Step 1-Getting Agreement on the System Constraint and Why Change?

The afternoon of Day 1 starts with representatives of each of the stakeholders coming forward to draw the "system" as a chain and to identify where they believe the weakest link (system constraint) is based on where most of the "stuff" (garbage) is piling up (right before waste collection) as per Fig. 16-5.

Agreement on "Why Change?" is achieved by identifying the current and future gaps (between the demand-tons of solid waste created everyday by citizens and businesses-versus the supply-tons of solid waste actually collected and disposed of) and getting each stakeholder to share their view of the negative consequences on all stakeholders if the gap is not closed soon. Figure 16-6 shows an example of what the current and future gaps (based on expected growth in population of the city) looks like. Typical "consequences of not closing this gap" include disease, increased demand on already stretched health services, environmental time bombs, etc.

FIGURE 16-6 Current and future gaps of waste created versus collected in City A.

Before moving to the next question (What to Change to) stakeholders are then asked to identify the UDEs that make it difficult for them to contribute to closing the gap (e.g., either by reducing the tons of waste created or by increasing the tons of waste collected) and to share what initiatives have been put in place in the past to deal with these problems. Of course, the fact that the UDEs still exist means that these past initiatives were not successful or, at most, were partially successful. Table 16-2 shows an example of the typical UDEs raised by stakeholders, what the common belief is on the root causes of these UDEs, and the traditional solutions that have not been effective at removing these UDEs.

Getting stakeholders to agree that the past "solutions" such as more budget or more education have not made a significant impact on closing the gap is an important step before moving to "What to Change to"; otherwise, there is a risk that previous assumptions of root causes and solutions will simply be tabled again.

Day 1 ends with each of the stakeholders presenting their list of UDEs and why they are "undesirable" based on their impact on the rest of the system.

TABLE 16-2 Conventional Way to Deal with UDEs in Waste Management in African Cities

Step 2-Getting Agreement on What to Change?

Day 2 starts with the TOC expert facilitator introducing the TOC definition of a problem not only as a gap between reality and expectation, but as a set of unresolved conflicts related to closing the gap. An example of a common UDE such as high inventory in a retailer can be used to get stakeholders to experience the process of verbalizing the symptomatic conflict for the one having to deal with the UDE (e.g., Sales under pressure to reduce prices to get rid of the inventory) and verbalizing the systemic conflict for the one being blamed for the UDE (e.g., Purchasing under pressure to continue to buy large quantities to secure volume discount).

Each of the stakeholders then selects the three UDEs they think contribute most to the current gap and then work in their group to verbalize their symptomatic and systemic conflicts. Once completed, a representative of each stakeholder presents it to the whole group. We have found that this dual cloud approach is not only an effective way to verbalize the "real problem," but it also forces each stakeholder to look at their problem (their list of UDEs) from the view of the one they are currently blaming (i.e., they can show understanding for the conflict in which the one being blamed is stuck). This approach plays a critical part in rebuilding the trust between the stakeholders.

For City A, there were four stakeholders (City Council, CBEs, contractors, and residents). Figures 16-7 and 16-8 list the four sets of systemic conflicts and symptomatic conflicts for each of these stakeholders. Note that the [D] actions in the systemic conflicts are the actions being blamed for causing the UDEs in the first place while the [D] actions in the symptomatic conflicts are the actions the specific stakeholder feels most pressure to take to deal with their UDEs. In the case where the one being blamed for the UDE is also the one having to deal with the UDE, the systemic and symptomatic conflicts will be the same but with swapped [D] and [D'].

The process of each stakeholder group verbalizing, validating with the facilitator, presenting it to the whole group, and improving verbalization of their symptomatic and systemic conflicts based on feedback from others normally takes between a half and a full day (e.g., when there is a large number of stakeholders involved).

FIGURE 16-7 Systemic and symptomatic conflicts for city council and CBEs.

FIGURE 16-8 Systemic and symptomatic conflicts for contractors and residents.

The next step in the process is for the TOC expert facilitator to guide the identification of the core conflict for each stakeholder using the normal process of writing down all the Ds, D's, Bs, Cs, and As and asking the participants to look for a generic pattern (i.e., "All the Ds can be summarized by Don't invest/spend more").

Tip: Starting with the Ds and D's makes it a relatively simple process to verbalize and validate the rest of the core conflict for each stakeholder.

Normally, this convergence is quite simple (but not easy especially for novices) because typically the systematic conflict of one stakeholder is the same as the symptomatic conflict of the one they are blaming.

Figure 16-9 shows an example of what the four core conflicts for each of the four stakeholders are and how they are related.

Once completed, a representative of each stakeholder presents their core conflict to the group. During these presentations, we normally receive a remarkable level of consensus on the first verbalizations, which definitely elevates the credibility of the process in the eyes of the stakeholder participants as they could, from previous days, clearly identify with the core conflicts of each stakeholder. We did experience a few situations where stakeholders suggested better verbalizations, which were immediately accepted by all and incorporated into the final versions.

Step 3-Getting Agreement on What to Change to?

In the third step (normally the third day) of the analysis, the stakeholder groups work on their core conflicts, using the four methods (Barnard, 2003) to quickly identify and invalidate only the conflict assumptions (in contrast with the traditional approach that attempts to identify and invalidate all assumptions related to the conflict). Then stakeholders define possible breakthrough win-win solutions (injections that will invalidate the conflict assumptions and therefore break the core conflict). Figure 16-10 shows an example of one of the outcomes of applying Barnard's four-method process for breaking conflicts to the service provider's investment core conflict.

FIGURE 16-9 Four core conflicts identified for each of the four stakeholders.

The generic injections to break the four core conflicts, as identified with this method, provide the answer to the "to What to Change?" question for each stakeholder. The four generic injections for the four core conflicts are shown in Fig. 16-11.

Once the injections (which provide the direction of a win-win-win solution) and some of the potential "How to" (viable ways to make the injections actionable) and benefits (to validate if the injection will remove the original UDEs) have been identified by each stakeholder for their core conflict, representatives of each stakeholder again present their summary of "to What to Change" to the group. This can help with improving verbalization and suggestions of other ways to achieve the injections. This step is normally completed by the end of the third day or at the latest during the morning of the fourth day.

To prepare participants for the next step, the TOC expert facilitator then asks the group to contribute their "Yes, buts..."-the reasons normally given why something will not work or why it will be impossible to implement. Rather than discouraging such "negative views," we encourage them as another way to contribute to ensuring the planned changes will work, will not result in any major negatives, or won't be blocked by major implementation obstacles.

Step 4-Getting Agreement on How to Cause the Change?

Step 4 (typically done on Day 4) deals with the identification of the two types of "Yes, but..." reservations-reservations on why the new injections or solutions might hurt one or more of the stakeholders (predicted undesirable effects or PUDEs) or why it might be too difficult to implement (implementation obstacles or OBSs).

FIGURE 16-10 Service provider's core conflict, conflict, assumptions, and injections.

In the traditional TOC TP, the Type 1 "Yes, but..." will be identified and shown in the Future Reality Tree (FRT) process that uses sufficiency logic to show the cause-effect of how each of the injections should result in the desired outcomes (the desired effects or DEs) as well as what PUDEs these injections can cause if the injections are implemented as they were originally defined in Step 3. Part of the process to build an FRT is, therefore, to identify these PUDEs as well as the additional requirements (that would be added to the main injection) to prevent these PUDEs.

In the traditional TOC TP, the Type 2 "Yes, but..." reservations are identified in the Prerequisite Tree (PRT) process that uses necessity logic to show the necessary conditions for achieving the successful implementation of the main injections. To identify these necessary conditions, the TOC expert and group of stakeholders tried to identify likely obstacles (OBSs) and how to overcome these with intermediate objectives (IOs); these will serve as implementation milestones.

To simplify these processes without jeopardizing the completeness of the analysis, a new simplified process (done in groups) was developed to get each stakeholder to help contribute "Yes, but..." reservations and suggestions on how to prevent or overcome these. All stakeholders are asked to participate in this process with the justification that the more of the "Yes, but..." reservations we can identify and proactively prevent during the analysis phase, the less surprises we will get in the implementation and therefore the higher the probability of success.

FIGURE 16-11 Four injections to break the four core conflicts for City A's SWM stakeholders.

To obtain the contribution of all stakeholders, they are divided into cross-functional groups. The members of each group are then encouraged to identify all the stakeholders that can be affected negatively or whose help will be required for the implementation. For each of these stakeholders, participants are then encouraged to contribute as many PUDEs of the planned changes and how these can be prevented (to ensure new solutions are really winwin) as well as contribute as many potential OBSs and how to overcome these (adding additional injections or additional conditions to already agreed injections). Figure 16-12 shows the new simplified framework to enable participants to identify and overcome both of the "Yes, but..." reservations in a single step.

The answer to the question "How to Cause the Change?" is provided by the final implementation plan, where stakeholders help to sequence all the inputs from Steps 3 and 4 initially into a simple implementation roadmap showing the sequence and responsibilities for implementing the major injections. They then translate this high-level roadmap into a detailed S&T tree that will be used for validating the analysis and solutions (to close the gap and keep it closed) with other stakeholders and other levels as well as for planning and monitoring the execution.

FIGURE 16-12 New simplified framework to enable participants to identify and overcome "Yes, but..." reservations.

Step 5-Getting Agreement on How to Measure the Change and Achieve a POOGI?

The last day was scheduled for agreeing on exactly what changes each stakeholder will make or contribute (especially those that must be implemented in the next three to six months), how the impact of these changes or contributions can be measured, and what additional capacity building and/or IT system support each stakeholder will require to achieve a POOGI within their part of the system or organization. The TOC expert also reviews with the groups how the equivalent of T, I, and OE can be used to judge the global/system impact of all decisions through a number of examples to identify past changes that should have been approved that were not or that were approved and should not have been.

There are two types of measurements needed for monitoring execution. A primary or "system status" measurement is used to measure whether the gap in the system goal is reducing, remaining the same, or increasing (i.e., gap between waste created and collected). The second type of measurement (secondary) would monitor whether the agreed injections and detailed requirements were being implemented and whether they are sufficient to achieve the primary measurement. These measurements would then be reported at a weekly operations meeting and monthly steering committee meeting with representatives of all stakeholders that would need to collaborate to identify recovery plans in the case where gaps are not closing at the desired rate.

Getting Stakeholder Feedback from a Strategy Session

On completion of the formal analysis steps, the most senior person of the organization, with assistance from the facilitator asks each participant to share their "what went well," "what can be improved," and "how I can apply the lessons learned in my day-to-day job and even in my life."

We normally recommend two feedback mechanisms to understand how participants really experienced the workshop-one done on completion of the workshop in the open forum and another done a week after the session where respondents can choose to give feedback anonymously.

The responses of participants received from all four cities were very positive and showed that many of the paradigms and TOC processes did "stick"-even after only five days. The other positive feedback was from InWEnt, who had commissioned the TOC experts and other donor organization stakeholders.

A sample of open comments from participants captured by the InWEnt scribe after the first two 5-day Constraint Analysis Workshops in cities A and B: "I'm very grateful for my being able to fully participate. We have seen that with TOC, Goals are possible (even if they look impossible) and that the key is to find win-win solutions and focus on the weakest link"-City Councilor "I did not expect much but now have seen it is possible to work with all the stakeholders as our real goal (to improve the lives of everyone in our community) is the same"-Private Contractor "Discovered that we had a very big gap in our system. Previously thought we can only close it by getting more/new equipment. Now learned that I get more with the same equipment using the TOC approach"-Private Contractor "I learned that the 'cost of doing nothing' could be very high. In the health sector the 'cost of doing nothing' is a matter of life and death. TOC showed that we can do more with same resources just by better exploiting what we have"-Doctor "I learned the need for planning and that the impossible can be possible"-Chairman of a Community Settlement "TOC can even help to address the political issues"-Councilor "Not wait for more/new resources but start with what we have"-Habitat Officer "My expectation was low at the start of the workshop, but have learned the need and benefit for everybody's participation using this TOC process"-Council officer "I learned that TOC is a window that gives a chance to look at the challenges we face in a different perspective and learned the importance of defining the problem precisely before dealing with it"-Deputy Mayor "Learned that the best solution comes by asking the right question"-Councilor "We like TOC because it gives us the skills to achieve 'Continuous Improvement.' It also provides a common language and process that will ensure we can achieve and maintain peace amongst the stakeholders. If everyone is exposed to TOC, they will know how to deal with Conflicts, Constraints and Yes, buts etc."-Mayor Probably the most telling was received from one of the mayors with which he closed the strategy session for his city: "Today, I am so proud to be an African. What this team has achieved in only a few days and the spirit in which it was achieved was truly inspiring and should serve as a benchmark to the rest of the Public Sector of what is possible if the right people are put in a room together, reminded that we have a common goal and that it is always possible to find win-win ways to break conflicts and overcome constraints, especially when lives depend on it."

Figure 16-13 shows photos of the active participation obtained in these workshops.

FIGURE 16-13 Selected photographs from the pilot workshops.

After the success of the first application, the concept of the 5-Day Constraint Analysis Workshop was used between April and August of 2007 in three additional cities. Table 16-3 below shows the results that were achieved in each of the four cities.

Current Status of Pilot Projects (by the End of 2009)

The primary objective of the 5-Day Constraint Analysis Workshops was to test whether it was possible for each of the cities to achieve, in 5 days or less, the active contribution and consensus on each of the 5 change questions. The first application validated this hypothesis and, as a result, the same methodological approach was followed in the 3 additional cities.

Although the activities at one of the cities did not continue due to another project that absorbed the manpower of the local Waste Management Unit, the 5-Day Constraint Analysis Workshops have led to a new quality in consensus building among key stakeholders and strategic planning.

After having led a two-year process of building up local capacities for improving municipal solid waste management by applying TOC combined with specialized waste-related technical knowledge, Michael Funcke-Bartz from InWEnt reports the following achievements of the TOC-based working process (scale differing from city to city): Waste management steering committees consisting of all stakeholder representatives have been established to manage the implementation process and to develop additional TOC solutions for obstacles identified during implementation.

Official support from the political decision-makers was achieved that is a prerequisite for sustaining such a TOC process and implementation.

Local junior TOC experts have been trained that are now able to facilitate meetings of Waste Management Steering Committees and with stakeholders applying key elements like obstacle based planning, conflict resolution, Throughput Accounting.

TABLE 16-3 Comparative Results of Outcomes from the TOC Workshops for the First Four Cities The joint working process has improved the understanding and cooperation between local government, private contractors, and informal waste collectors and has led to a paradigm shift that recognizes that important improvements can be achieved by better exploiting the available physical, financial, and human resources.

In one case, the local government's financial conditions were so difficult that it was not even able to cover the running expenses for salaries. In this case, the TOC analysis helped to develop measures to increase revenues to overcome this constraint.

Pilot projects were developed for servicing low-income areas through informal waste collectors.

The legislative environment was analyzed and, in addition to necessary changes to laws and bylaws, the realization grew that existing legislation very often could be used by arrangement with the courts to resolve issues, previously deemed impossible.

There has been evidence that waste collection has been increased due to better "Constraint Exploitation Rules." For example, the number of trips done by Waste Collection Trucks increased by between 30 and 100 percent. Also, private contractors have reported significant increases in their revenues (due to more trips and higher levels of payment by the communities they service) and the community representatives have reported a visible decline in waste previously dumped, burned, or simply not collected.

Examples were found where the drive to privatization resulted in a dysfunctional system. The elements of effective and efficient privatization efforts were examined and a functional systems model developed which could provide orientation to local governments on separation of functions while maintaining overall responsibility for waste collection services.

The remaining challenges include: Despite significant revenue increases to both the City Council and private contractors (typically up by 25 to 50 percent), in some areas there is still not enough revenue (not enough citizens and businesses paying) for the system to be financially sustainable. The injection for improving viability is that private contractors operating in these areas will be assigned additional areas (outside their normal licensing area) to make them viable. This change of the City Council taking responsibility for ensuring the viability of the private contractors has made a significantly positive impact on re-establishing the trust and spirit of win-win (and recognition that a lose for one is a lose for all).

In some areas, contractors were complaining that even though the fee has been reduced some citizens still do not pay because enforcement is not yet in line with expectations. A potential injection being tested is to put water, electricity, and waste removal fees on one bill. If citizens do not pay, you cut off all the services. In the past, this was not possible as privatization commonly apportions water, electricity, and waste services to separate companies who had no interest in combining bills. The City Council and private contractors believe this injection can potentially have the biggest impact on long-term system viability.

There has been an unwillingness to put measurements and short-term targets in place. There is frequently a fear within the City Council to commit to achievement of specific targets (for political reasons). The injection here was to show how critical feedback measurements ensure that scarce resources are not wasted on areas doing well or that it should be moved to areas where the gaps are growing. The primary measurement that will be introduced in 2009 will be "Tons of Waste Collected." For this, infrastructure such as weighbridges, etc., would have to be upgraded or replaced. Funding for this, based on the likely benefit of doing this, has already been secured in a few of the cities.

Future Application of TOC within the Public Sector

The projects carried out by InWEnt have not been the only attempt to incorporate TOC's holistic approach as part of Capacity Building initiatives to secure and sustain improvements within the public sector. As a spinoff effect of the initial projects, a national Ministry of Agriculture requested assistance from two of the TOC Expert facilitators, Professor Antoine van Gelder and Barry Urban, to use TOC to assist with prioritizing and synchronizing initiatives needed to close the gap between demand and supply of basic food groups.

Another example comes from the UN Development Program's Southern African Capacity Initiative. Governments have been struggling to meet agreed service delivery targets. After receiving advanced training in the TOC concepts, analysis processes, and logistical solutions the team has carried out their own pilot studies which resulted in them incorporating key TOC concepts and processes within their engagement process. Excellent work is also being done to expand the use of TOC within the health care and education systems around the world (www.toc-healthcare.com and www.tocforeducation.com).

Specific Lessons Learned from All the Public Sector Pilots