Goals, constraints and moves: how the Theory of Constraints built Clearahead

If you’ve seen Clearahead, you might wonder where the model came from, because it looks deceptively simple, with a goal at the top, constraints underneath and moves under each constraint, and it’s tempting to assume we started with something more complicated and cut it down. The truth is closer to the opposite, because we started with two ideas, Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints and first principles thinking, and spent most of our time refusing to add things that didn’t earn their place, so this piece walks through every part of the model and the idea it came from.

One goal per workspace

Goldratt’s whole method starts from the goal, because a constraint is only a constraint in relation to something you’re trying to reach, and without a goal you can’t tell the difference between a problem that matters and one that’s merely annoying. That’s why every workspace in Clearahead has exactly one goal at the top, named simply enough that people remember it, like “triple revenue within 24 months”, with why it matters, why you believe it’s possible and how you’ll know you’ve got there written underneath.

I know plenty of companies are working towards several things at once, and that’s fine, because each goal gets its own workspace, with up to ten on the Clearahead plan; what we won’t do is let several goals share one list of constraints, because then nobody can tell which goal a problem is actually holding back. If you’re setting goals for next year, How to set company goals in 2027 is the place to start.

Constraints, not a to-do list

Under the goal sit its constraints, which are the causes holding it back right now rather than the symptoms everyone can see, and this is the first of Goldratt’s five focusing steps turned into a product. When you add a constraint, AJ asks why until you’ve reached something you can actually act on, and each constraint carries a status that moves from suspected to confirmed to easing, so the whole team can tell a hunch from something they know.

We kept constraints one level deep, which surprises people who expect a tree, but the reasoning comes straight from the current reality tree, because symptoms are evidence of a constraint rather than constraints in their own right, so they belong as evidence on the cause they point to. A list of twenty problems invites twenty initiatives, while a list of four causes, each with its symptoms attached, invites the team to clear what’s really in the way.

In order, not scored

One of the calls I feel most strongly about is that Clearahead doesn’t score or rank constraints with a formula; your team drags them into the order it will tackle them, and the order is the priority. Scores do exactly what scores always do in a leadership team, which is make people argue about whether something is a seven or an eight rather than about whether it’s really what’s holding the goal back, while quietly hiding a judgement call behind a number that looks objective.

Goldratt’s point was that there are only ever a few constraints that matter at a time, so we suggest three to five active ones per goal, and if you’ve got many more than that, some of them are almost certainly symptoms of the same cause, which AJ will help you find. More are allowed, because it’s your plan, but the guidance is there for the same reason I gave in Remove constraints, don’t add initiatives, which is that a long list of priorities is just a short list nobody has agreed on yet.

Moves with one owner

Under each constraint sit its moves, which are the small, specific things you’ll do to ease it, done in weeks rather than quarters, each with one owner and a due date, and they’re where Goldratt’s exploit and elevate steps live. Click Plan next moves and AJ suggests moves in the order to tackle them, with its reasoning for each, and you keep the ones you like or write your own, which you can read about in Planning moves.

One owner per move is a first principles call rather than a Goldratt one, because once we’d stripped planning back we found that shared ownership was really no ownership, and that the fastest way to make a plan go stale was to let everyone feel slightly responsible for everything. Everyone can see their own part of it in My work, which shows what needs them and what’s due in the next thirty days.

Other work and Ideas

Goldratt’s third step, subordinating everything else to the constraint, is the one most tools never touch, because it means admitting that some perfectly good work isn’t helping with what’s in the way. We didn’t want to pretend that work doesn’t exist, since every company has plenty of it, so it has its own home, called Other work, where it still counts towards the goal but sits visibly apart from the moves that ease a constraint, and anything you might do one day goes into Ideas, outside the model, until someone decides to start it. Both are explained in Ideas, Other work, Completed and Archived.

The current reality panel

Right under the title of every goal, constraint and move, in the context area, sits the current reality panel, saying where things stand today, when it was last updated and who by, and it’s our answer to the problem that a current reality tree goes stale the week after it’s drawn. Nobody types into it; people tell AJ what happened, AJ rewrites the current reality and the sections it touches, and what they said is kept with who said it and when, so the panel is always the latest truth and the evidence behind it is always one click away.

Every item also answers the same three questions, why it matters, why we believe it and how we’ll know it’s done, which is a gentle form of the tests Goldratt used to keep a team’s logic honest, and when AJ thinks a move is done or a constraint has cleared, it says so at the foot of the panel and lets you decide.

Completed, and a loop that never stops

When a constraint clears, it moves to Completed, AJ remembers how you cleared it, and the team asks the question again, which is the fifth focusing step and the reason I’d always run a loop, not a plan. Goldratt warned that the rules you build to protect one constraint can become the next one, so there’s no annual reset in Clearahead and no plan to redraw; the model is meant to change shape as fast as the company does, and This week from AJ tells you every Monday what moved, what eased and what needs a decision.

AJ plays Jonah

If you’ve read The Goal, you’ll remember that Jonah never tells Alex Rogo what to do; he asks questions until Alex works it out for himself, and that’s the role we gave AJ, which asks what’s holding you back, asks why, asks what changed and leaves the decision with the team. I’ve written about why in Why AJ asks instead of answers, and you can try the conversation yourself on Meet AJ.

What we changed from Goldratt

I don’t want to oversell the lineage, because Clearahead isn’t a formal Theory of Constraints implementation and we deliberately left out the parts built for factories, such as drum-buffer-rope scheduling, throughput accounting and full logic trees, since a leadership team of eight people needs the thinking far more than the machinery. We also leaned harder than Goldratt did on the idea that most company constraints are policies, habits and disagreements rather than physical capacity, which is why a move that changes a rule is so often worth more than one that buys something.

If you want to see the model on a particular kind of goal, the product launch, fundraising and customer retention pages show what the constraints usually turn out to be, and if you’re comparing tools, the best goal tracking software roundup and OKR software vs Clearahead set out where we fit. The quickest way to understand it, though, is to set a goal and let AJ ask you what’s in the way, which Getting started shows you how to do in an afternoon.

Questions people ask

Is Clearahead based on the Theory of Constraints?

Clearahead’s model of goals, constraints and moves is inspired by Eliyahu Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints and by first principles thinking. It borrows the idea that a goal is held back by a few constraints at a time and the loop of clearing one and finding the next, and adapts them for leadership teams rather than factories. It isn’t a formal Theory of Constraints implementation.

Why does each Clearahead workspace have only one goal?

Because a constraint only means something in relation to a goal. With one goal per workspace, everyone knows which goal a constraint or move belongs to, and the team can see clearly what’s in the way. Companies working towards several things give each goal its own workspace, with up to 10 on the Clearahead plan.

Why are constraints put in order instead of scored?

A score invites the team to argue about the number instead of the problem, and it hides a judgement call behind a formula. Putting constraints in order keeps the decision with the team, makes the priority obvious and is quick to change when something new gets in the way.

How many constraints should a goal have in Clearahead?

Most goals have three to five active constraints at any one time. You can add more, but if you have many more than five, some are probably symptoms of the same cause, and AJ will help you find it.