Theory of Constraints to Reduce Conflict in
The World?
The Theory of Constraints offers, above all, 'Simple solutions to complex problems.' Initially, TOC worked to find and fix the Core Problem, a common cause of many of the problems in the system. Now, the TOC Thinking Process leads directly to the core conflict. The core conflict is the cause of the core problem.
Eli Goldratt is a logical physicist, and often puts things in scientific terms. "Look" he said, "when scientists see things in the material world that conflict, they know someone has made a wrong assumption. They know it because their FIRST assumption is that the material world can not be in conflict. There can be only one answer." (Although he didn't discuss this example, this is the reason that quantum mechanics made such a stir among scientists. It actually allowed a cat (figuratively) to be alive and dead at the same time; a conflict. Not sure if they've resolved that one yet. It made Einstein say, "God doesn't play dice with the Universe.")
Goldratt brings his thinking to earth for the non-scientist. Suppose, he said, we measure the height of a building. We get two answers, five meters and twenty meters. Do we say, "Ah, a conflict in the world. Can't resolve it. Let's compromise on 12.5 meters." No. We know that something is wrong with one of the measures. Somewhere, an assumption is awry. There is only one answer to the height of the building, in the material world. (For statisticians, which he knows well also, he adds, as Dr. Deming would, "Well, we can never know the exact height. Only the answer to some measurement system and accuracy. But we know there must be answer that agrees between devices, or one of the devices has something wrong. A wrong assumption.")
That is, in the material world, there can be no conflict. If we see an apparent conflict, we know we have to go find out which assumption (or maybe both) is wrong. That is the only view. All scientists accept that view.
Then, in growing crescendo, "So WHY, IN THE REAL WORLD, DO WE MAKE JUST THE OPPOSITE ASSUMPTION? WHY DO WE ASSUME THAT THE CONFLICT IS REAL, AND OUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE RIGHT?" Quieter, "Why don't we, like the scientists, assume the conflict can't exist in the real world? Why don't we work together to check our assumptions, until we find out what's wrong with our assumptions?"
[Now, I know this itself is one theory, and in reality most scientists tend to spend their time defending their theory, rather than working to falsify it, as a true scientist should. Science might move along even faster if this were not the case.]
The implication of this is stunning. There is no win-lose in the real world. There can't be conflicting reality in the real world, either. Just wrong assumptions. Like scientists working with the material world, it's always our job to find out what those wrong assumptions are. When we fix them, the apparent conflict evaporates, like a cloud.
This is exactly what he has been saying to us, trying to help us understand.
Finding the wrong assumptions is not always easy. He tells us that the 'Core Problem,' is rarely apparent. He has been designing and giving us tools to find Core Problems and wrong assumptions, though. The five focusing steps, the Thinking Process, and the Evaporating Cloud. Many of the successes reported by his followers are based on finding those wrong assumptions, and correcting them.
Every apparent conflict in the world stems from this one point: People naturally assume that the conflict is real. Wars are fought because people made the wrong assumptions. They assumed their apparent conflicts are real. They assumed they couldn't solve the conflicts, and proceeded to wreck havoc on the world.
If you start from the ONE assumption that an apparent conflict CAN NOT BE REAL IN THIS WORLD, and know that we just have to figure out the wrong assumptions that are making it look like the real world has a conflict, EVERYTHING changes. EVERYTHING.
The simplest solution of all. For the biggest problem of all.