Bill Dettmer and David Poveda share views about planning

David Poveda is a Colombia-based consultant, Owner and  Director of FLOWING Consultoria. David is well-known for his successful implementations of Theory of Constraints (ToC) and Lean-based solutions, and his expertise about Demand Driven MRP (DDMRP).

Just before the Logical Thinking Process training in Paris, in June 2016, he paid a visit to Marris Consulting and met Bill Dettmer. Both agreed to share thought about various subjects and in front of recording camcorder.

In this 10 minute video, David shares his views about planning techniques and somewhat surprisingly links ToC’s Thinking Processes to planning, especially Bill Dettmer’s Goal Tree .

According to David, the Thinking Processes should be called “the real planning processes“, because they are a complete planning and execution methodology. Bill is somewhat taken by surprise and explains the origins of his Logical Thinking Process (LTP) being in complex problem solving, but realizing with David’s inputs that changing what is done requires competent planning.

David goes on and explains that a Goal Tree is a planning tool for smaller projects as well, and many of David’s clients agree about not knowing how to plan. Therefore the LTP should be taught more widely.


2 thoughts on “Bill Dettmer and David Poveda share views about planning

  1. Chris, this is one of the best videos you have posted regarding the Goal Tree. Like you, I have been using the Goal Tree to both evaluate an organization using the same color code system and then develop an improvement plan based upon the final color scheme. I absolutely agree with David Poveda that the Goal Tree is the best planning tool I have ever learned. Thanks so much for sharing this video of David and Bill! Bob Sproull


  2. This comment is directed toward David P.

    Hi David,
    Yes, the use of TOC’s Thinking Processes for P&E purposes has merit. HOWEVER, to believe (and even claim) that it is akin to being a panacea for all sorts of P&E endeavors is a bit – IMO – short-sighted in that sense that when one has mastered the “hammer,” all subsequent problems/issues tend to appear as a “nail” that can be addressed with the “hammer.”

    In contrast to your own experience in the P&E arena, I share a similar perception of there being a dearth of good planning & execution know-how. And in that regard, having a easy-to-teach/learn P&E methodology/approach would be a good starting point for improving the state-of-the-general-business environment… particularly in the small to mid-sized business arena. That said, it’s been my personal experience that are many very good methods/tools/techniques/approaches available to enable and support an organization’s P&E endeavors. To claim that any one of them is capable – in and of itself – to serve as “THE” most appropriate P&E approach is very likely to be a bit of a stretch.

    What is possible, in that regard, is to suggest that any approach that can be readily adapted to accommodate the varying degrees of complexity and scale of the sort of P&E issues an organization needs to address (and do so in both an efficient and effective manner) is a good candidate for adoption. In addition, another important criteria would be a P&E framework that engages ALL the key stakeholders (at all levels within the organization) as active participants, and incorporates their “push/feed-back” into the overall game plan (as potentially could be the case with TOC’s planning process). And finally, an ideal or universal P&E framework would need to be capable of being annualized; that is, revisited and updated on a routine basis – and doing so in a way that is both historically trace/reference-able and update/revise-able from a forward-looking perspective.

    Just for comparison purposes, it’s been my experience that the HOSHIN KANRI [“Policy Deployment”] P&E framework – as defined and used by Toyota – is one that carries the capability of meeting the needs of both today’s and tomorrow’s organizations… from the simplest to the most complex. That said, it is NOT easy to learn and it demands a great deal of discipline and practice to carry out in the most efficient and effective manner possible. That being the case, I suspect that any organization wishing to enhance/improve its P&E capabilities would need to recognize and appreciate the “trade-offs” that likely will need to be made in choosing any one particular approach/framework over another.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s