This post title may sound provocative to all readers knowing the Goal Tree origins lay with Theory of Constraints and to hardliners of each philosophy wanting to keep their toolbox clean of “imported” tools, yet it won’t change the fact that a Goal Tree is a Lean tool.
1. Goal Tree as its name tells is totally goal-focused
Starting with the Goal statement is totally in line with Jeffrey Liker’s first principle the 14 principles of The Toyota Way: “Base your management decisions on a long-term philosophy, even at the expense of short-term financial goals.”
The Goal Tree sets a benchmark for the long-term in order to achieve the organization’s Goal or purpose. The Goal is by definition far away, otherwise it would rather be called an intermediate objective on the way to achieving the “real” Goal.
Once the Goal is stated, the Goal Tree describes all Necessary Conditions to achieving it, thus an explicit invitation to take all necessary management decisions. As the focus is on the Goal, the short-term goals are nothing else than Necessary Conditions or Intermediate Objectives and never a diversion to fetch a short-term opportunity.
2. Goal Tree’s necessity based logic filters out all nice-to-haves
A Goal Tree is built on a cascade of Necessary Conditions which are allowed into the Tree only if they comply to the necessity logic. The test is binary: if the condition responds positively to the condition “in order to have…[objective], we must have…[condition]”, than it passes the test. If the suggested idea does not respond to the test, it does not fit into the Tree.
This means that a robust Goal Tree is lean as it is built only on strictly Necessary Conditions and the required or available resources will therefore be used only for really necessary things!
Conversely, everything that would consume any resource without being strictly necessary (muda) is discarded, keeping the Tree lean.
3. Goal Tree trumps Hoshin Kanri
In my opinion, Goal Tree “trumps” Hoshin Kanri when it comes to list all the necessary breakthroughs to achieve mid to long-term objectives.
The reason is the same as above: the necessity logic that guides the analysis of what is required vs. what we have, hence the gaps that must be filled with breakthroughs.
Hoshin Kanri is too open and to pervious to nice-to-haves as it intrinsically lacks the filter to keep them out: the necessity logic.
Yet to be fair, Hoshin Kanri does better than Goal Tree in later steps, when the breakthroughs must be broken down into short-term objectives with proper KPIs and resources allocation. While Hoshin Kanri does it all within the same X matrix, the Goal Tree needs other logical trees or action plans to do it.
This is why I like to combine both: start the analysis of what gaps to fill with the Goal Tree and then feed findings into a Hoshin Kanri.
If you like this post, share it!