DW: It’s interesting that a way of thinking about production problems that you found useful 15 years ago you still find useful today. Does that surprise you? KK: Yes and no. The Theory of Constraints is a very scientific, logical
process. And because of that, when the game changes you can always go
back to the logic. Originally we just had to find the bottleneck, walk out
there, ask three or four questions, and we knew what to go and do. Now we
can change the way we design whole manufacturing processes to make sure
they’re better from the start. But the logic behind TOC—the conflict clouds,
the current reality trees, the way we ask questions to uncover the constraint—
all that still applies.
I think the problem with too many other approaches is that once the first layer
of problems goes away, and the crisis no longer exists, then it’s, “Phew!
We’re done!” In the TOC world, you find yourself asking, “Where has the
constraint gone, and what can I do to help break it?” So you’re never done.
I’d like to be able to tell you that as soon as I started telling people about
these concepts, the whole organization immediately changed to the new
paradigm. The fact is that it has taken years to get the process going, and the
leverage to make improvements is still significant, especially in a company as
large as General Motors. It’s much like the flywheel concept discussed in
Good to Great , by Jim Collins. It’s taken a while to get the flywheel turning,
but it’s starting to go at a pretty good clip right now!
Interview with Eli Goldratt continued . . .
DW: At Dow Corning it took about 5 years for TOC to spread from one section to a whole business unit. In General Motors it took over ten years to be institutionalized throughout North America. Does it always take
