zAvailable online at http://www.journalcra.com

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
OF CURRENT RESEARCHInternational Journal of Current ResearchVol. 10, Issue, 04, pp.68443-68450, April, 2018

ISSN: 0975-833X

RESEARCH ARTICLE
AN EXAMINATION OF GOLDRATT’S THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY: USING
THE THINKING PROCESSES TO PROPOSE THE “STRUCTURE OF A HYPOTHESIS” AND THE
MYSTERY ANALYSIS PROCESSES*Yuji Kishira

CEO Goldratt Consulting Japan
ARTICLE INFOABSTRACT

Article History:

The Goal written by Goldratt and Cox published in 1984 has been a best seller for over 30 years. The
scientific management theory introduced in this book is Theory of Constraints (TOC). Since its
introduction, TOC has been successfully applied to many different functional areareas (production, costaccounting, sales, R&D, IT, logistics, etc.) organization environments (projects, supply chain, etc.)
and industrial sectors (manufacturing, government, education, healthcare, etc.). What is remarkableabout TOC is that it is simple andand robust and brings reproducible, rapid and significant bottom
bottom-line
results. Goldratt devoted his life to making TOC a “theory” in the social sciences at the same level ofrigor as “theory” is understood in the hard sciences. This article examines TOC as a “scientific”
theory. The logical “structure of a hypothesis” (SOH) is defined by examining the requirements for atheory to be scientific. Because of its simple, practical and graphical structure this SOH provides
researchers the ability to clarify thinking,thinking, communication, testing and validation of research in bothsocial and hard sciences.

th

Received 29 January, 2018
Received in revised form
17th February, 2018
Accepted 09th March, 2018
Published online 30th April, 2018

Key words:
Theory Of Constraints, Thinking Processes,
Goldratt, Industrial Engineering,
Management, risky Prediction, social
Science, Hard Science, Scientific Theory,
Mistake Proofing, Mystery Analysis, SoftOR, Structure of a Hypothesis, SOH.

Copyright © 2018, Yuji Kishira. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Citation: Yuji Kishira. 2018. “AnAn examination of Goldratt’s theory of constraints as a scientific theory: Using the thinking processes to propose the“structure of a hypothesis” and the mystery analysis processes.”,
processes International Journal of Current Research, 10, (04), 68443
68443-68450.

INTRODUCTION
In 1984, The Goal (Goldratt, 1984) by Goldratt and Cox was
published and today it still remains on the best seller list.
Though not called theory of constraints (Goldratt,Goldratt, 2011)
2011 until
five years later, The Goal presented this scientific management
theory. Since its introduction, TOC concepts, processes andtools (Cox, 2010) have been applied to many different
functional areas (production, logistics, distribution, costaccounting, sales, R&D, etc.) and industrial sectors(manufacturing, services, government, education andhealthcare) where it has been achieving significant
breakthrough results. How can TOC apply to so many different
environments and achieve remarkable results in these very
diverse environments? As a physicist, Dr. Goldratt applied theconcept of “cause and effect”, a concept widely utilized in thehard sciences, to problems in organizations involving people.
He devoted his life to making TOC a “theory” in the social
sciences at the same level as “theory” is understood in the hardsciences.
*Corresponding author: Yuji Kishira,
Aoyama Bldg, 9F 1-2-3 Kitaaoyama, Minato-ku,
ku, Tokyo 107-0061
107
Japan.

In this pursuit, many (Kishira,
Kishira, 2016; Tobita, 20142014) believe that
his work can also advance the application of theory in the hardsciences. What is remarkable about TOC is that it is simple andbrings reproducible
ible results (See for example, the numerous
applications with students of all ages on the TOC for
Education website (Suerken,
Suerken, 20112011). The purposes of this paper
are two-fold.
fold. First, TOC is examined to determine whether it isa scientific theory. The requirem
requirements for a theory to bescientific in social sciences as well as in hard sciences aredescribed. Second, using the TOC thinking processes (TP), thelogical “structure of a hypothesis” is defined. A major chronic
problem in Japanese industry is analyzed to iillustrate thisstructure of a hypothesis. This logical approach to structuring
and analyzing a problem and identifying a potential solution
can help address challenges and problems in both social andhard sciences as well as in personal lives.
TOC as Scientific Management Theory
Kaizen and Gemba are common and important concepts in
Toyota as well as in other Japanese companies. Kaizen means“improvement” and Gemba means “place of work”.

68444

Yuji Kishira, An examination of goldratt’s theory of constraints as a scientific theory: using the thinking processes topropose the “structure of a hypothesis” and the mystery analysis processes

It is thought that accumulating each Kaizen on Gemba (adding
all improvements at the places of work) contributes toimproving the company’s performance as a whole. The idea
seems to be obvious and has been implemented throughout
Japanese industry. But is it true? Even though all employees do
Kaizen everywhere in the company and targets are met in mostplaces, many cases exist where the company’s performance asa whole has improved only slightly or hasn’t improved at all.
How can so many employees work so hard and the company
not improve significantly?
Why does such mysterious
phenomenon occur? How can we examine and resolve thisissue? Dr. Goldratt developed the TOC thinking processes (TP)to better analyze and solve such propositions. In order toexamine the basic premise of TOC, think of why thephenomenon, in which Kaizen as a whole (the sum of local
improvements everywhere) does not lead to improving
company performance as a whole, occurs. Suppose you workin an organization, answer the following questions: Is your work dependent on other employees work? Ordoes their work depend on your work?
 Are your and other employees’ capacities the same?
You and other employees would answer no to both of thesequestions. Why? Because there are “interdependencies” and“variability” in most organization’s activities. If you look at theflow of work in organizations, for example in the links from
customers to sales to design to production to logistics tocustomers, you probably could explain the interdependencies
among employees and you probably could conclude that it is
impossible that each link has the exactly same capability. Notealso rarely is production a bottleneck in the work flow of acompany. If you were in times when you can sell as much as
you produce, your bottleneck is production so you got bottomline results by improving the production bottleneck; however,
if limited opportunities to receive customers’ orders were abottleneck then sales is the bottleneck; it should be obviousthat it is difficult to get bottom-line results as a company by
improving production when it is a non-bottleneck. Figure 1
shows a model of an organization with “interdependency” and“variability” in resource capacity.

Input

20

15

10

12

16

OutputFigure 1. System with “interdependency” and “variability”

Work flows across stations (work centers, departments, etc.)from left to right, but capability for each station (in units)varies as follows: 20, 15, 10, 12 and 16 per day. How much isthe daily output of this system (company, organization)? It is
obvious that the daily output cannot exceed 10 units which isthe bottleneck. Let’s examine the bottleneck in more detail. If
you know which station is the bottleneck, you deal with it
directly. So, the bottleneck will not be a bottleneck anymore,productivity of a whole system should go up. However, in
reality in many companies doing this is not easy because thebottleneck is usually a resource such as excellent personnel or
expensive equipment that cannot be increased in the short run.
Can you increase excellent personnel right away? Can you add
expensive equipment right away? Here you notice that (evenafter improvement efforts) the resource that cannot be

increased easily tends to become the bottleneck even though
you knew it might be the bottleneck. The resource that cannot
be increased easily is, in other words, a scarce resource. If you
examine the work content of a scarce resource (e.g. excellent
personnel), you will find out that he/she most likely does notalways focus on what only he/she can do. Not only that, he/she
tends to become busy with other tasks because everybody
relies on him/her knowing his/her excellence. Needless to say,
it is people who do the work. It is impossible to improve thequality of work when the bottleneck is continually
overwhelmed with work. It is obvious that lowering the qualityof work of the constraint in an organization affects theperformance of the whole organization.
Assuming you are the bottleneck of your company pleaseanswer the following question:
How much time in a day do you focus on what only you cando?
If you think holistically, it is quite seldom that the scarce
resource which is the bottleneck of the whole company is fully
performing to its potential. If you find the bottleneck, your
Kaizen approach would be totally different. You just need tofocus on improving the bottleneck. By all employees focusing
supporting and improving the bottleneck, significant bottomline results should come faster and your focused Kaizen would
be more effective than the current approach of trying to
improving everything. In short, you can get bottom-line results
faster and easier. It is not rare when people understand that theoverall performance will improve if their attention is on acertain point (the company’s strategic point) then they start tohelp each other.
It is obvious that “where there are interdependencies andvariability, there must be a constraint somewhere. Focusing on
improving the constraint brings results to the whole.” In short,performance as a system is determined by the constraint. In
TOC, we regard a whole organization as a “system”.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, system (System,2017)is defined as: “A set of things working together as partsof a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex
whole.” Therefore, recognizing an organization as a systemcomposed of multiple elements rather than one whole element
is not just obvious but also important. For this reason,
assuming there are both “interdependencies” and “variability”,
we can focus on the bottleneck for holistic improvement of anorganization. As the application of TOC expanded to otherenvironments, the word “bottleneck” was misunderstood andinappropriate; thus, Dr. Goldratt (System, 2017) carefully
selected the word “constraint” instead and developed the“Theory of Constraints” - focusing on the constraint is thefoundation for holistic management to achieve significant
bottom line results rapidly. Let’s use Figure 1 to examine theeffect of Kaizen focused on non-constraints. Suppose thefourth work center’s capacity is increased from 12 to 15 by
Kaizen. It is obvious that improvements on non-constraints
will not bring any results as a whole. However, it means morethan that. Considering the reality that resources (bothpersonnel and financial) in organizations are limited, using
limited resources on improving non-constraints is not just a
Muda (waste in Japanese); it also means that it is taking away
resources from improving the constraint. It is obvious(Goldratt, 2011) that “spending resources on improving nonconstraints is not just waste, but it damages the improvements

68445International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 10, Issue, 04, pp.68443-68450, April, 2018of a whole organization. ”If you are facing the situation where
everybody is working very hard in their areas but the result is
not following as expected, there is a high possibility that mostof your improvement effort is irrelevant and is being spent on
non-constraints. When each employee improves without
considering “interdependency” and “variability”, the result is
in local optimization everywhere which wastes most or all of
the improvement efforts.
To the question “what is TOC in a single word?”, Dr. Goldratt(Goldratt, 2010) answered the following“TOC in a single word is FOCUS: do what should be done
AND don’t do what should not be done.”
Today, TOC is not merely an improvement method for
production; it can be applied anywhere in an organization
where there are “interdependencies” and “variability”. Morethan that, TOC is very simple and easy to understand and apply
because all you need to do is to focus on the constraints. Thistranslates to having employees perform Kaizen activities tosupport the constraint. The breakthrough results demonstrated
in organizations across the world are understandable. See the
TOCICO website Success Stories (Cox, 2013) for case studies
across several functions, environments, and industrial sectors.

The three elements are

A box containing a description of the entity (anaction, condition, or effect).
An arrow connecting the entities to express the causeand-effect relationship logically.
A banana (a hand-drawn banana shaped ellipse
connecting two or more incoming arrows named by
Dr. Goldratt) showing that two or more entities are
required to exist for the effect entity to occur.

For example, an effect is caused by the existence of acondition and an action being taken.
EffectCausea. Cause-and-effect relationship.

Banana shows thattwo or more entities
are required for the
next entity to occur.

Arrows connect theentities to describe thecause-and-effectrelationships logically.

Hard Science Approach
Dr. Goldratt described the evolution of TOC in his last publicappearance (Goldratt, 2011) as follows

Boxes describe
entities.
b. Three tools for thinking logically.

“I took the concepts of physics, the approach of physics, and I
applied it to, not to the material world like physics or
chemistry is doing, not to atoms or electrons or molecules or
enzymes, but to human relationships, to organizations. Yes,
when I started, people told me ‘Eli, you are totally out of yourmind, because people are not predictable.’ And I’ve said,‘Really?’ I think that I can predict very well what will happen
to me when I tell my wife my true opinion about her new dress.
What do you mean people are unpredictable? If they are notpredictable there is no base for society. There is no base forfamily even. Yes, people are not 100% predictable but so is theweather. Why won’t we take this vigorous cause-and-effectthinking, this demand for proof of what you are saying andapply it to the social world?”

To show the relationship between cause and effect, Dr.
Goldratt took the approach of using diagrams rather thanformulas. See Figure 2a. The entity at the base of the arrow is
the cause and the entity at the tip of the arrow represents theeffect. The arrow represents causality. It is read: if cause theneffect. It becomes easier for everybody to see and question thecausality you believe exists in a situation (or environment) byusing diagrams. These diagrams make it possible to logically
discuss problems especially in a team environment. Whiledeveloped and taught in the early 1990’s in two-week Jonahcourses, Dr. Goldratt (Goldratt, 1990; Goldratt, 1994) formally
introduced this methodology “Thinking Processes” (TP) in his
book, “It's Not Luck”(Goldratt 1994). In one TP structure, we
use three elements illustrated in Figure 2b to examine the link
between cause and effect. The structure consists of only threeelements, and is so simple that anybody can use it to thinklogically.

We bring the results
to the whole.

There are interdependencies
and variability in system.

We focus on
constraint.

c. Logical description of TOC.

Figure 2. Cause and Effect thinking and TOC

In Figure 2c, this logical structure describes the use of TOC insystems. When you read the relationship between cause andeffect, you use “If… then….” For boxes connected with abanana, you use “and”. The general structure is: If … and …
then …. Our example is:If “there are interdependency and variability in a system” and“we focus on the constraint” then “we bring the results to thewhole”.
You might feel intuitively that something is missing in thisdescription. If so, that is a proof that people can verify logicalconnection between the cause and effect by reading it out loud.
For a more structured approach to verifying the logicalconnections, Dr. Goldratt developed the Categories ofLegitimate Reservation (CLR) (Scheinkopf, 1999) to improve
clarity and verify logical connections in the TP. The CLR are:Clarity, Entity Existence, Causality Existence, Cause
Insufficiency, Additional Cause, Cause-Effect Reversal, andPredicted Effect Existence. These CLRs are useful instrengthening and validating one’s intuition.

68446

Yuji Kishira, An examination of goldratt’s theory of constraints as a scientific theory: using the thinking processes topropose the “structure of a hypothesis” and the mystery analysis processes

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (System, 2017),
intuition means “The ability to understand something
instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning”. In
other words, you are in a situation where you can feelsomething is missing but you cannot explain it logically. Even
though each entity in Figure 3a has previously been discussed
the logic still doesn’t feel right because our intuition tells usthat the diagram is missing the reason why these two
phenomena cause “we bring the results to the whole”. Let’s
identify the missing entity. Formally, when you think about
what is missing, you use the logic of necessary condition; you
use the logic of sufficient condition to check if what is missing
is correct. This is how you check the logic of necessary andsufficient conditions. Applying this to our example, you areaware that:“if there are interdependencies and variability, thenthere must be a constraint somewhere”. In such a situation, it
becomes obvious that “performance of a whole system isdetermined by its constraint”.
We bring the results to thewhole.

There areinterdependencies andvariability in a system.

We focus on
constraint.

?

a. Think about what is missing.

We bring the results to thewhole.

There areinterdependencies andvariability in a system.

We focus on
constraint.

Performance of a wholesystem is determined by
the constraint.

b. Add missing explanation.

We bring the results to the whole.

There areinterdependencies andvariability in a system.
PremiseWe focus on
constraint.

Outcome

Performance of a wholesystem is determined by
the constraint.

ActionReasonc. Contents of boxes.

Figure 3. Logical structure of TOC thinking processes

As you notice, “performance of a whole system is determinedby the constraint” is a powerful statement. It is because thisstatement provides the reason to focus on the constraint. This
realization translates to: one doesn’t need to improve
everywhere in a system and conversely the organization shouldchange its improvement initiatives to focusing on theconstraint. If you make Kaizen everywhere in your system, it isprobably because you think all improvements would bringorganization results. However, it is not true. Even if somebody
gives an order to “focus on the constraint!”, people won’t
follow it well. It is not easy to overcome inertia that has beenin the organization for a long time. “Performance of a wholesystem is determined by the constraint” - The reason leads
people to the desired behavior. When people realize this truth,
they say “it is eye-opening!” It is probably because you
realized an unnoticed underlying truth although it becomes
only “common sense” after the realization. In a system with“interdependency” and “variability”, there is always aconstraint.

TOC tells people that focusing on the constraint brings results
to the whole; however, many would say “it is common sense”.
To those, Dr. Goldratt said “common sense is not common”.
Once it is understood it is “common sense”. Dr. Goldratt(Goldratt, 2011) described the accomplishments of winners of
the Nobel Prize.
“You have to publish one single article, that’s enough. But thearticle must be on the level that when any other physicist reads
it, the reaction is ‘Oh, Shit!’ That’s a Nobel Prize. It is thehardest thing: looking at a reality so complex to find how tounderstand something so obvious it’s called common sense. It
is a hard thing to do but it’s the only thing that works.”
When we find the logical (cause and effect) connection which
can explain in a way everybody can understand, that is whenpeople say it is only ‘common sense’, which Dr. Goldrattbelieves is the highest compliment one can receive.TOC has
been making breakthrough results in various fields. TOC
stands for the Theory of Constraints. Why did Dr. Goldrattselect the word “theory” for what he devised, not “method” or“system”?In the Kojien Dictionary, the most popular dictionary
in Japan, the definition of theory has recently been changed. In
the 5th edition(1998), the meaning of theory was “universal
systematic knowledge that can explain an individual fact orrecognition uniformly”; in the 6th edition(2008), it is“universal systematic knowledge that can explain and predict
an individual fact or recognition uniformly in science”. With
the definition of 5th edition, theory can be established when
you can make the explanation of what happened before;
however, in the 6th edition, theory is defined as “universal
systematic knowledge that can predict… in science”. Thus, it
is not considered theory in science just to be able to explain
something later. Theory in science must be systematic
knowledge to be able to predict something before. To sum up,
Dr. Goldratt devised TOC as a “theory” that is “universal
systematic knowledge that can explain and predict anindividual fact uniformly in science”.
Definition of the “Structure of a Hypothesis”(SOH)
In the social sciences, there are many known theories andmethods. What makes TOC different from those is that the TP
can be used to logically predict what is going to happen andwhen and why the results occur. Prediction is common in thehard sciences. In the hard sciences, it is hardly referred to as atheory when we can’t logically predict a result and realize theprediction. Dr. Goldratt applied the concept of the hardsciences to the realm of social sciences, and developed theory
called TOC, which can logically predict at the same level as in
the hard sciences. The question then is whether only TOC is
special in the field of social sciences. What is required forvarious theories in the social sciences to attain “scientific”
status to the extent of the hard sciences?
Karl Popper (Popper, 1957) tried to answer the question:“when should a theory be ranked as scientific?” He claimed
falsify ability distinguishes between science and pseudoscience. The criterion is its refutability (risky prediction) or
testability - this concept is reflected in the definition of theory
provided the 6th edition of Kojien Dictionary (2008). Using
this concept of falsify ability one must be careful not todismiss theories in the social sciences as useless even though
they might not yet be ranked as “scientific”. Many theories andmethods that are widely known and supported in the social

68447

International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 10, Issue, 04, pp.68443-68450, April, 2018

sciences are useful to society but have not attained logicalpredictability to the extent of the hard sciences. It can besignificant for theories and methods in the social sciences toattain “scientific” status. TOC is “scientific” not bycoincidence; there must be a reason. By revealing it, I would
like to derive the condition to attain the “scientific” status.
First, let’s examine what’s in each box in Figure 3b. As
described in Figure 3c, the box “there are interdependency andvariability in the system” is a premise (the Given, orcondition), “we focus on constraint” is an action (the cause) tocause the outcome (the effect), and “performance of a wholesystem is determined by its bottleneck” is the reason (why thecause creates the effect), and “we bring result to the whole” isthe outcome. The structure of the relationship between cause
and effect illustrates scientific thinking. Figure 4a shows thegeneralized structure of a hypothesis.
OutcomePremiseActionin hard science and other areas. By verifying the logicallyderived outcome through observation, calculation, experimentetc., supposition becomes valid law or theory in a certain
limitation”. A hypothesis is still a hypothesis. Noe (2015)
succinctly summarizes: “Popper claims that scientific theory
will never be established as the perfect theory, but it will
always be in a position of a ‘tentative hypothesis’ yet there is
exceptional value with the scientific theories that have beensurviving for years through many refutations.”In this sense,
TOC has verified in various fields and survived, so it is a valid
theory in a certain limitation or given condition which is a“system with interdependencies and variability”. The“structure of a hypothesis” can be used to build, test, andverify hypotheses in the social sciences, but it is obvious that it
can also be used in the hard sciences. Therefore, we canestablish and verify hypotheses scientifically in the same way
for both the hard sciences and social sciences. Using this TP
logic diagramming structure makes the researcher explicitly
state the causal relationships of the hypothesis.

ReasonApplication of the Structure of a Hypothesis – Learningfrom Failure: Mystery Analysis

a. Structure of an hypothesis.
Outcome: We bring theresults to the whole.

Premise: There areinterdependencies andvariability in a system.

Action: We
focus onconstraint.

Reason: Performance of awhole system is determinedby the constraint.

b. Unavoidable result is scientifically predictable.

Worse result
than predicted

GAP

Predicted result

ReasonIf you can resolve it, you can have a
breakthrough because nothing would
cause worse result than predicted.

GAP

Better result
than predicted

ReasonActionIf you can identify it, you can makea breakthrough by inducing “better
result” intentionally.

c. Three types of result (worse, predicted or better) caused by an action.

Figure 4. Structure of an hypothesis expanded to predicted results

This is the logical structure: the outcome is unavoidably
induced by these three items: premise, action and reason tocause the result. I named it “structure of a hypothesis”. In this“structure of a hypothesis”, the “outcome” can be logically
predicted by three items: “premise”, “action” and “reason”.
Although adding a logical description like “if … and … then… because….” could sound too formal, when we are aware ofeach premise, action, result and reason during a discussion andwe can express them more naturally: If we have the premise of“there are interdependencies and variability in the system” andtake an action of “we focus on the constraint”, the result of“we bring results to the whole” will happen because of thereason of “performance of a whole system is determined by theconstraint”. Let’s consider your daily work. If you work in asystem where there are interdependencies and variability you
probably noticed that you do not have to improve everythingand you can scientifically predict bringing results to the wholeby focusing on the constraint. See Figure 4b.According to the
Kojien Dictionary (2008), hypothesis is defined as:“supposition made to explain a certain phenomenon uniformly

Scientists develop new knowledge by repeating the process ofmaking a hypothesis, conducting an experiment, examining theresult and modifying the hypothesis. It is very rare to havepredicted the result in the first experiment. It is widely known
that every failure is a stepping stone that leads to success, so
scientists must have the mindset of learning from failures.
Let’s examine what it means when things do not go as
predicted. As in Figure 4c, there are only three types of results
induced by an action. The first possibility is that theexperiment achieves the “predicted result”. Everything went aspredicted, so we can assume the hypothesis is correct. The
second possibility is that the experiment achieves a “worse
result than predicted”. People call it a failure when something
did not go as predicted, but there must be a reason for the
failure. If you can identify and resolve the reason for the
failure then you are a step towards a breakthrough because
worse result than predicted would not happen again. The third
possibility is the experiment achieves a “better result than
predicted”. We should consider this as a problem also because
the experiment didn’t achieve the “predicted result” eventhough it is “better result than predicted”. There must be areason that caused the “better result than predicted”. If thereason can be identified then a breakthrough may have caused“better result than predicted”. Figure 5 shows the cause andeffect structure to analyze when you get a whole result than
predicted. I named this process “Mystery Analysis” (Kishira,2014) because it is useful in explicitly determining the reason
why the experiment result wasn’t achieved as predicted.

Better reason

Worse result
than predicted.

Predicted
Result.

ReasonActionExamine a hidden assumption in a reason andverify getting a predicted result

Figure 5. Structure of mystery analysis

Assumption

68448

Yuji Kishira, An examination of goldratt’s theory of constraints as a scientific theory: using the thinking processes topropose the “structure of a hypothesis” and the mystery analysis processes

To illustrate the application of the Mystery Analysis, let’s
continue with our previous discussion on Kaizen. All
employees work hard at their jobs but the expected bottom-line
result does not follow. In this case, it is natural to think thatyou will get the result for the whole organization if everybody
works hard at performing their work.

Ph.D., who won a Nobel Prize on his invention of iPS cell andhas experienced this process. Scientific experiments are verymuch a process that learns from failures. But when we make a
mistake, we feel down and try to not make more mistakes; it
might lead us to avoid adventurous challenges.
However, failures or things not going as expected should begold mines for new discoveries. There is no success where
there are no failures.
As scientists, we think logically for our research on a daily
basis. This is because we firmly believe that thinking logicallywill lead us to an answer. I don’t know why but I assumed that
it was not applicable to things unrelated to research.
Teamwork is indispensable in scientific research. For me,
TOC’s way of thinking was just eye-opening knowing thatthinking logically is more important in human aspect to lead us
to an answer. It made me realize that it is okay to think like ascientist in regards to managing research and development
where people are working. It is obvious that thinking logicallyis important on things other than research, but in the area of
science, it is crucial. There might be wrong assumptions
hidden on things you assumed to be true. Even if you come up
with a textbook answer, it adds no value to the society.
It is common sense to manufacturers that developing a similar
product to a competitor will not sell so much. We need to aim
to answer a question that no one in the past was able toanswer, to an extent that it will be added onto the textbook.

Figure 6. Mystery analysis example

If you do not get the result as expected, there must be a reason.
Figure 6a shows the logical structure of this problem. Is thereason of the “Sum of each Kaizen effort in Gemba contributes
to improving performance of the whole company” true? It is
obvious that this reason must be an invalid assumption. If there
are interdependencies and variability in work flow that consistsof various employees then a constraint must be somewhere in
the system. If so, it is no wonder that Kaizen efforts on theorganization’s non-constraints do not lead to the expectedorganization outcome. As you are aware, financial and humanresources are limited. Therefore, working on non-constraints
delays Kaizen on the constraint. In other words, you need to becareful that Kaizen efforts on non-constraints might result in
preventing Kaizen as an improvement to the wholeorganization. Thus, it becomes obvious that when everybody
works together to focus all Kaizen efforts on the constraint(instead of trying to improve their local areas), it will lead tooverall performance because “the performance of a wholesystem is determined by the constraint” as shown in Figure
6b.What is good about this graphic logical method is that it
enables focused and effective discussions among groups.
Because the logical relationships are explicit, a group can work
together to objectively determine the cause of the unexpected
result. This approach enables effective discussions about
breakthrough ideas. It creates a collaborative process toaccelerate innovation by involving the various stakeholders.
This is significant. Today’s innovations require knowledge andcooperation from various experts in different fields. Needlessto say, the productivity of creating innovations increases whenexperts from different fields collaborate. The quality of
discussions and the intellectual productivity dramaticallyincrease in addition to a reduction in the time associated withdiscussions when using this method. The following is thecomment (Kishira, 2014) from Dr. Shinya Yamanaka M.D.,

We might not be good at thinking logically, but maybe that is
only because we did not have any training to be so. But we aregood at learning. Therefore, if we can train ourselves to thinklogically, we should be able to come up with an innovation that
could be in the textbook.

Photo 1. Dr. Shinya Yamanaka with mystery analysis

Mystery Analysis is very simple and easy; therefore, not justscientists but also ordinary people and even children can use it.
Compared to adults, children are more flexible and creative intheir thinking. It is exciting to see children discover something
new by connecting cause and effect logically. See for example,
a case study (Yasuda, 2016) in which elementary school
children solve a class disruption problem by themselves. Manysuch case studies are provided on the TOC for Education
website (http://www.tocforeducation.com/). Conducting a
Mystery Analysis is to think like a scientist using the“structure of a hypothesis”. It is probably not just me that feelsthat the future is bright by seeing children who can thinknaturally and logically like scientists. Furthermore, an
unexpected result can always become an opportunity to have a
breakthrough by using the Mystery Analysis. Dr. Goldrattclaimed “everyone can reach the status called as a genius”.
By training ourselves to consciously connect cause and effectmore and more, you will be able to think logically more and68449International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 10, Issue, 04, pp.68443-68450, April, 2018

more. Then, you will be able to see causality in matters that
before seemed to have no connection, predict an unexpected
result ahead and even validate it. People would call the person
who can do those things a “genius. Dr. Goldratt stated (2011):“Take a regular person. Let this person practice for years.
After 20 years, you will not see a thin person, you will see
mountains of muscles. Then people say how strong he is. Yes,
he is. But he was not born like that. He made it. The samething with our brain. When you start to think clearly, people
start to call you a genius.”
To Think Like a Scientist
In the Goldratt family, it is tradition for parents to constantly
ask their children “What is your goal in life?” You would
probably understand this question is taken seriously and alsothat it is not easy to answer this question. Dr. Goldrattstruggled for several years with answering this question. Whenhe was twenty years old, he chose his goal in life “to teach theworld to think”.
People inherently have the ability to think. However, in school
education, children are mainly taught to “memorize” rather
than to “think”. That is why Dr. Goldratt developed the TP
methodology to enable educators to teach students how tothink logically. Why don’t people always utilize the ability tothink even though they inherently have the ability? Dr.
Goldratt explained that there are four obstacles that prevent
people from thinking clearly.
The perception of reality as complex
Blaming others
Accepting conflicts as given
Thinking that you know.

Do you think that any good results will come out from “theperception of reality as complex”? Scientists naturally assume
that there must a simple rule governing various phenomena.
Without this assumption, it would be impossible to havetechnology improvements. To think that “every situation is
simple” (once understood) is a natural attitude for scientists.
Do you think that any good things will come from “blaming
others”? It is obvious that blaming others cannot be thesolution for a problem. You become more distant from solving
problems by “blaming others”. “Blaming others” is not arational way to solve problems. If you cannot blame others,
what can you blame? How about blaming “assumptions”
related to the system? This is what we normally do in scientificexperiments. When we get a result that is different from our
prediction, what we normally think is that there must be aninvalid or unspoken assumption somewhere. Blaming others
will not solve a problem. Therefore, by always assuming that“people are good”, you would be able to find wrong
assumptions about the system that created the problem andmove forward on solving the problem. Finding wrong
assumptions and replacing them with better assumptions to
explain phenomena is the way to evolve science theory so it isalso a natural attitude for scientists. Do you think that any
good things will come out from “accepting conflicts as given”?
Scientists would think it is an opportunity to make abreakthrough when encountering unsolved conflicting ideas.
Scientists can never make breakthroughs unless they think“there is always a win-win solution”. What unavoidably
happens by resolving conflicts is harmony. In other words,
conflict is an opportunity to create harmony. Dr. Goldratt paid

great respect to the Japanese culture that values “harmony”. By
examining how true harmony can be brought, Dr. Goldratt
noticed that eagerness to have harmony is the reason for not
being able to have true harmony. Dr. Goldratt (Goldratt, 2008)
said “Wishing to have harmony leads to avoiding conflicts
with other people. Hiding the conflicts under the carpet does
not resolve them. Harmony will come after resolving conflict.”
Do you think that any good things will come from “thinking
that you know”? Your learning stops there. If you are in aplace that you think you know, it means that you have obtained
a more solid foundation than before. It is an essential attitude
for scientists to “never say I know” to evolve knowledge bytaking this more solid foundation as a base for the next jumpin
knowledge.
Dr. Goldratt has developed the following four beliefs toovercome those four obstaclesEvery situation is simple
People are good
There is always a win-win solution
Every situation can be substantially improved – Neversay I know.

As you noticed, the four beliefs provide the mindset necessary
to think like a scientist. By overcoming the four obstacles withthis mindset, you will be able to think more clearly, keep
learning from failures, turn every occasion into an opportunityand have the ability to collaborate with others. As a result, youwill gain meaningful successes in your eyes. This would lead
you to have a full life. Dr. Goldratt (Goldratt, 2008) describes
philosophy of life that allows you to achieve “a full life” byovercoming those four obstacles.

DISCUSSION
The “structure of a hypothesis” is defined by examining therequirements for a theory to be scientific in the social sciences
as well as in the hard sciences and by examining TOC as ascientific theory and further addressing the need and possibility
for a better society with the wide-spread use of “structure of ahypothesis”. Many books and articles on management areavailable today. Muchcan be learned from them but is thelearning effective or just memorization? Understanding thesystem and its cause-and-effect relationships to achieve thesystem goal seem far more important to addressing manyorganization problems. The logical connection between cause
and effect is not always clear; in many cases, you might
misunderstand because the premise and the reason thatcomprise the cause for the result are not clear, or you do not
get an expected outcome without knowing there is a premiseneeded to deliver the expected outcome. In the field of social
sciences that deals with people and organizations, mosttheories have not yet achieved the status of the hard sciences interms of scientific prediction and reproducibility. Scientifictheory will never be established as the perfect theory and willremain as tentative hypotheses. “Structure of a hypothesis”
introduced here is also a tentative hypothesis yet can bepractically used to simply describe the logical structure of ahypothesis. In the longer term, I hope that “structure of ahypothesis” helps to create a better society by contributing toevolve social science theory into scientific theory as in hardscience. I would like to conclude this discussion with aquotation from the introduction in “The Goal” by Dr. Goldratt.

68450

Yuji Kishira, An examination of goldratt’s theory of constraints as a scientific theory: using the thinking processes topropose the “structure of a hypothesis” and the mystery analysis processes“Finally, and most importantly, I wanted to show that we canall be outstanding scientists. The secret of being a goodscientist, I believe, lies not in our brain power. We haveenough. We simply need to look at reality and think logicallyand precisely about what we see. The key ingredient is to havethe courage to face inconsistencies between what we see anddeduce and the way things are done. This challenging of basic
assumptions is essential to breakthroughs. Progress inunderstanding requires that we challenge basic assumptions
about how the world is and why it is that way. If we can better
understand our world and the principles that govern it, I
suspect all our lives will be better.”Acknowledgement
The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of James
Cox, Kojiro Tobita, Rami Goldratt, Lisa Scheinkopf, Yishai
Ashlag and Mayuko Kishira on earlier versions of this paper.

REFERENCES
Cox III, J.F. 2017. Success Stories. Theory of Constraints
International Certification Organization (cited 2017
October 21); Available from: http://www.tocico.org/.
Cox III, J.F. and J.G. 2010. Schleier Jr., Theory of constraints
handbook, ed. J.F. Cox III and J.G. Schleier Jr. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill Publisher.
Goldratt, E.M. 1990. What is this thing called theory of
constraints and how should it be implemented? 1990,
Croton-on-Hudson, N. Y.: North River Press. x, 162.
Goldratt, E.M. 1994. It's Not Luck., Great Barrington, MA:
North River Press.
Goldratt, E.M. 2008. Preface, in The Choice (Japaneseedition). Diamond Inc.: Tokyo, JP.
Goldratt, E.M. 2010. Chapter 1 Introduction to TOC— My
Perspective, in Theory of Constraints Handbook, J.F. Cox
III and J.G. Schleier Jr., Editors. McGraw-Hill Publisher:
New York, NY. p. 1-9.
Goldratt, E.M. 2011. Above and Beyond the Competition: A
Conversation With Eli Goldratt, in Above and Beyond theCompetition: A Conversation With Eli Goldratt, E.M.
Goldratt, Editor. Baltimore, Maryland.
Goldratt, E.M. 2011. Never say I KNOW - Day 1 Introduction
presented by Lisa Scheinkopf. in TOCICO International
Conference: 9th Annual Worldwide Gathering of TOC
Professionals. Palisades, NY: Goldratt Marketing Group.
Goldratt, E.M. 2011. Never say I KNOW - Day 2 The
tangibility of the green curve presented by Lisa Scheinkopf.
in TOCICO International Conference: 9th Annual
Worldwide Gathering of TOC Professionals. Palisades,
NY: Goldratt Marketing Group.
Goldratt, E.M. 2011. Now and in the future seminar: Closing
remarks
October
15;
Availablefrom:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6GegcyUqBY&featu
re=youtu.be.

Goldratt, E.M. 2011. Science of management. (video)2011(cited 2017; Available from: https://www.youttube.com/watch?v=BZcwXENrZnA&feature=youtu.be.
Goldratt, E.M. and J. Cox, 1984. The Goal: Excellence in
Manufacturing. First ed. Croton-on-Hudson, NY: North
River Press Inc. 262.
Kaizen, 2008. in Kojien Dictionary.
Kishira, Y. 2014. Personal communication with Shinya
Yamanaka, S. Yamanaka, April.
Kishira, Y. 2014. Three tools for thinking clearly. Tokyo, JP:
Diamond Inc.
Kishira, Y. How to learn the lessons from the failures in TOC
way - "mystery analysis" - 7 questions with a case study. in
TOCICO International Conference: 14th Annual
Worldwide Gathering of TOC Professionals. 2016.
Leesburg, VA: Theory of Constraints International
Certification Organization.
Noe, K. 2015. Invitation to philosophy of science. Tokyo, JP:
Chikumashobo Ltd.
Popper, K. 1957. Science: Conjectures and refutations, in
British Philosophy in Mid-Century, C.A. Mace, Editor.
Allen and Unwin: London.
Scheinkopf, L.J. 1999. Thinking for a change: Putting the TOC
thinking processes to use. St. Lucie Press/APICS series on
constraints management. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.
xiv, 255.
Shinmura, I. 1998. Kojien Dictionary, in Koujien Dictionary.
Iwanami Shoten: Tokyo, Japan.
Shinmura, I. 2008. Kojien Dictionary, in KoujienDictionar.
Iwanami Shoten: Tokyo, Japan.
Suerken, K. 2017. TOC for Education. cited 2017 November.
System, in Oxford English Dictionary. 2017, Oxford
University Press: Oxford, Eng.
Tobita, K. 2014. Quality improvement without improving
quality - How to use TOC to create breakthrough in theGemba where kaizen/5S efforts are showing diminishingreturns. in TOCICO International Conference: 12th
Annual Worldwide Gathering of TOC Professionals..
Washington, DC: Theory of Constraints International
Certification Organization.
TOC for Education, Inc.2017 (cited 2017 November 12);Available from: http://www.tocforeducation.com/.
Yasuda, E. and M. Tobita. 2016. How to make ordinary people
achieve extraordinary performance - TOCfE Japan now
and into future. in TOCICO International Conference: 14th
Annual Worldwide Gathering of TOC Professionals.
Leesburg, VA: Theory of Constraints International
Certification Organization.

*******