# Frameworks: Theory of Constraints and Cynefin

This skill runs on two frameworks. Theory of Constraints decides what to do first; Cynefin decides how confident the plan is allowed to be. OODA was considered during design and cut: it was structural branding without a section it actually drove.

## Theory of Constraints (Goldratt)

Eliyahu Goldratt's Theory of Constraints holds that any system is limited by a single binding constraint at any moment, and that improving anything other than the constraint does not improve the system. The five focusing steps:

1. **Identify** the constraint: the one thing currently limiting throughput toward the goal.
2. **Exploit** the constraint: get the most out of it without new investment.
3. **Subordinate** everything else to the constraint: stop optimizing non-constraints.
4. **Elevate** the constraint: invest to lift it if exploiting was not enough.
5. **Repeat:** once lifted, a new constraint binds; do not let inertia become the constraint.

In this skill, the binding constraint becomes the system goal for the plan, and **P1 is the effort that exploits or elevates it.** Efforts that do not subordinate to the constraint are deferred in "what NOT to do." This is the source of the skill's core principle: one constraint binds at a time; everything else is noise until it is lifted.

## Cynefin (Snowden)

Dave Snowden's Cynefin is a sense-making framework that sorts a situation into a domain by how knowable cause and effect are. Each domain calls for a different response, and the skill uses the domain to cap plan confidence and shape posture.

| Domain | Cause and effect | Right response | Confidence ceiling here |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Clear** (Obvious) | Known and undisputed; best practice exists | Sense, categorize, respond; apply best practice | High |
| **Complicated** | Knowable with analysis or expertise; good practices exist | Sense, analyze, respond; commit after analysis | Medium-High |
| **Complex** | Only knowable in hindsight; emergent | Probe, sense, respond; run safe-to-fail experiments | Medium-Low |
| **Chaotic** | No discernible cause and effect; crisis | Act, sense, respond; stabilize first | Low |
| **Confusion** (Aporia) | Domain itself unclear | Break the situation into parts and classify each | n/a |

The two distinctions that matter most in practice:

- **Complicated vs Complex** is decided by evidence, not topic. A problem is Complex when the input shows the outcome is genuinely unpredictable (new market, untested user behavior, conflicting data), not merely hard. Misclassifying Complex as Complicated is the most common failure, and it produces false-confident plans.
- **Complex demands probes; Chaotic demands stabilization.** Lowering a confidence label is not enough: the plan's content must change. A Complex plan contains safe-to-fail probes; a Chaotic plan contains stabilization actions.

## How the two combine

Theory of Constraints sets the ranking (what is P1). Cynefin sets the ceiling (how confident P1 and the overall plan may be, and whether the plan is made of commitments, probes, or stabilization actions). A plan that names a crisp constraint but ignores a Complex domain will read confident and be wrong; a plan that classifies well but never names a constraint will read honest and be useless. The skill needs both.

## Sources

- Goldratt, E. M. (1984). *The Goal.* North River Press. (Theory of Constraints, five focusing steps.)
- Snowden, D. J., and Boone, M. E. (2007). "A Leader's Framework for Decision Making." *Harvard Business Review.* (Cynefin domains and responses.)
