Has anyone read The Goal by Goldratt?

[Joel-Henry]

Maybe because my mother tongue is French and my English mainly learnt in business books... My purpose in answering to the first posts was to give free information as almost TOC experts do. We want to spread widely our body of knowledge. That's all.

 

[VinnyMac]

I haven't read it. I mentioned it to one of my old professors. Ironically, she's actually added it to the syllabus this year.

 

[CunningSmeagol]



I haven't read it. I mentioned it to one of my old professors. Ironically, she's actually added it to the syllabus this year.

A lot of people will say it's stupid, but I found it totally fascinating.

 

[VinnyMac]

A lot of people will say it's stupid, but I found it totally fascinating.

Her description seemed interesting. Maybe I'll pick it up....never hurts to read a book.

 

[Upward]

I have. It's pretty much a required book to read for accounting majors. Only thing I didn't like about it is the love story part that was sort of thrown in the middle. There's a sequel to the book called "It's Not Luck".

I liked the first book, did not know about the sequel.

 

[doopdoop]

i thought everything in the book was completely obvious and could have been summed up in in one sheet of A4 paper w/ 10pt. type.

 

[Joel-Henry]

@upward
Eliyahu Goldratt (1947-2011) wrote a dozen of books (novels mainly) after The Goal. You can find them on Amazon by typing his name. The main ones are "It's Not Luck" - a sequel to the Goal dealing with Thinking Processes -, "Critical Chain" about Project Management, "Necessary But Not Sufficient" about Marketing and Sales, "The Choice" about Goldratt's personal philosophy, and "Isn't It Obvious" about Retail. You will find also more than 200 hundred others books and ebooks written by dozens of authors by typing "Theory of Constraints".

@doopdoop
Eliyahu Goldratt did not need a A4 to summarize its management and philosophy approach. He needed only one word : "Focus". When he needed to explain to others the Theory of Constraints findings, he needed only four full days.
He wrote The Goal to show how simple is reality when true common sense is applied to look at it. To do it, he used the socratic approach, and that's why readers often feel everything simple and obvious and finally miss the point.
More than 5 millions people have read The Goal since 1983. This book has changed the life of only 1 reader out of one thousand, i.e. around 5 000 people in the world. Why : because common sense is not so common.

 

[Douglas]

Not sure how I missed this thread, but then again I don't monitor this subforum often.

I've read it. It's a fantastic book and excellent training aid. The concepts sound simple but often the best concepts are simple-sounding. To the contrary of some posts on here, the book is still extremely relevant. I think it's harder to understand for people who haven't lived in a manufacturing environment, particularly in an old-school manufacturing environment with lots of discipline and rigorous cost measurement, because they haven't experienced just how relevant it is. Concepts in the book are closely tied to the Toyota Production System, Lean, Lean Six Sigma, etc.

I am in the middle of a full on Lean implementation at my place of business and it is the first book I recommend to anyone interested in Lean concepts.

 

[Piobaire]



He wrote The Goal to show how simple is reality when true common sense is applied to look at it. To do it, he used the socratic approach, and that's why readers often feel everything simple and obvious and finally miss the point.
More than 5 millions people have read The Goal since 1983. This book has changed the life of only 1 reader out of one thousand, i.e. around 5 000 people in the world.  Why : because common sense is not so common. 

The Goal employs Socratic method? I would say it was didactic.

 

[Joel-Henry]

@Piobaire
Goldratt refers himself to the Socratic way in his book introduction : ..."I have also attempted to show in the book the meaning of education. I sincerely believe that the only way we can learn is through our deductive process. Presenting us with final conclusions is not a way that we learn. At best it is the way that we are trained. That's why I tried to deliver the message contained in the book in the Socratic way. Jonah, in spite of his knowledge of the solutions, provoked Alex to derive them by supplying the question marks instead of the exclamation marks. I believe that because of this method, you the reader will deduce the answers well before Alex Rogo succeeds in doing so. If you find the book entertaining maybe you will agree with me that this is the way to educate, this is the way we should attempt to write our textbooks. Our textbooks should not present us with a series of end results but rather a plot that enables the reader to go through the deduction process himself. If I succeed by this book to change somewhat your perception of science and education, this is my true reward."

 

[Piobaire]

That's funny as I also think the major reasoning used is induction not deduction. The reader is given particular examples and from there the author draws general conclusions.

 

[Joel-Henry]

Have really read the book ? If so, you should reconsider your last statement. Goldratt was a scientist (a physicist) and a philosopher (with a PhD from University of Bar-Ilan -Tel Aviv).

Just re-read the Introduction of the Goal in full. The first sentence is : "The Goal is about science and education. I believe that these two words have been abused to the extent that their original meanings have been lost in a fog of too much respect and mystery." And further :"This book is an attempt to show that we can postulate a very small number of assumptions and utilize them to explain a very large spectrum of industrial phenomena." (using therefore deduction and not induction).

Socratic method has nothing to do with induction : it is just a way to help the learner to learn by himself through questions enabling him to find himself the answers. The author does not draw any general conclusions from it as he knows already the answers (found by scientific reasoning based on logic) and avoids carefully to "teach" them to the reader who has to find them. This way to educate is the key to full understanding : its name is Maieutics or Socratic method.

 

[carlos20co]

I read the book a few years ago when I was in school and I think it should be a required read for management students, too bad none of my teachers in school included it in their syllabus

 

[Piobaire]



Have really read the book ? If so, you should reconsider your last statement. Goldratt was a scientist (a physicist) and a philosopher  (with a PhD from University of Bar-Ilan -Tel Aviv). 
 
Just re-read the Introduction of the Goal in full. The first sentence is : "The Goal is about science and education. I believe that these two words have been abused to the extent that their original meanings have been lost in a fog of too much respect and mystery." And further :"This book is an attempt to show that we can postulate a very small number of assumptions and utilize them to explain a very large spectrum of industrial phenomena." (using therefore deduction and not induction).
 
Socratic method has nothing to do with induction : it is just a way to help the learner to learn by himself through questions enabling him to find himself the answers. The author does not draw any general conclusions from it as he knows already the answers (found by scientific reasoning based on logic) and avoids carefully to "teach" them to the reader who has to find them. This way to educate is the key to full understanding : its name is Maieutics or Socratic method. 

Deduction: from general to specific.

Induction: from specific to general.

Could be I'm looking at this all wrong but when a fat kid is holding up the line, and from the specific example he comes up with the theory of systemic bottlenecks, it sure smacks me of induction.

 

[CunningSmeagol]

The fat kid has a name and it is Herbie.