Standing On The Shoulders of Giants

This week I am at the yearly TOC ICO in Chicago, understanding the latest development in Theory of Constraints and meeting good friends and colleagues. It will be the first conference without Eli Goldratt, and the conference theme has been based on one of Eli's last ideas, which is based on the famous Newton quote:  "If I haven been further it has been because I have been standing on the Shoulders of Giants".   

Last year, Eli G developed a process to help TOC practitioners to improve the current body of knowledge.    The basic (summarized) version is the following:

1.  Identify a Giant, or a current solution that you want to expand on
2.  Identify the Area Not Addressed by The Giant, or the new area you want to expand the solution into
3. Get on the Shoulders, using previous effective concepts that have worked well in the past
4.  Identify the Conceptual Difference, or have the courage to identify "inconsistencies" between expected results and current results in the new area that you want to expand the solution into
5.  Identify the wrong assumption, or check which of the current assumptions that the solutions uses is not valid in the new area of application
6.   Conduct the full analysis, or do your due diligence

Although the process is a little difficult to grasp at first, the basic idea is that when you are trying to improve a particular solutions for a problem, try to find the instances where it is not working (untouched area), find why it is not working (wrong assumption) and expand the solution, using previous knowledge.

Improving and finding better solutions is not easy, but as Eli Goldratt used to say:

Do you want an easy life or a meaningful life?

The Power of Reflection

Reflection after the fact is not a popular practice among western management.   True, meetings to analyze results are held, but are root causes identified?  Or is it an exercise in finding the best excuse possible to explain results we don't understand?

Management gurus have implicitedly suggested reflection in their general approaches to continuous improvement.   Some examples could be (in bold the reflection part of the process):

• Deming, with the Plan-Do-Check-Act 
• John Boyd, with OODA, Observe, Orient, Design, Act
• Eli Goldratt, with the Five Focusing Steps, warning of inertia in Step 5.

Matt May recently described the reflection process that the former and very successful NY chief of police William Bratton used to apply with his team.  Initially developed by the US Army, the method is called an After Action Review (AAR), and some of the main principles are the following:

• It is mandatory and held after a key milestone, to check the effectiveness of a strategy, tactic or action
• It reviews both expected and unexpected effects that were observed in reality, regardless of if they were positive or negative in nature
• Three basic questions are asked to understand the results:  what was supposed to happen, what actually happened, how do we account for the differences.

The analysis of expectations versus results is ingrained in the Toyota Culture, as part of the kata that everyone must follow.   The late Eli Goldratt also placed great emphasis to understand the cause and effect of environments, and particulary when surprises, or gaps between expectations and results happened.   He used to tell the story of a fashion clothing manufacturer that sold all the collection they had launched early in the season.   Management was very excited as this had been a great success.   But then Eli reminded them that what it meant was they had run out of stock, and were unable to replenish as quickly as possible, and if this could have been done, sales would have been significantly larger.   This insight caused the management to reflect about these kinds of situations, and redefine their criterias of success.

So, do you reflect on what your actions and the gap between expectations and reality?  If so, what can you improve?

Math52, a Kickstarter Project for Learning Math

Who said math should always be a boring subject?  Enter Math 52, a project currently being funded in Kickstarter:

From Math's 52's pitch in Kickstarter:

"According to a Raytheon study, 61% of middle school students would rather take out the garbage than do their math homework, and teacher job satisfaction is at its lowest point in over twenty years. Students and teachers are hungry for something new...but not everyone knows what that looks like."

Math52 intention is to teach Math through weekly videos, using concepts that are easy to relate to:

• How far would you have to run to burn off a Big Mac?
• Do people with small feet pay too much for shoes?
• Is it ever a good idea to buy AppleCare...
• ...and what can this tell us about health insurance?

Although the platform used for teaching isn't very different than the other multiple online education alternatives, what's interesting is their way of approaching subjects, which on first hand seems to have behavioral economics related subjects and use a style similar to Steve Levitt and Stephen Dubner, the authors of Freakonomics.

Do you have an idea you could launch using Kickstarter?  What are you waiting for?