Our results typically hit the bottom line quickly, directly and substantially, with the minimum amount of time and effort possible. It is not unusual for a Theory of Constraints project to pay for itself many times over during the life of the project … not with spurious "cost savings" but with more money made, cash in the bank.

Our approach generates highly customized implementations. We don’t have a "follow the checklist, it worked for someone else so it will work for you" mentality.

Our approach is one that gains enthusiastic buy-in from virtually everyone in the organization, every level, every function. In a recent implementation, the GM who initially contracted our services left to join a different company. (Incidentally, he successfully implemented TOC without our involvement. We think this speaks volumes for the depth of understanding we generate via our education.) Senior and middle managers took the owner aside to say, "If you don’t continue the TOC project he started … we’re out of here." That’s the type of commitment we typically generate.

We gain that depth of commitment partly because what we advocate makes sense to everyone from the CEO to an engineer to a project manager to a machine operator. Theory of Constraints is simply common sense ... when you know it. But mainly we get that level of commitment because we don’t tell people what to do … we teach them what they need to know in order to work out for themselves (with our very careful guidance, of course) ... exactly what to do. We then help them, as much or as little as they need, to accomplish what they are trying to accomplish. We use our experience to help them do it as quickly and smoothly as possible. It is their system, from the beginning. Managers who have used us and also used the high-profile traditional consulting companies provide some interesting insights.

We will personally work at whatever level it takes to produce results. Is high level Theory of Constraints and Synchronous Manufacturing education all you need? Fine. High-level involvement in the system design and also in the implementation planning and implementation itself? Fine. But many companies are so lean at a management level they also choose to use us as "resources" to do necessary things their own people don’t have time to do. That’s fine, too, provided we do it in a way that does not take away ownership of the system from the users. We’ll roll our sleeves up and develop a shop scheduling system. Or help a worker on a capacity-constrained work centre find a way to do his/her job better, or help a team systematically approach a set-up reduction project, just as readily as we’ll help top management set a new direction for the company. Our clients will tell you that when we return, even years after implementation, we’re as welcome on the shop floor as we are in the front office.

In Synchronix, the gray-hairs actually do the education and consulting, we don’t just sell you on the project so some fresh-faced kids straight from college can come in and try to deliver. We average 35 years of experience in business and consulting, and we make that experience count.