If expectations are not being met, they may need to be reset. In that case, the implementation
should be re-evaluated. It is important to fix problems early on. It is also important not to pretend that things are fine when they aren’t.
The line from Validation to Urgency indicates the ongoing need to understand and analyze the level of urgency. If people say that one thing is important (for example, cycle times) but behave as if another is important (for example, costs), we may need to rethink the implementation. If the implementation produces value and apparently reduces the level of urgency, we may need to bolster the urgency with some additional actions, at least until the new processes are well established.
Many other cross-connections that are not represented in the diagram can occur during the CORE cycle. For example, expectations may need periodic adjustments based on the results of planning and implementation.
As the cycle continues, expectations continue to be set and reset and commitment, value, and validation are built. All the elements may occur in parallel. Implementing and measuring, for example, do not normally stop as we communicate and replan. Some steps, such as replanning, can be skipped if they are not needed.
I hope this overview over the CORE solution has intrigued you – and inspired you to test this method in your next change initiative. I would love to hear about your experiences with CORE. Please post them here so that the readers of this blog can learn from you.
In my next blog I will outline how you can use CORE in implementation planning.
CORE: developed by ProChain Solutions
This Article is based on Rob Newbold, Making Change Stick, from the book Cox III, James F.,
and Schleier Jr., John G.,eds. Theory of constraints handbook. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., 2010. p. 108-112