I appreciate the ideas you’re sharing here, but I think the way you write this is, honestly, rambling and hard to follow. It feels like a stream of consciousness series of musings rather than a clear and insightful essay, and in particular I 1. found myself skimming a lot and 2. am not sure what you intended to achieve by writing it. What effect did you mean to produce in me? What problem were you solving? The main thing that has changed as a result of my reading this is that I now want to go look up Eli Goldratt on Wikipedia. Which is enough reason for me to have read it… but I feel like you probably wanted more than that.
You’re probably right. Another person told me I could have said the same stuff in half the length.
This article is more on the marketing, not much about the content of the scientific approach.
I did write another article that goes into the content (linked above under the heading Want more details about the scientific approach?). It’s twice as long and it’s tuned for a business audience. I wrote the second article because I presented the first one to TOCICO, the org responsible for improving and spreading TOC, and they asked me to rewrite the article for the TOC audience, in less of a magazine style and more of the style of a scientific paper.
What effect did you mean to produce in me? What problem were you solving?
To want to learn more. Like from the article I wrote for the TOC audience (Eli Goldratt’s followers).
I appreciate the ideas you’re sharing here, but I think the way you write this is, honestly, rambling and hard to follow. It feels like a stream of consciousness series of musings rather than a clear and insightful essay, and in particular I 1. found myself skimming a lot and 2. am not sure what you intended to achieve by writing it. What effect did you mean to produce in me? What problem were you solving? The main thing that has changed as a result of my reading this is that I now want to go look up Eli Goldratt on Wikipedia. Which is enough reason for me to have read it… but I feel like you probably wanted more than that.
You’re probably right. Another person told me I could have said the same stuff in half the length.
This article is more on the marketing, not much about the content of the scientific approach.
I did write another article that goes into the content (linked above under the heading Want more details about the scientific approach?). It’s twice as long and it’s tuned for a business audience. I wrote the second article because I presented the first one to TOCICO, the org responsible for improving and spreading TOC, and they asked me to rewrite the article for the TOC audience, in less of a magazine style and more of the style of a scientific paper.
To want to learn more. Like from the article I wrote for the TOC audience (Eli Goldratt’s followers).
Well, I’m glad to have learned about the Theory of Constraints. Some interesting, potentially very useful concepts in there. So thanks for that.