The concept of a “key one-time problem”
A small tree stump overturns a big cart
Earlier, I pointed out that only by finding the key one-time problem of low productivity of intellectual work, we will be able to develop an effective way to overcome it.
But What is the key one-time problem? Why do you need to look for it?
Answer: in order to overcome it (eliminate, liquidate, neutralize, bypass, etc.) and thereby overcome 70% of other problems – undesirable consequences (UN)[1] generated by it.
The key one-time problem (hereinafter referred to as the KRP), according to Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints of Systems[2]is one single true reason (IP)[3] or, what happens more often, a set of several true causes (IP) generalized over a single object[4]responsible for 70 percent or more of undesirable consequences (UN) in a system or organization.
That is, at a specific point in time, just one single key one-time problem causes (generates) several – more than 70% of the remaining problems in the system or organization.
The presented definition contains an incomprehensible phrase: “a set of several true causes (IP) generalized over a single object.” What does it mean?
I'll explain with an example.
When I was looking for a key one-time problem (KRP), which gives rise to such a self-perpetuating problem (SRP) as “Low productivity of intellectual work” (Low PIT). I built a current reality tree (CTR) based on this SVP.
During the construction of the DTR, I came across many true causes (TPs), which in one way or another related to the same object. The real reasons were the following:
The expected target results (goals) that must be achieved by completing tasks by the given deadlines are not set.
It is very labor-intensive to analyze and decompose tasks by an employee together with management.
Lack of task management training.
Planning of an organization's expenses is carried out in isolation from the planning of tactical and strategic tasks.
The organization does not have a system for monitoring and rejecting NON-functional tasks, pseudo-tasks.
There is no system for monitoring the actual tasks performed by employees.
Constantly adjusting the incentive system in accordance with the strategic goals and objectives of the organization is a very labor-intensive process.
The organization does not have a mechanism for evaluating proposals for their impact on achieving strategic objectives.
Constant detailing of strategic tasks to the level of specific tasks – which is very labor-intensive.
The actual assignment and distribution of responsibilities for completing tasks among employees is not specified.
The need to comply with the principle of unity of command does not allow setting tasks bypassing the employee’s immediate supervisor.
Lack of authority to directly assign tasks to employees from other departments.
Constantly adjusting strategic plans that set objectives is a very labor-intensive process.
Newly emerging circumstances affecting the implementation of strategic tasks are not identified.
There is no system for monitoring the implementation of strategic tasks from the plan.
Tracking the implementation of strategic plans and objectives is a very labor-intensive process.
Planning strategic plans and objectives is a very labor-intensive process.
Managers do not have enough time to digest information about the progress of tasks.
There are no direct operational channels of communication between management and employees regarding the tasks being solved.
The payment system does not encourage employees, including managers, to complete tasks.
Setting standards for performing tasks is very labor-intensive.
It is very labor-intensive to keep track of and control the completion of tasks.
There are a lot of tasks of varying difficulty levels.
The emergence of new obstacles and challenges to respond to changes in the external environment and circumstances.
There is no assessment of employees by personality type using the PAEI code to be taken into account when setting tasks.
It is very difficult to correlate personality type with the type of each task.
It is very labor-intensive to evaluate each task using a PAEI code.
From the above list it is clear that they all relate to such a single object as “TASK”. That is, all of the listed true causes (IP) can be combined into one set for this single object.
And since in the formulations of true reasons (TR) we are talking about a variety of “Tasks”, in fact, about a flow, then the entire set of identified true reasons listed above can be generalized and called in one phrase “The flow of tasks occurring in an organization is NOT CONTROLLED” “(briefly – KRP: “PZ is not controlled”)[5].
In any organization, all specific problems do not exist on their own, separately from each other. They are all connected in one way or another by internal cause-and-effect relationships. To identify these connections, various decompositions are performed.
These decompositions reveal the logic of interaction of specific problems with each other – cause-and-effect relationships between them.
One problem may be the cause of another problem, and that, in turn, of a third and fourth, etc. Some problems generated by other problems are consequences.
Decompositions schematically show all these logical cause-and-effect chains.
At the same time, in a specific logical chain obtained as a result of a separate decomposition, a specific problem may have the status:
or undesirable consequence (NS),
or true cause (IP).
It is impossible to begin to eliminate the undesirable consequence (UN) directly due to the fact that it is a problem – a symptom that is caused by something else, some other reason. NS is only a consequence of something else – a consequence of some true cause (TP) or a combination of several true causes (TP) generalized over some single object.
That is, it turns out that in order to eliminate an undesirable consequence, it is necessary to find one problem through the chain of causes and effects – the true cause or a set of several true causes generalized for some single object that caused it.
That is, we need to find the KRP – a key one-time problem.
However, this should be a one-time problem.[6]. Because this is a problem that is eliminated once and for all by creating or changing any system (or its elements) and which in no way automatically, by itself, will NOT appear (WILL NOT be reproduced) again if we weaken the work of the system created earlier to eliminate this problem, or it will weaken itself, due to the fact that we do not bring this system into conformity with the changed conditions external to it.
From what has been said, as you yourself understand, it follows that the fight against undesirable consequences (UN), that is, symptoms, is useless. It does not in any way affect the solution of problems, since often it is a struggle with something completely different from what is needed. We must look for the true reasons (IP) for their appearance. Namely the key one-time problem (KRP).
Identifying and overcoming one key one-time problem (KOP) not only eliminates all undesirable consequences associated with it, but also prevents their reoccurrence.
Therefore, it is important to trace the entire chain of causes and effects from undesirable consequences to the true reasons for their occurrence. It is necessary to follow a logical path from an undesirable consequence back to the origins – to the true causes of troubles.
Let's summarize.
The key one-time problem (hereinafter referred to as the KRP), according to Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints of Systems, is one single true cause (TP) or, more often, a set of several true causes (TP) generalized over a single object, responsible for 70 or more percent undesirable consequences (UN) in a system or organization. It is impossible to begin to eliminate the undesirable consequence (UN) directly. To eliminate an undesirable consequence, it is necessary to find one problem through the chain of causes and effects – the true cause or a set of several true causes generalized for some single object that caused it. That is, we need to find the KRP – a key one-time problem. However, this should be a one-time problem. Identifying and overcoming one key one-time problem (KOP) not only eliminates all undesirable consequences associated with it, but also prevents their reoccurrence.
The search for a key one-time problem (KPP) is better and easier to conduct using the methodology for constructing a current reality tree (CTR) from Goldratt's Theory of Constraint Systems (hereinafter referred to as TOC) using a tool such as the Flying Logic Pro software product[8].
The specified methodology allows you to logically get to the bottom of the true causes and the key one-time problem (KRP).
The full version of the article is available in my book “Wonderful Problems, or Motaev’s Trump “ACE”!”
With respect to you and your business, Motaev Alexander
You can discuss this and other blog articles in our Telegram channel “Task flow management”.
[1] Read about what an “undesirable consequence” is in the article “The concept of “problem”” in section 2. “The main essence of management is “THE TASK”“
[2] Read the article “Goldratt's Theory of Constraints (TOS)” in section 8. “Well-known techniques, methodologies and theories used in technical education“
[3] Read about what the “true reason” is in the article “The concept of “problem”” in section 2. “The main essence of management is “THE TASK”“
[4] I talked about this in the article “The concept of “problem”” in section 2. “The main essence of management is “THE TASK”“
[5] This is written in more detail in the article “Synthesis of a key one-time problem for PPIT» in this Section 4.
[6] I talked about what a “one-time problem” is in the article “The concept of “problem”” in section 2. “The main essence of management is “THE TASK”“
[7] Read the article “Methodology for constructing a current reality tree (CTR) from CBT” in section 8. “Well-known techniques, methodologies and theories used in technical education“
[8] More details are written about it in the article “Flying Logic Pro® software product” in section 6. “Task Flow Management System (TMP System)“
