Summary of Step 6

That concludes the section of constructing a win-win solution for an inner dilemma using the Cloud method. A win-win solution the TOC way means that the tactics are not in conflict and that the solution supports both B and C needs. It means that we do not need to compromise on the achievement of the necessary conditions (B and C) and therefore we increase the chance of reaching the desired objective (A).

The learning experience covers: More choices to solve problems always exist than we think.

A decision is the choice between conflicting options, often stemming from different mindsets and personal views.

A problem is a blockage to progress caused by not resolving the conflicting tactics when these arise. Management cannot afford to procrastinate on making decisions as that leads to lose-lose situations.

We should not give up on important needs-there must exist a non compromising solution. (As per the second basic concept of TOC-the existence of a win-win solution. The three basic TOC concepts are covered in the U-Shape section of this chapter.) A problem is not totally one person's fault. Actually, in most cases we can reveal the system fault that causes the problem to happen.

In inner dilemma problems, both needs are the needs of the person facing the dilemma. When moving to the other types of Clouds we will find ourselves dealing with the needs of someone else-a person, an organizational function, or even the business needs. The definition of win-win stays the same-the achievement of both needs.

Step 7. Communicate the solution to the people involved.

We can define TOC as the ability to construct and communicate common sense solutions. Thus far, we have constructed the solution and now we have to consider and plan for implementing it.

In most cases, we need to achieve agreement, involvement, and support of the "other side" (the one who blocks us or conflicts with the actions or decisions we want to take). We define the injection as a win-win solution, but will the other side see the solution in that light? Therefore, we have to prepare carefully how to communicate the problem and the solution so that we get their agreement.

For the inner dilemma, the communication is simple. I just need to agree with myself that solving the problem is important and do what is necessary. Once the injection is in place and the benefit gained from sorting the problem, it reinforces our desire to use the tool more.

In the example, the communication is already an explicit part of the solution as the project manager is planning to have the meeting with Bill. Given that the issue is important and given that very thorough work has been done in developing the solution, it is better that the project manager plans her meeting with Bill.

The meeting has to be brief and focused on the desired outcome. The preparation should include the main points, the sequence, and some thought about potential pitfalls and questions with which she may be confronted.

When dealing with other problems, we will cover more aspects and more options for communicating the solution.

The Cloud is not only a technique; it is also a skill. We recommend practicing it regularly and frequently.

Day-to-Day Conflicts

Let's move to another very common type of problem-the day-to-day conflicts. These are conflicts between you and somebody else.

Recall the process outline: Step 1: Identify the type of problem.

Step 2: Write the storyline.

Step 3: Build the Cloud.

Step 4: Check and upgrade the Cloud.

Step 5: Surface assumptions.

Step 6: Construct the solution.

Step 7: Communicate the solution.

Step 1: Identify the type of problem.

You can have different views than someone else; however, as long as you haven't clashed openly and publicly, you can handle the issue by using the Inner Dilemma Cloud. However, once the conflicting views are in the open, you have a bigger challenge.

To start with, we suggest you address simple conflicts, one-offs and not repeating problems. An employee is late to work is a one-off. However, when the same employee is late more than five times in the last two weeks, lateness starts to show a pattern of a repeating problem that poses an even bigger challenge.

In a day-to-day conflict, there are two definite sides-"Your" side and the "Other" side. The Cloud has a distinct structure as shown in Fig. 24-4.

Reality provides us with many daily conflicts. It is not always possible to take a timeout in the middle of a disagreement or an open conflict in order to analyze the situation and develop a win-win solution. However, if the conflict has been concluded in a way that you find unsatisfactory, you may decide to take the time in the evening and deal with the problem using the Cloud method. The outcome of this effort can be, "Gee, I could have handled this problem better."

FIGURE 24-4 The general structure of the Day-to-Day Conflict Cloud.

Step 2: Write the storyline.

An example of a day-to-day conflict is described in the first page of The Goal (Goldratt and Cox, 1984)6: When I finally get everyone calmed down enough to ask what's going on, I learn that Mr. Peach (the divisional vice-president) arrived at about an hour before, walked into my plant, and demanded to be shown the status of Customer Order Number 41427.

Well, as fate would have it, nobody happened to know about Customer Order Number 41427. So Peach had everybody stepping and fetching to chase down the story on it. And it turns out to be a fairly big order. Also a late one. So what else is new? Everything in this plant is late . . .

. . . As soon as he discovers 41427 is nowhere close to being shipped, Peach starts playing expeditor . . . Finally it's determined almost all the parts needed are ready and waiting-stacks of them. But they can't be assembled. One part of some subassembly is missing . . .

They find out the pieces for the missing subassembly are sitting over by one of the n/c machines, where they are waiting for their turn to be run. But when they go to that department, they find the machines are not setting up to run the part in question, but instead some other do-it-now job . . .

Peach does not give a damn about the other do-it-now job. All he cares about is getting 41427 out of the door. So he tells Dempsey (the supervisor) to direct his foreman, Ray, to instruct his master machinist to forget about the other super-hot gizmo and get ready to run the missing part for 41427. Whereupon the master machinist looks from Ray to Dempsey to Peach, throws down his wrench, and tells them they are crazy. It just took him and his helper an hour and a half to set up for the other part that everyone needed so desperately . . ."

This is a day-to-day conflict. It is a one-off problem. Peach rarely visits the shop floor and does not tend to give instruction on how to run production. In this case, he cuts through the management hierarchy to give a direct instruction on what part to run on which machine. Yet when he does so, he gets into a conflict with the master machinist. This is an open conflict to the extent that the machinist throws his wrench and tells them they are crazy.

Step 3: Build the Cloud.

The starting point is the stated differences in the tactics D and D (see Fig. 24-4).

For the sake of consistency, it is recommended to write in D from the viewpoint of the other side regarding the tactics-the actions or the decisions-and in D from my view.

D and D are different options and thus far I (or we) have not managed to come up with a workable compromise that will bridge between the two options.

In the example, the Machinist's side is C-D and Peach's side is B-D.

The sequence of building the Conflict Cloud is as follows: We start building the Cloud by stating D and D. We can start with D or with D.

In the example, the whole incident starts because Peach gives a direct instruction-hence, stating the [D] of the Cloud: [D]: The tactic (action/decision) the other side (Peach) wants to employ.

[D:] Reset the machine to work on the missing part for order 41427 now.

[D]: The tactic (action/decision) I (the master machinist) want to take.

[D]: Stick to the current setting to produce the other urgent part now.

[C]: The need I (the master machinist) am trying to satisfy or achieve by taking the tactic D.

This follows the same way we have done it in the Inner Dilemma Cloud.

Once the conflict is clear, it is easier to move to [C]-my need-as the person who builds the Cloud is emotionally involved and has a clear view of why he or she is right in this conflict.

I am the Master Machinist. My job is to prepare the machines and get them ready for the jobs that need to be run. I want to do a good job and I want my work to be appreciated. Therefore, my need may be verbalized as: [C]: Be acknowledged for my contribution to the production plan.

[B]: The need that the other side (according to my perception) wants to satisfy or achieve.

Many times, it is difficult to write the need B because when there was a heated discussion with the other side we were not attentive in listening to their arguments, and therefore we do not have a recollection of why the tactics they suggest (or demand) are important. Over time, with practice and experience, we will know how to identify a conflict and listen carefully to what the other side says so we can write the Cloud better. If we are not sure what to write in the B box, we may speculate under two conditions: 1. We write a need in a positive way.

2. If, during the Cloud communication, the other side corrects us and verbalizes their need, then we make the necessary corrections on our Cloud.

In this incident, the need of Peach is very clear as he cares only about one order. Customer Order Number 41427 is an order of Bucky Burnside-the biggest customer of the plant whom the management does not want to upset as they may lose him. Later in the chapter Peach tells Alex Rogo about the unpleasant telephone call he got from Bucky the night before. Of course, the machinist was not aware of that in the heat of the moment.

When in the conflict, people tend not to state their arguments, or if they do so, the other side is not always listening or recording these arguments.

Nevertheless, for building the Cloud the machinist must write his perception of what is the need that Peach was trying to achieve when instructing him to reset the machine. This is the most challenging part in building the conflict Cloud. We could write in [B] not to upset the important customer of Order Number 41427, but we want [B] to be worded in a positive way. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves another question-why is it so important not to upset this customer? This can be answered with [B] secure the business with the important customer of Order 41427.

[B]: Secure the business with an important customer [A]: The common objective that we-the other side and me-collectively try to achieve. This is a tricky box. Usually the tactic of the other side blocks me or causes damage to my need and hence I do not see the common ground or collective objective. In the working environment, I may have conflicts with my subordinate, my boss, my peer, or an external person such as a vendor, service person, etc. We can find A by asking a simple question-why are we discussing this issue? Why are we in the same room?

The machinist knows that it is important to fulfill all the orders in time. He knows that this supports the financial performance of the plant. Therefore, we can assume that both want the plant to be successful. In order for the plant to be profitable, all the orders must be fulfilled on time. Hence, we can conclude that both have a common objective: [A]: Have a profitable plant now and in the future.

See Fig. 24-5 for the Cloud.

In summary, the sequence and the questions for building the Day-to-Day Conflict Cloud are provided in Table 24-4.

Step 4: Check and upgrade the Cloud.

Follow the same process as for the dilemma Cloud.

Step 5: Surface assumptions.

Follow the same process as for the dilemma Cloud.

Step 6: Construct the solution.

In constructing the solution, we proceed from the assumptions that were surfaced in Step 5 to the injections. We end up with a list of potential injections. However, the situation may influence the choice of an injection to be the solution.

From one side, we are driven by the desire to move on with the action we want to take (D) as this will help us in achieving our need, and hence the tendency is to push and persuade the other side to see our point of view and accept that our D is the right one!

From the other side, this approach will hardly work as we have already tried it and we have failed to convince the other side.

FIGURE 24-5 An example of the Day-to-Day Conflict Cloud: conflict between the master machinist and Peach.

TABLE 24-4 Sequence and the Questions for Building the Day-to-Day Conflict Cloud Hence, we may want to employ a different approach. We break the Cloud on our side between C and D! We shall find an injection that supports the achievement of our need C that can coexist with the D tactic-the tactic, want, or action of the other side.

Now the solution D* is comprised of the D of the other side plus an injection that breaks the C-D connection. Usually, it is within our ability to perform the injection and hence the problem can be solved easily and should not be too difficult for the other side to accept.

In The Goal, this conflict was not resolved in a win-win way. The short-term need was stronger and the machine was reset, but the need of the machinist was not addressed. From the machinist's point of view, this was yet another example of management making crazy decisions. Can we find a win-win solution?

Given that the situation was critical and assuming that the machinist wanted to find a win-win solution (after the event), the focus should be on breaking the C-D connection.

Any assumption underlying C-D has to explain the logical reasoning between the two entities. As C is a positive and acceptable need, we have to understand why D (not resetting the machine) is perceived by the machinist in this situation as the only way to achieve C (be acknowledged for the contribution).

One explanation can be that the machinist has just completed a long setup process (several hours). During the setup time, no production was done. This is pure downtime for a critical machine. By telling me [the machinist] to reset the machine, "they" (my managers) clearly radiate to me that my efforts were useless and not needed. I do not feel appreciated.

The assumption is that appreciation is measured by the efforts we put in. This assumption can be challenged. A potential injection can be: In this critical situation, management needs my support and willingness to make an extra effort and reset the machine again.

Is it a win-win or just a nice name for a compromise? Cynical people may say, "You have ended up doing what you were told in the first place!" We say it is a step in the right direction. The conflict is driven by our emotions and our emotions are influenced by perceptions. It is correct that in this case to the outside world it looks like a compromise, but for the person addressing this problem it may bring a relief.

The major lesson that can be learned from this experience is that an open conflict is not that easy to resolve. Hence, maybe the next time the person who knows the Cloud method may control the reaction before the situation deteriorates.

Please note that using this approach too often with the same person-breaking the Cloud on your side-can create a situation in which the other side will expect you to always break the Cloud on your side. In the end, you would like these people to participate in solving the problems by breaking the Clouds on their side-after you have demonstrated your openness in dealing with problems and a willingness to "give up" on your initial want.

Step 7: Communicate the solution.