It is easier to learn the Cloud approach on such a problem rather than trying to deal with a problem of the chronic nature, like: "My boss demands that I shall be instantly available for any work issues and often even on weekends and I cannot have any personal plans for the weekends."

To demonstrate the process of the Inner Dilemma Cloud, I will use the following example of a single one-off problem: "I am a project manager at an improvement initiative at a large hospital. I have resources assigned to the project; all of them also continue performing their daily jobs. One of them is not released by her boss to work on the project. What shall I do?"

Step 2. Write a storyline.

Write down in free format the facts about this, as if you were filing an official complaint or report. Explain in the report why this was a problem and how it has affected you or your performance.

Answer questions such as: Who-what-when-where? What did I want to do? Why? What did I feel forced to do? Why?

Example: I am a project manager and Mary has been allocated as a resource to my project. She is from Bill's department but Bill has no other involvement or responsibility for my project. He is not a sponsor and not a customer. I have assigned some tasks to Mary, which she has not done yet. When I have asked her why, she said that Bill prevented her from doing the tasks, as he didn't agree with the approach we are taking. Mary has suggested that I go to Bill and sort this out, as Bill is very knowledgeable in the subject matter of my project. I don't want to see him, but Mary is my friend. Mary seems to be between a rock and a hard place. My boss Fred is not willing to get involved and confront Bill.

Step 3. Build the Cloud.

The starting point of building the Inner Dilemma Cloud is the actions. We know what actions we are pressured to take, the ones with which we don't feel comfortable. We also know what actions we would prefer to take, but there is something that keeps us from explicitly taking these actions.

Hence, we have a good starting point on the Cloud-D and D. From there we continue and build C and B and end up with A. Therefore, the sequence of building the Cloud is: D/D C B A or alternatively, D/D B C A

Identifying D/D

The idea here is to find out the major or most conflicting actions that one may consider in addressing this problem.

The guidelines are: Write down all the options that you have considered while trying to solve the problem.

Split them into two groups: actions that you prefer to take and actions that you feel you are forced to take.

Choose the one that you feel is the most distasteful or forced option and write it in the D box.

Choose your preferred option and write it in box D.

Example: The list of tactics or actions that were considered and evaluated by the Project Manager is in Table 24-1.

TABLE 24-1 The Tactics/Actions Considered by the Project Manager [D]: The most forced action: See Bill myself.

[D]: The most preferred action: Ignore the whole thing.

Now we need to complete the Cloud.

After writing D and D, you can move either to the B need or to the C need.

The sequence of moving to B or to C does not really matter. Some people find it easier to first write what it is they want rather than what is forced on them.

Write in box C the need that is satisfied by action D and check the logic: in order to achieve [C] I must [D].

The project manager in our example wrote: [C]: Get on with my work.

Check: In order to get on with my work-as a project manager-I must ignore the whole thing. I have more important things to do!

Write in box B the need that would be satisfied by taking the action in D and check the logic.

[B]: Fight for my resources Check: In order to fight for my resources I must see Bill myself.

Well, this seems logical but is B verbalized as a need? For now, let us just go on with the process of building the Cloud and we will address that in the step of upgrading the Cloud. While learning how to build a Cloud it is important to proceed from "Good enough" criteria for the first version of the Cloud and not get stuck on one entity trying to figure out whether it is absolutely correct.

Write in box A the common objective that will be achieved by having need B and need C met (why are B and C so important? What for?) and check the logic.

The project manager wrote: A: Able to deliver the project on time.

Check: In order to be able to deliver the project on time I MUST fight for resources and I MUST get on with my work.

The Cloud is a good enough Cloud for the next step of tightening its logic.

In summary, the sequence and the questions for building the Inner Dilemma Cloud are provided in Table 24-2.

TABLE 24-2 Sequence and the Questions for Building the Inner Dilemma Cloud Step 4. Check the logical statements of the Cloud again and make necessary corrections and upgrades.

In Step 3, we write the entities in the boxes as the answers to the questions asked and check the logic of each arrow individually. In Step 4, we again check the logic of the entire Cloud: ABD, ACD the conflict D-D and the diagonals D jeopardizing C and D jeopardizing B.

Syntax Guidelines

Ensure that the entities in the boxes meet the following guidelines: Entities are whole sentences.

Entities do not contain causality statements. Causality statements include words like if, because, sure to, in order to, etc.

Entities D and D are verbalized as actions and are in clear and direct conflict.

Entities B and C are verbalized as clear and positive needs.

Let us check the example Cloud: [A]: It is clear that the project manager cares about the project. She wants to do a good job. She is a capable and willing member of the hospital staff.

We can suggest A to be: [her objective is:] Deliver a successful project.

[B]: Fight for resources-is not verbalized as a need, it is an action (as it contains a verb indicating action-"fight") that we take to satisfy the need "having resources for the project is necessary if we want to implement it."

Therefore, we suggest upgrading the wording in B to: Have secured resources.

[D]: "See Bill myself" is one of the actions that will secure Mary as a resource for the project.

[C]: "Get on with my work" may explain the reasoning behind ignoring the whole thing-but it does not really work. "Get on with my work" is not a need. Here one has to be courageous and call a spade a spade. What can help us in finding a better C is the check on the diagonal-what does D jeopardize? From the text of the story line, we can derive that Bill's attitude hurts the project manager's feelings. Therefore, we can suggest need [C]: "Respect for my position as the chosen project manager."

[D]: "Ignore the whole thing" is a decision.

FIGURE 24-2 Example-the project manager's Dilemma Cloud after the upgrading process.

Diagonal check: [D] jeopardizes [B] because if this decision is taken it will jeopardize the need B as Bill will not release Mary to perform her project tasks unless he meets with the project manager. Yet, to clearly express that D-D are in a direct conflict we suggest to write in D: "Do not approach Bill on this matter."

Read the Cloud again to ensure it is logically sound. Now we have the upgraded Cloud as shown in Fig. 24-2.

Step 5. Surface the assumptions that cause the conflicting tactics (actions and decisions). To better understand the conflict/dilemma and as a prerequisite for finding a solution, one should look for the reasoning behind the logical statements (of the arrows) and especially those that are leading to the conflicting entities of D and D. The explanations behind the arrows state clearly why each of the boxes of the Cloud is absolutely necessary. In TOC terminology, we call them underlying assumptions. The way to surface them is by checking: In order to have . . . (tip of the arrow), I must . . . (base of the arrow), because . . . Everything we state after the "because" is an assumption.

This is used for surfacing the horizontal arrows: AB, AC, BD, and CD.

Please avoid repeating what is already stated by the existence of the arrow. Stating that in order to have C we must take action D because the action D is the only way to achieve C does not add any more understanding. Assumptions that explain only one part of the arrow also do not help the understanding. The assumption should establish the direct causal connection between the two parts of the arrow. Check that some of the words of the assumption refer to one box and some words refer to the other box.

Example: BD: In order for me (the project manager) to have secured resources (especially Mary) I must see Bill myself because . . .

[B-D I]: Bill controls what Mary works on. This statement causally connects Bill to Mary.

[B-D 2]: Bill is blocking Mary from completing my project tasks. As far as I know, Bill does not release Mary from her daily duties to perform tasks assigned to her according to our project plan.

[B-D 3]: Bill needs to be approached personally to get his collaboration on sharing his resources. This statement fits the syntax of an assumption as it explains the causal connection between B and D. It connects Bill and his "conditions" for releasing his people. Yet, the assumption is a bit one-sided and contains slightly negative views about the person involved. This statement can be reverbalized as: Bill usually wants to be consulted before releasing his resources.

CD: In order to have respect for my position as the chosen project manager, I should not approach Bill because . . .

[C-D I]: Yielding to local politics undermines my position.

[C-D 2]: Bill is not my boss, sponsor, or a customer of the project. (As Bill is not a part of the project community, approaching him will just weaken my position as the project manager and will be a loss of face.) Surfacing assumption underlying D-D: These assumptions have to state clearly the reasons for the existence of the conflict. They have to explain why the two tactics stated in D and D are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist. They have to explain why the conflict cannot be resolved and what is causing the conflict to exist.

The statements that can help in surfacing the D-D assumptions are: D and D are in conflict because . . . or, I cannot resolve this conflict because . . . .

The logical arguments explaining the existence of the conflict can reveal different mind-sets, organizational behaviors, policies, or procedures that drive opposing actions or decisions. It can reveal a shortage of something in common (like resources) and it can highlight a lack of mutual appreciation or confidence.

Example: D-D-See Bill myself is in conflict with Do not approach Bill at all because . . .

[D-D 1]: There is no procedure in the company that addresses a clash between a project assignment and routine departmental work of resources.

[D-D 2]: I don't know what value there would be in meeting with Bill.

Graphically, the causality arrows are described in text boxes containing the underlying assumptions that are pointing to the relevant arrow as in Fig. 24-1.

Step 6. Construct your solution and check it for win-win.

A solution to the problem is a change to the reality that removes a major reason for the existence of the Cloud. The way to achieve objective A is through the removing or invalidating one of the significant underlying assumptions. When a major assumption is invalidated, then there is no reason for the logical connection to exist and hence one of boxes may disappear from the reality, causing the conflict to disappear or evaporate. Hence, this process is called the Evaporating Cloud (EC).

Theoretically, we can challenge every arrow on the Cloud. However, from a practical point of view we want to make the changes on the tactical level; hence, we challenge the assumptions underlying BD, CD or DD.

Usually we can expect that after building the Cloud and the thorough logic check in Step 4 that the objective A and the needs B and C are well defined. B and C have been confirmed to be significant, positive, and necessary conditions for achieving the objective stated in A. Accepting A, B, and C directs our efforts to solve the conflict between D and D.

To invalidate or negate an assumption, we must introduce something new to replace it. This "something new" is called an injection.5 The injection is the change in reality that helps achieving the statement in the box at the tip of the arrow (B or C) without having the situation described in the box at the base of the arrow (D or D).

Under the current reality, the perception is that the only way to achieve B is through taking the action D and the only way to achieve C is through taking the action D. The injection for B-D is a new facet to the reality so that B can be achieved. This injection is a valid solution only if it is also not in conflict with D. Alternatively, the injection for C-D is a new facet to the reality so that C can be achieved and B is not jeopardized. This injection is a valid solution only if it is also not in conflict with D.

Therefore, we have three potential options for breaking the Cloud: Injection to B-D assumption that replaces the use of D.

Injection to C-D assumption that replaces the use of D.

Injection to D-D assumption that removes (or changes) both D and D and suggests a new common tactic.

Conceptually, it is possible to find an injection for all three options.

Finding an injection is an important step in the process. The general recommendation is to try to think "outside the box" and ask yourself the following question: "In what situation is the stated connection between two boxes of the Cloud not valid?" You may think about a different scenario, a different environment, or experience from the past in which the connection was not there. Many times we have the injection in our head under the heading of "I wish the situation was different . . ." We claim that when people have a problem bothering them they continuously think about solutions. Nevertheless, people tend to erase their own potential solution assuming that the solutions are unrealistic or impossible to implement. The EC method is the place to consider options and ideas that were dismissed before.

To practice the process of finding injections and to ensure that all possible options are considered, we recommend searching for injections to break the B-D, C-D, and D-D arrows. Once we define a variety of injections, we can choose which one (or ones) we prefer to use. The selection of the arrow to break may have an impact of the acceptance of the suggested solution. The arrow, corresponding assumptions, and injections are shown in Table 24-3.

Once you have all the potential injections, you can decide to choose one or more of them or even create a new injection that will take elements of some of the stated injections.

The solution has to work for you. That means that you are comfortable with it based on a better understanding of the problem and that you will feel happier when this injection becomes a part of your reality.

After choosing the injection, check the new reality in which your injection will replace one or both actions (D and/or D) and verify that the developed injection supports the achievement of both B and C.

Check: IF [injection] THEN I can achieve [B] and [C] without this conflict blocking me because . . .

If B and C are not achieved with the support of the injection, then it alone is not a good enough injection. This primary injection might need some supporting injections to achieve both B and C. In some cases, rephrase the injection or select another one and check again.

TABLE 24-3 The Arrow, Corresponding Assumptions, and Injections for the Personal Dilemma Please understand that if the solution were so simple, then you probably wouldn't be using the Cloud to identify the solution anyway.

If the injection replaces just one of the entities D or D, the check shall reveal that the injection fully replaces the removed action or decision. Once the actions to achieve B are not in conflict with the actions to achieve C, the Cloud disappears-it "evaporates!"

Scenario 1: If we break the B-D arrow it means that the injection replaces D, so the check has to be explicit: IF [injection] THEN B can be achieved and at the same time C will not be jeopardized. The reality after having the injection in place will be: D + Injection (breaking B-D) Scenario 2: If we break the C-D arrow, then the explicit check is: IF [injection] THEN C can be achieved and at the same time B will not be jeopardized. The reality will be: D + Injection (breaking C-D).

Scenario 3: If we break the D-D arrow, then it means that both D and D are replaced by the injection and therefore we must check: IF [injection] THEN B can be achieved.

IF [injection] THEN C can be achieved.

The three scenarios for breaking the Cloud create a new tactic that we can denote as D* (D star). The future after implementing the injection creates the diamond shape that replaces the Cloud, as shown in Fig. 24-3.

Example-The D* injection as chosen by the project manager is: I put the project needs in front of my own feelings; listen to what Bill has to offer me as a project manager; and negotiate resources (Mary) with him.

FIGURE 24-3 The diamond shape figure.

Check: If I do D*, then I will have secured resources (Mary) because . . . approaching Bill the way he likes to operate is a good base for him meeting my need for resources for the project. (Bill is highly regarded in his professional area and is known to be tough but fair.) If I do D*, then I have increased my chances to have Bill's respect for my position as the chosen project manager because . . . showing respect to Bill increases the chances of him respecting me (based on Mary's recommendation to meet him as she probably knows Bill better than I do).