agentsclimarketplace

Theory of constraints

Skill deciqAI/knowledge-skills/theory-of-constraints

Activate when: user says 'everyone is working hard but results are flat', 'where is our bottleneck', 'we keep adding capacity but throughput doesn't improve', 'backlog piling up at one stage', 'Goldratt / TOC / Five Focusing Steps', or is designing a process-improvement initiative and wants to know where to invest. Do NOT activate when: the system is single-step with no dependencies; the constraint is purely demand-side and supply-side analysis is irrelevant. More: deciqai.com/s/theory-of-constraintsFrom its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add deciqAI/knowledge-skills --skill theory-of-constraints

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 6 stars6 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

7.4 KB, ~1.6k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Theory of Constraints

Overview

Theory of Constraints (TOC) — Eliyahu Goldratt, 1984: throughput of any multi-step system is determined by its single bottleneck. Improving any other step produces no system-level gain. The Five Focusing Steps (Identify → Exploit → Subordinate → Elevate → Repeat) are the operational discipline.

Composes with pareto-principle (TOC = Pareto applied to throughput), feedback-loops, first-principles, and mvp (MVP design = TOC applied to validated learning).

When to Use

  • System is producing less than desired throughput; "everyone is working hard" but results don't match effort
  • Management improvement initiative or capacity investment is being planned
  • Backlog or inventory accumulates at a specific step; local improvements don't translate system-wide
  • Someone says "bottleneck," "throughput," "Goldratt," or "Theory of Constraints"
  • Analyzing an AI capex / chip-supply-chain question — where the real limit is (e.g. GPU design vs. advanced packaging, HBM, or grid power), whether the "AI bubble" reflects a design race or a hidden physical bottleneck

Not when: single-step system; purely demand-side constraint; problem is strategic/psychological, not operational.

Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)

  • Engine mode: user has a concrete throughput problem → run The Process directly.
  • Coach mode: user is unfamiliar → guide step by step.

In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.

  1. One-line: throughput is set by the slowest step — find it, fix it, ignore the rest until a new bottleneck emerges.
  2. Check fit: single-step system or demand-side constraint → TOC doesn't apply.
  3. Elicit their real case: what's the system? desired throughput? where does work-in-process pile up?

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

  1. Run The Process one step at a time: constraint? exploiting it? subordinating everything else? elevate?

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

  1. Close by naming the constraint, action plan, and re-identification schedule.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

The Process

Step 1 — Identify: map all steps with capacity; find where WIP accumulates — that's the constraint. Step 2 — Exploit: max output from the constraint with no new investment (eliminate idle time, defects, distractions at that step). Step 3 — Subordinate: pace all other steps to the constraint's rate. Upstream: don't over-produce. Downstream: don't block. Retire local efficiency metrics that incentivize over-production. Step 4 — Elevate: if still binding after Steps 2-3, add capacity at the constraint (equipment, people, redesign). Highest ROI investment in the system. Step 5 — Repeat: bottleneck has moved. Return to Step 1.

Output: TOC Analysis

# TOC Analysis: <system>
## System map — steps, capacity per step, actual throughput, where WIP accumulates
## Constraint — bottleneck step + evidence (WIP buildup, idle downstream, output rate match)
## Exploit — changes to maximize current constraint output (no new investment)
## Subordinate — upstream rate limits, downstream coordination, metric changes, buffer plan
## Elevate — capacity investment at constraint, cost/benefit
## Re-identification — what to monitor, likely next constraint, re-apply schedule

→ Method in Action: Goldratt's The Goal (1984) and TOC's Lineage · Critical Chain Project Management (1997) → 2026 lens: The AI buildout's true constraint — packaging & power, not GPU design (2024–2026)

Pack: TOC by Domain

DomainTypical constraintCommon errorTOC fix
ManufacturingSpecific machine/workstationOptimizing all stationsSubordinate rest to bottleneck
Software devCode review, QA, or deployPush devs to write fasterLimit WIP to constraint's rate
Sales funnelSpecific conversion stepAdd more top-of-funnel leadsFix conversion at the bottleneck
Hospital opsOR scheduling or dischargeAdd bedsFind true bottleneck (often discharge)
Project mgmtCritical task or shared resourcePer-task safety paddingCritical chain; project-level buffer

Applying It Well

  • Identify the constraint with evidence, not intuition.
  • Exploit and subordinate before elevating — most constraints yield without capital.
  • Retire local efficiency metrics at non-constraints; they systematically mislead.
  • Re-run Five Focusing Steps after every improvement — the constraint will move.

→ Primary sources: references/sources.md

Common Rationalizations

[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.

Fake moveReality
[D] "We need to fix all the problems"Fix the constraint only. Non-constraint improvements produce no system gain.
[D] "Everyone needs to work hard"Max output at non-constraints creates inventory, not throughput.
[D] "100% utilization everywhere"Mathematically false with variability. Non-constraints need slack.
[D] "Local efficiency = global efficiency"False in any multi-step system.
[D] "We don't have a constraint"Finite throughput = constraint exists. Find it.
[D] "More technology will solve it"Only if it addresses the constraint.
→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure patternWhat went wrong and why

Red Flags

  • Diagnosis for throughput shortfall is "everyone needs to work harder"
  • Capacity investment spread across multiple steps without constraint identification
  • Inventory visibly accumulates in front of one step; no one flags it
  • Local productivity metrics tracked without aggregation to system throughput
  • Previous TOC gains have decayed (new constraint unmanaged)

Verification

  • System map drawn with capacity at each step
  • Constraint identified with evidence (not intuition)
  • Five Focusing Steps applied in order (exploit before elevate)
  • Non-constraint metrics that contradict system throughput retired
  • Next constraint identified after improvement; re-application scheduled

Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills — 233 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/s/theory-of-constraints · Built by deciqAI · github.com/deciqAI · Contributions welcome.

Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/theory-of-constraints.json

What ships with it: 4 files

24.6 KB alongside SKILL.md

references/

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.