Generally, we recommend that once you find yourself in a "tug-of-war" situation, you should suggest taking time to think about the problem. If this is accepted, then you have the chance to build the Cloud, develop a solution, and then come back and communicate it.

If this is not the case and you or the other person imposed a solution, there is still value in using the analysis as a learning case to handle such situations better in the future.

In the example of the machinist, the resetting of the machine was imposed and done. The value is in addressing the emotion and considering the outcome if the injection suggested in Step 6 would have been used. In this case, the machinist should use the injection as a mode of operation for himself. Hence, he does not need to communicate the solution to anybody. Yet the managers of the machinist can benefit from such a mindset. They are not the "other side"; they suffer the same problems and having another personal conflict does not help them at all.

In planning the communication, we use the TOC understanding of the layers of buy-in (decision making). They stem from the work that was done in investigating the resistance to change.7 This understanding recognizes that accepting a solution contains several layers. (I refer here to the views that contain five layers. Other TOC practitioners may use different numbers.) In preparation for the communication, we must cover all the layers that are relevant for addressing this problem. For a day-to-day conflict, we should prepare ourselves for the first three layers: Layer 1-achieving agreement on the problem.

Layer 2-achieving agreement on the direction of the solution.

Layer 3-achieving agreement on the solution (that it will bring the desired outcome).

The other two layers will be introduced after the section of NBRs and obstacles: Layer 4-achieving agreement that there are no negative effects.

Layer 5-achieving agreement that we can overcome implementation obstacles.

The problem is presented by the Cloud.

The direction is accepting the other side's tactic and breaking the Cloud on my side.

The desired outcome is checked in Step 6-the injection that breaks the C-D side by replacing D supports the achievement of C and does not hurt the achievement of B.

In the actual communication, we do not have to systematically follow the flow of the layers. We have to be flexible to suit the preference of the other side. The process should be based on a face-to-face meeting. It is not recommended to try to sort out such problems using email.

Come to the meeting and say: We have a difference of opinions on the issue of . . .

I have been thinking about it and I would like to work with you on finding a workable solution.

You want D and I want D. These two are not compatible. I suggest we go with your D but we need to ensure that my C is taken care of as well. Do you have any suggestion how we can take care of it?

If the other side comes with any suggestions, you can check them against the potential injections that you have in mind to break the Cloud. If the suggested idea is close enough, you can agree on the solution. If not, continue in search for an amicable solution. Given that you are willing to contemplate suggested injections to your side of the Cloud, this discussion should be amicable and should end on a positive note8.

Reducing Fire Fighting

Managers have a huge impact on the performance of their systems. They need time and stamina to deal with improvements. Their time should be exploited. The opposite of exploitation is waste. One of the common causes for waste of time and disruption to the managerial process is known as fire fighting. In this section, we show how to use the Cloud method to address fire fighting and to improve the system to prevent such fires from reoccurring.

Step 1: Identify the type of problem.

Fire fighting is a common headache for managers. Irrespective of their own plans or issues that they are expected to attend to, they are confronted by a sudden unexpected problem-a fire-that they are expected to solve immediately.

The manager is sitting in his office and then comes a knock at the door. A lieutenant (someone who reports to the manager) enters and says, "Boss, we have a problem." What he really means is, "Boss, there is a problem and I need you to sort it out now, otherwise something unpleasant will happen to your area of responsibility."

The nature of such a problem is that the boss has to stop everything and sort out the problem. Fire-fighting problems cause managers to do jobs and tasks that were supposed to be taken care of by their subordinates or not supposed to happen. That leads to the loss of valuable time and energy of management.

Addressing the fire-fighting problems in a systematic way-using the Cloud method-helps the manager to become more effective, less interrupted, and helps him to upgrade his subordinates' skills and run his area more effectively.

Please note that the name may be a bit misleading. The method that we are about to suggest is not how to solve the fire-fighting problem itself. Fires are happening and the manager must find an immediate way to put the fires out. The idea is to use the incident of the fire for finding ways to prevent them from happening repeatedly. Therefore, a post-event analysis of the conflict is a conceptual one-what actions could have prevented the need of the manager to be sorting out the situation? Why couldn't the people affected by the fire put it out themselves? When they cannot put out the fire, they come to their bosses and ask for help. This causes a disruption to the manager-the managerial fire.

Managerial fires are caused by three major reasons: 1. Lack of knowledge-the subordinates don't know how to function in certain situations. The knowledge resides with the manager or it is within his or her reach. This is caused by the manager's lack of time to transfer the knowledge and knowhow to their lieutenants and, in some cases, by lack of willingness of the lieutenants to learn from their bosses.

2. Lack of authority-the lieutenant has the responsibility but lacks the authority. Many times the system restricts the level of authority through tight policies and procedures.

3. Lack of confidence-the people who are supposed to take the necessary actions feel incapable of performing them and come to their managers to do the actions on their behalf. Many times people fear that they will be punished if something goes wrong while they are trying to solve a burning problem for the company.

The nature of the fire-fighting problem is that the problem must be attended to once it is raised. The manager must come up with an immediate solution and put out the fire. However, we have to approach the fire-fighting problem with the view that it is a manifestation of a system failure. It is beneficial to investigate the causes of the fire and take initiatives to remove them. Therefore, after the fire is dealt with, it is recommended that the manager examine the fire using the Cloud method to develop a solution to prevent this fire from reoccurring in the future by addressing the cause of the fire.

Step 2: Write a storyline.

Example: I am the Customer Service Manager. Yesterday the person responsible for shipping products, who reports to me, came and asked for my help. There was a shipment for a particular customer that was due to ship but the delivery location was not clear. The Customer Account Manager for this particular customer, who also reports to me, had been unavailable for 3 days.

I had to call the customer several times, and after some hassle, I got the information and gave it to the Shipping Clerk. Then I got back to my other work.

In this incident, the Shipping Clerk wants to perform his job properly as expected. We can assume that in the past when orders were shipped late this person was confronted and challenged-even when it was not his fault. He could have shrugged his shoulders and done nothing until the account manager came back. However, the Shipping Clerk cares! Hence, he goes to the Customer Service Manager and informs him about the problem.

The manager solved the problem by calling the customer himself. The customer was unhappy about the call. This problem was solved for now, but there is nothing to prevent the same problem from happening again in the future. This can be a good reason for the manager to investigate it using the Cloud method.

Step 3: Build the Cloud.

The sequence for building the Fire-Fighting Cloud is different from the previous two types because the trigger for the Cloud is different. For the Inner Dilemma Cloud and the Day-to-Day Conflict Cloud, the problem itself appears on the Cloud. The conflict is between two different tactics: D and D. Once we write them, we can proceed to the B and C and eventually A.

In the fire-fighting scenario, the problem triggers the Cloud but is not recorded on the Cloud itself. We deal with the problem because it is extremely important. That means that the problem is jeopardizing the objective A and especially one of the needs. Therefore, the entry point to the Cloud is the need that is endangered. From there we continue to fill up the boxes according to a logical flow and questions in Table 24-4.

Example of building the Cloud of the shipping problem as seen by the Customer Services Manager: [B]: Jeopardized need: Secure on-time shipment to customer. If we do nothing, the shipping details will not be obtained before the Account Manager is back and by then it will be too late.

[D]: Action to achieve B: The Shipping Clerk is allowed to call the customer for shipping details.

The suggested tactic in D is not too bad, but is not allowed according to the procedure stated in box D and it may cause the negative implications that the procedure tries to prevent.

[D]: The blocking procedure: Only the Customer Account Manager makes all the calls to the customer.

[C]: The need that is taken care of by the procedure in D: Maintain good customer relationships.

Customers do not like having many people from their supplying companies call them and deal with different aspects of the products or services customers purchase from them. Therefore, we expect that if the Shipping Clerk calls the customer, he or she will be annoyed (as indicated by the storyline).

[A]: The objective: High level of customer service.

The Cloud is presented in Fig. 24-6.

FIGURE 24-6 An example of a Fire-Fighting Cloud.

In summary, the sequence and the questions for building the Fire-Fighting Cloud are shown in Table 24-5.

Step 4: Check the logical connections and upgrade.

Conduct the regular logical checks of the Cloud arrows.

Check that this problem puts you-the manager-in direct conflict with your system (sometimes even the one that you have put in place).

Check that the action in D jeopardizes C.

Check that the procedure or tactic of D jeopardizes B.

Upgrade the Cloud.

Step 5: Surface assumptions.

Raise the relevant assumptions for all the arrows of the Cloud.

The assumption underlying A-B and A-C are needed to re-establish the importance of both needs. They are necessary conditions for the high level of performance of the area under the manager's responsibility. The assumptions should support the manager's intuition of why he has to deal with the fires.

TABLE 24-5 Sequence and the Questions for Building the Fire-Fighting Cloud The C-D assumptions support the reasoning for the system that was put in place to achieve C. The current procedures support the smooth running of the organization. Procedures are there to ensure the quality, consistency, and effectiveness of processes within the company. Therefore, the majority of the assumptions are strong and positive. However, as good and comprehensive as the procedures are, they do not cover the full spectrum of possible situations.

Hence, B-D assumptions reveal situations in which the existing procedures are weak.

aPlease note that we use the term "system" in this case to denote something that is beyond the need of the person (the Shipping Clerk in this instance) raising the problem and it must be within the area of the responsibility of the manager (Customer Service) who is handling the fire-fighting problem.

D-D assumptions reveal the reasons for the conflict. Usually they point at the rigidity of the procedures to the extent that they cause harm to business needs and toward the lack of coverage in the procedures for dealing with emergencies and special situations.

Example: C-D Assumptions: In order to [C] Maintain good customer relationships, all people of the Customer Service Department (including the Shipping Clerk) MUST follow the procedure that D only the Customer Account Manager makes all calls to the customer BECAUSE. . . .

We have a policy of "single point of contact" [just stating the source of the employed procedure].

The customer gets irritated and confused when contacted by different people from the company [explains the logic that has brought the company to have this procedure].

Anyone other than the Customer Account Manager will confuse the customer.

B-D Assumption: The Customer Account Manager may be out of reach and the shipping instructions are not clear. (This is a special case where the two conditions happen at the same time. If only one of these conditions would happen, then there would be no problem.) D-D Assumptions: The procedure clearly states that in any situation "No one is allowed to contact the customer but the Customer Account Manager."

The procedure does not cover rare situations like the one that has caused this fire.

Step 6: Construct a solution.

The purpose of using the Cloud method for the fire-fighting problems is the desire to exploit the management time better by removing the disruption caused by these problems. Therefore, we want to find a good and permanent solution to the problem, and for that we need to decide which arrow is better to break.

Ideally, we do not want to choose a solution that will violate the procedure. If we break the C-D, this means throwing out the existing procedure.9 This will be like "throwing the baby out with the bath water." The solution has to be a combined injection that addresses three arrows at the same time: B-D, C-D, and D-D.

In the example, the Customer Service Manager was forced to put out the fire. This is the first priority. In such situations, it is too late to find a win-win solution. The manager has to make a decision on the spot. In the example, the manager decided to call the customer himself. As such, B was salvaged but the customer may have been unhappy, which means that C could have been endangered. We do not want to pass judgment on the manager's decision, we just want to learn from it what can be done systematically to prevent it from reoccurring. If we allow someone other than the Customer Account Manager to call, it means we break C-D. If we do not allow the Shipping Clerk to always call, then we break B-D.

If one action or one injection breaks both B-D and C-D, then it means that the injection also breaks at least one of the assumptions underlying D-D; in this case, it breaks the assumption that the procedure is rigid and must be adhered to no matter what the circumstances. The injection also challenges the perception that the procedure is comprehensive and covers all possible scenarios.

The direction for addressing fire-fighting situations (using the Cloud method) is to integrate the emergency solutions into the existing procedures. This direction stems from the appreciation that good ideas are invented and used in emergencies but are not accepted for regular times. As such, these ideas stay as the "assets" of the individuals and do not become a part of the organization's expertise.

Conclusion: Develop the solution by examining the actions used in emergencies, upgrade and formalize the actions so that they support both needs of the Cloud, and integrate them into the existing procedures.

In the example, the injection is the suggested amendment to the procedure: Whenever on-time shipment is at risk from inadequate delivery location information and the Customer Account Manager is not available, then the Shipping Clerk has the authority to contact the customer about this information.

Check for win-win: This amendment sorts out the specific situation of this fire problem. The Shipping Clerk can call the customer and the details are obtained. The customer will get the order on time. B is protected. But what about C? What about the assumption that the customer will be irritated if someone other than the Customer Account Manager approaches them? For that, we have to ensure that the customer is made aware in advance about this change to the procedure through explaining that this action will be done with the view of protecting the interest of the customer and will be used only in rare cases. The customer should accept that.

Step 7: Communicate the solution.

There are two major steps in communicating the solution-getting the consensus with the relevant people and formally making the amendments to the procedures. The second part has to be done according to the company's way of making changes to the procedures. Let us start with getting the consensus. There are at least three parties involved in the solution for the fire-fighting case: 1. The manager who is prompted to put out the fire-the manager has the desire and stamina to sort out the problem as he or she is interrupted by the problem and suffers the consequences. As such, the manager should look for the views of the other parties and incorporate them in the solution while continuing to check that the solution is win-win.

2. The person/function that raises the problem-they want to perform their jobs in a way that will acknowledge their contribution. They are blocked by a lack of authority. They do not necessarily demand more authority, but they do not want to experience the negative consequences of their inability to perform their job.

3. The person/function that represents the need that triggered the procedure-they are generally in favor of the existing procedure as it supports the objective or deliverables of their jobs. Therefore, they may not be that happy to incorporate changes to the procedures.

Here is a suggested flow for conducting the communication to the above parties: 1. Preparation-Write down the Cloud and assumptions. Ensure that for A-B and AC you have strong and agreeable assumptions, for B-D and C-D you have fortifying assumptions as well as assumptions that should be challenged (at least one of each), and that you have D-D assumptions. Write down the amendment to the procedure you want to propose. You do not necessarily want to present your work. It may better to talk through it without showing diagrams and using TOC terminology (at least at the early stages of using TOC for managing people).

2. Meeting with the person (Shipping Clerk) who has raised the problem: Present the incident causing the fire.

Present the entities of the Cloud following the sequence. ABD and then ACD.

The sequence is based on the fact that A is commonly accepted. Then, we move to presenting B and D to radiate to the Shipping Clerk that his views are accounted and understood. Thereafter, we move to present the system view C and D.

Get acceptance for the logic and wording. Make notes for yourself if there are comments that should be incorporated in the Cloud.

Ask the person for his or her ideas for permanently solving the problem.

If the suggestion is close to your solution, acknowledge and thank the person for the contribution. If it is different, check if it is a win-win, and if it is better than the one you thought about, then you can accept it. Otherwise, propose your solution and listen to remarks and reservations. The objective is to come up with a consolidated view for both of you.

3. Meeting with the key person (Customer Account Manager) associated with the procedure: Present the incident causing the fire.

Present the entities of the Cloud following the sequence: A CD and then ABD.

The sequence is different as compared to the communication to the Shipping Clerk. We start with the A, and then we move to the views of the system that are represented by the Customer Account Manager C and D. Then we move to present the views of the Shipping Clerk B and D.

Get acceptance for the logic and wording. Make notes for yourself if there are comments that should be incorporated in the Cloud.

Present the suggested amendment to the procedure and listen to reservations.

If the person agrees, then you are done. Otherwise, If the person raises negative implications of the amendment, ask for suggestions for trimming the negative and consider incorporating them in the amendment.

If the person comes up with an alternative idea and it is a good one, you may adopt it.

Warning: This is one problem of many that exist in the environment. Do not allow it to become a major and complex initiative. We need simple, practical, and rapid solutions that do not generate new problems. The check for win-win and trimming negative implications will generate good enough solutions.

We can conclude that the Fire-Fighting Cloud is probably the best tool managers can have in systematically sorting out problems that block the smooth operation of the areas under their responsibility.