tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post8682847606403953724..comments2022-12-27T16:13:27.893-05:00Comments on Theory of Constraints: Kevin Foxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14436190226535806010noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-72053403499138867492010-04-24T15:03:34.295-04:002010-04-24T15:03:34.295-04:00Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for yo...Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-62042440420659308612008-01-31T09:50:00.000-05:002008-01-31T09:50:00.000-05:00I don't think agree with blaming multitasking for ...I don't think agree with blaming multitasking for everything. I don't its bad in all cases, it might be in many cases. I have done some scenarios based on my limited experience, in some cases its bad, in others its not.<BR/><BR/>Take for example a person who as 3 projects at hand, but all projects are divided into multiple parts. And after completion of each part he/she needs to contact someone and get more information. This is the wait time when the person it waiting to get response from another. Now, I firmly believe this is how Multitasking came into work culture. This wait time is a lost time, the person can either sit and wait OR he can do something useful. And I think this is the right thing to do.<BR/><BR/>However, I do agree that shifting priorities and frequently jumping from one task to another is a problem. <BR/><BR/>I have been in both these scenarios and I have really found I am both a good multi tasker as well as a bad one. I am good when I work on logical parts of multiple projects, while I am bad when I am just jumping around priorities. <BR/><BR/>The key take away from my note would be, "The logical piece of work". The projects can be divided into logical parts. These parts are divided in a way that switching from one to another either depends on a separate task or requires rethinking (similar to retooling). This way some of the loss because of multitasking gets offset with the obvious loss while rethinking. And the benefit of not having to wait will more than offset the rest of the losses. <BR/><BR/>AashishAashish Singhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14256803524340352962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-35744705349479193192007-10-02T10:29:00.000-04:002007-10-02T10:29:00.000-04:00We live in a culture that glorifies multi-tasking....We live in a culture that glorifies multi-tasking. It is common to see job postings that include, "must be able to multi-task," as if that were in the same league as "self-starter, organized, and disciplined."<BR/><BR/>Many of us have the perception that the person who is always busy and has a cluttered desk must be the most productive. However, we seem to have a bit of schizophrenia over this point! We also somehow feel that the person with a clear desk must be the most intelligent, especially if they have managed to delegate everything. Sometimes either or both are true! Yet many other times both perceptions are flat wrong! How can this be? <BR/> <BR/>I remember a few years back, that Company "C" hired "efficiency experts" to straighten out individual offices. From a distance it was comical to watch. The efficiency expert would camp out for one week at a manager's or director's office. As each day went by, we saw large trash bags of shredded or waste paper accumulate outside this person's door. When the efficiency expert was done, the person's office had had an extreme makeover. The desktop was clear and everything was filed and organized - for a couple of days that is! A couple of weeks after the efficiency expert left - and several crises later - the office was back to its usual clutter. <BR/> <BR/>In another experience a few years ago, at Company "B," we found another interesting phenomenon. We knew that everyone was busy, but some people seemed to be more effective than others. As a way to gauge what was going on, the Directors at the plant asked me to create a huge matrix. Each column header listed a project and each row header listed a person. We asked each person to report in on what was on their plate. We then constructed the huge matrix. What we found was astounding - everyone was working on multiple projects - everyone that is, except for one notable person. A particular R&D manager was the only person in the plant that had only 1 project. Was she perceived as lazy, or someone who could be replaced? Quite the contrary! She was consistently held up by management as an example of the project leader that always got her projects done on time and within budget! Of course, in doing her projects, she kept a lot of other people busy supporting her efforts. However, she consistently won the recognition of the management. Few people took the time to notice that she was the only one carrying a single project (and not a major one at that). However, her project always came in on time, so she was awarded the plum projects. <BR/> <BR/>So, what gives? Which one is correct? The multi-tasker with the messy desk? The efficient delegator with the clean desk? Or is it the person with only one project? In fact, the answer may be "non of the above." See, it depends more on WHAT they were working on rather than HOW they were doing it. The principles of LEAN teach us to eliminate waste and clutter. However, TOC teaches us that working on the constraint and on the critical path is the most important thing, while being efficient at a non-constraint is a mirage.<BR/><BR/>Let's first examine the successful person with the messy desk. One reason their desk is messy is that they focus like a laser on the critical path and set everything else aside. So the non-critical items remain in clear view - but they are set aside. That person is successful, not because of their clutter, but because of their ability to focus and to tune out the less important items. However, when the critical path truly shifts, they can quickly change gears. <BR/><BR/>Next, let's look at the unsuccessful person with the messy desk. This person is just a cog in the system. They readily drop one thing for another, and their interruptions are getting interrupted! They lose all focus and simply allow clutter to overtake them. They just stew in their mess and the days turn into weeks, weeks into months, and they never really accomplish anything. However because of their cluttered desk, it is easy to assume they must be doing something of value to the company!<BR/><BR/>Now, let's look at the successful person with the clean desk. They have a system, it is a simple system , and things are quickly sorted - Trash, Read/Refer, Act, or File (TRAF). Yes, they have learned the lessons of lean, and have applied them. This is a good thing! However, a more important factor in their success is that they are working on what is most important to the company and to the system. They focus like a laser and every other distraction is kept out of sight and out of mind until the priority is completed. Because they have a simple system, it is easy for them to shift gears - whey priorities truly shift. <BR/><BR/>Next, let's look at the unsuccessful person with the clean desk (this is the "golden brick" because if they are let go, no one will notice). They are lean, clean, and organized. However, they are working on trivial matters that do not contribute to the bottom line. Worst of all, they become a constraint for others, since their perfect system takes priority over everything else they are asked to do. I remember a lady at Company "N" that had her personal fiefdom of training. No document would ever be released until she had the training records presented to her in good order. It did not matter if the line was down! It did not matter if the company was losing money! "No tee-kee no washee" - if you did not have your training records, the documents were not released. PERIOD. However, she was soon replaced (she resigned) but no one seemed to notice or miss her. The problem is that she created a constraint and a local optimum. She arbitrarily caused all other priorities to be subservient to her training fiefdom.<BR/> <BR/>In Star Wars, Episode I, there is a scene in the Senate of the Republic, where Senator Palpatine comments, "Enter the bureaucrat." At that point, all principles and priorities are set aside for the sake of bureaucratic expediency. Meanwhile, peaceful Naboo is being ravaged by the Trade Federation…. We all see this scene in our work - "enter the bureaucrat" and everything comes to a halt!<BR/><BR/>In our consulting practice, we are often tempted to split up an assignment - "you work on this and I'll work on that." We find that, even in our small organization, multitasking creates problems. You see, it is very difficult in today's interconnected environment, to work on something without interrupting others. We reward people for getting tasks done on time. Yet, if they accomplished a non-critical task on time and, in doing so, interrupted others, we actually contributed to a delay in the overall project! <BR/><BR/>This is the reason why so many companies create "war rooms." They lasso everyone into a conference room and nobody leaves until the task at hand is accomplished. Yes, some people are idle, but they are there the second their contribution is required. Hence, no lost time. People are not interrupting each other, because, there is only one priority and task at hand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-6673794741823457822007-08-21T10:27:00.000-04:002007-08-21T10:27:00.000-04:00I think the question regarding multitasking is mor...I think the question regarding multitasking is more complex. For some tasks it just might be the right way to tackle them. I've outlined this on my blog, if you're interested, <A HREF="http://fabianstelzer.com/is-multitasking-bad-it-depends-on-the-task/" REL="nofollow">give it a read!</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-67576217814133189782007-08-08T04:59:00.000-04:002007-08-08T04:59:00.000-04:00What about google, guys? Maybe sometimes there's g...What about google, guys? Maybe sometimes there's good point in multi-tasking, namely, if you give company gives a person freedom to spend a day or half on own projects. Works well so far.Nikolaj M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06584787489425444077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-50560451765476619492007-08-07T18:19:00.000-04:002007-08-07T18:19:00.000-04:00Winterstream - as soon as you start equating your ...Winterstream - as soon as you start equating your 'resources' to only include 'your time' then you are boxing yourself into a job that is easily outsourced. Probably to a robot. As a 'team member' you need to bring your skill, experience, passion and yes, some of your soul to the task at hand. <BR/><BR/>As a PM, When I speak of 'resources' I'm looking for particular skill sets, experience levels and motivations. For planning purposes PMs need to level-set resources amongst tasks in a project plan. Resources have differing schedules as well as differing costs. I believe that skilled PM's can shift focus between the person and the resource that person represents when necessary. Part of the art of project management is knowing when and how to switch the focus.tri.bassetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11015155941495448201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-72237815718511060812007-08-07T16:07:00.000-04:002007-08-07T16:07:00.000-04:00Guys-Thanks for all the great comments. This is ex...Guys-<BR/><BR/>Thanks for all the great comments. This is exactly what I hoped for in starting this blog, and it makes for some really good dialogue and insight. <BR/><BR/>Spock- You make a very good point about utilization considerations driving multi-tasking, I agree fully. Trying to keep people busy causes more projects to be pushed into pipelines, which virtually 'ensures' more multi-tasking will occur. It's a vicious cycle. <BR/><BR/>Thanks also for the suggestion about discussing buffering in project plans. I think this is a great topic, look for something on it here soon. <BR/><BR/>Yavor- Great points about instances where multi-tasking is NOT counter-productive. I agree totally that some tasks require ‘incubation’ time, and that it is useful to have something else to do for a while during these periods. You make a great distinction too is saying that you need to be able to decide when to set something aside for a while, rather than ‘getting interrupted.’ Unfortunately most of the multi-tasking that goes on is not these healthy ‘incubation’ periods. <BR/><BR/>It also highlights another important point: that not all multi-tasking is bad, which is why we say “’bad’ multi-tasking” is the problem, not all multi-tasking. Similarly the solution does not require the total elimination of it, just a significant reduction to it. I think your comments highlight the boundary lines well, it is okay when one cannot go any further on a task at the moment, otherwise it just delays project completions. Nice points, thanks for sharing them,<BR/><BR/>And thanks to all for commenting, I really enjoy this kind of exchange.<BR/><BR/>KevinKevin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14436190226535806010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-32459012627209235612007-08-07T07:00:00.000-04:002007-08-07T07:00:00.000-04:00You forget one very important thing: human's mind ...You forget one very important thing: human's mind is not a machine. It works a bit stranger, it does multitasking any time. Let me explain:<BR/><BR/>When I work on something difficult (like writing a program, not sorting paper) there are 2 things that make me stop after a while. <BR/><BR/>- One is when I reach a problem that I need to "sleep on" for best solution. Then I stop and get some rest - 10 minutes, 10 hours, few days... it depends on the problem. During this time my mind works on the problem "behind the scenes", on some subconscious way. Then I get the problem solved, like “suddenly”, when I see something, or hear, or think of something. But it is not suddenly, it is a result of long tickling of my mind with the problem. During that time I can just sit still or I can switch to another task - does not matter, the problem is given to my mind.<BR/><BR/>- Two, I am most productive when I _start_ something. When I work long and hard on a problem, day after day, hour after hour, I get less productive. You may say I get “bored”. If I have 2 or more tasks, I can switch between them to lend some variety to me, to kick my enthusiasm. Shame on me, but I need that. <BR/><BR/>The problem is that I have to be the one to do the switches. I have to be able to switch form one task to another when the former needs some thinking. I have to be the one to spread the tasks during the day. This puts lots of responsibility to me as a “resource”.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-90049874207961421342007-08-06T23:22:00.000-04:002007-08-06T23:22:00.000-04:00There is one more reason why people are forced to ...There is one more reason why people are forced to multitask. If a person is working on a task and that task is depending on something else for completion, we force the person on that task to work on something else so that we utilize 100% of the time. I have seen this in quite a few projects.<BR/><BR/>Btw this article seems to be a good summary of the book 'Critical Chain'. I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit on applying buffers specifically to IT projects to manage risks.<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work on the blog.Kaushikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01004068795704658410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-5537631633118612092007-08-06T22:44:00.000-04:002007-08-06T22:44:00.000-04:00YES - TOC rocks!!YES - Multitasking is a timewaste...YES - TOC rocks!!<BR/><BR/>YES - Multitasking is a timewaster! And the diagram doesn't show time waste while switching!!<BR/><BR/>YES - <I>loads</I> of PM-types call us resources! ... but NO - we're not minerals!!<BR/><BR/>Nice to have more TOC material. Keep up the good work Tom!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-91745409810979821972007-08-06T19:58:00.000-04:002007-08-06T19:58:00.000-04:00to kevin:thanks for starting this blog. i am a fan...to kevin:<BR/>thanks for starting this blog. i am a fan of TOC. i think winterstream offered very important feedback and his comments deserve lots of exploration. Mr. Anon may have been looking in the mirror when he made his comment.<BR/>tomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-37739128683447153542007-08-06T16:30:00.000-04:002007-08-06T16:30:00.000-04:00Anonymous- No I didn't intend it at all as a joke....Anonymous- No I didn't intend it at all as a joke. If you have some insight I have missed please share it so we can have a dialogue on it, I am always looking to improve on my knowledge. <BR/><BR/>KevinKevin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14436190226535806010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-59697055214262414542007-08-06T16:21:00.000-04:002007-08-06T16:21:00.000-04:00Winterstream- I am sorry that you took offense at ...Winterstream- I am sorry that you took offense at my inclusion of people in the term resources. I certainly did not mean to de-humanize people nor to offend anyone in the process. Perhaps it is a poor choice of words, or unwise to include people in the same category as other types of resources. I only thought I was using a simple term that would cover the full spectrum of resource types (equipment, people's time, money, etc.) that are needed to deliver projects in different environments. As this term is commonly used in my experience to indicate any of these, and is used commonly in every company to describe a key department (Human Resources) I didn't have any concept of this being offensive. I am sorry I will try to be more precise in the future as I have no intent to create offense through this blog. <BR/><BR/>KevinKevin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14436190226535806010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-36166168221072088262007-08-06T15:29:00.000-04:002007-08-06T15:29:00.000-04:00Is this a joke?Is this a joke?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-20920676946922856622007-08-06T11:14:00.000-04:002007-08-06T11:14:00.000-04:00"the resources who do the work on a project have t..."the resources who do the work on a project have to serve multiple, different project managers" - are you calling <I>people</I> "resources"?<BR/><BR/>A person's <I>time</I> is a resource; <I>not</I> the person. A company is renting my <I>time</I> and not my soul.<BR/><BR/>Never shorten "person's time" to "person" when talking about a resource.<BR/><BR/>This is another reason for project failure. Once you start talking about a person as a resource, you start seeing people as having equal abilities. 1 person = 1 resource. Then you start thinking things such as "I'm going to need 3 resources on this project".<BR/><BR/>Someone once told me that this way of talking is "just an approximation". I contend that it is a useless approximation and one which loses you goodwill (and that is damaging).<BR/><BR/>I worked at a Fortune 500 company and <I>everyone</I> who worked with me deeply resented being referred to as "resources" and thought of project managers who did so as being ignorant and arrogant.Winterstreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04982097826539673880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738285107684892271.post-11499513060990070902007-08-05T09:48:00.000-04:002007-08-05T09:48:00.000-04:00It's always good to see the profile of this perenn...It's always good to see the profile of this perennial problem raised again. It was a hot topic in the world of agile software development last year - see <A HREF="http://silkandspinach.net/tag/multitasking/" REL="nofollow">my summaries</A> for example.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com