“This has nothing to do with bonuses,” Dean protested.

“As I look at these goals, each attached to a bonus, every team has an internal goal, based on some efficiency. The highest efficiency for each team can best be achieved by ignoring the goals of the other teams.

“Here is the central question,” I continued. “Do you think the company can be most effective by making each of its internal departments most efficient?”

“Well, yeah,” Dean replied.

“It seems counterintuitive, but for the company to be most effective, some of the departments may have to be less efficient.”

Dean looked puzzled.

“Look, Dean, of your four departments, which is the slowest, the department that everyone has to wait for?”

Dean looked at a chart with his four teams. Red, blue, green and orange. “It’s the green team. They’re the bottleneck. We would put more resources in there, but they are too expensive. We just do the best we can.”

“And when everyone is focused on their own stuff and not paying attention to the green team, what happens?”

“Well, the blue team feeds them work. But the blue team works most efficiently in batches, so they feed zero work for two days, then dump a bunch of work on the green team at the same time. The green team can only work so fast, so everything stacks up there and everything goes late.”

“So, why doesn’t the blue team work in smaller batches and feed work sooner?” I asked.

“Well, if the blue team works in smaller batches, they can’t produce enough to make their goal. And their goal is tied to their bonus.”

“So, you have a bonus problem.” -TF

This continues our conversation with Dr. Lisa Lang on Theory of Constraints.

TF: If we do a good job of placing our constraint in our highest cost, most scarce resource, what is the next most difficult thing to do?

Dr. Lisa: Leverage it. Leverage is a great word but we are not taught how to do this or what we are taught is simply wrong.

The book The Goal describes leverage as exploiting the constraint and subordinating everything else based on the point where you have placed the constraint.

Exploit means not wasting any of what you have. Subordinating is often the harder one because it requires the non-constraint silos to fall in line by supporting the exploitation of the constraint. This is difficult because each silo is usually measured and rewarded on its individual results.
__
Dr. Lisa Lang has many resources on her website www.scienceofbusiness.com. She has made this offer to our readers. If you would like to receive her three hour audio and workbook (usually $199) for $99, please drop her an email at drlisa@scienceofbusiness.com.

This continues our conversation with Dr. Lisa Lang on Theory of Constraints.

TF: If the idea is to strategically select your bottleneck (constraint), what are the characteristics you look for in a strategic constraint?

Dr. Lisa: A strategic constraint should be relatively hard to get more of, compared to a non-constraint. Hard to get more of, means that it’s expensive, hard to find, hard to train or something like that.

Non-constraints, on the other hand, are generally less expensive and easier to get. And a starting rule of thumb is to have 25% excess capacity at your non-constraints.

So we are leveraging our very expensive hard to get resource (constraint) and we have excess capacity at our easier to acquire (non-constraint) resources.
__
Dr. Lisa Lang has many resources on her website www.scienceofbusiness.com. She has made this offer to our readers. If you would like to receive her three hour audio and workbook (usually $199) for $99, please drop her an email at drlisa@scienceofbusiness.com.

We will continue our conversation tomorrow.

This is a continuing conversation with Dr. Lisa Lang about Theory of Constraints.

TF: You talk about bottlenecks in systems. Conventional wisdom says bottlenecks are bad and that it is management’s job to get rid of them.

Dr. Lisa: Bottlenecks are what determine how much money you can make. I don’t think of them as bad. They just are. And by definition you will always have one. The question is, where is it? But, unless you have unlimited profits, you have a bottleneck, somewhere.

If you think bottlenecks or constraints are bad (like we were taught), then you will strive to get rid of them. But, as soon as you get rid of one bottleneck, another pops up, somewhere else. Essentially, we are taught to chase them around. Find them and get rid of them. It’s like being trapped in that arcade game – Whack-A-Mole.

If, by definition, you always have a weakest link or bottleneck, instead of chasing it around, my recommendation is to strategically place it. You decide where you want this control point to be. By doing that, you can get very good leveraging it and knowing how to control and grow your business with this control point.

So bottlenecks are not bad. Management’s job is to control them so that we can meet our commitments and grow. And more importantly to LEVERAGE them so that profits can be maximized.
__
Dr. Lisa Lang has many resources on her website www.scienceofbusiness.com. She has made this offer to our readers. If you would like to receive her three hour audio and workbook (usually $199) for $99, please drop her an email at drlisa@scienceofbusiness.com.

We will continue our conversation tomorrow.

This continues our conversation with Dr. Lisa Lang on Theory of Constraints.

TF: Intuitively, we try to maximize efficiency (profitability) of the entire company by working in each functional area to maximize its efficiency. We are thinking if every area is absolutely efficient, then by default, the entire company will be profitable. You disagree.

Dr. Lisa: Take an extreme case where a company may break itself into separate P&Ls. The logic is that if we maximize each P&L then we will maximize the P&L of the company as a whole. (And of course it’s much easier to hold each manager accountable only for their own P&L.)

I have a client, a not for profit, who collects donations that they sell in 14 retail stores. Each store has its own P&L and each store manager is measured and rewarded accordingly. The average selling price of an item is $2.25.

Imagine you are one of the underperforming stores in this company. To improve your profit, you need to sell a lot of volume at $2.25.

There are, however, some donated items that fetch $100 or more and sell very quickly. All the store managers love these items. Yet, there is one item that sells for $100 in 13 of the 14 stores, yet, sells for $200 in one of the stores, because of its location. It’s a cowboy item and this store is located near cowboys.

If I hold this item up in front of the group of 14 store managers, which store manager wants it for THEIR store? Of course, they all want the item, but, who should get the item to sell? The cowboy store can sell it for double.

So, if one of the other stores (not the cowboy store) gets a walk-in donation of one of these cowboy items, what should that store manager do?

Most store managers would keep quiet and sell the item quickly for $100 to improve their own P&L. This maximizes their own silo, but steals valuable profit from the company as a whole. This story illustrates how maximizing each silo does not necessarily benefit the system as a whole.

When management teams attack a problem, most often they try to fix a small segment of the company without even seeing the larger system problem.
__
Dr. Lisa Lang has many resources on her website www.scienceofbusiness.com. She has made this offer to our readers. If you would like to receive her three hour audio and workbook (usually $199) for $99, please drop her an email at drlisa@scienceofbusiness.com.

We will continue our conversation tomorrow.