The title Theory of Constraints (TOC) adopts the common idiom "A chain is no stronger than its weakest

link" as a new management paradigm. This means that processes, organisations, etc., are vulnerable because the weakest person or part can always damage or break them or at least reduce the outcome. The analytic approach with TOC comes from the contention that any manageable system is limited in achieving more of its goals by a very small number of constraints, and that there is always at least one constraint. Hence the TOC process seeks to identify the constraint and restructure the rest of the organization around it, through the use of Five Focusing Steps.
Theory of Constraints (TOC) is an overall management philosophy introduced by Dr. Eliyahu M. Goldratt in his 1984 book titled The Goal, that is geared to help organizations continually achieve their goals.[1] Dr. Eliyahu M. Goldratt adopted the concept with his book Critical Chain, published 1997. The concept was extended to TOC with respectively titled publication in 1999.

The underlying premise of Theory of Constraints is that organizations can be measured and controlled by variations on three measures: throughput, operational expense, and inventory. Throughput is the rate at which the system generates money through sales. Inventory is all the money that the system has invested in purchasing things which it intends to sell. Operational expense is all the money the system spends in order to turn inventory into throughput.[4] "The Goal" itself is to "make money". All other benefits are derived, in one way or another, from that single primary goal.

[edit] The five focusing steps

Theory of Constraints is based on the premise that the rate of goal achievement is limited by at least one constraining process. Only by increasing flow through the constraint can overall throughput be increased.[1] Assuming the goal of the organization has been articulated (e.g., "Make money now and in the future") the steps are: 1. Identify the constraint (the resource or policy that prevents the organization from obtaining more of the goal) 2. Decide how to exploit the constraint (get the most capacity out of the constrained process) 3. Subordinate all other processes to above decision (align the whole system or organization to support the decision made above) 4. Elevate the constraint (make other major changes needed to break the constraint) 5. If, as a result of these steps, the constraint has moved, return to Step 1. Don't let inertia become the constraint.[5] The five focusing steps aim to ensure ongoing improvement efforts are centered around the organization's constraints. In the TOC literature, this is referred to as the "Process of Ongoing Improvement" (POOGI). These focusing steps are the key steps to developing the specific applications mentioned below.

Constraints
A constraint is anything that prevents the system from achieving more of its goal. There are many ways that constraints can show up, but a core principle within TOC is that there are not tens or hundreds of constraints. There is at least one and at most a few in any given system.

Constraints can be internal or external to the system. An internal constraint is in evidence when the market demands more from the system than it can deliver. If this is the case, then the focus of the organization should be on discovering that constraint and following the five focusing steps to open it up (and potentially remove it). An external constraint exists when the system can produce more than the market will bear. If this is the case, then the organization should focus on mechanisms to create more demand for its products or services. Types of (internal) constraints
y y y

Equipment: The way equipment is currently used limits the ability of the system to produce more salable goods/services. People: Lack of skilled people limits the system. Mental models held by people can cause behaviour that becomes a constraint. Policy: A written or unwritten policy prevents the system from making more.

The concept of the constraint in Theory of Constraints differs from the constraint that shows up in mathematical optimization. In TOC, the constraint is used as a focusing mechanism for management of the system. In optimization, the constraint is written into the mathematical expressions to limit the scope of the solution (X can be no greater than 5). Please note: Organizations have many problems with equipment, people, policies, etc. (A breakdown is just that - a breakdown - and is not a constraint in the true sense of the TOC concept) The constraint is the thing that is preventing the organization from getting more Throughput (typically, revenue through sales).

Buffers
Buffers are used throughout Theory of Constraints. They often result as part of the EXPLOIT and SUBORDINATE steps of the five focusing steps. Buffers are placed before the governing constraint, thus ensuring that the constraint is never starved. Buffers are also placed behind the constraint to prevent downstream failure to block the constraint's output. Buffers used in this way protect the constraint from variations in the rest of the system and should allow for normal variation of processing time and the occasional upset (Murphy) before and behind the constraint. Buffers can be a bank of physical objects before a work center, waiting to be processed by that work center. Buffers ultimately buy you time, as in the time before work reaches the constraint and are often verbalized as time buffers. There should always be enough (but not excessive) work in the time queue before the constraint and adequate offloading space behind the constraint. Buffers are not the small queue of work that sits before every work center in a Kanban system although it is similar if you regard the assembly line as the governing constraint. A prerequisite in Theory of Constraints is that with one constraint in the system, all other parts of the system must have sufficient capacity to keep up with the work at the constraint and to catch up if time was lost. In a balanced line, as espoused by Kanban, when one work center goes down for a period longer than the buffer allows, then the entire system must wait until that work center is restored. In a TOC system, the only situation where work is in danger, is if the constraint is unable to process (either due to malfunction, sickness or a "hole" in the buffer - if something goes wrong that the time buffer can not protect). Buffer management therefore represents a crucial attribute of the Theory of Constraints. There are many ways to do it, but the most often used is a visual system of designating the buffer in three colours: Green (OK), Yellow (Caution) and Red (Action required). Creating this kind of visibility enables the system as a whole to align and thus subordinate to the need

of the constraint in a holistic manner. This can also be done daily in a central operations room that is accessible to everybody.

Plant types
There are four primary types of plants in the TOC lexicon. Draw the flow of material from the bottom of a page to the top, and you get the four types. They specify the general flow of materials through a system, and they provide some hints about where to look for typical problems. The four types can be combined in many ways in larger facilities.
y

I-Plant: Material flows in a sequence, such as in an assembly line. The primary work is done in a straight sequence of events (one-to-one). The constraint is the slowest operation. A-Plant: The general flow of material is many-to-one, such as in a plant where many subassemblies converge for a final assembly. The primary problem in A-plants is in synchronizing the converging lines so that each supplies the final assembly point at the right time. V-Plant: The general flow of material is one-to-many, such as a plant that takes one raw material and can make many final products. Classic examples are meat rendering plants or a steel manufacturer. The primary problem in V-plants is "robbing" where one operation (A) immediately after a diverging point "steals" materials meant for the other operation (B). Once the material has been processed by A, it cannot come back and be run through B without significant rework. T-Plant: The general flow is that of an I-Plant (or has multiple lines), which then splits into many assemblies (many-to-many). Most manufactured parts are used in multiple assemblies and nearly all assemblies use multiple parts. Customized devices, such as computers, are good examples. T-plants suffer from both synchronization problems of Aplants (parts aren't all available for an assembly) and the robbing problems of V-plants (one assembly steals parts that could have been used in another).

For non-material systems, one can draw the flow of work or the flow of processes and arrive at similar basic structures. A project, for example is an A-shaped sequence of work, culminating in a delivered project.

Applications
The focusing steps, or this Process of Ongoing Improvement has been applied to Manufacturing, Project Management, Supply Chain/Distribution generated specific solutions. Other tools (mainly the "Thinking Process") also led to TOC applications in the fields of Marketing and Sales, and Finance.

Four Types of Justice

Explanations > Trust > Four Types of Justice Distributive | Procedural | Restorative | Retributive | So what?

There are four types of justice that people can seek when they have been wronged.

Distributive justice
Distributive justice, also known as economic justice, is about fairness in what people receive, from goods to attention. Its roots are in social order and it is at the roots of

Communism, where equality is a fundamental principle. If people do not thing that they are getting their fair share of something, they will seek first to gain what they believe they deserve. They may well also seek other forms of justice.

Procedural justice
The principle of fairness is also found in the idea of fair play (as opposed to the fair share of distributive justice). If people believe that a fair process was used in deciding what it to be distributed, then they may well accept an imbalance in what they receive in comparison to others. If they see both procedural and distributive injustice, they will likely seek restorative and/or retributive justice.

Restorative justice
The first thing that the betrayed person may seek from the betrayer is some form of restitution, putting things back as they should be. The simplest form of restitution is a straightforward apology. Restoration means putting things back as they were, so it may include some act of contrition to demonstrate one is truly sorry. This may include action and even extra payment to the offended party. Restorative justice is also known as corrective justice.

Retributive justice
Restoration may well not be enough for the betrayed person and they may seek revenge of some sort, whereby they can feel the satisfaction of seeing the other person suffer in the way that they have suffered. Revenge can be many times more severe than reparation as the hurt party seeks to make the other person suffer in return.

So what?
If you have been wronged, consider carefully what kind of justice you are really seeking. If you are the wrong-doer and others are seeking justice against you, seek first to ensure distributive justice. A question may be asked why people are put in prison. If it is to prevent them reoffending, then it is restorative justice. If it is to punish them, then it is retributive justice. Sadly, this have proven a poor method of prevention. A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department, a public or private organization, or a company. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other

people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues). One of the first laws that protected whistleblowers was the 1863 United States False Claims Act (revised in 1986), which tried to combat fraud by suppliers of the United States government during the Civil War. The act encourages whistleblowers by promising them a percentage of the money recovered or damages won by the government and protects them from wrongful dismissal.[2] Whistleblowers frequently face reprisal, sometimes at the hands of the organization or group which they have accused, sometimes from related organizations, and sometimes under law. The term whistleblower comes from the phrase "blow the whistle," which refers to a whistle being blown by a police officer or a referee to indicate an activity that is illegal or a foul.[3][4]

[edit] Definition
Most whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, who report misconduct on a fellow employee or superior within their company. One of the most interesting questions with respect to internal whistleblowers is why and under what circumstances people will either act on the spot to stop illegal and otherwise unacceptable behavior or report it.[5] There is some reason to believe that people are more likely to take action with respect to unacceptable behavior, within an organization, if there are complaint systems that offer not just options dictated by the planning and control organization, but a choice of options for individuals, including an option that offers near absolute confidentiality.[6] External whistleblowers, however, report misconduct on outside persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the information's severity and nature, whistleblowers may report the misconduct to lawyers, the media, law enforcement or watchdog agencies, or other local, state, or federal agencies. In some cases, external whistleblowing is encouraged by offering monetary reward. Under most US federal whistleblower statutes, in order to be considered a whistleblower, the federal employee must have reason to believe his or her employer has violated some law, rule or regulation; testify or commence a legal proceeding on the legally protected matter; or refuse to violate the law. In cases where whistleblowing on a specified topic is protected by statute, US courts have generally held that such whistleblowers are protected from retaliation.[7] However, a closely divided US Supreme Court decision, Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) held that the First Amendment free speech guarantees for government employees do not protect disclosures made within the scope of the employees' duties. Johari window is a cognitive psychological tool created by Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham in 1955 [1] in the United States, used to help people better understand their interpersonal communication and relationships. It is used primarily in self-help groups and corporate settings as a heuristic exercise. When performing the exercise, subjects are given a list of 56 adjectives and pick five or six that they feel describe their own personality. Peers of the subject are then given the same list, and each pick five or six adjectives that describe the subject. These adjectives are then mapped onto a grid.[2] Charles Handy calls this concept the Johari House with four rooms. Room 1 is the part of ourselves that we see and others see. Room 2 is the aspects that others see but we are not aware of. Room 3 is the most mysterious room in that the unconscious or subconscious part

of us is seen by neither ourselves nor others. Room 4 is our private space, which we know but keep from others. The concept is clearly related to the ideas propounded in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator program, which in turn derive from theories about the personality first explored by psychologist Carl Jung. Open: Adjectives that are selected by both the participant and his or her peers are placed into the Open quadrant. This quadrant represents traits of the subjects that both they and their peers are aware of. Hidden: Adjectives selected only by subjects, but not by any of their peers, are placed into the Hidden quadrant, representing information about them their peers are unaware of. It is then up to the subject to disclose this information or not. Blind Spot: Adjectives that are not selected by subjects but only by their peers are placed into the Blind Spot quadrant. These represent information that the subject is not aware of, but others are, and they can decide whether and how to inform the individual about these "blind spots". Unknown: Adjectives that were not selected by either subjects or their peers remain in the Unknown quadrant, representing the participant's behaviors or motives that were not recognized by anyone participating. This may be because they do not apply or because there is collective ignorance of the existence of these traits.