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 Goal's 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 don't need to be born a genius. You don't 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 based-the 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, 9).

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.

-Albert Einstein Goldratt's 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. Newton's 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 on the McGraw-Hill website: http://www.mhprofessional.com/TOCHandbook).

Copyright 2010 by Lisa J. Scheinkopf.

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 don't. Those in the former category create meaningful improvements. They work hard at it-they exercise the muscle between their ears rigorously-but 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 together 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 tenets 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. Each of the TP tools is discussed in sequence with instructions on how to use it. The chapter moves on to examples, some of them real application cases.

The Basic Building Block-Cause-and-Effect Logic

You see there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect.

-The Merovingian, The Matrix Reloaded When we accept the premise of inherent simplicity, we accept the premise that every element of a system is connected to the system via cause-and-effect relationships with the other elements of the system. This means that the better our capability to uncover and understand the actual cause-and-effect relationships that exist today, or that we intend to put into place tomorrow, the better our capability to improve.

What do we mean when we say there is a cause-and-effect relationship? We mean that by the mere fact that one condition exists in a system, another condition is an inevitable result. Let's look at a simple example which may seem trivial because it is obvious, yet it does illustrate clearly the basic building block of the TP.

It is evening, and you have just arrived home from a day at work. You open the door to your home and turn the switch that operates the lamp in the hallway to the "on" position. The lamp doesn't turn on. What could be the reason? After verifying that you did in fact turn the switch to "on" rather than "off," you check to see if the lamp is plugged in. Why? Your life experience has led to your intuitive understanding of a cause-and-effect relationship-you know that if the lamp is not plugged in, the light will not turn on.1 You find that the lamp is not plugged in. Aha! You confidently plug the cord into the wall, flick the switch on again, and-oh no, the light is still not on. What do you check next? Your brain goes through a quick checklist of potential causes for the light not turning on. Do you change the light bulbs? Do you turn on another light in your home to verify that the problem is isolated to the lamp and not a larger issue such as the circuit breaker or fuse, or even an electricity outage in the neighborhood? Any of these would be sufficient to cause the lamp to not turn on, so you keep checking-in the order that your intuition, which is based on experience with similar situations, tells you is most likely to least likely-until you uncover the cause, make the appropriate change, and turn on the light.

FIGURE 25-1 Cause-and-effect map-lamp does not turn on.

Figure 25-1 graphically illustrates the cause-and-effect map you built in your mind. Please note that as you gained more information, your cause-and-effect mental map enlarged and you better understood the situation. You checked directly the facts you could check directly, and you modified the "entities"-your verbalization of the facts-as you went along. In the third scenario, when you finally looked outside at the rest of your street and found that it, too, was as dark as your lamp, you predicted and verified an effect that gave credence to a potential cause. If the street lights and neighbors' lights were on, you would continue checking for alternative causes.

You also may not have been satisfied that you had at last verified the cause-you may have decided to speak with a neighbor or call the utility company. If they did in fact verify the power outage, the resulting cause-and-effect map would have looked like Fig. 25-2.

FIGURE 25-2 Cause-and-effect-power outage in the neighborhood.

In this example, you instinctively conducted checks on the hypotheses of cause-and-effect you were making, and you used a process to do so.

1. You identified a problem. The light doesn't work.

2. You hypothesized a cause. The switch is not turned on.

3. You checked your hypothesis by checking for two conditions: a. You verified the condition. You checked to see if "switch is not turned on" was actually the case. It was, in fact, turned on, so you hypothesized a different cause, and then verified that the condition existed.

b. You validated the cause-and-effect connection. Was the fact that the lamp was not plugged in really the cause for the lamp not turning on? You checked directly by plugging in the lamp and it still did not turn on! So, back to hypothesizing a condition that could cause the lamp to be out and then validating the cause-and-effect connection.

When you adapt the mentality of the scientist, you will do these checks automatically. As we make our way through the chapter, we will expand our understanding of these a template for the detailed process of checking is provided.2 It is also provided in Appendix B, which is located at the end of the chapter for your convenience.

While the example I used may seem trivial, the scientific process is not. Most of us simply are not practiced in using or communicating cause-and-effect logic. Dr. Goldratt recently conducted an experiment. He asked about 40 people-all were intelligent, educated adults ranging in age from 20-something to 60-something, ranging in professions from student to CEO-to think of and then write a sentence that contained the word "because." The only qualifier for the sentence was that it needed to be a sentence that the individual writing it believed. In other words, they were each asked to make a statement of cause and effect that they believed to be correct. There were a wide variety of sentences, such as "I discipline my children because I care about their well being" to "Americans drive SUVs because they don't care about the environment" to "My boss and I don't get along because . . ." to "The cake tasted bad because the recipe was lousy." Dr. Goldratt then asked the group to apply the simple checks to their statements. In the vast majority of cases, the individuals wrote to him and said that once they applied the checks, they came to realize that their original statements were wrong.

Think about how many decisions are made every day based on assumptions of cause and effect. If the group of 40 is any indicator-and I have no reason to believe they are an exception to the general population-I cannot help but think how many decisions are wrong. People are hurt and organizations do not improve, due to our carelessness in the use of "because." The only difference between using cause-effect thinking in a situation like the lamp and a situation in which the direction of an organization is set is the decision to really check the assumptions that would drive a given course of action.

When you develop the habit of using cause-effect, using it to make the tough decisions will be as natural as using it to figure out why the lamp does not turn on. I cannot stress the importance of practicing-of exercising your brain muscle to think clearly, and to regularly map the cause-effect statements you use, hear, and read (the sentences you use that contain the word "because"). This is the best preparation you can do for when you need to reach for the TP to make the big improvements you care about. By incorporating into your daily practice the use of the basics that I introduce in the next section, you will have everything you need to use-and even develop for yourself-the TOC TP.

Basic Terms and Mapping Protocol

Cause and effect are two sides of one fact.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson An entity is the description of an element of the situation. An entity can be an effect or a cause. Keeping in mind our desire to think and communicate clearly, entities are stated as simple and complete sentences. As we make our way through the various application tools, we will identify special types of entities. Note that an entity is not a statement of cause-effect, which is a description of the cause-and-effect relationship between at least two entities.

An arrow is used to illustrate a cause-effect relationship between two entities. It is the graphical representation of the word "because." The entity at the pointed end of the arrow is the effect, and the entity at the nonpointed end of the arrow is the cause (see Fig. 25-3).

An And Connector3 is an ellipse or a straight line across the cause-and-effect arrows used to illustrate a "logical and" relationship between multiple entities that together form a single cause for an effect. All entities that are "captured" by the "and connector" are required as causes for the effect to occur. To better understand "logical and," see Fig. 25-4.

Entity B is an effect of both entities A and C. Neither Entity A nor Entity C can cause Entity B alone, both must exist. Moreover, when both exist, Entity B is an inevitable result. Let us use a simple example. It is your friend's birthday, and you, along with a group of his other friends, have decided to make a surprise party to celebrate the occasion. You are all gathered in his home, and the big moment arrives. He opens the door, walks in, and you all jump up and shout, SURPRISE! Is he surprised? Yes, but only if he was not expecting the party. See Fig. 25-5 for an illustration of the cause-effect involved. Note that if either of the two causal entities did not exist, he would not be surprised by any one of them.

Figure 25-6 illustrates a simple cause-effect tree. There are 12 entities and 8 cause-effect relationships. Of the 12 entities, 5 are causes only, 2 are effects only, and 5 are both causes and effects. Can you identify the entities, causes, effects, and cause-effect relationships depicted in the tree?4 We have already established two of the fundamental assumptions of TOC: the concept of inherent simplicity and that anybody can think like a scientist if they choose to do so.

FIGURE 25-3 Entities.

FIGURE 25-4 The "and" connector.

FIGURE 25-5 Example of "and" connector.

FIGURE 25-6 A simple cause-and-effect tree.

When I say "fundamental assumptions," I mean that these are two entities that TOC takes as "facts." With just these two assumptions as our guide, we can bring to light three more very important pieces of the foundation on which all of the powerful TOC applications are based, and on which your use of the TP will be most productive and beneficial: 1. People are good.

2. Every conflict can be removed.

3. There is always a win-win solution.

Please refer to Fig. 25-7, which is a small cause-and-effect tree that illustrates how these three basic elements of TOC are derived.

Start at "the bottom" of the tree, at Entity 1, which summarizes the essence of the concept of inherent simplicity. When we couple that with Entity 2, the definition of "conflict," it becomes obvious that "conflict" is not a natural state, and thus must be man-made (Entity 5, given the definition of "man-made" in Entity 4). Now go to the left side of the tree. Again, we start with the summary of the concept of inherent simplicity in Entity 1. If you agree that human beings are actually part of nature (Entity 6), then it would become obvious also that our natural state as human beings is, as described in Entity 7, harmonious-consonant with the rest of nature, in harmony with ourselves and other people. It is no wonder, then, that Goldratt insists, "people are good" (Entity 8). Entity 11 states that people have the innate ability to think logically. When we combine this with what we have by now established-that people are naturally harmonious and conflicts are man-made-we have no choice but to recognize that people have the innate ability to eliminate conflicts (Entity 9) and the innate ability to create harmonious solutions (Entity 12). The result of these are the TOC premises (verbalized in Entities 10 and 13) that "every conflict can be removed" and "there is always a win-win solution." I encourage you to study this tree, and to use it for practicing your own use of cause-and-effect logic. Would you add or modify any entities? Are the causalities solid? What tests would you conduct to verify the entities or validate the causalities represented? If you agree with the tree, what else stems from it? Can it help you to explain any of your own life experiences?

FIGURE 25-7 Deriving the three basic elements of TOC.

We are at a crucial point in your TOC TP education. We have logically derived some fundamental concepts that TOC views as "facts," which formulate basic principles guiding the use of the TOC TP tools: 1. The concept of inherent simplicity: Nature is simple and consonant (harmonious) to itself.

2. People are good.

3. People have the innate ability to think logically.

4. Every conflict can be removed.

5. There is always a win-win solution.

I guarantee that your use of TOC will be much more fruitful if you use these five principles to guide your way. It is also likely that you are not so convinced that they are "facts." I would ask you, then, to simply agree that they are a possibility. Once you agree that they are a possibility, and you consider just the possibility when you go about your daily problem solving, then I have little doubt your use of the TP will be worthwhile for you.

The last of the human freedoms: to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.

-Viktor Frankl The rest of the chapter is devoted to teaching you the various "standard" TOC TP. We start with tools that can be used to help you become more productive on a day-to-day basis, and then we move into the tools that are used in a "full analysis"-the systematic approach to answering the three questions of change. Please note that all of the "standard" TP are simply applications of what we have covered thus far in this chapter. If you read no further, and simply put into practice what we have covered up to this point, you would have the ability to derive the tools yourself when the need arises.

Tools for Daily Decision Making and Problem Solving

While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of those actions. Consequences are governed by natural law.

-Stephen Covey Everything we do, every action we take, places a cause into reality and the effects (results) of the cause (our action) inevitably happen. The results (effects) of our actions do not have a choice, but the actions we take (the causes we put into motion) are a result of the choices we make. An action is putting in motion a conscious or not-so-conscious decision. Whether we are consciously or not-so-consciously doing so, we are making many decisions every day, day in and day out. Many of the decisions we make not only impact us personally, but also have an effect on others-our partners, families, teammates, associates, clients, suppliers, shareholders, communities, etc. Of course, the decisions made by others quite often have an effect on us.

Living is a constant process of deciding what we are going to do.

-Jose Ortega

Negative Branch Reservation (NBR)

We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.

-Ayn Rand Think about how often well-intentioned actions have led to undesirable consequences. The Negative Branch Reservation (NBR) is the standard TOC TP tool with which we use cause-and-effect thinking to predict, as best we can, the effects of a given cause (e.g., action), and modify our idea before taking action in order to prevent undesirable consequences of taking the action. Situations in which the NBR is most commonly used are: Someone has presented you with an idea that they think is great, but from your vantage point, you see potential problems stemming from it. (You are thinking, "Yes, but . . .") You are presenting (or preparing to present) someone with an idea you think is great, but from their vantage point, they see (or might see) potential problems stemming from it. (They are thinking, "Yes, but . . .") You have an idea, and your intuition is telling you that your idea is still incomplete. (You are thinking, "Yes, but . . .") The NBR maps the cause-and-effect relationships between an idea (the cause) and the undesirable effects (UDEs) that are predicted to stem from that idea (cause). It is then used to modify (typically by expanding on) the idea in ways that would prevent the UDEs from becoming reality.

With the NBR, we introduce the entity type injection. An injection is an entity that describes an element of an idea (solution) that is intended to be implemented. Injections are always entry points to a tree such as the cause-effect trees just discussed. They represent elements of the system that do not yet exist in the system, but that will be consciously injected into the system in order to cause the changes desired.

Figure 25-8 illustrates a simple NBR. Note that the only entry points to the tree (entities that are causes only) are either elements of the system that exist today (and therefore can be checked to exist in the system today) or injections (elements of the system that do not exist today but are intended to be injected into it in order to cause the change). Every entity that is an effect (entities that have at least one arrow pointing into them, whether they are also causes and have arrows pointing from them) is stemming from an injection, and thus does not exist in the current environment. Therefore, these entities are predicted to become part of the future state of the system.

I want to stress the importance of considering the reason that you or others have generated the idea in the first place-the benefits that the idea, once implemented, are intended to produce. Acknowledging these benefits will provide you with the stamina to work through the negative branches of your own ideas to achieve the benefits. And, to communicate your reservations about other's ideas in a way that they will understand you are not trying to throw out their entire idea and its benefits, you just want to trim the potential negative ramifications. As a result, you will foster a spirit of collaboration rather than confrontation.

Constructing a negative branch is simply using the rules of cause and effect to clarify, validate, and resolve a concern over a potential negative ramification of an idea. The major steps are: 1. Write the idea as an entity. If there are multiple elements of the idea, try to write each element as a separate entity. Often, it is just one or two aspects of the idea that are responsible for the concern and this will help you illuminate only the problematic elements of the idea.

FIGURE 25-8 Simple NBR.

2. Make a list of the pros (benefits) and cons (concerns) of the idea. Write the negative outcomes that you are predicting as entities-these are the predicted UDEs.5 Again, try to write each element as a separate entity. Your list of cons of the idea may contain two types of concerns: a. The first type of concern is consequences that would occur once the idea has been implemented. This is the type of concern that the NBR addresses.

b. The other type of concern is an obstacle. In this case, the concern is not with the idea itself, but rather with things that would get in the way of implementing it. The TOC TP tool that is used to deal with obstacles is the Prerequisite Tree (PRT), which will be described later in this chapter.6 3. Using the mapping protocol discussed earlier in this chapter, connect the injection entity (or entities) using cause-and-effect logic to the predicted UDEs. If you are predicting several UDEs, you may choose to build a single NBR that would encompass some or all of the predicted UDEs, or a separate NBR for each predicted UDE.

4. Check the validity of the cause-and-effect relationship and make adjustments so that it reflects your full hypothesis. This effort will likely lead you to add additional entities and layers along the way, as you make your concern clearer and clearer through the mapping process. Refer to the simple checking process discussed earlier in the chapter.

a. Verify the existence of the causal entity. An NBR is triggered by some aspect of the current reality that, when combined with the future that is going to be created, will hypothetically cause the undesirable consequences. What is that condition, and does it really exist?

b. Validate the cause-and-effect connection between the hypothesized cause and the predicted undesirable consequence. There are usually simple "mind-experiments" you can do, which would either prove the hypothesis wrong or add confidence in its validity.

c. Don't be surprised if you find that a key assumption you were making was actually incorrect, and you discover that the idea would not (or most probably would not) lead to the negative outcome with which you were initially concerned.

5. Now it is time to "trim the negative branch." Identify the place in the tree where the transition from "neutral" to "negative" occurs. In Fig. 25-8, this would be where entities 7 and 3 cause entity 8. It is at this intersection where we identify an additional idea that, if implemented, would either prevent 8 from occurring, or even replace 8 with an effect that would become an additional benefit of the solution. Check to make sure that this new, added injection does not lead to more ramifications that are negative. If it does, either replace it with a different injection or add an additional injection to trim the new negative branch.

In Chapter 24, Oded Cohen provides detailed step-by-step instructions for constructing and solving negative branches. A great example of a negative branch is in Chapter 8 of Eli Goldratt's book, It's Not Luck (1994, 5358). I will also provide an example of an NBR later in this chapter, when I review the use of a Strategy & Tactic Tree.

Evaporating Cloud (EC)