Thinking Process

8/7/2019 Thinking Process

1/39

Page 1

INTRODUCTION

Many manufacturing companies reduce inventory &cycle time increase customer

services and see their net profit skyrocket.

A small printing co. expands with a new market with a new product, offering that unlike

any combination of product &services, it has ever offered before. The firm is rapidly

growing market share & profit.

A small consultancy firm doubles its size every year for five years while at the same time

enhancing its culture, profitability, stability &reputation in the market place it serves.

School going children solves their problems, study history with various interest

&dramatically improve their grads & test score.

All of these activities are different from each other yet they have same striking similarity

each is a system, each is successful, each use the thinking process to make the decision

and take the action that led to the result described above.

What is thinking?

Thinking is the highest mental activity present in man. All human achievements and

progress are simply the products of thought. The evolution of culture, art, literature

science and technology are all the results of thinking.

Thought and action are inseparable - they are actually the two sides of the same coin. All

our deliberate action starts from our deliberate thinking. For a man to do something he

should first see it in his mind's eye-- he should imagine it, think about it first, before he

can do it. All creations-- whether artistic, literal or scientific --first occur in the creator's

mind before it is actually given life in the real world.

Thinking starts with a problem and ends in a solution. Thus, thinking is a tool for

adapting ourselves to the physical and social environment in which we are in.


2/39

Page 2

Thinking involves a term critical thinking which means determining the meaning and

significance of what is observed or expressed, or, concerning a given inference or

argument, determining whether there is adequate justification to accept the conclusion as

true. Hence, Fisher & Scriven define critical thinking as "Skilled, active, interpretation

and evaluation of observations, communications, information, and argumentation."

Critical thinking can occur whenever one judges, decides, or solves a problem; in general

whenever one must figure out what to believe or what to do, and do so in a reasonable

and reflective way. Reading, writing, speaking, and listening can all be done critically or

uncritically. Critical thinking is crucial to becoming a close.

Thinking process

The thinking process was oriented by dr. eliyahu goldratt tom address the unique and

complex issue of firm that was implementing this theory of constraint in their production

environment.

The theory of constraint is the unique management philosophy that strives for a rational

or scientific approach to management. It provides a way to simplify the complexity of

human based system and still keep the main issue under management control. Thinking

process is the methodology of the theory of constraints.

Hence A mechanism that allows us to verbalize, construct, analyze, and communicate

cause and effect relationships. And moreover, to propose feasible solutions to the

problems that they cause is known as the Thinking Process.

The thinking processes are generic tools to help people walk through a buy-in process.

They are also useful tools for any kind of human interactions. The Thinking Process is

integral to the systemic nature of Theory of Constraints and allows not only analysis of

problems, but also the construction of solutions and the communication and effective

implementation of those solutions.


3/39

Page 3

The Thinking Process is a set of tools; graphical trees, which enable us to drill down

into our intuition to express the cause and effect relationships that we observe in our

businesses day-to-day, but which are difficult to capture in reports, graphs, accounting

statements, and project plans. It allows us to capture those non-obvious leverage points

which are separated in time space and to portray their relationships in a simple and

straightforward manner.

It is easy to consider the Thinking Process as an attachment to the Theory of Constraints,

something that is useful for overcoming initial resistance and ensuring buy-in. However

this is not the case, the Thinking Process is absolutely integral to Theory of Constraints.

The Thinking Process allows us to work through the sequence of;

(1)What to change.

(2)What to change to.

(3)How to cause the change.

The Thinking Process performs a number of functions often simultaneously. It allows us

to interrogate the situation in a systematic and logically precise way, allows us to analyze

and synthesize, communicate the situation, and to generate organizational knowledge.

The Thinking Process enables us to work through the sequential layers of agreement to

obtain an implement able solution. We do this using the intuition of the people involved

remember some of the cause and effect relationships will be separated in time and

space, but if we include the critical people we will develop an understanding of the whole

problem we are dealing with. Lets look at verbalizing our intuition and organizational

knowledge creation.


4/39

Page 4

Verbalizing Intuition

If we are to limit ourselves in using the Thinking Process to recording cause and effect

which is already explicitly understood, although separated in space in time amongst

individual members, we would in effect be doing process mapping which was common

while business process re-engineering was popular. The real power, however, comes

from verbalizing our intuition our tacit knowledge that which is not yet explicit.

We grossly underestimate our intuition. Intuitively we do know the real problems, we

even know the solutions. What is unfortunately not emphasized enough is the vast

importance of verbalizing our own perception. As long as we will not verbalize our

intuition, as long as we do not learn to cast it clearly into words, not only will we be

unable to convince others, we will not even be able to convince ourselves of what we

already know to be right. If we dont bother to verbalize our intuition, we ourselves wil

do the opposite of what we believe in.

The Thinking process meshes well with the concepts of tacit and explicit knowledge

developed by Nonaka and Takeuchi. Specifically tacit knowledge contains an

important cognitive dimension. It consists of schemata, mental models, beliefs, and

perceptions so ingrained that we take them for granted. The cognitive dimension of tacit

knowledge reflects our image of reality (what is) and our vision for the future (what

ought to be). Though they cannot be articulated very easily, these implicit models shape

the way we perceive the world around us.

Lets repeat that; although they cannot be articulated very easily, these implicit models

shape the way we perceive the world around us. This is why it so important to verbalize

these factors and the Thinking Process gives us just the structured methodology to

articulate these ideas that we have been lacking before.

However, there is a further equally important aspect to the verbalization of tacit

knowledge during the process organizational knowledge is created. ... the subjective

and intuitive nature of tacit knowledge makes it difficult to process or transmit the


5/39

Page 5

acquired knowledge in any systematic or logical manner. For tacit knowledge to be

communicated and shared within the organization, it has to be converted into words or

numbers that anyone can understand. It is precisely during the time this conversion takes

place - from tacit into explicit, and... ... back again into tacit - that organizational

knowledge is created. The trees that are the product of the Thinking Process allow us to

convert individual tactic knowledge to explicit group knowledge.

In effect the following is occurring;

(1)Individuals verbalized their own tacit knowledge as explicit knowledge.

(2)The group internalizes this explicit knowledge as shared tacit knowledge.

(3)Organizational knowledge is created.

Lets not underestimate the importance of tacit knowledge as leverage against constraints

We will develop the idea further in the section on strategic advantage, but lets add quote

from David Hurst to underline the importance of the issue; The most dysfunctional

constraints are usually those that are tacit rather than explicit. Elements of formal

organization such as restrictive rules and policies are at least easily identified and can be

changed. The more insidious constraints are the strictures imposed by the almost

invisible influence of culture, and the pervasive effects of growth in organizational size .

Indeed it has been said that the Thinking Process may be the most important intellectual

achievement since the invention of calculus. High praise indeed, but like all things it

requires proficiency, and proficiency in this case comes through practice. However, there

should be no lack of examples to practice on.


6/39

Page 6

Cause and Effect

We might like to consider the Thinking Process tools as Lego sets for constructing

business solutions, or dare I say it, as transformer toys for adults because too often one

tool has a habit of transforming into another as we work with it.

Lets have a look at the simplest case.

We can read this diagram by saying; if cause then effect. We have simple statement

that if the cause is present then we expect the effect to be present as well.

Lets look at this the other way around. What if we start with the observed effect, wemight call this a symptom.

Symptom

Effect

Cause


7/39

Page 7

We need to ask ourselves what is the underlying cause of this symptom. Maybe there are

two underlying causes giving rise to it.

Fortunately life isnt usually so complicated (even though it sometimes feels like it is)

More usually we have several symptoms arising from one common cause.

In either case the Thinking Process tools are incredibly powerful.

In most cases, even where we know that there is a singular common cause, we are forced

to treat the symptoms as two separate problems requiring two separate solutions.

Symptom A Symptom B

Cause

Symptom

Cause A Cause B


8/39

Page 8

It is a characteristic of complex problems that they require complex solutions to be

resolved. If we try to resolve a complex problem with a complex solution, we can be

sure that we havent addressed the underlying causality and the real problem hasnt been

removed.

1HHGRIWKLQNLQJSURFHVV

Modern business is plagued with examples of organizational failure and poor strategic

Decision-making, often the result of misleading data and unsupported intuition. It is

Obvious that we are in need of a Thinking Process which enables us to verbalize our

Intuition and emotion, and then rigorously test our assumptions using data and Cause

effect.

TOC has such a Thinking Process which organizations can use to confirm exactly what

their core problem is, what they need to change to, and how they can most successfully

execute that change. Often companies do not investigate these vital points before

Pursuing improvement initiatives and this can prove costly. The brilliance of the TOC

Thinking Process is the way it enables organizations to an sour all these questions and

Test new strategies before investing valuable resources in them. The following paper

investigates the reasons behind corporate failure and explains how The TOC Thinking

Process tools are used to ensure the development and execution of Successful strategies

and improvement initiatives.

Origins of the silo mentality

We are living in a complex world. As globalization increases, the world grows smaller

And even more complex. A hundred years ago, most commercial business was small,

relatively self-contained, and vertically integrated. In the early days of the automobile,

for Example, Ford Motor Company owned and operated the iron mines and rubber

Plantations needed to produce steel and tires for cars, and owned its own transportation

System and retail outlets. After World War II, however, things started to get complicated

Economies boomed and vertically integrated companies could no longer keep up

Companies began to horizontally integrate, assigning parts of their operations to


9/39

Page 9

Independent companies in a bid to make management problems smaller and easier to

Manage. The result was increased decentralization and specialization; different parts of

an organization became focused exclusively on their own discrete responsibilities.

Increased complexity caused leaders and managers to lose visibility of the whole and

Become focused on their own group or department, developing what is known as a silo

Mentality those in one functional silo gave almost no thought to what was going on in

The silos around them, how it impacted them, or how what they did affected others. This

Mentality may have improved local efficiencies but it devastated overall system

Performance. Sub optimization, the term given to the relationship between increasing

Efficiency at the expense of broader system effectiveness, abounds in business today and

it is the core reason behind most corporate failures.

To solve the sub optimization.

Problem we need to return to broader system thinking. More specifically, we need a way

Of creating a visual representation of the cause-effect relationships among the various

Silo components of a system. This is where the TOC logical thinking process steps in.

It written consent of The TOC Centre of Australia Pty Ltd is fundamentally a system

thinking tool, which works through the three main questions faced by any company:

(1) What to change?(2) What to change to?

(3) How to cause the

Change?

What to Change?

Professor Sydney Finkelstein, author of Why Smart Executives Fail, carried out a 6

year Study of over 100 companies and business leaders. His results highlighted four main

Reasons behind organizational failure. One reason was organizational breakdown which

Relates to information and control systems in the organization. He noted that often -

Critical pieces of information are lost or dropped along the way and therefore never

understood. How can any organization possibly know what to change if it does not have

all the information? They cant. So they end up making changes which are generally


10/39

Page 10

ineffective. Often deep policy and paradigm constraints are hidden behind what we tend

written consent of The TOC Centre of Australia Pty Ltd to call problems. No matter

how many of these problems are solved and how many Modifications are made, if the

underlying policies remain unchanged the company will see no improvement. The

Current Reality Tree (CRT) is the TP tool used to identify the key constraint within an

Organization, the constraint responsible for many of the systems current problems. The

CRT is different to other tools used to find root causes in that it does not focus on diving

Deeper and deeper into the issues. It examines cause-effect relationships that exist

between conditions present in the system, discovers the common causes and finally

Identifies the core problem. It is a fundamental tool in any improvement initiative.

What to Change to?

Once the core problem has been identified we use another tool the Conflict Resolution

Diagram (CRD), often referred to as the Evaporating Cloud) to find out what we need

to Change to. Conflict within a system is an indication of sub optimization, which, as we

already know, is detrimental to the system as a whole. The CRD surfaces hidden

Assumptions which are subconsciously accepted as valid but which are, in fact,

uncertain. By invalidating any underlying assumptions not only is the conflict rendered

moot, but Breakthrough solutions are surfaced. The CRD is a very powerful tool, andenables us to:

Confirm that conflict actually exists

Identify the conflict perpetuating a major problem

Identify all assumptions underlying the problems and conflicting relationships

Explain in depth why a problem exists

Create solutions in which both sides win

Create new, breakthrough solutions to problems

Resolve conflict

Avoid compromise

The CRD provides us with possible solutions, but it does not guarantee that they will

Actually work. Professor Sydney Finkelstein listed executive mindset failures as


11/39

Page 11

another Major cause for organizational collapse. This is all about getting the strategy

wrong and believing we have the assumptions about the marketplace, customers, and

competitors All worked out, when in fact we dont. Some refer to this as the ready-fire-

aim syndrome. Senior managers are often too quick to embrace a proposed change

without first asking 2 Very important questions:

Will this change really deliver the results we want?

What adverse side effects can we expect?

The Future Reality Tree (FRT) logically tests the effectiveness of a proposed course of

Action before any time, energy or resources are invested in it. Once the FRT has verified

That the action chosen will deliver the desired results, the Negative Branch (NB) tool is

Used to identify any adverse new consequences the proposed action might have so they

Can be counteracted in advance. Written consent of The TOC Centre of Australia Pty

Ltd.

How to cause the change?

Thus far, the Thinking Process tools have provided us with a well researched idea for

Change - the next step is turning that idea into reality. Ideas are not solutions until they

have been converted into effective action.

What obstacles stand in the way of our implementing this bright idea? How do we overcome these obstacles?

What must we do and in what sequence to turn our ideas into reality?

The Prerequisite Tree (PRT) helps execute the transition from proposed to physical

Action. It identifies the obstacles that may prevent the proposed course of action from

Happening and determines ways of overcoming these obstacles. The Transition Tree (TT)

Is then used to develop detailed step-by-step instructions for implementing the chosen

Course of action. Thinking Process to Avoid Company Failure

Finkelsteins research also found two other reasons why companies Fail: delusions of

dream company and leadership behavior. When an organization has been successful it

suffers delusions of a dream company: it believes it knows the entire ban sours so shuts

down alternative points of view and critical Enquiry. Even the most stable and well


12/39

Page 12

established organizations have born witness to Product flops and strategic disasters: the

Ford Edsel (1957), Coca-Colas New Coke (1985), McDonalds deluxe line (1996),

Levis Type 1 jeans (2002) are all perfect Examples. Even the best of the best get it

wrong, and as Ross Bonander states in his Article on Failed Product Launches there will

always be companies whose greed prevents them from doing the most basic of

homework. Leadership behavior refers specifically to the executives. An illusion of

pre-eminence in an executive can result in them dominating others in terms of their

decision making, Thinking and behavior. Executives with this mind-set often fire or

remove all those who disagree with them, leaving the organization with inferior decision

making and, in turn, reduced adaptability and flexibility in the marketplace.

Tools used in thinking process

Organizations and executives who commit to a culture of Systems Thinking and

Continually make practical use of a logical thinking process will be at significantly lour

Risk of committing any of those faults found by Finkelstein to be responsible for

company Failures.

Basically there are eight tools which are used in thinking process. These are:-

1. current reality tree

2. Evaporating Cloud

3. Core Conflict Cloud

4. Future Reality Tree

5. Negative Branch Reservations

6. Positive Reinforcement Loop

7. Prerequisite Tree

8. Transition Tree


13/39

Page 13

The Thinking Process tools allow us to derive simple solutions to complex problems and

to implement these solutions.

&XUUHQW5HDOLW\7UHH

A Current Reality Tree (CRT) is a way of analyzing many system or organizational

problems at once. By identifying root causes common to most or all of the problems, the

CRT can greatly aid focused improvement of the system.

This process treats multiple problems as symptoms arising from a few ultimate root

causes. It describes, in a simple visual drawing, the main perceived symptoms (along

with secondary/hidden ones that lead up to the perceived symptom(s)) of a problem

scenario and ultimately the apparent root cause(s) or conflict.The benefit of doing this isthat it much easier to identify the connections or dependencies between these. Thus,

focus can be placed on the bits which would cause the biggest positive change if tackled.

A current reality tree is a statement of an underlying core problem and the symptoms that

arise from it. It maps out a sequence of cause and effect from the core problem to the

symptoms. Most of the symptoms will arise from the one core problem or a core conflict.

Remove the core problem and we may well be able to remove each of the symptoms as

well. Operationally we work backwards from the apparent undesirable effects or

symptoms to uncover or discover the underlying core cause.

([DPSOH

A CRT begins with a list of problems, known as undesirable effects (UDEs.) These are

assumed to be symptoms of a deeper common cause. To take a somewhat lively example,

a car owner may have the following UDEs:

1. The car's engine will not start.

2. The air conditioning is not working.

3. The car's radio sounds distorted.


14/39

Page 14

The CRT depicts a chain of cause-and-effect reasoning (IF...AND...THEN) in

graphical form, where ellipses or circles represent an "AND". The graphic is

constructed by:

y Attempting to link any two UDEs using cause-and-effect reasoning. For example,

IF the engine needs fuel in order to run AND fuel is not getting to the engine,

THENthe car's engine will not start.

y Elaborating the reasoning to ensure it is sound and plausible. For example, IF the

air intake is full of water THEN air conditioning is not working. Amplification

(because air is not able to circulate) gets added as in-between step.

y Linking each of the remaining UDEs to the existing tree by repeating the previous

steps.

This approach tends to converge on a single root cause. In the illustrated case, the root

cause of the above UDEs is seen as being a faulty handbrake. Core Problem or Core

Conflict: In business situations, however, it is quite possible that we will not be aware of

the core problem in the first instance, and instead we will arrive at a core conflict. It will

looks like:


15/39

Page 15

In fact we must expect this to be more common. If we are aware of a core problem and it

is within our area of control or even influence, then we will try to do something about it.

However, consider the case of a core conflict. Even when we are in total control of the

situation we may let the conflict continue to exist because both of the entities Neutral

Effect A and Neutral Effect B are required in order to satisfy something else. The entities

that give rise to all the problems are not perceived to be a problem by themselves.

Constructing a current reality tree is the first and most critical step on the path to

improvement, because it makes us verbalize the symptoms and the underlying causes;

down layer by layer to the real core problem or conflict. If we know the real underlying

problem and can work out how to overcome it, then we have a very simple and powerful

way of overcoming our symptoms.

Conclusion:

The CRT is a sufficiency-based logic (if..., then...) tool that is used to fully describe an

existing situation. Its purpose is to understand (only to the level of detail necessary for the

group to achieve consensus) how the various issues and problems they face are related to

each other, to their policies, measurements, and practices and to the generic/root/core

conflict identified through a process.

Evaporating Cloud

The Evaporating Cloud is suited to finding a solution to conflict between two parties or

two points of view. The method requires the participants to find 'win-win' solutions

because it emphasizes that both parties are trying to reach the same ultimate goal.

This understanding of conflict can be diagrammed as follows:


16/39

Page 16

B


17/39

Page 17

What is the common goal that ties B and C together? This can be difficult to

determine, but unless

There is a common goal there would be no conflict! Maybe its as simple as we

both keep our

Jobs; but there has to be something.

3. Obtain agreement that the definition is correct.

4. Look under the arrows and review the causal assumptions.

Conclusion:

Evaporating cloud reflecting its roots in the application of the techniques associated with

scientific method to those "soft sciences" like management and behavior is that in any

system that is brought together for a purpose, there is no such thing as real conflict, but

only unexamined assumptions. The cloud allows a clear statement of the perceived

dilemma and provides a route for the surfacing and scrutiny of those assumptions.

Core Conflict Cloud

The Core Conflict Cloud is an Evaporating Cloud that emerges from analysis of a Current

Reality Tree, which is one of the Thinking Processes introduced in Eliyahu M. Goldratts

novel its Not Luck. The Communication Current Reality Tree

The communication current reality tree is a clever combination of the necessity-based

logic of the cloud converted to sufficiency-based logic and then combined with the

sufficiency-based logic of the current reality tree to describe the relationship between

observed undesirable effects (symptoms) and the underlying core conflict.

It does this by combining the positive aspects of both tools;

(1)Current realty tree shows the core problem as the source of many undesirable

effects.


18/39

Page 18

(2)Cloud shows the core problem is not the product of any one person.

We will often see communication current reality trees used in Theory of Constraint

applications to show the dynamics of the existing situation. It is, after all, a

communication device. The cloud and current reality tree are each, of themselves, an

analytical device, but the combination doesnt seek to analyze, it seeks to inform. Lets

start with a cloud.

As we have seen previously in the section on clouds this tree is based on necessity-based

logic and is read as follows; in order to have the objective we must have requirement A

and in order to have requirement A we must have prerequisite A. On the other hand in

order to have the objective we must have requirement B, and in order to have requirement

B we must have prerequisite B. However prerequisite A and prerequisite B are in

conflict with each other.

We know also that underlying each of the arrows are some universalized assumptions.

Lets draw these in also.

PrerequisiteA

PrerequisiteB

RequirementB

RequirementA

Objective


19/39

Page 19

So now we have a cloud and the supporting assumptions for each arrow. We need to turn

this necessity-based logic into sufficiency-based logic. The mechanics of this is to turn

the arrows on the cloud around, so that we get if objective then requirement, and

because we know the assumptions it becomes if objective and assumption, then

requirement.

Lets do that then.

PrerequisiteA

PrerequisiteB

RequirementB

RequirementA

Objective

Assumption

Assumption

Assumption

Assumption


20/39

Page 20

So now we have a cloud converted to sufficiency logic. What we do next depends upon

how we reached this stage. If there is an already assembled current reality tree, then it

needs to be tied back with cause and effect to the prerequisites. If we are using the 3

cloud method, then we will develop the communication current reality tree directly out of

the prerequisites using the undesirable effects that we listed in constructing the specific

clouds.

RequirementB

PrerequisiteB

RequirementA

PrerequisiteA

Objective Assumption

AssumptionAssumption

Assumption


21/39

Page 21

Lets give some indication of what this might look like.

So there we have it. A communication current reality tree. A tree that ties the

undesirable effects back to the core conflict the rock and the hard place, demonstrating

that the core problem is not the deed of any one person.

3 Cloud Method

The three cloud method is, I believe, a Socratic tool which serves the purpose of both

determining the core conflict and building consensus amongst members of a group who

UndesirableEffectUndesirableEffect

UndesirableEffect

RequirementB

PrerequisiteB

RequirementA

PrerequisiteA

Objective Assumption

AssumptionAssumption

Assumption


22/39

Page 22

may have little intuition for the situation of other members in the group. It doesnt

replace the rigor of the current realty tree in determining the core conflict.

However, where the 3 cloud method comes into its own is cross-functional groups.

Properly facilitated the 3 cloud method will negate the 5th layer of resistance at the early

stages of analysis. We might think of it as a strategic tool then rather than as an

operational tool.

How Do We Build It?

A generic cloud of the problem is constructed from at least 3 individual and specific

clouds that address the general problem either single clouds from different individuals

or multiple clouds addressing different aspects from one individual. The underlying

assumption is that a deeper generic conflict gives rise to each of these specific clouds.

The generic cloud is constructed by summarizing each of the entities in each of the

specific clouds into one common entity. The generic cloud can then in fact be used in a

communication current reality tree to build out to all the undesirable effects. Brief

descriptions can be found in; Lepore and Cohen, and also Smith Breaking the cloud with

a generic injection sets the direction of the solution and the injection can be used to

develop the future reality tree. Constructing a future reality tree will give rise to negative

branch reservations and obstacles which must be dealt with.

The process is very effective, however, needs to be properly facilitated to be truly

successful. Be aware that it exists, but leave it until we have confidence with the

communication current reality tree.

Conclusion:

Core conflict cloud is a combination of conflict clouds based several UDE's. Looking for

deeper conflicts that create the undesirable effects.


23/39

Page 23

FUTUR REALITY TREE

A future reality tree allows us to map out our future expectations given that we will

introduce something new into our reality the injection that we developed to break our

current reality problem or core conflict. A future reality tree allow us test the future

outcome using known cause and effect to check that what we want is what we will get.

This page is a brief introduction, further information can be found in several published

texts (1-3).

At its simplest, a future reality tree might be thought of as a current reality with all the

undesirable effects (UDEs) changed to desirable effects (DEs). Lets draw that. In fact

we will rename the final entities as desirable outcomes.

DesirableOutcome

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

DesirableOutcome

DesirableOutcome

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

NeutralEffect

NeutralEffect B

NeutralEffect A

Injection2

Injection1


24/39

Page 24

The presence of the new idea or ideas as injections will change reality from undesirable

outcomes of the present to desirable outcomes of the future. Maybe we need several

different injections to achieve this.

The future reality tree is the tool of choice in gaining understanding and agreement that

the solution we have decided upon will account for all of the undesirable effects that we

currently experience and built into our current reality tree.

Just as a current reality tree isnt a current reality tree without at least one negative

reinforcing loop, a future reality tree should also have a positive reinforcing loop a so-

called virtuous spiral. As things get better, they get even better still. We should try to

engineer positive reinforcing loops into our future reality trees. It makes them more

robust. In fact we are leveraging the situation in a positive manner. For example just as

our wing child had difficulty leaning to read because s/he wasnt reading, now as the

child starts to read (desirable effect) s/he can read better (desirable outcome) and then

starts to read more and more often (positive reinforcing loop).

We read a future reality tree in the same way as a current reality tree; if cause, then effect

While it is easiest to visualize a future reality tree like this, most often the future reality

tree will not have a near 1:1 mapping with the prior current reality tree, but will grow its

own shape as we engineer the solution. The important point is to make sure all of the

previous UDEs are overcome. Moreover, we want to do this with the greatest bang for

bucks. If we find that we are using lots of injections to force the desired solution, then

maybe the core problem wasnt sufficiently uncovered in the prior analysis.

Usually as we develop our future reality tree, we experience the situation where our best

intents give rise to one or more new negative outcomes. Clearly we are not aiming to

introduce new problems. We call these new but presently un-realized problems negative


25/39

Page 25

branches. And we must cut them out prune them, before we put our future reality tree

into action.

The future reality tree is a very specific representation of desired results and the steps

involved in achieving those results, and not a bland business vision statement.

Conclusion:

The objective of the FRT is to communicate a vision of how to change the undesirable

effects found in the CRT to desirable effects. Again, like a CRT, construction is best done

by individuals or very small groups, while the most effective use of group interaction

(and those gains from experienced facilitation) is in scrutiny, clarification, and

completion of the solution. The FRT is the first step to address the second reason for

groups to come together, figuring out WHAT TO CHANGE TO.


26/39


27/39

Page 27

PREREQUSITE TREE

The pre-requisite tree ought to be considered the most important tree in the Thinking

Process suite. It is the tree that allows us to overcome the obstacles that stop us fromimplementing our plan. It is also the tree that in fact becomes the implementation plan

And it is the tree to which timelines, responsibilities, and accountabilities can be assigned

to. It is also the tree that I have most often seen skimmed over.

There is an English saying that we can plan to fail, or we can fail to plan. The pre-

requisite tree occupies the position of plan amongst the Thinking Process tools. Scan it

at our risk.

In developing the future reality tree and trimming any negative branches we are really

developing our solution, we tailor it to our specific circumstance. Now we must deal

with the substantial reservations the yes buts that tell us there are still real obstacles

that block our progress. After all if an injection to a future reality tree is simple enough

we would just go out and do it, and then we wouldnt need to write a pre-requisite tree

for it. If we find we cant just go and do it we need to stop and think for a while.

The pre-requisite tree is composed of two elements, an obstacle and an intermediate

objective. The intermediate objective is the action that we must undertake to overcome

the obstacle. There might be several independent obstacles to an injection as in the

example below (A and C), or several dependant obstacles in a chain (A and B). The

obstacles are either things that exist now, which we must remove or overcome, or things

that dont exist now which we must obtain.


28/39

Page 28

How do we read a pre-requisite tree? Like this, from top to bottom; In order to achieve

the injection we must fulfill the intermediate objective in order to overcome the obstacle.

How DoWe Build A Pre-Requisite Tree?

How do we build a pre-requisite tree? Below is a brief description, more detailed

descriptions are available in the references (1-3).

Firstly we need to choose the injection to address and then request all the obstacles, and

all the intermediate objectives that will overcome the obstacles. Dettmer uses the

Crawford Slip method to great effect to solicit obstacles and intermediate objectives forthe pre-requisite tree.

So our first step will look like this.

Obstacle C

IntermediateObjective C

Obstacle A

Injection1

Obstacle B

IntermediateObjective B

IntermediateObjective A


29/39

Page 29

Second step is to sequence these pairs.

And therefore we have our completed tree. There may be some steps for which there are

no obstacles, but it is useful to add the step for clarity (we must have it), if so add it as an

intermediate objective by itself.

In fact we really only need to know about the intermediate objectives after all they are

the sequence of things that we are now going to do in order to action our injection and

make our future reality tree implementable. A short-hand way of displaying a pre-

Obstacle C


Obstacle A

Injection1

Obstacle B



Obstacle C


Injection1

Obstacle B


Obstacle A



30/39

Page 30

requisite tree as intermediate objectives alone is called an intermediate objective map or

an IO map for short.

The pre-requisite tree is the tool of choice for gaining understanding and agreement that

there are no obstacles that cannot be overcome in implementing our proposed solution

Furthermore it allows us to gain agreement on the correct sequence and plan to

implement the solution. The pre-requisite tree turned on its side becomes a template for a

Critical Chain project if the proper assumptions are made. The full picture is

DesiredOutcome

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

DesiredOutcome

DesiredOutcome

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

NeutralEffect

NeutralEffect B

NeutralEffect A

Injection

2

Injection3

Intermediate

Objective A

Intermediate

Objective C


Injection1


31/39

Page 31

Conclusion:

This is an effortless way of identifying which "bites of the elephant" we'll bite on first

in our attempt to consume the whole thing. As a group effort, this process benefits (as

does the solicitation of NBR s as reasons we shouldn't take a particular path of action)

from the diverse and different views of the group's members. The more obstacles that

are raised, the more complete the implementation plan of HOW TO MAKE THE

CHANGE HAPPEN will be, resulting in fewer surprises along the way.

TRANSITION TREE

We have identified the core problem causing most of the undesirable effects. We

know where we want to go having determining the injections that will result in the

desired outcome. We have also outlined the map; the logically sequenced intermediate

objectives. All the groundwork has been done, but if we dont take action, reality will

not change. In determining the needed actions, attention should not be on what we plan

to do, but on what we want to achieve.


32/39

Page 32

The backbone of the transition tree is the detailed description of the gradually evolving

change we envision occurring. The ribs are the actions needed to cause that gradual

change until the objectives are met.

This method forces us to carefully examine which actions are really needed and if they

are sufficient to guarantee the required change. Too often we rely on a set of actions just

because its the thing to do, without checking if they really fit our particular situation.

But above all, putting the gradual change as the backbone of the plan provides the safety

net which is essential when planning the future

This method forces to carefully examine which actions are really needed and if they are

sufficient to guarantee the required change. Too often we rely on a set of actins justbecause its the thing to do without checking whether they fit our particular situation.

Conclusion:

This last tool further supports the need to describe HOW TO MAKE THE CHANGE

HAPPEN. Sometimes a plan is developed by a group for other people to use.

Sometimes getting from one IO in a PRT to another requires a finer level of detail in

terms of action and results. Including the TT here for completeness of the list of TOC

Thinking Processes, it may be a stretch to think of it as a facilitation tool, as it's really

a communication and empowerment tool, allowing the recipient of it to follow a path

of action with clear understanding of what to expect along the way and why to expect

it.

Thinking Process withProduct Design Chain

Applying the thinking process with the product design chain (PDC) could be very

beneficial. This application could be used to resolve a problem or to improve a system,


33/39

Page 33

based on the characteristics of the product and nature of the design process. In this study,

three integrating modes: series, parallel, and feedback of TP logic with PDC Of three

types of products: new products, upgraded products, and customized products are

proposed. Which is summarized as in Table 1, and depth details are discussed as in the

following paragraphs.

.Type of Product Integration Mode The Role of TP Tool used

New Product Series

What to Change?

What to Change To?

How Cause to Change?

FTPA

Upgraded Product Parallel

What to Change?

How Cause to Change

CRT

FRT

PRTTT

Customized Product Feed Back

How Cause to Change FRT

PRT

TT

WHRE:

FTPA= Full Thinking Process Analyze

CRT = Current Reality Tree

FRT = Future Reality Tree

PRT = Perquisite Tree

TT =Transition Tree

Series Mode

Series mode, demonstrated in following figure, is used for the new product design

process to handle the overall

Activities within the PDC cycle. For new product design, most product characteristics in

the four design

Stages: product concept, detail engineering, process engineering, and prototype

manufacturing are unknown

And the resulting outcomes are uncertain. FTPA is integrated into the procedure in a

series mode after each


34/39

Page 34

Of the four design stages. Where FTPA uses all five-application tools to analyze a system

or situation in order to identify the core problem, develop solutions, and determine

implementations right after each of the four stages. For each stage, FTPA plays a role as a

problem solver in reviewing the previous steps and overcoming discrepancies that are

found. In consequence, the quality of design is improved.

Parallel Mode

When a product already exists and needs to be upgraded, customers have already

provided feedback for their specified requirements. In such situations continuous

improvement is needed by manufacturers to maintain a competitive edge. Integrating the

TP parallel with the PDC is called the parallel mode in this study and is

Depicted as following figure. While conduct the parallel mode, the manufacturers have

already experienced

How to manage the process and how to control key technologies. The TP tools CRD,

FRT, PRT and TT need only to be applied. The tools act as a consultant for consulting

the problems whenever there is a need. The best way to handle upgrading products is

Design

frame work

Customerrequirement

Competitive

product

PRODUCT

CONCEPT

FTPA DETAIL

ENGINEERINGFTPA

PROCESS

ENGINEERINGFTPA PROTOTYPE

MENUFECTRINGFTPA POST

LOUNCH

ACTIVITY

TECHNICAL

DISCRIPTION

PART,

COMPONENT,


35/39


36/39


37/39

Page 37

CONCLUSION

The Thinking Process is integral to the systemic nature of Theory of Constraints and

allows not only analysis of problems, but also the construction of solutions and the

communication and effective implementation of those solutions. Over the above pages

we have examined 8 different tools, the current reality tree, the cloud, the future reality

tree, and the pre-requisite tree. We have also examined some derivatives, the negative

branch reservation, and the 3 cloud approach. We have seen these trees already, and

learnt the basics of how to construct them.

The Thinking Process allows us to work through the sequence of;

(1)What to change.

(2)What to change to.

(3)How to cause the change.

The Thinking Process performs a number of functions often simultaneously. It allows us

to interrogate the situation in a systematic and logically rigorous way, allows us to

analyze and synthesize, communicate the situation, and to generate organizational

knowledge.

These are basic tools to help people walk through a buy-in process. They are also useful

tools for any kind of human interactions. The buy-in process has the following steps Gain

agreement on theproblem

1. Gain agreement on the direction for a solution

2. Gain agreement that the solution solves the problem

3. Agree to overcome any potential negative ramifications

4. Agree to overcome any obstacles to implementation

The thinking process, as codified by Goldratt and others:


38/39

Page 38

y Current Reality Tree (CRT, similar to the current state map used by many

organizations) - evaluates the network of cause-effect relations between the

undesirable effects (UDE's, also known as gap elements) and helps to pinpoint the

root cause(s) of most of the undesirable effects.

y Evaporating Cloud (conflict resolution diagram or CRD) - solves conflicts that

usually enable the causes for an undesirable situation.

y Core Conflict Cloud (CCC) - A combination of conflict clouds based several

UDE's. Looking for deeper conflicts that create the undesirable effects.

y Future Reality Tree (FRT, similar to a future state map) - Once some actions

(injections) are chosen (not necessarily detailed) to solve the root cause(s)

uncovered in the CRT and to resolve the conflict in the CRD the FRT shows the

future states of the system and helps to identify possible negative outcomes of the

changes (Negative Branches) and to prune them before implementing the changes.

y Negative Branch Reservations (NBR) - Identify potential negative ramifications

of any action (such as an injection, or a half-baked idea). The goal of the NBR is to

understand the causal path between the action and negative ramifications so that

they negative effect can be 'trimmed.'

y

Prerequisite Tree (PRT) - states that all of the intermediate objectives necessaryto carry out an action chosen and the obstacles that will be overcome in the

process.

y Transition Tree (TT) - describes in detail the action that will lead to the

fulfillment of a plan to implement chances (outlined on a PRT or not).


39/39

Bibliography

De Geus, A., (1997) The living company: habits for survival in a turbulent business

environment. Harvard Business School Press, pg 82.

Senge, P. M., (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning

organization. Random House, pp 12, 64, & 114-115.

Goldratt, E. M., (1990) What is this thing called Theory of Constraints and how

should it be implemented? North River Press, 162 pp.

www.wikkipedia.com

www.focusdperformancr.com

www.dbrmfg.co.nz

Thinking for a change Lisa j.scheinkopf

www.nait.org

Goldratt, E. M., (1996) My Saga to improve production, Avraham Y. Goldratt

Institute

Goldratt's Theory of Constraints - A Systems Approach to Continuous Improvement

by William Dettmer ISBN 0-87389-370-0

Thinking process by eli schragenhiem

www.tocca.com.au

Thinking Process

Documents

Transcript of Thinking Process