All in theory of constraints

I heard a different way to articulate conflicts today on a podcast that might help shed some light or give some different language. Rather than thinking about the actions people want to take as causing the conflict, think of them as positions. And the positions come out of interests. People get entrenched in their positions, as it often seems the only way to meet their needs. But when we articulate the situation more clearly, we can start checking underneath - how does that position satisfy that interest? (How does that action meet your need?) Articulating the conflict often helps us see there maybe there are some things in common as well as understanding the assumptions we have about why our position is “right.” This new terminology adds to the options I have when thinking about these kinds of situations.

The TOCICO hosted an online Critical Chain 2020 conference this week. As it seems most online conferences are running, the talks themselves were pre-recorded and the speakers were available in chat during their talk, and this conference had live Q&A immediately following each speaker. This made for fewer talks overall, but good opportunity to learn a bit more from the presenters and other attendees. Examples in the conference ranged across multiple industries (aerospace, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, etc) and application areas (manufacturing, product development, information technology, etc.)

The HBR Guide to Dealing with Conflict by Amy Gallo is a quick read, directly on topic. As I read the book, it became clear that my idea of “conflict” has been colored by my close work with Theory of Constraints and the way TOC thinking processes talk about conflict and conflict resolution. The conflicts in this guide are the interpersonal conflicts we run into all the time in business, be they created by disagreements on the what (task) or how (process) of work, or who is ultimately responsible (status) - which often devolve into relationship conflicts. The TOC perspective on conflict is more about understanding the system which creates the conflict, rather than resolving the personal challenges that result from the conflict. Both aspects are important to successful business.

Mike Dalton has been writing a series about “the growth equation” and innovation management at Innovation Week. The last one is The Growth Equation: Upping Your Market Impact (6 Steps for Focusing Your New Product Efforts on High-Impact Opportunities). In it he takes the questions for technology and adds some thinking about how financial measures might be added into the questions. It’s always those last questions that trip up change efforts though.

My review of Kevin Kohl’s Addicted to Hopium - Throughput: Using the DVA Business Process to Break the Guesswork Habit. The book is a fictionalization of the long history that Kohls has had in bringing Theory of Constraints and related approached to GM and other organizations. Kohls gives us the story of MegaCo and engineer Andrew Wright and their journey from barely being able to keep their heads above water to applying a strategic approach to improvement, thanks to the impetus of a guru in the form of a possible customer.

Gene Kim and John Willis recorded a set of conversations called Beyond the Phoenix Project to talk about the DevOps movement since the publication of The Phoenix Project.  (It’s available as an audio and a transcription.) I very much appreciate that the thinking behind DevOps has been geared around learning and applying concepts and ideas from all of these areas. I'm sure there are cargo-cultists who simply try to mimic what they see other people doing, but the people who are developing and growing in DevOps are clearly those who are looking at the giants that have come before them, climbing up on their shoulders, doing something new that is relevant to their current view of the world, and then sharing that back with the community to test and refine and develop further. I got a strong sense of excitement and desire to learn from this.