趣帖子，感谢您使用 TP 分享。
Really interesting post as usual and thank you for sharing it using TP.
只有一个想法：如果我们继续发展你的分析和当前现实树，并像孩子一样不断问为什么？为什么？再问为什么？我认为你的根本原因可能与一个共同点（一个约束？）有关：“开放 TOC 领导力”的紧迫性。
Only one idea: if we continue to develop your analysis and current reality tree, and asking as children why? why? and again why? I think your root causes could be related to a common one (a constraint?): an urgency of an “open TOC leadership”.
“领导力”不一定指某个人，而是一个被认可的团体，他们以系统有序的方式重新思考——正如你们现在所做的那样——并在全球范围内重新推广 TOC。TOC 拥有实现这一目标的合适工具。
With “leadership” I mean not necessarily a person, but a recognized group that re-think -as you are doing right now- and re-promote TOC around the world, under a systematic and orderly way. TOC has the appropriate tools to do it.
“开放”意味着推动这种重新思考的 TOC 方法，以最有效的方式（不是对我们，而是对我们的客户，这是目标！）引领或补充全球公司正在使用的各种方法（如精益、六西格玛、DDMRP 等）。TOC 需要利用其他方法的成功，同时也要利用自身的成功。天空不是极限！
With “open”, I mean to promote this re-think TOC approach to lead or to complement in the most efficient way (not for us, but to our customers, it is the goal!) the huge variety of approaches (as Lean, Six Sigma, DDMRP etc.) that companies are using around the world. TOC needs to capitalize the success of other approaches and at the same time capitalizing to itself. Sky is not the limit!
Like喜欢 Like
David 我同意你的观点。我对“领导力”这个词感到困惑，并在之前的帖子中表达了我的担忧。在我看来，管理和支持全球各地的 TOC 项目工作似乎更符合解决方案的方向。
David I agree with you. I’m struggling with the term “leadership” and I have expressed my concerns in a previous post. Managing and supporting efforts for TOC projects all over the world seem to me more tuned to the direction of solution.
Like喜欢 Like
让我反问一下：TOC 顾问之间的竞争是否限制了 TOC 产生的整体价值，还是由于缺乏强有力的领导所导致的结果？
ES: Let me ask you back: Does the competition between TOC consultants limit the overall value generated by TOC, or it is the resulting effect from not having strong leadership?
当然，问题的答案实际上是两者兼有，因为一个 UDE 循环回来支持另一个。缺乏一个强有力的领导者——明显强于该领域的任何其他人，会导致竞争对手认为他们足够了解，可以继续单独利用他们的孤立技能进行营销努力，试图获取新业务——甚至不惜牺牲竞争对手的利益。缺乏整体解决方案限制了 TOC 产生的总体价值。
Of course, the answer to the question is really both, as one UDE loops back to support the other. The lack of a strong leader – that is clearly stronger than anyone else in the field, would cause competitors to assume they know enough to continue their Marketing efforts individually with their silo skill to attempt to acquire new business – even at the expense of their competitors. A lack of a holistic solution limits the overall value generated by TOC.
竞争阻碍了承认强势领导者的观念，这甚至会削弱那些在该领域非常精通的人。持续缺乏这种领导力将导致顾问离开该领域，或者将其包装成另一种策略，比如减少 OE 或将瓶颈缓冲称为“有利的浪费”。然后，该领域缺乏强有力的人才将削弱对强势领导者的需求。如此循环往复。
And the competition prevents the idea of acknowledging a strong leader, which would undermine even someone who is very well versed in the field. The continuing lack of this leadership will cause consultants to leave the field or perhaps couch it into another strategy, like reducing OE or calling bottleneck buffers “profitable waste.” Then the lack of people who are strong in the field would dilute the need for a strong leader. And so on.
所以如果你打破了一个，你很有可能也会打破另一个。
So if you break one, you stand a good chance of breaking the other.
那么我们应该攻击哪个 UDE？社区会支持拉米、艾伦·伯纳德还是你作为 TOC 的下一位领导者？也许是詹姆斯·霍尔特博士，他并不是真正的竞争者，而是专注于学习的人？不过，对他来说做市场营销会很困难。
So which UDE do we attack? Would the community support Rami, Alan Bernard or yourself as the next leader of TOC? Perhaps Dr. James Holt, who is not really a competitor, but one whose emphasis is on learning? It would be tough for him to do Marketing, however.
或许社区需要更像那些开发了维基百科、Linux、Chrome 或 Firefox 的人——一个开源环境？你会押注于由专业人士开发、付费的在线百科全书微软 Encarta，还是开源百科全书维基百科？这就是商业模式 2.0。这是我的解决方案。
Or perhaps the community needs to be more like those who developed Wikipedia or Linux, Chrome or Firefox – an open source environment? Would you have bet on Microsoft Encarta with professionals being paid to develop an on-line encyclopedia, or Wikipedia, an open source encyclopedia? This is the Business Model 2.0. This is MY solution.
其部分内容包括： Parts of it are:
• 培养一群愿意合作的 TOC 专业人士，他们的目的不是为了金钱，而是为了 TOC 的进步。这可以是兼职的，而且不应该都是顾问。
• Develop a group of TOC professionals who are willing to work together, and whose purpose is not for the money, but for the advancement of TOC. This could be part time, and should not all be consultants.
例如，我非常愿意谈论我在通用汽车公司和其他公司的成功经验——以及需要避免的失败教训。
o For example, I would be more than willing to talk about my success at GM and other companies – and talk about failures to be avoided.
• 这将是那些“对自己的自我有一定控制力”的人。
• This would be the people “who have a certain control on their ego”.
• 这个组织将整体方法分解为步骤。一个科技组织，真的。
• This organization who breakdown a holistic approach into steps. An S&T, really.
• 该组织将拥有该领域的专家，他们可以在几个月内实施其专业领域的工作，然后将工作交接给另一位 TOC 专家以解决下一个问题。
• This organization would have experts in the discipline who can implement their specialty in months, and then hand off the work for the next solution to another TOC expert.
您的资深或熟练系统顾问可能是其中的一部分。
o Your veteran or skilled system consultant may be part of this.
o 如果他们需要一个专门负责此任务的人，您可以推荐一位您有信心能完成工作的顾问。
o You may recommend a consultant that you feel confident in to get the job done if they want someone dedicated to the task.
• 它们必须是非营利的——赚钱是必要条件，而非目标。
• They would have to be non-profit – making money is a necessary condition, not the goal.
• 对于市场营销部门，他们必须在标题中加入 Goldratt 的名字。
• For Marketing, they would have to have the name Goldratt someone in the title.
那么，最终，营销是如何完成的？与其他商业模式 2.0 的营销有何不同？不是面向 CEO，而是那些真正在尝试解决问题的人——经理和工程师。我的 FRT 大致如下。负面分支？当然，但你们或许能帮我完善这些。
So finally, how is the Marketing done? How is the Marketing done with the other Business Model 2.0? Not to the CEO’s, but the people who are actually the ones trying to solve the problem. The managers and engineers. My FRT looks loosely like this. Negative Branches? Sure, but you might be able to help me develop those.
Like喜欢 Like
Eli,
一如既往，你提出了很好的问题，并引发了对重要主题的思考。在思考你的分析和许多有趣的评论时，我发现自己试图澄清几件事。首先是“TOC 到底是什么？”我们如何划定一个界限，说这是 TOC，这不是，这是“整体”的，而这是零碎的？
As always you ask great questions and trigger thought on important subjects. As I have thought about your analysis and the many interesting comments, I find myself trying to clarify several things. The first is ‘what exactly is TOC?’ How do we draw a box around it and say this is TOC, this is not, this is “holistic” and this is piecemeal?
当然，我们必须问自己是否应该尝试创建这样的界限，或者定义什么是 TOC，什么不是 TOC。一方面，为了让 TOC 生存和发展，它需要有一个身份和一套可以传授给人们的知识体系。但另一方面，为了让 TOC 被广泛接受和使用，它需要与现有学科/主流相结合。因此，将 TOC 定义为 TOC 与不将其定义为 TOC 之间的冲突，远不止是顾问的困境，它是整个 TOC 的困境。而你提出的“一位领导者”问题正是这一困境的核心。TOC 应该被集中“管理”和领导，还是应该留给个人选择和决定。
Of course we have to ask whether we should even try to create such boundaries or define what is and isn’t TOC. On the one hand for TOC to survive and grow it needs to have an identity and a body of knowledge that can be taught to people. But on the other hand for TOC to be widely accepted and used it needs to be integrated with existing disciplines/ mainstream. So the conflict between Define as TOC, and Don’t Define as TOC is much more than the consultant’s dilemma, it is a dilemma for all of TOC. And the “one leader” question you ask is right at the heart of it. Should TOC be centrally “managed” and led or should it be left to individual choice and decision.
我相信试图通过一个中央领导者来控制 TOC 会非常危险。一旦我们定义了“TOC/非 TOC”，就会出现狂热和分裂。Zealotry（狂热）的常见负面含义——对某事物的强烈、直言不讳但狭隘或盲目的信仰——不仅不利于 TOC，而且违背了 Eli G.的精神和本质。（我们都听过太多次“但 Eli 说过…”）。
I believe it would be very dangerous to try to control TOC through a central leader. As soon as we define ‘TOC/ not-TOC’ we will have zealotry and splintering. The common negative connotation of Zealotry–a strong, vocal, but narrow or unquestioning belief in something–not only doesn’t serve TOC well, it is against its spirit and the essence of Eli G. (We’ve all heard too many times “but Eli said…”).
有三个条件使得 TOC 特别容易受到狂热标签的影响。
There are three conditions that make TOC particularly susceptible to the zealotry tag.
首先是 TOC 涵盖了广泛的领域，能够解释并改善各种环境和情况。对于一个相信“我们与众不同”的世界来说，这听起来像是纯粹的幻想和空中楼阁，使得人们很容易将 TOC 的支持者视为来自另一个星球的人。
The first is that TOC covers an enormous amount of territory and explains and can improve a vast range of environments and situations. To a world that believes “we are different” this smacks of being pure fantasy and pie in the sky and makes it very easy to label TOC people as from another planet.
第二点是它的效果确实非常、非常好。同样，普遍认为改进是随着时间的推移而缓慢发生的，因此任何声称能快速、显著改进的人通常从一开始就会被忽视，而无需任何实际的检查或分析。这简直是“好得令人难以置信”。
The second thing is that it works really, really well. Again the common belief is that improvement comes slowly over time so anyone who claims rapid, exceptional improvement is typically discounted from the start without any real checking or analysis. It’s simply “too good to be true”.
第三点是，TOC 作为少数派，因其高效而对主流构成威胁。在《出埃及记》中，逾越节并未使法老想要皈依犹太教（尽管他们取得了比他更好的成果），反而促使他想要镇压他们。如果 TOC 成为多数派，无论某人如何热烈地宣扬它，都不会有人被指责为狂热分子——毕竟，在美国，没有人因为拥护民主而被称作狂热者。
The third thing is that TOC is a minority that is threatening to the mainstream because it is so effective. In Exodus the passover didn’t make the pharoah want to convert to Judaism (i.e. even though they got better results than he did), it made him want to crush them. If TOC was in the majority there would be no claims of zealotry no matter how vigorously someone touted it–no one in America is called a zealot for championing Democracy after all.
那么“解决方案”的方向是什么？
So what is the direction of the ‘solution’?
我相信方向是在全球各种组织的广泛行业和应用中培养越来越多的成功。这不应该在隐藏 TOC 的情况下完成，但也不应该“因为它是 TOC”而完成。正如多年来许多人所说，用目标的术语表达价值语言远比抛出 TOC 的行话有效得多。
I believe the direction is to foster more and more successes across a wide array of industries and applications in all kinds of organizations around the world. It shouldn’t be done while hiding TOC, but neither should it be done “because its TOC.” As has been said by many and for many years, speaking the language of value in the target’s terminology is far more effective than spewing the jargon of TOC.
正如亨利所说，他正努力走出去，仅凭 TOC 取得惊人成功。许多人将见证这一成功并渴望复制，而我知道他并不试图隐藏背后的秘诀。Goldratt 咨询公司正以类似的方式引领潮流，力求让越来越多的（在他们案例中通常是更大的）组织通过 TOC 取得成功。QFI 则在医疗保健领域应用 TOC 原则和流程方面处于领先地位。此外，还有许多其他组织在做着类似的事情。
As Henry said he is trying to go out and just be amazingly successful with TOC. Many people will see the success and want to repeat it, and I know he is not trying to hide the secret sauce behind it. Goldratt Consulting is leading in a similar fashion, seeking to make more and more (in their case generally larger) organizations successful using TOC. QFI is leading in applying TOC principles and processes in healthcare. And there are many others doing similar things.
我确实相信，建立更多、更大的组织（无论是公司还是非正式的合作），利用 TOC（约束理论）产生成果，将加速 TOC 的发展并确保其长久性。我不认为会有一个特定的模式，TOC 可以通过多种方式获得竞争优势。一些团体将使用单一的特定 TOC 应用，一些将与其他方法结合，另一些将使用多个应用，甚至以更全面的方式整合 TOC 的所有元素。市场将决定哪些模式提供更多价值，较差的模式将被更好的模式取代，但我不认为这会很快发生，因为即使是基于 TOC 的“较差”解决方案，通常也比传统方法更有效。
I do believe that building more and larger organizations (whether companies or less formal collaborations) that produce results using TOC will accelerate the growth and assure the longevity of TOC. I don’t believe there will be one specific model and that a competitive edge can be gained with TOC in many ways. Some of these groups will use a single specific TOC application, some will combine it with something else, others will use multiple applications or even bring all of the elements of TOC together in a more holistic way. The market will decide what models deliver more value and inferior ones will be replaced by better ones, but I don’t expect this to happen quickly as even “inferior” TOC-based solutions tend to be more effective than conventional ones.
我们是宣扬它是 TOC，还是完全隐瞒这一事实，还是采取折中的做法？显然，以某种方式将出色的成果与 TOC 基础联系起来，将激发更多兴趣，人们也会知道该搜索什么以了解更多。我个人更倾向于以客户的价值为导向，将洞见与 TOC 的起源联系起来，并始终让结果成为衡量“正确”的标准。
Do we tout that it’s TOC or conceal that fact altogether, or do something in between? Obviously somehow connecting great results to a foundation in TOC will foster more interest and people will know what to Google to learn more. I personally prefer to lead with the value in the clients terms, to connect the insights to their origins in TOC and to always let the results be the measure of what is “right”.
Like喜欢 Like
嗨，Eli， Hi Eli,
我于 2005 年首次阅读《目标》，这开启了我从 Eli 的书籍以及像您、Dettmer 等许多其他作者那里获取更多 TOC 知识的旅程。我还获得了 TOC Insights 和 SLPs，并在 2010 年参加了 Commitment 项目后，最终通过了 TOC 基础考试，该项目本应使我达到从业者技能水平。一直以来，我都在关注 TP Jonah 课程，但始终无法说服自己其投资回报率与 10,000 美元的价格标签相匹配。
I first read The Goal in 2005 and that started me off on a journey to acquire more TOC knowledge from Eli’s books, many other authors like you, Dettmer, etc. I also acquired the TOC Insights and SLPs and eventually passed the TOC Foundation Exams in 2010 after joining the Commitment programme that should have taken me to Practitioner skill level. All the while, I had been eyeballing the TP Jonah course but could never convince myself of the ROI vs the $10k price tag.
代替 Jonah TP 项目，我参加了在以色列与 Alan 一起的《奥德赛》——非常棒的体验，并且我遇见了你🙂以及 Goldratt UK 的 TOC 研讨会，在那里我遇见了 Martin——又是一次极佳的经历。但总的来说，我在实施 TOC 方面的实践经验不多。我曾试图找到一个能让我接触一些真实 TOC 项目的实习职位，但最终未能如愿。
In lieu of the Jonah TP programme, I have attended The Odyssey with Alan in Israel – great experience, and I met you 🙂 and Goldratt UK TOC Workshops where I met Martin – another great experience. But in all, I have little practical experience of implementing TOC. I tried to get an intern role that would expose me to some real TOC projects, at some point but it did not work out.
我在尼日利亚石油行业的项目经理/业务分析师职业生涯中相当成功，但我尚未为公司、行业或国家带来我认为 TOC（约束理论）所能带来的那种价值。我也无法指出任何巨大的成功。最近，我应用 TOC 原则来解决尼日利亚普遍存在的腐败问题，并在亚马逊上出版了一本书《生存心态：系统化应对尼日利亚腐败的方法》，获得了读者的好评，但提出的解决方案尚未实施，因此我不能声称在这方面取得了成功。
I have been fairly successful in my career as Project Manager / Business Analyst in the Oil industry in Nigeria but I have not brought to my company, industry or country, the kind of value I believe TOC can bring. Neither can I point at any wild success. I recently applied the TPs to address endemic corruption in Nigeria and published a book on Amazon, “The Survival Mindset: A Systematic Approach to Combating Corruption in Nigeria” with good reviews from readers but the proposed solutions are yet to be implemented so I cannot claim success there.
据我所知，TOC 在我国仍然非常新颖或鲜为人知，我自认为是一个能够帮助改进事物的人，而且我们也确实需要帮助！但我并不确信自己能够涉足咨询领域，也不确定最大的制约因素是什么；是我的技能、市场、TOC 本身，还是其他因素。
TOC is still very new or unknown in my country, as far as I know, and I fancy myself as someone who can help improve things and do we need help! But I am not convinced that I can venture into consultancy and I am not sure which is the greatest constraint; my skills, the market, TOC itself, etc.
我可能没有直接回答你的问题……但也许这也能展示出对那些有兴趣传播 TOC 但感到挣扎的人来说，事情看起来是怎样的。这些想法一直萦绕在我心头，我将这篇帖子视为分享的机会。
I may not have answered your questions directly… but maybe this can also show how things look to people who are interested in propagating TOC but struggling. These thoughts have been on my mind and I see this post as an opportunity to share.
Like喜欢 Like
感谢 Eli 在这样一个公开的论坛上提出这个问题。也感谢所有分享自己想法并提供额外视角的每个人。非常、非常有趣，这也是我经常问自己的一个问题。
Thank you Eli for asking this question in such an open forum. Thank you also to everybody who have shared their own thoughts and provided additional perspective. Very, very interesting and a question I often ask myself.
我也坚定地相信 TOC 原则，并将其应用到我生活的许多领域。早在 2010 年，我有幸在 Goldratt Institute 度过了 10 天，将“思考过程”应用于中小企业 IT 行业。在我们的根本原因分析中，我们确定了我们行业的真正核心问题，并自那时起努力开发解决我们核心冲突的见解。所有这些工作的成果是一种名为 Relevant IT 的业务 IT 方法论，其本质与 S&T 树非常相似。几个月前，我们迈出了一大步，开始了一项新业务，将这些见解带给全世界。
I also am a firm believer in the TOC principles and have applied it to numerous areas of my life. Back in 2010 I was fortunate enough to spend 10 days at the Goldratt Institute applying the “Thinking Processes” to the SME IT industry. During our root cause analysis we established the true core problem of our industry and since then worked hard to develop the insights for solving our core conflict. The result of all the work is a business IT methodology called Relevant IT, which in essence is fairly similar to a S&T tree. A few months ago we took the leap and started a new business to bring these insights to the world.
你可能会问，这一切与伊莱提出的问题有什么关系？
You may ask, what has this all to do with the question asked by Eli?
嗯，实际上有很多！本质上，我们试图在小范围内做 TOC 在大范围内尝试做的事情，即通过指出我们普遍管理范式中的缺陷来改变行为。
Well, quite a lot actually! In essence we are trying to do at small scale what TOC tries to do on a large scale, and this is to change behaviour by pointing out flaws in our prevalent management paradigms.
而正是在这里，我们自己的旅程开始变得真正有趣起来。尽管我们能够成功论证为何我们的方法迄今为止是最佳选择，但我们在一个基本方面却失败了（这一点每个人都认同）：尽管我们的解决方案恰当且可能非常有效，但它过于全面。当客户想要解决一个具体问题（这通常与我们已识别的某些 UDE 相关）时，我们还会告诉他所有其他问题。但这并非他所询问的内容。于是，兴趣便丧失了。
And this is where our own journey starts getting really interesting. Even though we can successfully argue why our approach is by far the best approach, we fail in one fundamental aspect (and everybody confirms this): Even though appropriate and potentially very effective, our solution is TOO COMPREHENSIVE. When our customer wants to solve a specific problem (which invariable relates to some UDE we have identified), we also tell him about all the other problems. But this is not what he asked for. And interest is lost.
这让我回到了最初的问题。我的感觉是，我们生活在一个已经习惯于将事物分解得越来越细的世界中。我们被训练成反应性的，活在当下，而且非常重要的一点是，常常被期望关闭大脑，随波逐流（顺便说一句：我并不是在说 TOC 实践者 :-))。就其本质而言，TOC，以及类似的 Relevant IT，除非我们在业务管理方式上发生根本性的转变（并停止将所有事物分解得越来越细），否则不会被大多数组织所接受。
Which brings me full circle to the original question. My feeling is that we operate in a world that has gotten used to breaking down things into smaller and smaller parts. We have been conditioned to be reactive, to live in the moment and, very importantly, are often expected to switch off our brains and just follow the crowds (by the way: I am not talking about TOC practitioners :-)) . By its very nature, TOC, and by analogy Relevant IT, will not be accepted by a majority of the organisations out there unless there is also a fundamental shift in the way we approach business management (and stop breaking everything down into smaller and smaller parts).
我坚信我们会达到这一点……问题只是我们还需要多久才能达到这个临界点？
And I strongly believe we will get to this point … the question is just how long until we reach this tipping point?
也许更重要的是，当我们达到这一点时，TOC 社区是否组织得足够好以引领方向，还是某个来自众多创业孵化器之一的初创组织会抢尽风头？
And perhaps more importantly, when we reach this point, will the TOC community be organised enough to lead the way or will some startup organisation coming from one of the many Startup incubators steal the thunder?
Like喜欢 Like
大家好，我很高兴我们得到了一些非常有价值的评论。我喜欢多思考这些评论，然后可能会发布一篇关于可能方向的各种观点的帖子。我认为新帖子的阅读人数会比每条评论的阅读人数更多。
Hello all, I’m glad we have got some very valuable comments. I like to think more about them and then probably publish a post about the various views of a possible direction. I assume a new post would be read by more people than the reads of every comment.
Like喜欢 Like
凯文、凯文和伊莱。精彩的讨论点。请继续，我非常想看看这会走向何方。
Kevin, Kevin, and Eli. Fabulous discussion points. Please, please do continue. I’m very interested to see where this goes.
我只有一个请求。“我想到的解决方案的缺失”是一个非常危险的核心问题/根本原因。不一定错，但有风险。领导力的缺失作为所述直接效应的原因看起来很有说服力。但它是该主题领域的根本原因吗？我认为不是。
I have only one request. “Absence of a solution I’ve thought of” is a very risky core problem / root cause. Not necessarily wrong, but risky. The absence of leadership as a cause of the stated direct effects looks strong. But is it the root cause of the subject area? I think that it is not.
作为参考环境，难道不是有许多 TOC 顾问并不缺乏合格的潜在客户吗？如果是这样，他们有何不同之处？
As a reference environment, aren’t there many TOC consultants who do not suffer a lack of qualified leads? If so, what are they doing differently?
如果有顾问没有营销限制，我们难道不应该向他们了解原因并将其规范化吗？
If there are consultants who do not have a marketing constraint, shouldn’t we look to them to find out why not? And codify that?
中央领导者的存在与否对 TOC 业务的运营、管道或社区中许多人的职业生涯没有可检测到的影响。因此，我提议，中央领导者的存在与否不能成为营销 TOC 服务主题的根本原因。也许我没有正确理解主题领域的目标，如果是这样，请原谅我。
The presence or absence of a central leader has had no detectable effect on the operations of, or pipeline of, the TOC business or career of many of the community. Therefore I propose that the presence or absence of a central leader cannot be a root cause of the subject of marketing TOC services. Perhaps i am not understanding the goal of subject area correctly, if so please forgive me.
然而，我非常希望看到这项分析的更多细节。即使核心问题有误，因果反馈循环也将极具揭示性，且非常有用。
However, I’m VERY interested to see more detail in this analysis. Even if the core problem is incorrect, the causal feedback loops will be very revealing, and very useful.
谢谢！ Thanks!
Like喜欢 Like
我很高兴地表示，我们的组织并不缺乏销售机会。
I’m happy to offer up our organization as one that does not have a shortage of sales opportunities.
我们努力将咨询团队保持为限制因素。保持这种状态很痛苦，因为这意味着我们经常被想要“早点开始”的客户责骂，但这对于业务的经济性和可管理性来说要好得多。
We work hard to maintain our consulting team as the constraint. It’s painful to keep it there because it means we regularly get screamed at by clients who want to ‘start early’, but it’s much better for both the economics and the manageability of the business.
我们当然推广 TOC，但作为次要手段，在我们自己的 TOC 应用（销售流程工程）之后。我已经花了 20 年时间在这个主题上写博客和演讲，当然，最近《The Machine》的成功使得机会生成变得容易多了。
We promote TOC, of course, but as a second string, after our own TOC application (Sales Process Engineering). I’ve spent 20 years blogging and speaking on that subject and, of course, the recent success of The Machine is making opportunity generation a lot easier.
我不认为我们相对于其他 TOC 咨询公司没有问题。我们只是有不同的挑战。长期以来，招聘顾问一直是我们的头号问题——这很痛苦。
I don’t think we have no problems, relative to other TOC consultancies. We just have different ones. Recruiting consultants has been our number-one issue for a long time — and it’s painful.
很高兴提供任何可能有用的见解。顺便说一下，我们向客户收取固定的月费，并且我们拥有支持顾问的创意和技术团队，因此我们的模式与常规略有不同。
Happy to provide whatever insight might be useful. BTW, we charge our clients a flat monthly fee, and we have creative and tech teams that support our consultants, so our model is a little different from the norm.
Like喜欢 Like
谢谢贾斯汀，你真是太好了。在真正全面的 TOC 项目中，比如 VV 或仅仅是制定战略，必须涉及市场营销和销售。你能否在需要时为 TOC 顾问提供一些建议？
Thank you Justin, this is very kind of you. In truly holistic TOC projects, like the VV or simply developing a Strategy, there is a must to go into Marketing and Sales. Would it OK for you to advice TOC consultants with some advice when needed?
Like喜欢 Like
Hi Eli & all, and thanks a lot of very interesting discussion.
I am personally very grateful to Eli G and TOC altogether. I love TOC.
For me there are many great and valuable insights already discussed here.
However, there seems to be a big hidden assumption connected to this topic
“Marketing the Value of TOC”.
The same assumption might exist also behind the stated TOCICO’s goal
“To make TOC the main way to manage organisations.”
The assumption seems quite obvious. It seems to be:
“TOC is for everybody”. I hope you agree.
What if we replace this assumption by different framing arguing that
“TOC is NOT for everybody”?
What if there were really valid reasons for this argumentation?
Where would this lead us? What questions could be raised?
Here are few as a starter:
What are the common charasteristics of those people prone to TOC “infection”?
What are the typical charasteristics and reasons for people not buying TOC?
Are we marketing TOC to attract talented people to join the society and develop stronger TOC or to earn our living as consultants/managers/developers?
How to be organised and where to focus the efforts and attention to get the best results of TOC value marketing?
How to merge effectively TOC thinking with other belief-systems & frameworks like Lean, SS on OM field, Business Model Generation & Value Proposition Design on Value creation model level etc.?
How to make TOC a value adding friend, but still having the capability to continue the development of the independent TOC application base & body of knowledge?
As independent isolated discipline/theory/application pool/tool kit TOC will face strong opposition for several different reasons derived from various different reasons.
By challenging this one basic assumption “TOC is for everybody” could lead us to interesting paths.
Thanks,
Leo
Like Like
The phrase “TOC is for everybody”; what does this mean? Does “for everybody” mean the same as it does in “Health is for everybody”? TOC can benefit anyone. Health can benefit anyone. Both are true.
But in the phrase “TOC is NOT for everybody”, you’ve changed the context. The phrase “for everybody” is now being used like “Running to get fit is for everybody”. Clearly that is not the case.
TOC is ambiguous therein. In the first case, TOC as it relates to cause-effect principles is indeed for everybody, in the same way that gravity is. If you jump from a building, you can disbelieve in gravity all the way down, it won’t affect the outcome. But a specific TOC-based solution as a methodology is NOT for everybody. Obviously.
This is why i get annoyed when i hear consultants selling “TOC” as the solution to anything. That’s like selling gravity as the solution to falling. Parachutes and gliders solve the falling problem, and you cannot invent or deploy those without some understanding of gravity. DBR and CCPM are solutions, and you cannot invent or deploy those without understanding the theory, of constraints. Specific constraint-based solutions are not “for” everybody. But the theory that system outputs are governed by constraints (and very few constraints at that), can help everybody invent and deploy solutions, and is true for everybody even if they don’t know about it.
Another parallel: Mathematics. It is true that “mathematical theory is for everybody”. Can anybody deny that the “+” operator does what it does (i.e. it works) regardless of their interest in using it? It is also true that “mathematical theory is NOT for everybody”. Are there jobs or careers or lives where knowing how to use “+” adds little personal or direct value? Sure.
Like Like
In fact, TOC is frequently regarded as something egzotic. In fact, if a theory promiess to solv all people’s prooblems, it may sound suspicious. There is a need for a simple explanation why TOC is so good. I like most the statement: 6. TOC includes many thought-provoking concepts, developed by Goldratt, which lack overall clear unity and lack effective ways to implement the whole scope.
However, order in the business of TOC is easily introduced, if it is understood or acknowledged, that the key concept of the Theory of Constraints is that one needs to find a maximum while in constrains as far as space one has available for movement. In physics and mathematics these are well known ideas. In TOC it is to find the main constraint in the system, and then follow the 5 steps approach to first stabilize the situation and then overcome the constraint.
Thus the fundamntal statmeent of TOC is that there is one constraint of the whole system, and by focusing on it the problems the system faces can be solved.
And TOC has tools to identify the constraint.
From a theory one expects to have one thesis that explains many situations and permits to foresee the future or the results of actions. So the TOC approach: identify the constraint of the system, and then apply the 5 steps procedure is the fundamental idea of TOC. So I believe.
All the other, like cloud, ST tree and other, are secondary tools, which may help to solve problems on the 5 steps way, to to identify the main constraint.
The assumption, that the system has one constraint is not trivial. Intuitively, people will say: but what about this constraint, and the other constraint, and so on. Thus this is a theory, not an obvious thing.
Now TOC seen as above is at the same time very powerful and has some weaknesses.
As far as „hard things production” and chain until the final customer. I am not familiar with production issues, but there are nowadays advanced computerized systems controlling all the production steps, so I guess such systems can optimize the production processes so that everything flows smoothly. Some people call this „lean manufacturing” or there are other names or systems. I am not familiar with factories, but I feel that when such advanced control systems are there, TOC approach is applied there without much talking about it.
As far as general optimization, TOC it is of upmost importance. MBE students are thought „lean manufacturing” TQM, 6 sigma, Yoka Poka, etc etc etc. Further, any author of a method tries to give it a special name, and uses this name as a marketing weapon. But nobody teaches them why to use any of the above tools. In order to know what to do, one has to know what is most important.
Then what is most important? Difficult to know! So an “escape behaviour” could be: let’s do something, so that we look as active and competent. But asking what is most important is the most difficult question one can face. However, if one does not know what is most important, it is impossible to identify the constraint! Even more, asking such questions can be a problem for the person asking the question! The person becomes visible, and controversial, which may not be best for her/his career. Safer is to jump into a standard method.
If the situation is quite specific, like „how to achieve a specific goal?”, then the main constraint possibly can be identified. If we have an organization, then identifying the goal and constraint can be quite difficult.
Further, if the organization is not producing some material goods, which can be counted, measured, and their market value can be calculated, but immaterial goods, like technology, films, scientific results, healthy people, students, art, etc, identifying the goal and constraint is even more difficult. The difficulty comes form the incredible elasticity and creativity of the human mind. Can we predict solutions and ideas the human mind will bring? Especially under constraints, it becomes especially creative. In case of material production, one can imagine pipes along whose products flow, and there are some narrow gaps. But in case of ideas production, one can imagine these tubes to be all elastic, and where is the constraint?
In summary, I think that in order to promote TOC one should use the „marketing argument” that TOC teaches how to get the maximum under constraints. And how to overcome the constraints. It is a very simple argument. TOC tells people what to do.
But TOC asks people the most difficult of all possible questions: what is important. Thus there might be a strong trend to escape form asking such questions, and jump into some activity, like standard behaviors that are safe for the individual. Also finding the constraint might be quite difficult in many cases. Further, people are impredictible, and the constrain concept – it is not clear always can be applied.
Thus the main strength and weakness of TOC is that it is very powerful, but very difficult to apply. Nevertheless, the message: TOC may help to achieve the best results, under constraints, should sound very attractive to people, and also may help them a lot.
Like Like
Witold, we are able to elevate the constraint and by this create another constraint. We can even expand our flow of products or services and by that change the constraint even without truly elevating it. On top of it we deal with flawed paradigms, facing high uncertainty and looking for ways to answer needs that currently are not answered. So, our own challenges have grown. I think we should proceed ahead instead of looking back.
Like Like