The Goal: a process of Ongoing Improvement

AN INTERVIEW WITH ELI
GOLDRATT AND OTHERS
by David Whitford,
Editor at Large, Fortune Small Business.
DW: 
The Goal
 was published 20 years ago. Since then a lot has changed
in operations. New, powerful methodologies to improve operations, such
as LEAN and Six Sigma, are widespread. The emphasis on reducing lead
time and improving due-date performance has become the norm. Even
The Goal’s
subtitle - 
a process of ongoing improvement
- is a statement
that is now taken for granted by every organization. So, my first
question: Is 
The Goal
 still relevant?
EG: How does a scientist go about judging the relevancy of a particular body
of knowledge? I believe that the decisive way is to choose an organization
where all the competing knowledge is implemented. We should choose a
large company that is already using all the new methodologies you
mentioned; an organization that is using these methodologies so extensively
that there is an institutionalized organizational structure – like a formal
“black-belt” central office. The next step is to choose a significant section of
that organization, and properly implement in it the body of knowledge in
question. In our case it will mean implementing TOC in one of the plants of
that large company. Then, compare the performance of the chosen plant with
the performance of the rest of the organization. Now we are able to reach a
conclusion: if no real difference is detected then the conclusion will be that

---

the examined body of knowledge in question is not relevant. But, if there is a
decisive difference, then the conclusion must be that the examined body of
knowledge has relevancy; the bigger and more significant the difference, the
more relevant it is.