TOC Thinking Processes Appendices

TOC Thinking Processes
Lisa J. Scheinkopf
Introduction: Anybody Can Be a Jonah!

If I have ever made any valuable discoveries, it has been owing more to patient attention, than to
any other talent. Sir Isaac Newton
The Thinking Processes (TP) are the tools of Jonah, the beloved physicist-mentor of The Goals Alex
Rogo (Goldratt and Cox, 1986). In order to really gain benefit from the use of the Theory of Constraints
(TOC) TP, you need to adapt the mentality and discipline of thinking like Jonah. You dont need to be
born a genius. You dont need to have a PhD. You do need the conviction to think clearly, and to
consider yourself a scientist. According to Dr. Eli Goldratt, no exceptional brain power is needed to
construct a new science or to expand on an existing one. What is needed is just the courage to face
inconsistencies and to avoid running away from them just because that's the way it was always done
(Goldratt and Cox, 1986, Introduction). This leads us to the principle on which all of TOC is basedthe
concept of inherent simplicity. Goldratt discusses this concept in The Choice, explaining that the key for
thinking like a true scientist is the acceptance that any real life situation, no matter how complex it
initially looks, is actually, once understood, embarrassingly simple (Goldratt, 2009, p. 9).
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of
geniusand a lot of courageto move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein
Goldratts description of science and his concept of inherent simplicity are not new. Not surprisingly,
his messages can be traced to one of the most important scientists of all time, Sir Isaac Newton.
Newtons Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy (Newton, 1729) have guided scientists since the early 1700s
to recognize that nature is simple and consonant with itself, and thus few causes are responsible for
many effects rather than the other way around; to avoid attributing more causes to an effect than are
both true and sufficient to explain its existence; and to enthusiastically analyze and learn from (rather
than ignore) the situations in which reality contradicts (or appears to contradict) our understanding of it
(see Appendix A at the end of this chapter).
When it comes to the use of the TP, people generally fall into two categories. The first consists of
the people who make the decision to adapt the mentality of a scientist and the second category consists
of the people who dont. Those in the former category create meaningful improvements. They work
hard at itthey exercise the muscle between their ears rigorouslybut instead of feeling drained, they
are energized not only by the results, but by the expansion they have made to their knowledge and
understanding of the world around them.
What are the TP tools? Why are they so effective in analyzing business and personal problems?
How is the application of logic, language, and structure brought togther for penetrating analysis of
problems and conflicts? How do the TP tools then help in laying out the transition from an undesirable
present to a desirable future? How do they help protect a plan from unanticipitated pitfalls? How do
they link together as an integrated system of logical capabilities for bringing about positive change? I
hope to answer these questions in a way to show that almost anyone willing to do the work can achieve
deep insight and make significant and meaningful improvements to environments both simple and
complex; with step-by-step instructions on how to do it.
I begin with discussion of the tenents in logic and fundamental assumptions in philosophy that
underlie the TOC TP. Then I illustrate how the discipline of diagramming helps in guiding our analysis.
Copyright 2010, Lisa J. Scheinkopf
DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR
56
APPENDIX A: NEWTONS RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY 31

Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to
explain their appearances.
Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of
our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.
Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which
are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the
universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
For since the qualities of bodies are only known to us by experiments, we are to hold for universal all
such as universally agree with experiments; and such as are not liable to diminution can never be quite
taken away. We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and
vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which uses to be
simple, and always consonant to itself.
Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction
from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may
be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more
accurate, or liable to exceptions.
This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
31
Sir Isaac Newtons Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy were published in the third volume of The Mathematical Principals of Natural
Philosophy (often simply called The Principia) in 1729, and then translated into English by Andrew Motte. A digitized version of Mottes
translation can be found at http://www.google.com/books?id=6EqxPav3vIsC.
56
57
APPENDIX B: CATEGORIES OF LEGITIMATE RESERVATION

THE CATEGORIES OF LEGITIMATE RESERVATIONSTHE RULES OF LOGIC 32
Goldratt developed a set of logic rules, called the categories of legitimate reservations (CLR), to
improve communications when using the TP. The purposes of the CLR are to check your logic in
constructing your own diagrams and to check the logic of another persons diagrams. They provide a
precise methodology for pinpointing errors in your or another persons thinking. The CLR relate to
entities or statements in a logic diagram. Three levels of categories of reservations exist. Each level
probes deeper into investigating the logic structure. Many of these concepts are difficult to understand
at first, but with a little practice, they become second nature. We provide the three levels and seven
categories of reservations with examples in Fig. 25-B1. We will revisit these reservations again in this
chapter as we present and illustrate each tool. Read each example provided in Fig. 25-B1.
Level 1 Reservation (Clarity)
Clarity is used to develop a better understanding of an entity (a logical statement), the causality
between two entities, or an area of the diagram. In studying a diagram and encountering any problem,
the clarity reservation is used. It is always the first reservation used. You are asking the presenter to
clarify so you can understand better (the cause entity, the effect entity, the causality connecting the
two, an area of the diagram, and so on). For example, in Fig. 25-C1, the reviewer may not understand an
entity such as 10 or 20, or she may not understand the causal linkage between 20 and 10, or she may
not understand a whole segment of the diagram such as 20, 30, and 10. The reviewer would ask for
clarity. If the presenters explanation is unsatisfactory, then the reviewer should use one of the Level 2
reservations to pinpoint the misunderstanding.
Figure 25-B1 Level 1 Reservation (Clarity)
Level 2 Reservations (Entity Existence and Causality Existence)

The entity existence and causality existence reservations are used to determine if the entity or
statement itself exists or if the causality relationship exists. Examples are provided in Fig. 25-B2.
Entity existence reservation is challenging the existence in reality of either the cause entity or the
effect entity. For example, entity 25 is an incomplete sentence. In that state, it is difficult to determine if
the entity exists at all. In addition, the reviewer could challenge whether an entity exists in the current
environmententity existence reservation for entity 10. The reviewer does not think that entity 10
32
From Cox et al., 2003, pp. 8388. Used with permission.
57
58
Competition is fierce for our product exists. She offers as evidence that our company has higher
quality and lower prices than competitors do.
Figure 25-B2 Entity Existence Reservation
Causality existence reservation is challenging whether causality exists between the two entities. It is
challenging the causal arrowDoes the cause entity really cause the effect entity? The second example
in Fig. 25-B3 provides a situation where the reviewer does not believe that entity 10 Competition is
fierce for our product is the cause of entity 25 Our firm is experiencing low profits.
If the presenters explanation is unsatisfactory in showing the existence, then the reviewer should
use the Level 3 reservations to pinpoint the misunderstanding. At Level 3, the reviewer must be ready to
challenge the logical relationship using a specific reservation.
Figure 25-B3 Causality Existence Reservation
Level 3 Reservations (Additional Cause Reservation, Cause Insufficiency Reservation, House on Fire
Reservation, and Predicted Effect Existence Reservation)
Level 3 challenges should only be used after applying the previous two levels.
The additional cause reservation is used to challenge that the presenter has captured the major

Figure 25-B4 Additional Cause Reservation
58
59
causes of the effect entity. It is begging the question that there is at least another cause that creates at
least as much damage as the current cause entity. A magnitudinal and connector is utilized to satisfy
this reservation. Each cause entity independently contributes to the effect entity. If cause entity then
effect entity. If (additional) cause entity then effect entity. This situation is indicated where two or more
arrows enter an entity and have no and connector. Each cause independently contributes to the
effects existence. In this situation, all causes must be eliminated to eliminate the effect. In Fig. 25-B4,
the reviewer believes that 15 Material costs have doubled in the last quarter has at least as significant
an impact on 25 Our firm is experiencing low profits as does the suggested cause of 10 Competition is
fierce for our product.
By using the cause insufficiency reservation, the listener is indicating that he or she believes that the
current cause entity is insufficient by itself to cause the effect entity. It is begging the question that
something else must also exist in addition to the current cause to create the effect. A conceptual and
connector is usually required to satisfy this reservation. If cause entity and entity (or core driver) then
effect entity. The connector is diagrammed as an ellipsis (sometimes called a banana) or line (which we
use throughout the text) across the arrows. In Fig. 25-B5, the reviewer is challenging that entity 10 We
have not settled on a new union contract could cause 25 Our employee morale is low. She suggests
that a more accurate explanation is: If 15 The current contract expires at the end of the month and 10
We have not settled on a new union contract then 25 Our employee morale is low.
The house on fire reservation (sometimes called the cause-effect reversal) is used to challenge the
thought pattern where the cause and effect seem reversed. This usually occurs where the presenter
confuses why the effect entity exists with how we know that the effect entity exists. For example (see
Fig, 25-B6), if (cause) smoke is billowing from a house then (effect) the house is on fire is not valid logic.
An electrical short circuit may cause the house being on fire. If (cause) the house wiring had an electrical
short circuit then (effect) the house is on fire. The cause of the fire is a short circuit in the electrical
wiring. The original statement is how we know the house is on fire, not the cause of the fire. The smoke
billowing from the house is the result of the house being on fire. We have confused the cause with the
effect. Ask why to determine the cause.
Figure 25-B6 House on Fire Reservation
Figure 25-B5 Cause Insufficiency Reservation
59
60
The predicted effect existence reservation is used to explain why you disagree with the presenters
previous explanation and generally is the last reservation used. In this challenge, you are prepared to
show the presenter that his or her logic is flawed. There are two types of challengesone questioning
the existence of the cause entity and the other questioning the existence of the causality between the
two entities. This challenge is presented by providing a counter example that if the predicted effect is
present, then the cause cannot be present or if the effect is absent, then the cause cannot be present. In
Fig. 25-B7, If 10 Our quality has deteriorated significantly then 25 Our profits have decreased
significantly would be validated by the existence of 35 Our returns and field service expenses have
increased significantly. However, in examining our expenses this effect does not exist. The reviewer
then challenges the existence of entity 10. Suppose the cause entity existswhat other predicted effect
must be present? If that predicted effect is not present, then the cause is not present. Likewise, if the
predicted effect exists it adds validity to entity 10 being the true cause of 25.
The challenge can be based on the existence of the causalitypredicted effect reservation for 10 to
20. In the example in Figure 25-B7, If 10 The packaging line broke down then 20 The AJAX shipment is
late is challenged for causalitywhile the reviewer believes that both 10 and 20 exist, she does not
believe that 10 caused 20. She offers as proof that the packaging line broke down after the AJAX order
was completed; therefore, the line breaking down did not cause the order to be late.
60
61
Figure 25-B7 Predicted Effect Reservations
61
62
APPENDIX C: POOGI IN MAKE-TO-ORDER MANUFACTURERSS&T STEP 4.11.6 33

Table 25-C1: Strategy, Tactic, and Assumptions for Make to Order Manufacturer
Necessary
When the source of disruption to flow affects several work centers,
Assumption
accumulation of WIP cannot be used as an effective guide to the source of
the disruption.
Strategy
Major sources for disruptions to flow are identified and prudently dealt
with.
Parallel
Definitions:
Assumptions
A disruption is a delay in the flow.
Per each work order, delays accumulate.
A non-trivial disruption is defined as one that causes a delay longer than
one-tenth of the R-PLT 34.
A disruption that endangers on-time delivery is a disruption that causes
an order to reach the red zone.
A major source of disruptions is a source that systematically creates
disruptions that endanger on-time delivery.
Most non-trivial disruptions are not, and do not contribute to, disruptions
that endanger on-time delivery.
Tactic
Often, orders reach the red zone because of accumulation of non-trivial

disruptions that occurred while the order was still in the green or yellow
zones.
The cause for each non-trivial disruption (the answer to the question,
"What is the work order waiting for?") is reported and stored in the general
bank of disruptions.
When the color of a work order is red, all corresponding disruptions to that
work order are pulled from the general bank and are placed in the bank of
disruptions that endanger on-time delivery.
Once a period (e.g., weekly), a Pareto analysis on the relevant bank provides
the data needed to pinpoint the major sources of disruptions that endanger
on-time delivery.
Cross-functional improvement teams are guided to take prudent actions to
eliminate the major sources of disruptions that endanger on-time delivery.
33
Used by permission of Goldratt Consulting Ltd.

R-PLT is an acronym for Reliable Production Lead Time. The R-PLT is established at the beginning of the
implementation, in accordance with instructions set in the S&T.
34
62
63
APPENDIX D: POOGI CLOUD TEMPLATE

Constructing the Cloud:
Step 1: Fill in the with the most frequent answer to what is the order waiting for, as provided by
the Pareto analysis.
Step 2: Fill in the with the samethe most frequent answer to what is the order waiting for, as
provided by the Pareto analysis.
Step 3: What is the rule, perceived or actual, that is being honored by D? This might take a bit of
digging, but it is not difficult to learn as long as you are willing to keep an open mind and listen.
(Remember, you are a scientist!)
Ask the supervisors in the operation why the orders did not move. What prevented them from
being able to move the orders? Why did they sit? Make sure you are asking in a way that they
understand you are not looking to point fingers, but rather to uncover the systemic causes that
lead to orders sitting.
Step 4: The C box is always Maximize Flow.
Step 5: In our VV implementations, the A box is (almost) always Become Ever Flourishing, which is
defined as continuously and significantly increasing value for employees, customers, and
shareholders.
Continue using the standard process for refining, surfacing assumptions, and solving the Evaporating
Cloud.
Figure 25-D1 POOGI Cloud Template
63
64
APPENDIX EDETAILED PRT EXAMPLE 35

Injection 1The bank uses moneys from hiring and initial training to raise the pay for entry position pay
levels.
No.
11
Show
Stopper Intermediate Objectives (IOs)
Obstacles
s
Training moneys invested in new
Training moneys saved by retaining new hires and
employees who leave are lost to
the bank.
Blocking Factors
thereby avoiding training more new employees is

available for pay increases
12
Teach the teacher training for best experienced

employee keeps training local and less expensive,
freeing up funds for pay increases.
13
The bank lacks hiring criteria for high-potential, longterm employees likely to be retained in the business.
14
Bank hires excellent long-term employee prospects
Injection 2Personnel develops a competitive pay package for workers.

No.
Obstacles
21
The bank does not know what the

wage rate structure is in their locality
(banks and other industries).
Show Stoppers Intermediate Objectives (IOs)

Contact the local Chamber of
Commerce to get most recent salary
surveys.
22
The bank does not know what other

banks are paying experienced help.
Bank checks with local banking

association to determine pay levels of
experienced help.
23
Management lacks a clear definition

of what competitive means. What
does it take to keep an excellent
employee?
Management reviews above data and

sets pay 10 percent above comparable
work and pay.
24
Management does not have a clear

policy for removing average to
marginal employees.
Management establishes performance

guidelines and measures providing
feedback to employees. Marginal to
average employees are terminated.
Blocking Factors
Injection 3The bank provides workers with advanced training.

No.
Obstacles
31
The bank sends employees

out of town for training.
35
Show
Stoppers
Intermediate Objectives (IOs)
Blocking Factors
Select best employee for advanced teach the teacher

training.
From Cox et al., 2003, pp. 8388. Used with permission by Cox, Schleier, and Blackstone. Cox, Blackstone, and Schleier.
64
65
32
Provide new employee and advanced training locally.
33
Train best employee in basic/advanced training
Injection 4Top management recognizes the difference between causes of turnover and need for
growth.
Show
Stoppers
Blocking
Factors
No.
Obstacles
Intermediate Objectives (IOs)
41
Management does not have a precise

definition of turnover and its categories.
Management defines turnover as the loss of

current employees and categorizes turnover into
causes (retirement, better job in banking, better
job in other industry, family moved, etc.).
42
Management does not have a clear

definition of growth and its relationship
to staffing (protective capacity).
Management clearly defines growth and the

need for protective capacity based on BM.
43
Management does not know exactly

which workers are leaving because the
bank is not competitive pay-wise.
Management determines turnover based on only

categories (better job in banking, better job in
other local industries) to validate the definition
of competitive pay package.
Injection 5The bank conducts exit interviews to determine reasons for turnover.
Show
Stoppers Intermediate Objectives (IOs)
No.
Obstacles
51
The bank has no policies or

procedures related to exit interviews.
The bank develops policies and procedures with

responsibilities for conducting and collecting
employee information including reasons for leaving.
52
The bank has no structured interview

format to determine reasons for
leaving bank employment.
The bank develops a format for collecting and

analyzing turnover reasons.
Blocking
Factors
Injection 6Personnel uses banks best workers to train new workers.

No.
Obstacles
61
Bank selects best candidate as

teacher.
62
Show
Stopper Intermediate Objectives (IOs)
Blocking
Factors
Determine criteria and measurements for best employee.

Establish criteria for selecting employee with communications
skills commensurate with being a good teacher.
65
66
Figure 25-E1 I/O Map for Bank Example
66
67
APPENDIX F: TRT EXAMPLE ON RELIABILITY SELLING

Figure 25-F1 shows the details of a reliability selling TRT, in the format of the PowerPoint presentation
used in a training workshop for a companys sales force.
67
68
68
69
69
70
70
71
71
72
72
73
73
74
APPENDIX G: EXAMPLE OF S&T HIGH TOUCH TIME MAKE-TO-ORDER

MANUFACTURER
Figure 25-G1 contains screenshots of the hierarchy of an S&T used by many Make-To-Order
companies 36.
36
Used with permission of Goldratt Consulting Ltd.
74
75
75
76
76
77
77
78
78
79
79
80
80
81
REFERENCES
Cox III, J. F., Blackstone Jr., J. H., and Schleier, Jr., J. G. 2003. Managing Operations: A Focus on
Excellence. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.
Goldratt Consulting Ltd. 2009. POOGI for MTO Manufacturers, MTO S&T.
Goldratt, E. M. 1990. What is this thing called theory of constraints and how should it be implemented?
Croton-on-Hudson, NY: North River Press, Inc.
Goldratt, E. M. 1994. Its Not Luck. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.
Goldratt, E. M. 2009. The Choice. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press
Goldratt, E. M. and Cox, J. 1986. The Goal. Rev. ed. Croton-on-Hudson, NY: North River Press.
Goldratt, R. 2001. Transition treeA review, Kfar Saba, Israel.
Grinnell, J. R. 2007. Project Leadership Model. Chapel Hill, NC: Grinnell Leadership & Organizational
Development.
Newton,I. 1729. The Mathematical Principals of Natural Philosophy. Volume II. Translated to English by
Andrew Motte.
Scheinkopf, L. J. 1999. Thinking for a Change: Putting the TOC Thinking Processes to Use. Boca Raton, FL.
St. Lucie Press.
conflict. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conflict (accessed:
December 19, 2009).
situation. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/situation (accessed:
December 18, 2009).
system. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/system (accessed:
December 18, 2009).
81
82
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Lisa Scheinkopf is a Director of Goldratt Consulting, and is recognized worldwide as a leading Theory
of Constraints (TOC) authority. Lisa worked with Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt in developing the TOC Thinking
Processes and is the author of the definitive TOC reference, Thinking for a Change: Putting the TOC
Thinking Processes to Use (St. Lucie Press, 1999). Her articles have been published in a variety of
industry and professional publications, and she has a long history of implementing, teaching, and public
speaking on TOC. With over 25 years management and consulting experience, Lisa is a past Board
Member and Chairperson of TOCICO, and has an MBA in International Management from the
Thunderbird School of Global Management.
82

TOC Thinking Processes Appendices

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

TOC Thinking Processes Appendices

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

TOC Thinking Processes

Introduction: Anybody Can Be a Jonah!

Copyright 2010, Lisa J. Scheinkopf

DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR

APPENDIX A: NEWTONS RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY 31

Copyright 2010, Lisa J. Scheinkopf

DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR

APPENDIX B: CATEGORIES OF LEGITIMATE RESERVATION

Figure 25-B1 Level 1 Reservation (Clarity)

Level 2 Reservations (Entity Existence and Causality Existence)

From Cox et al., 2003, pp. 8388. Used with permission.

Copyright 2010, Lisa J. Scheinkopf

DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR

Figure 25-B2 Entity Existence Reservation

Figure 25-B3 Causality Existence Reservation

Copyright 2010, Lisa J. Scheinkopf

DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR

Figure 25-B6 House on Fire Reservation

Figure 25-B5 Cause Insufficiency Reservation

Copyright 2010, Lisa J. Scheinkopf

DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR

Copyright 2010, Lisa J. Scheinkopf

DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR

Figure 25-B7 Predicted Effect Reservations

Copyright 2010, Lisa J. Scheinkopf

DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR

APPENDIX C: POOGI IN MAKE-TO-ORDER MANUFACTURERSS&T STEP 4.11.6 33

Often, orders reach the red zone because of accumulation of non-trivial

Used by permission of Goldratt Consulting Ltd.

Copyright 2010, Lisa J. Scheinkopf

DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR

APPENDIX D: POOGI CLOUD TEMPLATE

Figure 25-D1 POOGI Cloud Template

Copyright 2010, Lisa J. Scheinkopf

DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR

APPENDIX EDETAILED PRT EXAMPLE 35

thereby avoiding training more new employees is

Teach the teacher training for best experienced

Bank hires excellent long-term employee prospects

Injection 2Personnel develops a competitive pay package for workers.

The bank does not know what the

Show Stoppers Intermediate Objectives (IOs)

The bank does not know what other

Bank checks with local banking

Management lacks a clear definition

Management reviews above data and

Management does not have a clear

Management establishes performance

Injection 3The bank provides workers with advanced training.

The bank sends employees

Intermediate Objectives (IOs)

Select best employee for advanced teach the teacher

Copyright 2010, Lisa J. Scheinkopf

DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR

Provide new employee and advanced training locally.

Train best employee in basic/advanced training

Intermediate Objectives (IOs)

Management does not have a precise

Management defines turnover as the loss of

Management does not have a clear

Management clearly defines growth and the

Management does not know exactly

Management determines turnover based on only

The bank has no policies or