This Focused Performance Weblog started life as a "business management blog" containing links and commentary related primarily to organizational effectiveness with a "Theory of Constraints" perspective, but is in the process of evolving towards primary content on interactive and mobile marketing. Think of it as about Focusing marketing messages for enhanced Performance. If you are on an archive page, current postings are found here.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
That Sounds Good in Theory, But... -- Back when I was in first grade, a substitute teacher called the roll and asked, "Francis Patrick? Where is she?" That quickly set the tone of my elementary school reputation, as it quickly morphed into "Frannie Patricia." Kids can be cruel. But enough about my deep psychological impediments. Clarke Ching has posted some required reading on the Theory of Constraints and the difficulty of living with an unusual name.
"The name itself sounds a bit, ummmmm, theoretical. The name is neither descriptive like 'agile' or 'lean', nor alliterative like 'Six Sigma'. Some refer to it as 'Constraints Managment' instead...
Note that both "Lean" and "Six Sigma" are named for outcomes; for objectives. That's probably one of their marketing benefits. But that also muddies the water, as those objectives can be applied to any subsystem, but not necessarily to the larger systems that management needs to be concerned with.
...But the name is important. Goldratt is a scientist and TOC is the scientific method, dressed up. TOC is a theory. It's - in my words - the theory that you can achieve big changes by leveraging the few things that 'constrain' or limit you. As a theory you may prove it wrong - no one has to my knowledge - but you can't ever really prove it right. If we're lucky someone brainier than Goldratt will come along, prove the theory wrong and give us a new and better theory like Einstein did with Newton."
"Theory often gets a bum rap among managers because it's associated with the word "theoretical," which connotes "impractical." But it shouldn't. Because experience is solely about the past, solid theories are the only way managers can plan future actions with any degree of confidence. The key word here is "solid." Gravity is a solid theory. As such, it lets us predict that if we step off a cliff we will fall, without actually having to do so. But business literature is replete with theories that don't seem to work in practice or actually contradict each other. How can a manager tell a good business theory from a bad one? The first step is to understand how good theories are built. They develop in stages: gathering data, organizing it into categories, highlighting significant differences, then making generalizations explaining what causes what, under which circumstances. [...] Once we forgo one-size-fits-all explanations and insist that a theory describes the circumstances under which it does and doesn't work, we can bring predictable success to the world of management."
When I describe/prescribe certain sets of actions, based on theory that I've applied and seen applied, I very often get the "That sounds good in theory, but..." comment. I heard it just last week. But when the theory fits, wear it. Or at least be willing to try it on for size.
posted by Frank - Permanent Link -
|
View Frank Patrick's profile
