Why the Goal Tree is more and more relevant

Command and control management style, based on standardized work and centralized decision-making, becomes increasingly irrelevant as more and more business environments become highly variable and the number and pace of decisions to make soar.

What is required is autonomy and accountability as well as alignment on a well understood Goal. The Goal Tree is an elegant solution for understanding what is to be done as well as the underlying rationale, for communicating it and assessing the progress.

This post assumes readers are familiar with the Goal Tree, if not they may get into it through my articles on this subject.

The limits of command and control management

In a hierarchical organization there are mainly two practical limits to command and control management :

  1. The number of people who can be reasonably be supervised,
  2. The speed of decision-making when information has to travel up and down the management structure.

The more standardized and stable the work, the easier it is to supervise a larger number of people with tight control.

As soon as work can barely be standardized to the details and/or is highly variable, supervision has to give up tightness of control.

When reactivity is required, decision-making has to come closer to the interface where decisions are to be made, otherwise the process would respond way too slowly waiting for the information to travel back and forth.

That’s why tight command and control can still be found in mass manufacturing but would not work (at least the same way) for customer service or front office. There, more than just plain execution of tasks in standardized processes are awaited. Employee engagement is necessary to satisfy the customers, especially when some situations require to “walk the extra mile”.

There is a third limit to command and control management which is social acceptance. In developed countries with highly educated employees there is a strong expectation for empowerment and autonomy. People want to find a good balance between their own satisfaction and the effort they put to create value for their organization.

With lesser (mass) manufacturing and more services and knowledge work, which implies lesser standard work in the classic sense and more need for quick and numerous decision-making, command-and-control management is increasingly inappropriate.

Autonomy and accountability

Granting more autonomy is mandatory to cope with both the actual business challenges and social aspirations. Yet autonomy without guidance and a minimum of control may well lead to something totally different from the expected outcome, or even to chaos.

As control in the former way of command-and-control is no more appropriate, the best way is delegate the responsibility to the doers and let them take accountability. Formal control is then lighter, people are empowered but have to take the responsibility as well as the autonomy.

Accountability for results is the essential counterweight to autonomy. But instead of having constant control, someone frequently “looking over the shoulder”, there are periodic milestones checks, short meetings, KPIs and dashboards to monitor the performance and progress towards the objectives.

Sense of purpose

Autonomy, accountability, empowerment are not enough by themselves to engage employees. They have to understand the purpose of their work and endorse it. They have to understand the link between what is to be done and the higher objectives.

Having a lot of freedom of action but not understanding clearly “what for” will not bring satisfaction as it lacks the sense of purpose. In this breaks down for the intermediate objectives to be met and the string of actions: what for?

The Goal Tree for guidance

The Goal Tree is the tool that shows the Goal to be achieved as well as the whole rationale linking the Necessary Conditions (intermediate objectives that must be satisfied) to the achievement of the Goal.

As such it is a roadmap and a great communication tool. It is easy to read and understand, can be left on its own for people to read or can be presented.

The Goal Tree provides guidance. The links between Necessary Conditions and their goals, which are Necessary Conditions to other goals higher in the Tree, are all based on necessity logic. This reads “in order to have A, we must have/need B”. It is easy to understand, to follow and to convince oneself about the logical soundness of the whole.

In the daily autonomous work, when in doubt about an action to take or decision to make, it is convenient to turn to the Goal Tree and check if the action of decision is aligned with the Goal to achieve or is it contributing to achieve some Necessary Condition ? If the answers are positive, go for it, otherwise don’t waste time and resources on something not contributing.

A Goal Tree is scalable

But what is also great with the Goal Tree is that is scalable. A Goal Tree is most probably a Tree made of nested Goal Trees. One Necessary Condition to the global Tree is someone’s or some department’s Goal. Therefore the underlying Necessary Conditions constitute a lower ranking Goal Tree, and so forth.

Goal Tree

Goal Trees are likely to go viral as their “beauty” and easy of use convince more stakeholders to start their own one to get clarity on their purpose and set of actions to undertake.

Ironically, I “infected” half a pharmaceutical plant with Goal Trees simply starting to use it for carefully planning a small local project. As the people to whom it was presented liked the Tree and immediately caught its potential, they started asking me to support them building their own or even gave it a try without telling anyone until it was ready to be presented.

Why the Goal Tree is more and more relevant

The Goal Tree enables the organization to grant more autonomy to the stakeholders while providing guidance and monitoring. It satisfies or supports most of the requirements for being responsive to customers, quick in new developments, clear about the objectives and so on.

It is a very good supporting tool for any business in which command-and-control management style is irrelevant, and those are expanding. I do believe the Goal Tree is more and more relevant.

About the author
View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

The fallacy of bottom-up Lean initiatives – Part 3: top-down and bottom-up

the-fallacy-of-bottom-up-lean-initiativesIn the first post of this series, I explained why bottom-up Lean initiatives have little chance to succeed. In the second post I switched the point of view and discussed the top-down driven Lean rollout attempts and their pitfalls. Neither is easy nor a sure way to succeed.

In this third post it is time to bring the conditions for success together.

Guidance comes from above

The system owners or top management are the sole legit to set the system’s / organization’s overall Goal. It is onto the ways(1) to achieve that Goal that all Lean initiatives must align. This is known as the “True North”.

Lean itself is not the Goal, it’s the preferred framework providing a way of thinking, principles, methods and a toolbox to efficiently achieve the Goal.

The Goal must be stated with clarity in order to avoid any misunderstanding and the Goal should be compelling for to motivate the stakeholders to play an active and motivated role in its achievement.

The worst Goal statement I was confronted with was “Survive another year”.

Stating the Goal alone is not enough. Top management should also set a limited set of top level indicators. In Bill Dettmer’s approach using the Goal Tree, those few top level indicators are called Critical Success Factors (CSFs). They are top management’s dashboard and ultimate steps before achieving the Goal.

Those CSFs must be set by top management for at least three reasons:

  1. It would be weird that anybody else defines the indicators by which top management monitors the progress towards the Goal it is responsible for achieving,
  2. Critical Success Factors are most often dictated by strategical analysis or benchmark, which are top management’s responsibility,
  3. Critical Success Factors constrain how the stakeholders will contribute to achieve the Goal. By this third reason I mean remaining consistent with the organization’s purpose, culture and values.

Once the Goal and Critical Success Factors are defined, enough guidance is provided from the top and it’s the subordinate level to take on and propose ways to achieve their goals, which are the CSF. The same will repeat with the next level and so on.

Lean-aware readers will recognize the cascading principle used in Policy Deployment, also known as Hoshin Kanri.

Appraisal comes from above too

If top management provided guidance, its role isn’t over yet. It is top management duty to make sure the whole organization works towards achieving the Goal and to remind and reinforce this guiding principle: working on anything else diverting resources from the achievement of the Goal is waste and is therefore invalid.

Remember, opportunities to improve are always infinite, while resources and time come in limited number. It is therefore mandatory to focus on leverage points and make wise use of limited resources.

I particularly like the Goal Tree because its logical structure lets no room for irrelevant nice-to-have that are immediately visible and their discarding rationally explained.

Enlightened management is about knowing what to do and what not do. And enlightenment can use a little help from a logical tool.

Without promoting the outdated command-and-control model, direction must be set top-down as well as the periodic checking of the organization’s right trajectory.

Constant attention is required over time in order to avoid any drift, deviant behaviors or loss of focus.

Help comes from above. Sometimes.

It’s still not enough to give direction and check the progress towards the Goal. Management’s top-down support is mandatory. By support I mean advice and backup when tough decisions need senior management to give input or take the decision, especially when those decisions lay beyond the field of authority of the lower ranking staff.

Support is also required when a settlement between conflicting objectives must be found.

From the Logical Thinking Process (Theory of Constraint) Body of Knowledge we know that conflict resolution should not seek a consensus (often disguised as “win-win” solution), but a way to “dissolve the conflict so that nobody has to give up anything except their beliefs in false assumptions.

Yet beware of drilling holes into the pyramid (2), meaning do not do what your subordinates have to do.

It is commonly accepted I hope, that leaders have to communicate the “what to change to” (the Goal) as well as the “why” of Lean transformation. It is up to the lower ranking staff in the organization to figure out “how to change”.

Achievement happens bottom-up

Since Policy Deployment or Hoshin Kanri are around, the cascading principle of top-down Goal setting and corresponding bottom-up answers is known.

Just as Hoshin Kanri, the Goal Tree uses the same principle: when the lower objectives are achieved, the corresponding upper objectives are achieved, and so on bottom-up till the top most objective (the Goal) is achieved.

Each layer of objectives is a set of Necessary Conditions for achieving the objective above. And here again, the Goal Tree provides the rational demonstration why employees can’t freely choose to work and improve whatever they want, even it seems an improvement from their point of view.

This disciplined approach may sound very constrained and limiting compared to other approaches asking staff for whatever improvement ideas. Maybe it sounds disappointingly controlled and restrictive but it makes no sense to burn limited and precious resources to “improve” whatever is proposed.

The lack of focus leads to many critics about lean lacking noticeable results compared to the time and money spent to improve. In this “open” approach stakeholders may have had their moment of glory when their proposed idea was validated, but their “improvements” didn’t impress nor last.

Conclusion

Neither bottom-up nor top-down initiated Lean journeys won’t lead to a Lean transformation success. The approach most likely to succeed is a smart mixture of top-down guidance, monitoring and assistance and aligned bottom-up contributions focusing on specific leverage points.

While top management provides the Goal to achieve and the framework within transforming the organization, the lower ranking staff make things happen working on meaningful and contributive topics.

Even if this approach looks constrained, it is more likely to demonstrate real improvement and proven, lasting benefits. Ultimately, this disciplined way should provide more satisfaction to all parties involved.

This ends the series of posts about the Fallacy of bottom-up Lean initiatives.

Comments welcome. If you liked it, share it!

Footnotes

(1) Theory of Constraints’ Thinking Processes would refer to these ways as “tactics”, while the Goal is a strategy
(2) An allusion about another one of my tales of the pyramid: the Swiss cheese

5View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

My blog’s third birthday

January 2014 – January 2017, my blog is now online for 3 years and counts 347 posts.

Thanks to all of you my audience is gently growing on this blog, as well as on my Youtube channel and on tweeter. All organic!

What is the most read here?

According to the stats, Constraint vs. bottleneck is the absolute winner, ahead of 3D Printing and Porter’s five forces ranking second.

Then comes a string of posts related to the Logical Thinking Process and the popular Goal Tree.

What’s on schedule for 2017?

Well I have a huge inventory of titles, topics, half-written posts on the various subjects I’d like to share: Lean Management, more about Logical Thinking Process and Theory of Constraints, my prospective survey about the future of manufacturing and much more.

I’ll try to post on a regular basis and bring some value-added content. You are welcome to give me feedback in the comments.

Hope to see you here!

5View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Samples from LTP training with Bill Dettmer (Day 1)

Paris, June 2016. Bill Dettmer delivers his 6-day Logical Thinking Process training course in our offices. I am attending on the host’s and partner’s side, going through the whole course for the second time (I got my certificate the previous year) as a backup facilitator-if-needed, a master of ceremony, reporter and videographer.

While Bill is sharing his knowledge and experience, I videotape with his consent in order to promote the course and show you samples of what happens during the 6 days.

The following video shows samples of the morning of the first day, once introductions have been made, backgrounds, expectations and motivations of attendants shared.

I am sorry for the poor image quality due to low light, but this is a tradeoff between sharing the experience with the viewers and bothering the course attendants who paid for their seat.

The first morning is spent on some basic theory about the logical relationships, the structure of the different logical trees and how to build them. It paves the way for the afternoon’s exercise in which each participant builds his/her own Goal Tree, then, in turns, presents it to others and have it scrutinized by the others, under Bill’s supervision and coaching.


Bandeau_CH160601View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Where I could have used a Goal Tree but didn’t know about the tool then

During the June 2016 Logical Thinking Process alumni reunion, Bill Dettmer asked the participants to share their “War Stories”, i.e. experience with the Logical Thinking Process (LTP) and LTP tools.
I came up with several short stories. In this excerpt, I recall I could have used a Goal Tree but didn’t know the tool at that time.

The story I tell is the one that inspired my post Goal tree chronicles – The pharma plant.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Limits of Logical Thinking Process

In this excerpt of day one from the 6-day Logical Thinking Process training course, Bill Dettmer explains that the very front end, the two first tools (Goal Tree and Current Reality Tree) are deterministic, based on facts. The other steps and tools are about future, which can only be based on probabilities.

At the end of this short video, Bill gives his definition of the Logical Thinking Process.

Logical Thinking Process training June 2016 opening speech

Paris, June 2016, day 1 of the Logical Thinking Process training course hosted by Marris Consulting, Philip Marris welcomes the participants with a speech.

Philip’s speech is a mix of teasing and testimony as well as an analysis of the growing relevance of Theory of Constraints (ToC). Philip also explains how the Logical Thinking Process tools help focusing, the core idea of ToC. Finally he shares his thoughts about why the participants are in the room that day: it takes a peculiar mindset to go the Logical Thinking Process way, people do not attend this course by chance.

After more than 16 minutes, Bill Dettmer finally can welcome the participants too.

I was fortunate to attend on the host side to facilitate the 6-day course, also taking care about video and photos of the venue. If you want to see how the 6 days unfolded in fastforward (2 mn), >click here<

Bandeau_CH38
View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

3-color system for Goal Trees

In this 5 minute excerpt from the Logical Thinking Process (LTP) Alumni reunion with Bill Dettmer, June 2016 in Paris, France, I explain my 3-color system for assessing the current reality with a Goal Tree.

The 3-color system is a visual management tool to assess the organization’s readyness to achieve its Goal and shows where to act in priority.

You’ll find several articles on this topic here on my blog, for instance:


Bandeau_CH40_smlView Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Redefining “problem” (with Goal in mind)

In problem solving or continuous improvement workshops a problem is usually defined as a gap between the actual situation and the desired situation, and thus a problem causes an unsatisfactory situation or an UnDesirable Effect (UDE).

This definition, while true, is somewhat too vague to be useful when working on solving problems and continuous improvement.

Indeed, in a business environment* many things can be qualified “undesirable situation” or “undesirable effect”, from bad tasting coffee to important production equipment breakdown, from laser printer toner stockout to quality control rejecting an important production batch.

In most business environments improvement opportunities are literally infinite.

*business environment can be very vague as well, I suggest every reader to transpose this article into his/her environment.

From these few examples it becomes obvious that the too broad definition of problems need some refinement. The limited time and resources of an organization should not be wasted on every so-called problems, but instead solely focused on the critical ones.

Failing to do so bears the risk of spending time and burning up resources to solve “problems” without any system-wide noticeable positive effect. That’s what happens to so many Lean initiatives or continuous improvement programs, draining significant resources for frustrating results.

So, how to select the problems worth coping with?

In a business environment the organization exists to achieve a Goal, itself subordinated to the achievement of several objectives. When something hinders the organization to achieve its objectives, hence its Goal, the hinderance is worth attracting (all) focus for problem solving.

In “The Logical Thinking Process, a  Systems Approach to Complex Problem Solving”, Bill Dettmer defines a UDE as “something that really exists; something that is negative compared with the system’s goal, Critical Success Factors or Necessary Conditions.” This definition is linked to The Goal Tree and if this one is properly built, the understanding of what an UDE is will be straightforward and unquestioned.

Now with the organization’s Goal in mind, a “problem” can be understood as an UnDesirable Effect (UDE) being an obstacle for the organization to achieve its objectives, its Goal. Anything felt undesirable but not directly threatening the achievement of the objectives or Goal is an annoyance at best.

Does it mean anything NOT threatening the objectives and Goal is not worth considering?

While priority must clearly be given to issues and UDEs hindering the organization to achieve its Goal, some “annoyances” should be taken care of as well. Things making job or life easier for employees for instance may not directly contribute to corporate objective achievement but can help improve morale, ergonomics, safety and the feeling of being important enough to the organization to deserve some attention.

Well, how to select these “problems” worth considering?

This is where methodologies handover to management, “science” handover to “art” and plain rationality to humanity. It’s up to managers to sense what is to be done, why and to what extend.


Bandeau_CH160601View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn