A special function of scientific explanation consists in transforming the unexpected into a phenomenon in line with expectations.
Stephen Toulmin, Reason in Ethics
While introducing the concept of the theory of constraints I wrote that that theory is defined by the practitioners who apply it in practice and, above all, by its creator – Eliyahu Goldratt – as a set of six principles constituting its ontological basis. But noticing the effect of consilience between TOC and the theory of complexity, probability theory and behavioral sciences, I put forward the thesis that these principles are reducible to the theses arising from the other three ways of thinking. However, since in my opinion it is impossible to reduce TOC achievements to the achievements of other sciences, I will propose its new definition. First, however, I will start by showing the relations between the principles of TOC and other theories.
People are good – this principle finds its justification in behavioral research. Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist, in his book The Righteous Mind refers to studies of infants. They are not, as it was commonly thought until recently, born with a blank slate(57). Man is born partly „overwritten,” pre-prepared. The examined infants showed a clear interest in the behavior of other people towards each other. They also showed preferences: more interest in those who are nice than those who treat their fellow men ill. They formulated, according to Haidt, something like moral judgments already in the infancy, long before the language was mastered and the possibility of reasoning appeared. About the fact that a man is not born with a „clean slate” more can be read in the Steven Pinker’s fascinating book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.
Each conflict (willingness to perform contradictory actions) can be resolved – because only one chain of causes and effects is true. Our way of looking at relations between events and things using the concepts of probability theory can be defined as the probability that something will happen. And probability is simply a measure of our ignorance of the system’s functioning. It is our first, intuitive response to the epistemic opacity of the world. This is how we try to assess the correctness of perception of cause-and-effect chains obscured by false, outdated assumptions, heuristics and paradigms. However, since there is this one, aligned with reality, chain of causes and effects leading to some phenomenon, some effect, then there is also a way to grasp it, identify it – to remove the apparent contradiction, a conflict.
By reducing selfish behavior, ill-considered, ruining current relationships and future life, we give ourselves a chance – in Mischel’s opinion – for a better life
Every situation – no matter how complex it appears initially – is extremely simple. The world, except the moment of phase transitions, the self-simplification of complex systems, is frequentially stable. Therefore, each chain of causes and effects is suspended on one stable link defining the strength of the whole system. Searching for this link – constraints – is difficult due to the epistemic opacity of the world of complex systems. But finding a constraint gives us the leverage point of the whole system under investigation. Do not forget, however, that the use of the lever can irreversibly change the system and then the process of recognizing the simplicity of the situation will have to start anew.
Each process can be significantly improved – by knowing the constraint, knowing the leverage point, we reduce the randomness. We no longer estimate the probability of the desired behavior of the studied process using System 1, our Elephant, based on intuition, or the sum of our life experiences. We know what the nature of the restriction is, we analyze – using System 2, the Rider – how to use our knowledge. Randomness stops playing against us.
Everyone can live a full life. Behaviorists’ research shows that a person is born well prepared to live a full life. Our mind is equipped with unconscious, partly conscious and fully conscious systems of reality evaluation, learning, self-development, cooperation with other people. Richard E. Nisbett in his book Intelligence and How to Get It writes that in the last 100 years, no matter how to measure human intelligence, it is systematically growing(58). Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, while using historical analysis, proves that violence among people decreases and there gradually extends the circle of persons, creatures against whom the use of violence is unacceptable(59). Walter Mischel by paying attention in his book The Marshmallow Test to the phenomenon of deferred gratification and the effect of „cooling down” the mind by the „cool system” reducing the hyperactivity of the „hot system,” points to the far-reaching consequences of these possibilities. By reducing selfish behavior, ill-considered, ruining current relationships and future life, we give ourselves a chance – in Mischel’s opinion – for a better life(60).
There is always a win-win solution. If people are born overwritten with an inclination to goodness and cooperation, if they can properly recognize causal consequences, if they deal with the deformations of perception of the world seen through the lenses of individual, unique – though similar in their non-linearity and paradoxical nature – behavioral lenses, finding a win-win solution seems to be within reach. However, anthropogenic complex systems are – as the theory of complexity suggests – driven by the ever growing accumulation of knowledge and its increasing, ever faster availability. This fact is both a facilitation and a hindrance in finding solutions. It is a convenience because the world in this approach is not a zero-sum game in which the profit of one person must be a loss of another; and a hindrance, because in an ever faster changing world sometimes it is really difficult to find such a solution. And if the search is successful, it has a limited expiration date as changes are progressing all the time, forcing the necessity to find yet another, newer solution.
The theory of complexity, behavioral sciences, probability as a measure of our knowledge about the causes of the frequential stability of the world – all these ways of thinking can be found in the 6 ontological foundations of the theory of constraints. So what is it? On my own responsibility, I formulate the following new proposal for the definition of TOC:
The theory of constraints is a set of practical ways, Thinking Tools and methods of action for managing the probability of achieving a goal in Complex Systems.
It serves the objective of harnessing complex systems which are all kinds of processes that have their purpose and which are at the heart of companies, organizations, states. It is to build and verify correct, reality-related, causal relationships, to find the constant – the leverage point of complex systems, to cope with cognitive errors generated by our individual behavioral lenses.
If probability is a measure of our ignorance of the system’s functioning, then getting knowledge about how the system works must change the probability of receiving the expected result. This is the change in the course of probability that Taleb draws attention to, showing probability curves for occurrence of events within fragile and antifragile systems(61). In the Gaussian world of independent events, the world we perceive best, as most probable, it is the Gaussian bell curve. According to this curve, events independent of each other – for example a coin toss – are arranged around a certain average, and deviations from it are rapidly decreasing with the increase of the sample size, the number of measured events. However, as Taleb shows, the probability curve of real yet interdependent in some, often difficult to determine at first glance way, does not look like it. The probability of rare events increases. The so-called „fat tails” emerge.
What is the difference between the probability curves of achieving a goal for fragile and antifragile systems? They are twin-similar. Fragility means the closing of the curve to favorable events, and the opening, by thickening the tail, to „black swans,” events more frequent than we expect and spectacularly unfavorable for the system. As Yishai Ashlag wrote in TOC Thinking, randomness plays against the organization. If we do not understand how it works, our behavioral lenses draw for us a false image of the probability of achieving a goal.
Antifragile means the closing of the probability curve to unfavorable events preventing us from reaching the goal, and opening towards the fat tail on the benefit side, where „black swans” become „white” or beneficial events. In this way, by removing the veil of the epistemic opacity of the epistemological world for a moment, we can harness the complex system by increasing the potential of benefits while reducing the potential for losses.
People are good and each conflict can be turned into a solvable dilemma by reaching the hidden – invisible at first glance through our behavioral lenses – outdated paradigms of action, assumptions, old and working well, although in the past, heuristics
How, in practice, does the theory of constraints help in harnessing complex systems? Through systematic analysis of the process, namely the analysis harnessed by the intellectual discipline of the Thinking Tools, i.e. the methods of construction and verification, first logical and then practical, of cause-effect chains responsible for a given process of achieving the goal in the complex system being diagnosed. The most common beginning of work with TOC is gathering information about „undesirable phenomena” perceived in the functioning of the system by all its participants. Then, while analyzing the collected data, we recognize the mutual relations between „undesirable phenomena” and obvious facts about the analyzed system. The hence emerging logic structure called the Current Reality Tree (CRT) illustrates the connections of the main cause-and-effect chains, indicating those among „undesirable phenomena” that are at the roots of the logical tree, at the source of problems.
The mere awareness of the cause-and-effect structure already allows for better understanding and offers an opportunity to indicate activities affecting the system. On the other hand, TOC, going further, points to the fact that at the base of each Current Reality Tree there is a key conflict, the desire to implement actions dictated by the need to achieve the goal, but mutually contradictory.
People do not like conflicts, they avoid them. The natural solution chosen by organizations is optimization, i.e. the best known compromise between conflicting requirements. The process becomes fragile. The theory of constraints suggests that there is nothing to avoid. People are good and each conflict can be turned into a solvable dilemma by reaching the hidden – invisible at first glance through our behavioral lenses – outdated paradigms of action, assumptions, old and working well, although in the past, heuristics. Finding a key conflict, willingness to perform mutually contradictory actions, seemingly leading to the goal we want to achieve, is the beginning of finding a solution, it is a treasury – the point of leverage. A crossover that directs the process towards antifragility.
People, however, avoid conflicts not without reason. The willingness to implement actions that are mutually contradictory but still meeting the need to bring us closer to the desired goal, results in identifying, with each of these mutually exclusive actions, its supporters. Those whose intuition – System 1, the Elephant – chooses one of the actions in counteraction to the other. At this moment agents take sides and, as a result, emotions start – the strongest, since related to the sense of tribalism. Emotions, in turn, make it difficult to see the problem obscured by a key conflict – in consequence its solution is impeded.