Reviving the Roots of Logical Thinking Trees
Photo by Jason Weingardt on Unsplash

Reviving the Roots of Logical Thinking Trees

Maybe you are searching among the branches, for what only appears in the roots.” ?~ Rumi"

What we see has its root in the unseen world. Systems thinking builds the right mindset to see the root called inherent simplicity in an organization which is a closely interconnected complex system. In this article, we will be exploring the TOC’s Logical Thinking Process trees and how they helped us to evaporate the underlying conflicts in our Digital Transformation using Big Data, Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence.

Theory of Constraints (TOC):

The Theory of Constraints is a management method developed by Dr. Eliyahu M Goldratt and evolved into a systems methodology.

?

“TOC is based on?Systems Thinking, the?Scientific Method?and?Logic

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Steve Tendon

Steve further explains that TOC considers any business as a system transforming inputs into outputs. The inputs undergo a number of work steps and are transformed into outputs. The outputs are the products /services valued and paid for by the business’s customers.

No alt text provided for this image
Source: https://tameflow.com/blog/2012-07- 27/theory-of-constraints-and-software-engineering/

The main principle of TOC is to intervene in the leverage points of the system and bring systemic change to an organization.

The Logical Thinking Process (LTP) :

The LTP is a graphical representation of cause-effect logical relationships. It was conceived in the early 1990s by an Israeli physicist named E.M. Goldratt as a way to analyze the performance of complex organizational systems. The Logical Thinking Process is the name of a book by Bill Dettmer as well as the name of a complex problem-solving process inspired by Goldratt’s Thinking Processes.

The thinking process is designed to provide the answers to the only three questions any Systems manager needs to know:

a) What to change,

b) What to change to, and

c) How to make the change happen.?

No alt text provided for this image
Source: https://www.ensembleconsultinggroup.com/method/operations-toc-overview/critical-thinking/

The thinking process is comprised of five distinct logic trees:

1.?????Goal Tree

2.?????Current Reality Tree

3.?????Evaporating Cloud (Conflict Resolution Diagram)

4.?????Future Reality Tree

5.?????Prerequisite Tree

No alt text provided for this image
Source: https://hohmannchris.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/logical-thinking-process/

The Goal Tree

It helps establish the system’s goal, the 3-5 critical success factors that must be achieved to realize the goal, and the necessary conditions that must be satisfied in order to achieve the critical success factors. In completing the Goal Tree, an organization defines the benchmark of desired performance—those high-level milestones that define the organization's desired course of travel.

No alt text provided for this image
Source: https://hohmannchris.wordpress.com/goal-tree/

Critical success Factors:

Critical Success Factors (CSF) are high-end objectives necessary to achieve in order to achieve the organization’s Goal. Conversely, failing to achieve one CSF means failing to achieve the Goal, thus the name ‘Critical’.

Necessary Conditions:

They are key high-level milestones and tactical activities that must be satisfied to realize the Critical Success Factors

The Current Reality Tree:

It is a cause-and-effect diagram that explains what policies are behind the divergences, or gaps, between what’s happening in the real world and the desired course determined in the Goal Tree. The originating root causes are inevitably the policies that are inadequate or outdated. The terminal conditions in the diagram are undesirable effects—statements of deviation from the desired course. In between is a clear representation of the component interdependencies that produce systemic results, a view of the system that is typically invisible to observers in their day-to-day work.

?The Evaporating Cloud:

It is often called a Conflict Resolution Diagram (CRD), is a necessary condition diagram intended to help resolve basic conflicts surrounding the need to change policies. It succinctly exposes the contending arguments (change versus don’t change) and, most importantly, the underlying (usually hidden) assumptions behind each side of the change issue. Surfacing these hidden assumptions is the key to resolving the conflict in a win-win manner.

?The?Future Reality Tree:

It?is a kind of solution “bench test.” It’s a way of logically demonstrating that a proposed change will deliver the desired results before investing substantial time, money, and energy in implementing it, only to find out that it was doomed to fail in the first place.

The?Prerequisite Tree:

It is an implementation planning tool. It helps to structure the complex activities of executing the policy change (the effectiveness of which was validated in the Future Reality Tree). The component activities and tasks—what must happen first, and the obstacles that must be overcome—are arrayed in the sequence required for expeditious, effective execution.?

Applying the Logical Thinking Process:

We have mapped the Logical trees for our AI/ML project.

?The Goal

Accelerate Digital transformation by creating a secured and scalable cloud platform for making AI-powered data-driven decisions to serve the customers.

No alt text provided for this image
Goal Tree - AI/ML

Critical Success Factors:

  • Single Source of Data
  • Measurable Data Governance
  • Data Quality
  • Robust Security Frameworks

Necessary Conditions:

  • Consolidating all internal and external data
  • Enabling enterprise Devops and Data engineering toolchain
  • Robust Data Ingestion
  • Implementation of Security First Design

Current Reality Tree:

No alt text provided for this image
Undesirable Effect

Future Reality Tree :

No alt text provided for this image
Future Reality Tree

The Evaporating Cloud:

The CRD/Evaporating Cloud is based on two assumptions:

1.?????Conflicts (opposition about objectives or opposite points of view, for instance) tend to be settled by compromise. Yet compromising requires making concessions that lead to a solution which isn’t satisfactory for neither side, hence a win-lose or lose-lose situation.

2.?????Conflicts are often the result of false assumptions, beliefs or myths which constrain needlessly the organization. As two opposite things cannot be true at the same time, one is necessarily false. If the falseness can be proven, the conflict disappears (evaporates) and a no-compromise, win-win solution is found.

A simple Evaporating cloud is made of five entities (round cornered boxes) conventionally named A,B,C, D and D’.

  • Entity A is the common objective which requires B and C to exist;
  • In order to have A, we must have B and C.
  • D is a prerequisite to B (in order to have B, we must have D)
  • D’ is a prerequisite to C.
  • D and D’ cannot exist or happen simultaneously??

No alt text provided for this image
Source: https://hohmannchris.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/conflict-resolution-diagram-evaporating-cloud/

  • Arrows are symbols of the necessity relationship. At the same time the arrows hide the underlying assumptions, those can be true or false.
  • The assumptions are usually statements, beliefs and/or justification for the relationship.
  • The Cloud’s purpose is to surface and test these assumptions.
  • The broken arrow or lightning between D and D’ is the symbol for opposition or conflict.
  • An assumption can also be invalidated by an injection, which are ideas or conditions that render one of the assumptions invalid.

?

We used the Evaporation Cloud technique to navigate a conflict in our Data Migration Task for a specific region.

  • Sprint Goal: Data migration for Asia region

Requirement #1: Control of infrastructure creation

Requirement #2: Full Access of infrastructure creation

Prerequisite #1: Need Enterprise Security Approval

Prerequisite #2: Do no need enterprise Security approval

No alt text provided for this image
Evaporating Cloud

?Conflict Resolution Diagram used to externalize underlying beliefs and resolve conflicts. We found that the Enterprise security approval intake process to be streamlined for a quick workflow.

10 signs we need to consider Logical Thinking Process:

Philip MARRIS provides us with the 10 signs pointing to the need to consider using the Logical Thinking Process in order to help us solve our complex problems and structure our transformation plan.

  • Do not know how to properly state your Vision and Goal
  • Are unsure about what is required to achieve your Goal
  • Are afraid of costly and questionable “nice-to-haves” your staff is asking for
  • Have no benchmark for orienting and monitoring all efforts
  • Have no idea how far your organization is from the Goal
  • Are stuck with conflicting objectives or constraints
  • Do not know what to do to close the gaps and achieve your Goal
  • Are afraid about possible negative side effects and obstacles of your plan
  • Are uneasy about how to communicate the necessary changes
  • Would like to have a list of prerequisites for successful change

Conflicts are good:

The Logical Thinking Process is one of the powerful tools to validate assumptions and help to make meaningful decisions. Constructive conflicts are good to nurture a positive environment in an organization and inspire people to be their best creative expressions of themselves. Let’s revive the roots of our logical thinking trees and find the inherent simplicity of complex systems.


References:

https://www.ensembleconsultinggroup.com/method/operations-toc-overview/critical-thinking/

https://tameflow.com/blog/2012-07-27/theory-of-constraints-and-software-engineering/

https://logicalthinkingprocess.com/?page_id=155

https://hohmannchris.wordpress.com/theory-of-constraints/thinking-processes/

https://www.marris-consulting.com/en/our-expertise/logical-thinking-process/10-signs-you-need-to-consider-ltp


What I understood about TOC and LTP is very little! A lot of exploration and deep diving are needed to experience the inherent beauty of the LTP. Your valuable feedback would guide me in the right direction.


In the next article, we will be exploring Pattern language and how it is helpful to unveil the invisible.

Till then the agility awakenings continue...


Thanks to Steve Tendon and Shelja Jose Kuruvilla for sharing their knowledge and helping me to understand the Logical Thinking Process. And, my sincere gratitude to Christian HOHMANN Bill Dettmer David Hodes for sharing deep insights in their blog, book and videos.

My hearty thanks to all my well-wishers?Katrijn van Oudheusden ??Gab Ciminelli ?Mohammad Umar Farooq ??Dr.Viswanatha Sivam Krishnamurthy ?Piers Thurston ?John Sambrook ?Naresh Datta HP ?Sairam Venkataraman ?Carlo Mahfouz ?Matthew Sutcliffe ?for the continuous encouragement!


#linkedin ?#agile ?#scrum ?#coaching ?#leadership ?#lean ?#flow ?#creativity ?#futurism ?#productmanagement ?#agility ?#businessagility ?#systemsthinking ?#life ?#awareness ?#selflessleadership ?Xebia ?Xebia Agile Chapter

Balachandhiran Sankaran Are your Desirable Effects (DEs) stated as positive, “beneficial” outcomes, that you want more of? Are your UnDesirable Effects (UDEs) stated as negative, “costly” outcomes, that you want less of? Goldratt’s Change Matrix suggests there are both [+] “mermaids” and [-] “alligators” to “Data Silos” — to use one of your examples. So what are the biggest [-] problems with it? And what are the biggest [+] benefits? People embrace Good Changes, that they think will leave them better off. They resist Bad Changes, that they think will leave them worst off. So what are the [+] DEs, and [-] UDEs, in both the Current Reality, and in your proposed Future Reality?

A good overview of the LTP. If I might, I'll offer two comments. First, "the only three questions" you mention are actually FOUR questions. The missing one is actually the FIRST question that needs answering: WHY change? The answer to that question is embodied in the first two trees of the LTP: the Goal Tree and the Current Reality Tree, and the articulation of the "delta" between them. Second, I was favorably impressed by your Goal Tree. I might offer one observation about it. The use of the word "by" in your Goal statement (and all the words that follow it) impose unnecessary restrictions on its achievement. Those words force the question of "how" into the Goal statement. The matter of "how" is more appropriate for the Critical Success Factors and Necessary Conditions of the Goal Tree. By and large, this is a good precis of the LTP.

Naresh Datta HP

Creating Awareness around Business Agility

1 年

I love Rumi's quotes every time you bring them on. It naturally become the container for whole of your ensuing topic. Very insightful details on systems thinking and strategies Balachandhiran Sankaran.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Balachandhiran Sankaran的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了