A practice is meaningless without use.
In a recent LinkedIn discussion, I was asked to support my comments and expound on why Theory of Constraints (TOC) didn’t catch on like Agile did.
TOC[i] found use in the project management world, but isn’t fully accepted. Many call its use Critical Chain project management. Agile[ii] is different. It started as a way to develop software. And it has since spread to other project types.
You may not agree with my view. Yet I’d argue the money companies spend on TOC or critical chain project management is tiny compared to money spent on Agile. TOC is not alone in poor adoption. There are others, but my focus is on TOC.
Check the 15-year trend comparing Google searches: Agile (the specific term) and Theory of Constraints (the whole topic.) Please recognize the two concepts are competing for mind-share. Back 15 years ago, Agile and TOC were neck and neck. Move forward to 2019 and TOC is moribund while Agile continues to grow. I’d also argue that in about 2009 and 2010, when the TOC’s peaks smoothed out, TOC began an unrecoverable death spiral.
TOC’s poor diffusion comes down to one thing. Organizations don’t need it. Nowadays some of us characterize this differently. We say it doesn’t fill the “job to be done.” The notion with this thinking is we hire products, services, or an approach to do a job. It’s not what a project manager wants. Nor what PMO’s demand or consultants push. It’s the job that matters.
Who Moved the Cheese?
And what matters most is the big job organizations seek to complete. Use an executive or CEO as the persona to gain the perspective. These are the people who govern decisions and manage the purse strings. Their job-to-be-done concern differs from the project manager’s focus.
The reason Agile grew is that it’s a major job for organizations to succeed with new software and software/hardware systems. The job is a critical strategy move. And that move isn’t to manage old project types more efficiently.
Look back 15 years, and you’ll see software and systems hadn’t yet become core to business strategy. Scale-driven manufacturing platforms played a bigger role than software. Today, that’s flipped. And to keep up, CEOs needed to make serious strategic moves. Success with software was a major leap. Ask Blockbuster. Conducting projects more efficiently wouldn’t have helped this once successful company.
Unfortunately, TOC does not make software and hardware/software systems successful. But without Agile’s rapid customer and developer feedback, companies are more likely to fail the software strategy job. And when you fail key strategic moves, things can get ugly. Agile does the job. TOC and many other practices do not.
My practice focuses on product line strategies. I often use the short phrase “Right-Products-Right” to communicate challenges. TOC focuses on doing projects better, the second right. It doesn’t focus on discovering the right projects or reshaping them to be right. And to paraphrase Deming, there’s nothing more wasteful than working efficiently on the wrong project.
My bet is most TOC evangelists agree with Deming’s wisdom. But they also feel powerless to create better projects. Plus, most likely, they don’t understand what “better” means within a strategy.
Consider companies like Google, Apple, and Netflix. They conduct projects and have smart project managers. And I’d be surprised if these firms didn’t look at or try TOC on projects. But their golden egg is having projects aligned with great, fast-growing markets. It’s their business strategy and their superb product line strategies that drive their projects. Unfortunately, TOC does nothing to induce strategy moves or pivots to produce great projects. Nor does it help to reshape poor projects with a smarter customer focus, a key to Agile practices.
TOC’s efficiency-seeking approach works to double down on the old. This is at odds with the big job progressive firms seek to carry out. Their strategy moves are to drive a new generation of offerings with agile methods. Or, they’ll pivot into new areas. But they’re less likely to try to ‘out efficiency’ their competition. That’s like running the inane Red Queen’s race in Alice in Wonderland. “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”
Down the Rabbit Hole
Is TOC’s diffusion going to get worse? Yes, no doubt it will. But major changes can turn it around.
Many in the TOC field hope they only need to simplify the topic and make it easier to teach and use. Of course, that will help. But simplification won’t do anything about the big job-to-be-done. The great change is to pivot TOC to the first ‘right.’ It’s to shift to finding and shaping the best projects, not making projects better. This means focusing on strategy formation and execution, not project management.
TOC can make the pivot. But it’ll take genius thinking, rebranding, and coupling TOC to other approaches. Plus, it will demand a different cast of characters to pull it off. I am sorry to say I don’t see the current TOC evangelists making the move. Few have the skills, knowledge, or influence to play the strategy game, especially in large companies. And it’s large companies that stand the most to gain.
If you’re a TOC consultant who wishes to stick to the current course, here’s advice from a strategist. Recognize TOC is at the end of its life cycle. The common strategy move in this stage is to simplify, cut costs, and market harder. It’ll help slow the decline and buy you time. And if you don’t think that will work, you can always lower your living standards or find something else to do.
To learn more about techniques and approaches toward product line strategy, please check out these important resources.
- One Day Master Course: Newark 17 Sept; Orlando 6 Nov
- Book: The Profound Impact of Product Line Strategy
- Whitepaper: Good Product Line Strategy Matters. Here’s How to Create One
One Day Master Course: Newark 17 Sept; Orlando 6 Nov