Using the Theory of Constraints-Thinking Processes to explore
Business School students’ learning experiences
Sarah W. Kimani1, Victoria J. Mabin2 and John Davies3
Victoria Business School, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
1
kimanisara@myvuw.ac.nz,
2
vicky.mabin@vuw.ac.nz
3
john.davies@vuw.ac.nz
Abstract
Any quality improvement initiative of a system requires an understanding of the system’s
goal to which the collective effort of a system is directed. This system’s goal then serves
as a benchmark to measure system performance, as well as measuring deviations from
the goal which can act as indicators of why the system performs less than optimally. This
study, which is a part of a larger study involving students, lecturers and administrators of
a Business School in Kenya, has focused on identification of the goal of learning and the
causes of the less than desirable learning experiences that impact negatively on the goal
achievement. Using focus group discussions, this study identified a common goal of
learning and critical root causes of the undesirable learning, and proposes ideas for
dealing with dilemmas associated with the critical root causes.
Key words: Business School, Learning Goal, Undesirable effects, Dilemmas
1
Introduction
As the experience economy continues to grow, the need for organisations to understand
the experiences of their key stakeholders becomes paramount. Today, leading
organisations have realised the benefits of staging experiences as a competitive advantage
particularly where such experiences help an organisation to command premium economic
values (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). Indeed, experiences have been at the heart of many
businesses. Even within higher education (HE) institutions, students’ experiences have
been enhanced to make them more memorable through active participation (Pine &
Gilmore, 1998).
Research into students’ perceptions of their experiences has taken several dimensions.
Owlia and Aspinwall, 1998) adapted a SERVQUAL scale to measure perceptions and
expectations of teaching aspects of quality in HE. Gamage, Suwanabroma, Ueyama,
Hada, and Sekikawa (2008) used a ten-factor based questionnaire developed from
literature review, to understand students’ perceptions of important factors that impacted
on their decisions in selecting a university. Douglas, McClelland, and Davies (2008) used
critical incident technique (CIT) to gather university students’ experiences of teaching,
learning, assessment and ancillary services and their impact on students’ satisfaction
and/or dissatisfaction. These studies have highlighted important areas where managers of
HE institutions could focus attention on in order to improve students’ experiences.
Despite such research on students’ experiences, problems in teaching and learning
(T&L) remain. Noticeably, few researchers have explored students’ learning goals in a
HE context from a systemic perspective, and fewer still have examined the impact of less
than desirable experiences of learning on achieving the learning goal. As a consequence,
in taking a systems perspective, and in choosing to view T&L as a sub-system within a
HE institution system, it becomes important to first establish a common understanding of
ultimate purpose of the T&L sub-system (Dettmer, 2011).
This paper, which is part of a larger study involving students, lecturers and
administrators of two Business Schools, seeks to identify the goal of learning and the
1
causes of the less-than-desirable learning experiences that impact negatively on the
achievement of the learning goal. The paper draws on the views of students from one of
the two schools in the wider study, and applies the theory of constraints (TOC)
methodology and the thinking processes (TP) logic tools to identify the learning goal and
then to focus on the few main causes of undesirable factors that impact negatively on the
learning goal. Through the use of effect-cause-effect logic, the root causes of the lessthan-desirable experiences are identified. TOC emphasises not just the need to focus on
these core causes, but also the need to address them; and it also recognises that the
situation will not necessarily be improved just by improving other parts of the system.
The intention of this paper, then, is to demonstrate how TOC may be used to identify root
causes, and to propose ideas to resolve the dilemma(s) behind the root causes.
2
The Theory of Constraints (TOC)
The Theory of Constraints (TOC) is a system-based management philosophy that was
developed by Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt and was popularised through his novels such as The
Goal (Goldratt & Cox, 1992) and It’s not Luck (Goldratt, 1994).The TOC is based on the
premise that every system has a goal and that very few factors or constraints often limit a
system’s performance at any given time. Therefore, TOC focuses on the constraint that
prevents a system from achieving its goal. In this paper, in order to identify the constraints
that hinder the achievement of the learning goal, the TOC methodology is used.
3
The TOC Methodology
TOC is a systems-based meta-methodology with a set of tools and methods that are used
in complex situations as a set of problem-solving interventions that move through the
stages of problem structuring, diagnosis, solution development to implementation
(Mabin, Davies & Kim, 2009). These tools are collectively known as the Thinking
Processes and comprise five logic-tree diagram processes and the Evaporating Cloud
(EC) or conflict resolution process (see Dettmer, 2007).
In this study, TOC methodology was used in the design of the discussion guide used
in the focus group (FG) interviews with the students, and in design of the interview guide
used with lecturers and senior managers of the two business schools. The discussion guide
provided a means to identify the goal of learning, the critical success factors (CSFs) for
achieving the goal, and the necessary conditions (NC) needed to underpin achievement
of each of those factors. The guide also focused on identifying the symptoms that limited
the effective achievement of the learning goal.
3.1
The Thinking-Process (TP) logic tools
Three TP tools were used in this study; the goal tree (GT), the current reality tree (CRT)
and the evaporating cloud (EC).
1. The goal tree
In order to be clear about whether, and if so, why change is needed, a goal tree was used
to state the students’ ultimate goal of learning and then to map the conditions required to
achieve that goal. Specifically, we represent this as a hierarchy of the CSFs (Dettmer,
2011). Dettmer (2011) argued that ‘a well-defined goal and its critical success factors
provided the benchmarks for deciding the parts of the system that needed attention’.
2. The current reality tree
After the construction of a Goal tree, achievement gaps were identified by participants
along with other symptoms or problems, referred to as ‘undesirable effects’ (UDE’s). The
CRT was used to depict a chain of effect-cause-effect relationships between the factors
2
that limited the achievement of students’ learning goal leading down to the root causes
of those limiting or constraining factors (Davies, Mabin, & Balderstone, 2005). In order
to construct the CRT, factors that negatively impacted on learning goals or were
symptoms of not meeting the goals, were identified. From these factors, a set of
undesirable effects (UDEs) were determined (Cox, Boyd, H, Sullivan, Reid, & Cartier,
2012). The UDEs were then connected together through a logical chain of cause and effect
to the root cause(s) guided by use of a logic-testing process invoking use of the Categories
of Legitimate Reservations (CLR).
The CLR consists of rules or tests that clarify or verify the cause and effect logic in
terms of challenging the clarity, existence of the cause and effect, or ‘if…then’,
relationships; sufficiency of the cause to produce the effect; possibility of cause-effect
reversal; or existence of circular logic. In this study, the finished CRT was used to provide
a logical explanation of how the root causes currently lead to under-achievement of the
students’ goal of learning. Then, using understanding gained from the extensive CRT, a
focused fCRT is developed with emphasis on only a few core UDEs (Ronen & Pass,
2008). Flying Logic software, specifically designed for constructing the thinking
processes logic trees, was used to construct both the CRT and fCRT logic diagrams.
3. The evaporating cloud
An Evaporating Cloud (EC) is a core tool in the set of TOC thinking process tools; its
chief purpose is to resolve a conflicting situation or evaporate a dilemma. In the TOC,
the presence of UDEs in a system is often interpreted as an indicator of the presence of
conflicts or dilemmas (Dettmer, 2007). In trying to resolve dilemma, the EC process
portrays conflict as being two opposing sides, positions or actions. The conflict or
dilemma is assumed to be rooted in the hidden or implicit assumptions of each side. The
EC process helps to surface the assumptions of each side, and then to question their
validity through exploration of ideas that can then be converted into actions or solutions
to the seemingly complex situation. The intent is always to lead to a win-win solution
(Dettmer, 2007).
4
The research design
This study adopted a qualitative research approach to investigate the experiences of
students, lecturers and senior administrators of two Business Schools (Kenya and New
Zealand). The study also adopted an interpretivist view based on the ontological
assumption that realities are multiple, constructed and embedded in individuals contexts
(Pickard, 2007). The part of study presented here is based on undergraduate students
learning experiences in Kenya. The sample frame / total population of students was 7,750.
Purposive sampling was used to identify those who would be representative of different
categories of students within the Business School.
5
Data Analysis and Findings
The findings of this study are based on data collected from five focus groups (FGs) of
undergraduate students. The five groups comprised different categories of students
namely: full-time government sponsored students, full-time self-sponsored students, parttime self-sponsored students, international students and student leaders. The students
were at different years of study, ranging from 1st year to 4th year of the Bachelor
programmes. A total of 33 students participated in this case study.
5.1
The learning goal
During the focus group (FG) discussions, each of the students within the five FGs
identified their individual learning goals. In order to move to the next step of identification
3
of the critical success factors (CSF) and subsequent necessary conditions (NCs) for each
factor, a consensus goal was sought in each group shown in Table 1.
Table 1: The identification of the learning goal(s)
Focus
Group
KM1
KM2 (FT)
KIS
KSL
KM2 (PT)
Consensus
goal
To be a well-rounded
mature
responsible
graduate with necessary
knowledge & skills
needed in the job market
and by the society
To
attain
the
necessary managerial
and social skills and
knowledge
for
practical
/technical
application
To
get
the
knowledge and
exposure that may
transform my life
positively
To become a
well-rounded
person
in
business
skills
and
talents
Get
knowledge,
ideas & skills that
might help in the
job market or in
self-employment.
In order to do so, each of the five FGs constructed its own goal tree during focus group
discussion. The process of analysis undertaken by the researchers, following the FGs,
then involved consolidating these five goal trees into one. Two major steps were involved:
a. Unitisation of the consensus goal
The first step in the consolidation process was the unitisation of the separate consensus
goals drawn from each group. The analysis of the five consensus goals’ yielded a common
goal of ‘acquisition of business knowledge and skills’.
b. Unitisation of the CSFs and the NCs
After identifying a common goal for all five groups, the next step involved unitisation of
the many CSFs and the NCs for all groups. The unitisation process resulted in three
factors namely: (1) Adequate T&L facilities and structures, (2) qualified committed and
‘techno-savvy’ lecturers, and (3) Self-discipline and hard-working students. Seven NCs
were identified as shown in Figure 2.
In summary, students perceived the need for (1) modern T&L classrooms, labs, lecture
theatres, sporting and recreational facilities; (2) computer technology & innovation and
internet facilities; (3) well-equipped library and e-resources; (4) staff development &
training; (5) teamwork & collaborations; (6) student engagement and support; and (7)
good leadership of the school.
4
Figure 2. The students’ goal tree
5.2
Identification of the problems that affect the quality of learning experiences
Students identified many undesirable issues within their learning environment relative to
their learning goal of ‘acquiring relevant business knowledge and skills’. In order to
qualify for further analysis, these issues were reduced into undesirable effects (UDEs)
using an UDE protocol (Cox, et al., 2012). The identified UDEs are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Undesirable effects (UDEs) identified by students
1. Students numbers in most classes are very high
2. The structure and management of the school is bureaucratic
3. There is slow integration of modern technological approaches in L&T
4. The program design is rigid and not up to date
5. The T&L facilities & equipment are not enough
6. The hiring practices are not always rigorous
7. The school does not always hire the right lecturers
8. Most invigilators are not well vetted
9. There are not enough lecturers
10. There are limited interactions between students and lecturers
11. The library does not have enough modern resources
12. Practical and emerging business issues are not integrated in L&T
13. Most L&T is theoretical
14. The syllabi are not well covered
15. There are incidents of cheating and collaboration in exams
After the identification of the UDEs, the next step was to construct a current reality
tree (CRT). A CRT is defined as a thinking process, sufficiency-based logic diagram that
5
facilitates the answering of the change sequential questions of ‘what to change’ by
illustrating the cause and effect relationships between the core problem and the
undesirable effects in a system (Dettmer, 2007). From the CRT, a focused fCRT was
constructed. The fCRT identified two critical root causes that contribute to students’
undesirable experiences: The structure and management of the school is bureaucratic
(UDE 2) and the student numbers in most classes are high (UDE 1) (Figure 3).
Figure 3. fCRT for Students
(i)
The structure and management of the school is bureaucratic
The bureaucratic structure and management of the school seems to contribute to most of
the UDEs that impact on students learning experiences. On the one hand, students blame
the management for the rigid program design (UDE4) and for the slow integration of modern
technology in T&L (UDE 3).
We should have exchange programmes whereby you go to another university and learn how they
learn. … learning should be more practical than theoretical. The B. Com degree course is full of
theory. When you reach fourth year, you have all these theories but we need to practice them. So
I wish we have a situation where after we learn a theory, we go the practical aspect of it. Visit
organisations and see how the theory works. The university could invite some of these managers
so that we can interact with them and know the problems they face in management… If we could
integrate the social media in learning whereby even the lecturers tweet on topical issues, you
follow, comment… but the structure of the institution cannot accommodate that (KM1).
Students also blame the management for the poorly resourced library (UDE 11).
6
The poorly equipped library is caused by negligence by administrative staff and it is not given
priority (KM2-PT).
Together, these issues contribute to poor integration of practical and emerging business issues in
T&L (UDE 12) which implies that most T&L tends to be theoretical (UDE 13).
Basically what we learn here we don’t get to know what exactly happens out there in the business
world. Teaching should therefore relate more to the business world. Teaching should be more
application than theoretical (KM2-FT).
As a result, students felt that they did not effectively achieve their goal of ‘acquiring relevant
business knowledge and skills (UDE 16).
On the other hand, the bureaucratic structure and management tends to harbour hiring
practices that are not always rigorous (UDE 6). As a result, some invigilators were not always
well vetted. Students blamed such invigilators for encouraging examination malpractices. They
also indicated that those students who engaged in such practices lacked confidence and feared to
fail. The lack of confidence is therefore attributed to lack of effective coverage of the syllabi
(UDE 14). Moreover, the poor hiring practices also tend to sip in some lecturers who were not
always rightly qualified to teach (UDE 7).
I experienced one major dilemma because of the teachers, they are not well monitored. I was in a
dilemma between choosing accounting option & finance option, to give you a more realistic
perspective of this, the teachers of accounting in first years and second years, they don’t really
emphasise on teaching us the correct things such a way that we found ourselves failing. If you ask
all of us here, I think 95% of the students had D’s in accounting for assets(1) & accounting for
equities (2), most of us failed, simply not because we didn’t know what we were doing, but because
of poor teaching (KM2-FT).
Thus, when students lack confidence, then they tend to engage in exam cheating. As a result,
students fail to gain relevant business knowledge and skills (UDE 16).
You find that there are also emerging trends and cultures where students hire or bribe invigilators
during exams causing cheating to flourish (KM2-PT).
(ii)
The student numbers in most classes are high
Most classes have high student numbers (UDE 1). Yet, the T&L facilities and equipment
are not always enough (UDE 5). Also, lecturers are inadequate (UDE 9). As a result,
interactions between students and lecturers are limited (UDE 10). The slow integration of
modern technology allegedly contributes to the limited interactions. The limited
interactions then tend to contribute to the ineffective coverage of the syllabi and to
ineffective acquisition of business knowledge and skills as discussed under (ii).
The above discussion has demonstrated the effect of the root causes of the UDEs on
students’ learning goal. The next section demonstrates how to explore solutions behind
the root causes.
5.3. Resolving the dilemma
As alluded above, students fCRT identified two root causes (the bureaucratic structure of
the school and the high student numbers in class). Given limitations on time and space,
this paper prefers to focus on resolving the dilemma of the ‘high student numbers in
classes. The purpose is to show how this constraint can be exploited to achieve the goal
of learning within the available resources. We demonstrate how the evaporating cloud
(EC) process of TOC may address the dilemma.
Students concern for interaction in their learning was apparent. Perhaps the following
phrase articulates it best.
The T&L experience should be more interactive between the students and the teachers. We don’t even
know each other with the lecturer… for example today we have completed the course work for one
course whereby, no question has ever been asked since the lecturer started lecturing. The lecturer
usually asks ‘is there any question?’ but no question has ever been asked. So I do not know if the
students are the problem or the nature of the course work or they understand more… (KM2-FT).
This EC is a 5 box {A, B, C, D, D’} diagram created in the following steps:
1.
Identify the undesirable action that is currently forcing students to be in the dilemma situation. In
this case, it is ‘No interactions in large classes’. This is put in box D.
7
2.
3.
4.
5.
Identify the desired opposite of the complaint. In this case, ‘High levels of interactions in large
classes’. This is put in box D’
Identify the need that is satisfied by the action in box D or the reason why we put up with action
D. This is identified as ‘Ensure coverage of syllabi’. This is put in box B.
Identify the need that is satisfied by action in box D’ or what does D jeopardise? This is identified
as ‘Actively engage students in learning. This is put in box C.
Identify a common objective of having BOTH B and C. This is identified as ‘Students acquire
business knowledge and skills’.
This dilemma is depicted in Figure 4.
Figure 4: EC on the limited interactions in T&L
The EC is read, from left to right, and in doing so, provides a means by which the logic
can be checked in a systematic and systemic manner:
In order to ensure students acquire business knowledge and skills (A), lecturers must
ensure full coverage of syllabi (B).
... and in order the lecturers to ensure full coverage of syllabi (B), they must have no
interactions in large classes (D).
8
On the other hand, in order to ensure students acquire business knowledge and skills (A),
lectures must ensure active engagement of students in learning (C),
… and in order to ensure active engagement of students in learning (C), lecturers must
have high levels of interactions in large classes (D'). Hence, the conflict arises.
Assumptions underpinning each of the arrows are then surfaced. They will include both
valid assumptions, and invalid ones which can be challenged. For example, for arrow BD, we read, In order to ensure students acquire business knowledge and skills, lecturers
must ensure full coverage of syllabi,
... and in order for the lecturers to ensure full coverage of syllabi, they must have no
interactions in large classes, because (assumptions):
1. Interactions are not possible in large classes. I will get overwhelmed
2. Discussions in large classes are not effective. They are a waste of time
3. Interactions in large classes must be technologically enabled
4. Preparing tasks for interactions in large classes is time consuming- it is difficult
to cover syllabi with limited time… (see Figure 4).
At the same time for C-D', in order to ensure students acquire business knowledge and
skills, lecturers must ensure active engagement of students in learning,
… and in order to ensure active engagement of students in learning, lecturers must have
high levels of interactions in large classes, because:
1. Students express need for interactions in lectures
2. Students understand better when there are interactive activities
3. Interactions motivate students to learn… (See Figure 4).
We then generate ideas or injections that challenge or break these assumptions,
and which can then be explored as solutions to resolve the dilemma. The injection
suggested here (Bonwell & Eison, 1991) are giving students activities that develop their
critical thinking skills. Such activities can be designed as in-lecture activities such as
group presentations, think-pair-share, demonstrations and role plays. The activities could
also include field assignments (individual or group) where students could write reports
related to activities such as interviewing and observations, or involve them in organising
and participating in events related to the course. Moreover, engagement through the social
media could help to create social forums where lecturers and students could share courserelated debates outside classrooms. However, just like in lectures, the level of online
engagement and involvement must be driven by the lecturer based on the nature of
thoughts and activities s/he posts or blogs. Thus, these and other ideas could be evaluated
as a way of resolving the interaction dilemma with a possible win-win solution. Indeed,
through active engagement and involvement of students, lecturers could get ideas about
their researches or ideas on possible research areas.
The above EC demonstrates how the ‘lack of interaction’ dilemma could be solved
with the available resources, helping students to enjoy their learning experiences as they
enhance their business knowledge and skills. Therefore the EC provides simple solutions
to a seemly complex situation. Through such simple injections, the EC evaporates many
other UDEs that are associated with ‘lack of interactions’, leading to a more effective
achievement of the learning goal.
6
Conclusion
This case study, set in an African business school, has provided opportunity to
demonstrate how the TOC-Thinking Processes can be used to effectively identify the de
facto or implicit goal of learning in a HE institution. In related manner, the core problems
impacting negatively on students’ experiences of learning are identified through an effectcause-effect logic diagramming process. These core problems are identified as the core
9
areas on which management of the University needs to focus attention in order to
materially improve student experiences of learning, progress in learning, and achievement
of the goal(s) of learning. In order to do so, the paper demonstrates how the EC process
may be used to better understand any dilemma(s) caused by and underpinning the core
problems, and then how to resolve those dilemma(s) by guiding exploration of possible
ideas, initiatives or injections that might lead to effective and desirable outcomes and goal
attainment.
7
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Victoria University of Wellington for financial assistance for data collection, the
University of Nairobi for being part of the study and all participants for their valuable contributions.
8
References
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports.
Cox, J. F., Boyd, H, L., Sullivan, T., Reid, R., A., & Cartier, B. (2012). TOCICO Dictionary by Theory of
Constraints International Certification Organization, (TOCICO).
Davies, J., Mabin, V. J., & Balderstone, S. J. (2005). "The theory of constraints: a methodology apart?—a
comparison with selected OR/MS methodologies". Omega, 33(6), 506–524.
Dettmer, H. W. (2007). The logical thinking process. USA: American Society for Quality; Quality Press.
Dettmer, H. W. (2011). Our goal is...What is our goal? Goal Systems International.
Douglas, J., McClelland, R., & Davies, J. (2008). "The development of a conceptual model of student
satisfaction with their experience in higher education". Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1),
19–35.
Gamage, D. T., Suwanabroma, J., Ueyama, T., Hada, S., & Sekikawa, E. (2008). "The impact of quality
assurance measures on student services at the Japanese and Thai private universities". Quality
Assurance in Education, 16(2), 181–198.
Goldratt, E. M. (1994). It’s Not Luck. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.
Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (1992). The goal : a process of ongoing improvement. Great Barrington, MA:
North River Press.
Mabin, J., Davies, J., & Kim, S. (2009). "Rethinking tradeoffs and OR/MS methodology". The Journal of
the Operational Research Society, 60(10), 1384–1395.
Owlia, M. S., & Aspinwall, E. M. (1998). "A framework for measuring quality in engineering education".
Total Quality Management, 9(6), 501–518.
Pickard, A., J. (2007). Research Methods in Information. London WCIE 7AE: Facet Publishing.
Pine, J., & Gilmore, J. (1998). "Welcome to the experience economy". Harvard Business Review, (JulyAugust).
Ronen, B., & Pass, S. (2008). Focused Operations management: Achieving more with existing resources.
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
10