(toc) and appreciative inquiry

315 Pages·2015·3.21 MB·English

by  Garoon Pongsart

i

THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS (TOC)
AND APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY (AI):

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF
THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN IMPROVING
MASTER’S THESIS STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE

By

Garoon Pongsart

A thesis
submitted to Victoria University of Wellington
in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Victoria University of Wellington

2015
Abstract
The foundations of this research derived from two separate directions: firstly methodological,
and secondly, a problematic situation. Both were strongly driven by the “highs” and “lows” of
the researcher’s experiences over several years working in the business sector in Thailand and
overseas, combined with his passion for being part of education reform in Thailand.

Many students fail to complete their studies. Of domestic students starting an Honours/Master’s
qualification at public providers in 1998, by the end of 2002 (5 years later), only 59% had
completed their degrees successfully, 2% were still studying towards completion, while 39%
had left without completing (Scott, 2004). Why was the completion rate so low? What were
the problems that postgraduate students encountered while doing their theses? And how could
we help improve the students’ performance?

This research compared and contrasted the two approaches, Theory of Constraints (TOC) and
Appreciative Inquiry (AI), by applying them to improve this problematic situation area:
Master’s thesis students’ issues. A Hybrid model, combining aspects of the two methods, was
also developed and tested. A web-based survey was used to recruit 12 Victoria University of
Wellington Master’s thesis students for individual interviews, allocating them into three similar
groups of four: TOC, AI, and Hybrid. One interviewee from each group also took part in two
coaching sessions (action research).

The outcomes yielded from the three methods revealed both the root causes of the students’
problems (TOC) and the root causes of their success (AI). Based on the two opposite
approaches, and the hybrid model, the researcher developed and proposed guidelines for future
postgraduate research students, their supervisors, and graduate school committees.

However, some limitations for TOC and AI were revealed: the time-consuming processes for
full TOC analysis, and the fact that some tools were not user-friendly. To enhance AI’s
performance, stress-free environments may be required. More research on applying TOC, AI,
and the Hybrid model to individuals is therefore required in the future.
Page | ii
Acknowledgements

I would like to convey my sincere thanks and gratitude to the Victoria Management School
(now School of Management), VUW professors and staff members, VUW PGSA, VUW SLSS,
all my research participants, Theory of Constraints (TOC) and Appreciative Inquiry (AI)
founders, developers, and academics, my VMS and VUW PhD colleagues and friends, my
research webmaster, and my family members who supported me and helped enhance the
success of my PhD thesis.

I also owe a lot to Professor Rowena Cullen, Professor John Davies, Associate Professor
Deborah Jones, Professor Sally Davenport, Tracey Wharakura, Trinh & Bruce Middleton,
Metha Pongsart, Chatchai Thanasumrith, RERU board members and management, and
Assistant Professor Chaloey Pumipuntu (RERU President).

A million thanks to Robyn Moore, my NZ sister, who devoted her time to help make my voice
clearer throughout the entire thesis.

My thesis would not have been completed without the guidance, kind support, and
understanding from my two PhD thesis supervisors: Professor Victoria J. Mabin (my major
supervisor – “I am here to help”), and Dr. Deborah Laurs (my co-supervisor – “You are my
first priority”). You helped make my dreams of completing the PhD come true. Please accept
my appreciation from the bottom of my heart........ What I owe you all is immeasurable!!!

Page | iii
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... x
TABLE OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background to this study ................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Research questions .......................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Research aims .................................................................................................................................. 6
1.4 Thesis outline ................................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER TWO: THE TWO FOUNDATIONS: A PROBLEMATIC SITUATION AND
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES ............................................................................................ 9
Part I: The Problematic Situation ....................................................................................................... 9
2.1 What is a Master’s thesis? .............................................................................................................. 9
2.2 Why focus on Master’s? ............................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Master’s thesis students’ constraints ........................................................................................... 14
2.4 Part I Summary ............................................................................................................................. 16
Part II: Methodological Approaches ................................................................................................. 16
2.5 Brief history ................................................................................................................................... 16
2.5.1 A brief history of Theory of Constraints (TOC) ...................................................................... 16
2.5.2 Brief history of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) .............................................................................. 17
2.6 Principles: ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Page | iv
2.7 The evolution of TOC Thinking Process (TP) and Tools versus AI 4-D Cycle. ...................... 21
2.7.1 The TOC Thinking Process (TP) ............................................................................................. 21
2.7.2 AI 4-D Cycle ........................................................................................................................... 26
2.8 Comparing similar processes of TOC TPs and AI 4-D Cycle ................................................... 29
2.8.1 A system’s goal/objective ........................................................................................................ 29
2.8.2 A system’s current situation analysis ...................................................................................... 30
2.8.3 A system’s forecasted future reality ........................................................................................ 30
2.8.4 A system’s implementation plan ............................................................................................. 31
2.9 Part II Summary ........................................................................................................................... 31
2.10 Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 33
3.1 Research Philosophy ..................................................................................................................... 33
3.2 Research Approach ....................................................................................................................... 34
3.3 Methodological Choices ................................................................................................................ 35
3.4 Research Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 35
3.4.1 Web-based Survey: .................................................................................................................. 35
3.4.2 Semi-structured Interviews ...................................................................................................... 37
3.4.3 Action Research ....................................................................................................................... 37
3.5 Time Horizon ................................................................................................................................. 38
3.6 Techniques and procedures.......................................................................................................... 38
3.6.1 Quantitative (Web-based Survey) ............................................................................................ 39
3.6.2 Qualitative (Individual interview) ........................................................................................... 39
3.6.3 Hybrid Approach: .................................................................................................................... 42
3.6.4 Qualitative (Action research) ................................................................................................... 44
3.7 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................................ 46
CHAPTER FOUR: “MANAGING THE LOWS”: APPLYING THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS
(TOC) TO MASTER’S THESIS STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE ISSUES (RESEARCH
FINDINGS, AND ANALYSIS) .......................................................................................................... 47
4.1 TOC interviewees: ........................................................................................................................ 47
Page | v
4.2 Applying TOC Thinking Processes (TPs) and tools to the four TOC interviewees ................ 49
4.2.1 What is your goal? ................................................................................................................... 50
4.2.2 What to change? ...................................................................................................................... 54
4.2.3 What to change to? .................................................................................................................. 66
4.2.3.1 Tarn’s Evaporating Cloud/EC: ......................................................................................... 67
4.2.3.2 Tammy’s Evaporating Cloud/EC: .................................................................................... 69
4.2.3.3 Ton’s Evaporating Cloud/EC ........................................................................................... 71
4.2.3.4 Tim’s Evaporating Cloud/EC ........................................................................................... 73
4.2.3.5 Testing the solutions by Negative Branch Reservation (NBR) method ........................... 75
4.2.4 How to cause the change ......................................................................................................... 79
4.2.4.1 The Prerequisite tree (PRT)’s Objective .......................................................................... 80
4.2.4.2 The Prerequisite Tree (PRT)’s Obstacles (Obs) ............................................................... 81
4.2.4.3 The Prerequisite Tree (PRT)’s Intermediate Objective (IO) ............................................ 83
4.3 Coaching session (Action Research) ............................................................................................ 93
4.3.1 TOC coaching session with Tarn ............................................................................................. 94
4.3.1.1: Coaching I (November 2009) .......................................................................................... 94
4.3.1.2 Coaching I Summary ...................................................................................................... 101
4.3.1.3: Coaching II (December 2009) ....................................................................................... 102
4.3.2: Coaching summary ............................................................................................................... 110
4.4 Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 113
CHAPTER FIVE: “MAXIMISING THE HIGHS”: APPLYING APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY
(AI) TO MASTER’S THESIS STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE ISSUES (RESEARCH
FINDINGS, AND ANALYSIS) ........................................................................................................ 115
5.1 Appreciative Inquiry interviewees: ........................................................................................... 115
5.2 Applying Appreciative Inquiry (AI) to the four AI interviewees ........................................... 117
5.2.1 Affirmative Topic: ................................................................................................................. 117
5.2.2 Discovery: identify what gives life, and appreciate the best of what is ................................. 121
5.2.3 Dream: identify what might be, and envision the results the world is calling for ................. 127
5.2.4 Design: what should be the ideal/co-construct the future design .......................................... 131
5.2.5 Destiny: What will be? .......................................................................................................... 134
5.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 139
5.4 AI coaching session (Action research) ....................................................................................... 140
5.4.1 AI coaching sessions with Apinya ......................................................................................... 141
Page | vi
5.4.1.1: Coaching I (November 2009) ........................................................................................ 141
5.4.1.2: Coaching II: December 2009 ........................................................................................ 147
5.5 Chapter summary ....................................................................................................................... 157
CHAPTER SIX: ADDRESSING THE HIGHS AND THE LOWS: APPLYING A HYBRID
MODEL (TOC+AI) TO MASTER’S THESIS STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE ISSUES
(RESEARCH FINDINGS, AND ANALYSIS) ............................................................................... 159
6.1 Hybrid individual interviewees .................................................................................................. 159
6.2 Applying the Hybrid model to the four interviewees (Hybrid analysis) ................................ 161
6.2.1 Hybrid Step I: What is your goal? ......................................................................................... 162
6.2.2 Hybrid Step II: What is your current reality? ........................................................................ 165
6.2.2.1 Current Reality Tree (CRT) ........................................................................................... 165
6.2.2.2 The critical root cause analysis ...................................................................................... 170
6.2.2.3 Using the TOC Evaporating Cloud (EC) to evaporate the conflicts. ............................. 176
6.2.3 Hybrid Step III: What is your affirmative topic? ................................................................... 191
6.2.4 Hybrid Step IV: Discovery: Appreciating what is ................................................................. 192
6.2.5 Hybrid Step V: Dream: What might be? ............................................................................... 197
6.2.6 Hybrid Step VI: Design: ........................................................................................................ 201
6.2.7 Hybrid Step VII: What will be your prerequisite tree and implementation plan? ................. 205
6.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 212
6.5 Coaching session (Action research) ........................................................................................... 212
6.5.1 Coaching session I with Hong (November 2009) .................................................................. 213
6.5.2 Coaching session II with Hong (December 2009) ................................................................. 217
6.7 Chapter summary ....................................................................................................................... 225
CHAPTER SEVEN: ......................................................................................................................... 227
COMPARING THE THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS (TOC), APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY (AI),
AND HYBRID MODEL, ON THEIR EFFECTIVENESS FOR UNDERSTANDING AND
IMPROVING MASTER’S THESIS STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE ....................................... 227
7.1 Comparing the effectiveness of TOC, AI, and Hybrid model in the individual interviews . 227
7.1.1 Research interview questions ................................................................................................ 227
7.1.2 IO Map versus AI affirmative topic and provocative proposition ......................................... 230
7.1.3 Current reality versus past achievements............................................................................... 231
Page | vii
7.1.4 EC and FRT versus Dream and Design ................................................................................. 232
7.1.5 Prerequisite Tree (PRT) and Destiny ..................................................................................... 232
7.1.6 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 233
7.2 Comparing the effectiveness of TOC, AI, and Hybrid model in coaching sessions .............. 234
7.2.1 TOC coaching sessions’ effectiveness ................................................................................... 234
7.2.2 AI coaching sessions’ effectiveness ...................................................................................... 235
7.2.3 Hybrid model coaching sessions’ effectiveness .................................................................... 237
7.2.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 238
7.3 Chapter summary ....................................................................................................................... 239
CHAPTER EIGHT: RESEARCH DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................... 241
Part I: Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 241
8.1 The Approaches: Theory of Constraints (TOC) and Appreciative Inquiry (AI) .................. 241
8.1.1 Theory of Constraints (TOC) and Appreciative Inquiry (AI) at macro and micro levels ..... 241
8.1.2 Theory of Constraints (TOC) and Appreciative Inquiry (AI) in this research versus their other
versions ........................................................................................................................................... 244
8.1.2.1 Theory of Constraints (TOC) and its other versions ...................................................... 244
8.1.2.2 Appreciative Inquiry and its other versions.................................................................... 246
8.2 The individual context: Master’s thesis students and their performance issues ................... 248
8.2.1 Root causes of problems ........................................................................................................ 249
8.2.2 Root causes of success ........................................................................................................... 252
8.3 Matching the lows, the highs, and the methods ........................................................................ 254
8.4 The proposed guidelines to improve Master’s thesis students’ performance ........................ 255
8.4.1 Supporting activities for starting: .......................................................................................... 259
8.4.2 Supporting activities in data collection stage: ....................................................................... 261
8.4.3 Supporting activities in data analysis stage: .......................................................................... 262
8.4.4 Supporting activities in writing-up stage: .............................................................................. 264
8.4.5 The generic Intermediate Objective (IO) Map ...................................................................... 265
Part II: Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 266
8.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 266
8.5.1 Research achievements .......................................................................................................... 266
Page | viii
8.5.1.1 Comparing and contrasting the usefulness (performance) of TOC and AI in improving
Master’s thesis students’ performance ....................................................................................... 267
8.5.1.1.1 TOC Performance in an individual context: Master’s thesis students .................... 267
8.5.1.1.2 AI Performance on an individual context: Master’s thesis students ....................... 268
8.5.1.1.3 Hybrid model performance in an individual context: Master’s thesis students ...... 269
8.5.1.2 Developing guidelines to help enhance Master’s thesis students’ success from TOC,
AI, and Hybrid model ............................................................................................................ 270
8.5.2 Research contribution ............................................................................................................ 270
8.5.3 Further applications ............................................................................................................... 271
8.6 Revisiting the research: .............................................................................................................. 272
8.7 Limitations of this study ............................................................................................................. 274
8.8 Future research ........................................................................................................................... 275
8.9 Reflections .................................................................................................................................... 275
8.10 Chapter Summary: ................................................................................................................... 279
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 281
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY .............................................................................. 293

Page | ix
Table of Figures
Figure 2.1 Mark’s story from Kearns et al. (2006, p.5) reformatted by the researcher ........................ 10
Figure 2.2: Timescale for a Master’s thesis from Hart (2006, p.21) reformatted by the researcher ..... 13
Figure 2.3 Interrelated issues (Pongsart, 2005) ..................................................................................... 16
Figure 2.4 The TOC principles (Dettmer, 2007, p.13) .......................................................................... 19
Figure 2.5: Summary of the Theory of Constraints (TOC) Thinking Process (TP) and its tools’
evolution ....................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 2.6 TOC Thinking Process Full Analysis (TPFA), Cox et al. (2003) and Dettmer (2007),
reformatted by the researcher ....................................................................................................... 25
Figure 2.7 AI 4-D Cycle (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005, p.16) ........................................................... 29
Figure 3.1 Theory of constraints (TOC) individual interview questions .............................................. 41
Adapted to Master’s thesis context from Dettmer, 2007 (first three questions) and Cox et al, 2003 (last
eight questions) ............................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 3.2 Appreciative Inquiry individual interview questions........................................................... 41
(Adapted from Orem et al, 2007 and Cooperrider et al, 2008) ............................................................. 41
Figure 3.3: The Proposed Hybrid Approach. ........................................................................................ 42
Figure 4.1: Tarn’s IO Map .................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 4.2: Tammy’s IO Map ............................................................................................................... 51
Figure 4.3: Ton’s IO Map ..................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 4.4: Tim’s IO Map ..................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 4.5: Tarn’s Current Reality Tree (CRT) constructed from three performance issues ............... 57
(I: Knowing how to get started, II: Keeping the deadlines/timeline, and III: Feeling study
valuable/worthwhile) .................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 4.6: Tammy’s Current Reality Tree (CRT) constructed from three performance issues ........... 58
(I: Knowing how to get started, II: Designing my study, and III: Not knowing when to stop reading
the literature) ................................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 4.7: Ton’s Current reality Tree (CRT) constructed from three performance issues .................. 59
Figure 4.9: Tarn’s Evaporating Cloud (EC) .......................................................................................... 68
Figure 4.10: Tammy’s Evaporating Cloud (EC) ................................................................................... 71
Figure 4.11: Ton’s Evaporating Cloud (EC) ......................................................................................... 72
Figure 4.12: Tim’s Evaporating Cloud (EC) ........................................................................................ 75
Figure 4.13: Tarn’s Negative Branch Reservation (NBR), and Future Reality Branch (FRB) ............ 78
Figure 4.14: Tarn’s Prerequisite Tree (PRT) ........................................................................................ 85
Figure 4.15: Tammy’s Prerequisite Tree (PRT) ................................................................................... 90
Figure 4.17: Tim’s Prerequisite Tree (PRT) ......................................................................................... 92
Figure 4.18: Tarn’s Highs and Lows (Feelings about her Master’s thesis) as of 03/11/2009............... 96
Page | x