This website or its third-party tools use cookies which are necessary to its functioning and required to improve your experience. By clicking the consent button, you agree to allow the site to use, collect and/or store cookies.
Please click the consent button to view this website.
I accept
Deny cookies Go Back

Intelligent Management

Deming and Theory of Constraints for CEOs and Executive Teams for the Age of Complexity. Ess3ntial Critical Chain Project Management

  • THE DECALOGUE METHOD
    • The Problem for Every Business
    • The Systemic Solution
    • synchronize competencies
    • How It Works
    • business insight and foresight through systemic cause and effect reasoning
    • Our Education Modules for Systemic Management
  • about us
    • Dr. Domenico Lepore
    • the founders
    • Intelligent Management Success Stories
    • Our Books
    • Clients
    • Expanding Spiral of Positive Systemic Results with Intelligent Management
  • blog & books
    • Blog Theory of Constraints and Deming
    • Our publications
  • ITALIA
  • Contact
You are here: Home / systems view of the world / Why Doesn’t Every Company Use the Theory of Constraints to Succeed?

Dec 16 2021

Why Doesn’t Every Company Use the Theory of Constraints to Succeed?

While visiting a plant last month, our Founder, Dr. Domenico Lepore, told the dramatic story of his experience at a German aluminium plant, part of a multi-billion, multi-national business. The General Manager had invited Domenico to give a presentation after hearing him speak at a Theory of Constraints (TOC) conference. In that plant, the hot mill alone was a billion dollar asset operation with 127 people working three shifts. The Plant Manager was understandably proud as he showed the hot mill off during a tour of the giant machinery that melted the metal, stirred it in what looked like a massive cauldron and rolled it out into sheets, like a giant lasagna factory.

“So what do you think?” the Plant Manager was beaming. Perhaps he should not have asked that question.

“Well, instinctively,” Domenico answered, “from what I’ve seen today, I’d say that the phase of pre-heating is a bit narrow. It’s fine for big lots but if you have to change over too fast you’ll have a bottleneck where you don’t want it.”

That very evening, there was a major explosion at the factory. Thankfully, no one was injured. The Plant Manager, however, began to realize that the problems he experienced every day were linked to the under-sizing of the pre-heating phase. He was so distressed by this realization and all its implications that he had to take 6 months off work. The General Manager offered Domenico a highly-paid position to stay at the mill. Domenico politely refused and explained that his job was to advise companies and he could only do that effectively because he was not part of the system.

Photo by Akin Cakiner on Unsplash

Balanced vs. unbalanced – a revolutionary insight with the Theory of Constraints

What Domenico had noticed and that had such a dramatic impact on the aluminium plant was that it was a “balanced” plant instead of being “unbalanced” around a physical constraint. Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt who developed the Theory of Constraints provided a revolutionary insight that is alarmingly simple: every organization is a system and every system has a constraint. Consequently, the only way to make sure that the system produces maximum throughput in a reliable way is to identify (choose strategically) a constraint and design the rest of the system, or “unbalance” it, around that constraint to make sure the constraint works constantly. Why? Because the constraint is the point that generates the most value. It dictates the pace at which the system generates units of the goal. It makes no sense to focus on optimizing other parts of the system. The constraint must be the focus.

If it is so spectacularly effective to manage an organization around a constraint, then why doesn’t everyone do it? Why doesn’t everyone use the Theory of Constraints? There can be several reasons.

Chasing Lean

“Lean” is an approach that has become very popular and widely known over the last 10-15 years. Lean is intrinsically a “balanced” approach. Lean is undoubtedly effective in certain environments, such as Toyota in Japan where a limited number of highly standardized products are produced in a “pull” market situation. However, as in the case of the German mill, when conditions are not completely and reliably standard and reality shifts, there is no excess capacity to deal with the variation.

Measurements that mislead

A balanced approach inevitably leads to an increase in inventory. While this can mean that an unnecessary and even harmful amount of cash is tied up in inventory, it is also true that traditional accounting considers inventory to be an asset. It also likes “efficiency”, i.e. all the assets working to the maximum, whereas in TOC the ONLY place where efficiency makes sense is on the constraint that has to work all the time. Banks value inventory and that can make it complicated for companies to switch to an unbalanced approach that reduces levels of inventory. Constraint-based operations use a completely different set of measurements to traditional cost accounting. The measurements of TOC provide exactly the information that gives the most insight into how a business is in fact performing in terms of cash in and out, which products are most profitable and how to price them correctly as opposed to accounting conventions and cost allocation. (See: Radically Simple Accounting for Real Information)

Photo by Rob Martin on Unsplash

Managing mindset

Switching to an unbalanced approach means changing not just the physical way you operate but the mindset of the organization. A constraint-based operation works on speed of flow. It is a systemic way of working; it reveals the fallacy behind the linear thinking that optimizing every “piece” of the organization leads to optimizing the whole. The opposite is true. Everything that is an artificial barrier to improving the Quality of the goods and services provided, the involvement of personnel and the speed of flow of throughput needs to be reconsidered. This is a process in change management that requires courage and the ability to challenge what we have come to call the “cognitive constraint” of the organization, i.e. the set of assumptions (mental models) that keep an organization stuck.

Dr. Goldratt knew that radically and reliably improving the performance of an organization goes well beyond operations and “techniques”. It involves leaving behind familiar ways to embrace transformation and braving a new world. And for that reason he developed the Thinking Processes. These are powerful cognitive processes to accompany any important Change Management efforts.

Without a systemic understanding of how to manage an organization, many decisions, investments and actions can be ill-informed. It is always immensely rewarding to be with a client in that precise moment, as happened last month, when they see the radical clarity and the new opportunities that come from managing an organization around a constraint.

Photo by Chang Ye on Unsplash

Intelligent Management works with decision makers with the authority and responsibility to make meaningful change. We have helped dozens of organizations to adopt a systemic approach to manage complexity and radically improve performance and growth for 25 years through our Decalogue management methodology. The Network of Projects organization design we developed is supported by our Ess3ntial software for multi-project finite scheduling based on the Critical Chain algorithm. 

See our latest books Moving the Chains: An Operational Solution for Embracing Complexity in the Digital Age by our Founder Dr. Domenico Lepore,   The Human Constraint – a digital business novel that has sold in 43 countries so far by Dr. Angela Montgomery and  ‘Quality, Involvement, Flow: The Systemic Organization’ from CRC Press, New York by Dr. Domenico Lepore, Dr. .Angela Montgomery and Dr. Giovanni Siepe.

Written by angela montgomery · Categorized: systems view of the world, Theory of Constraints · Tagged: balanced plant, lean, measurements, theory of constrants

Search Form

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sign Up For Our Systems View Blog!

Search Form

Recent Posts

  • Companies that Challenge their Limiting Beliefs Can Thrive April 23, 2025
  • A Method for Breakthroughs: The Theory of Constraints March 31, 2025
  • The Biggest Bottleneck that Blindsides Business: Management March 14, 2025
  • Revealing the inner nature of any organization to create a leap in performance February 14, 2025
  • Dealing with Uncertainty in 2025 January 13, 2025
  • Exponential Thinking for Exponential Growth December 1, 2024
  • Why Physics Matters for Managing Organizations Systemically November 17, 2024
  • Addressing the Cognitive Human Constraint in Organizations October 27, 2024
  • Obstacles, Ambition and Getting to the Goal October 10, 2024
  • The Theory of Constraints: Why Words Matter so Much September 27, 2024
  • Can a Systems Approach Prevent Greed? September 12, 2024
  • The Human Constraint that Frees Us August 30, 2024
  • Optimize Your Company for the Digital Age August 22, 2024
  • Beyond Teams: Build a Systemic Organization August 15, 2024
  • A New Generation of Entrepreneurs and Leaders Facing Unprecedented Challenges July 11, 2024

Social Icons

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo

Archives

  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011

Recent Posts

  • Companies that Challenge their Limiting Beliefs Can Thrive April 23, 2025
  • A Method for Breakthroughs: The Theory of Constraints March 31, 2025
  • The Biggest Bottleneck that Blindsides Business: Management March 14, 2025
  • Revealing the inner nature of any organization to create a leap in performance February 14, 2025
  • Dealing with Uncertainty in 2025 January 13, 2025

Our Blog

  • Companies that Challenge their Limiting Beliefs Can Thrive
  • A Method for Breakthroughs: The Theory of Constraints
  • The Biggest Bottleneck that Blindsides Business: Management
  • Revealing the inner nature of any organization to create a leap in performance
  • Dealing with Uncertainty in 2025

Recent Posts

  • Companies that Challenge their Limiting Beliefs Can Thrive April 23, 2025
  • A Method for Breakthroughs: The Theory of Constraints March 31, 2025
  • The Biggest Bottleneck that Blindsides Business: Management March 14, 2025
  • Revealing the inner nature of any organization to create a leap in performance February 14, 2025
  • Dealing with Uncertainty in 2025 January 13, 2025

Connect with us on LinkedIn and Twitter

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Sign Up For Our Systems View Blog!

Search Form

  • Home
  • Blog Theory of Constraints and Deming
  • Library
  • How to adopt systemic organization management
  • Knowledge Base for ‘The Human Constraint’
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Intelligent Management Inc. Canada

Privacy Policy