Peter H. Jones wrote:
> I was wondering what people following this thread think about the Eli
> Goldratt / "Theory of Constraints" (TOC) approach to this question? My
> understanding from reading "The Goal" and "It's Not Luck" - is that the
> TOC approach proposes that the goal (in business) is to make money. And
> this is done by simultaneously taking actions that maximise throughput to
> customers (Sales in effect), whilst keeping inventory (future sales), and
> expenses, to a minimum. In this model humans (people) are viewed as an
> expense - i.e. an unavoidable, but critical, part of the cost of
> converting inventory into throughput.*
...snip...
> I imagine that some people will object strongly to being perceived as an
> expense, rather than an asset, or a resource, but it doesn't necessarily
> follow that people are not highly valued in this model. And in many ways
> this is an accurate reflection of the current reality, whether we like it
> or not.
Stimulating post. This concept may possess utility but it is, IMHO,
absurd. It objectifies people acting as if they are the actors (worse
robots) in some play which is directed by some unseen 'director'. Isn't
that director likely deserving of the term 'people' as well? I guarantee
you the rational ideas about value to the process start to fall apart when
you analyze the role of those people who are at the top. CEOs and their
colleagues almost always claim something unmeasurable in what they bring
to a company. (I don't care what kind of leadership metric is dreamed up.)
Divisions and categories (as Ken Wilber imparts in his books) are useful
in that they offer some control through counting, categorizing, or
formulating. But the divisions or boundaries may in the final analysis be
both arbitrary and illusory. Are humans resources? Yes and no depending
upon your POV, the context, etc. In the short-term a decision to see them
as such, to formulate their role in the cost of keeping the system
running, may seem to allow someone to control that environment. If it
works, use it.
That does not mean a) that such a view was in fact the TRUE cause of that
success OR b) that such a view won't lead to eventual system failure
through neglect of the individual's spirit and mind. Kim and Mauborgne's
idea of voluntary cooperation suggests some mainstream movement in this
direction (HBR, July-August, 1997).
--T.J. Elliott Cavanaugh Leahy http://idt.net/~tjell 914 366-7499
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>