4. Causality Clarity. Ensure each cause-effect relationship is modeled clearly and concisely. A good test is to read aloud the relationship as an "if-then" statement or as a "because" statement. An indicator that the cause-and-effect relationship is not yet clear enough is if you read it aloud to someone and feel compelled to explain further what it means. For instance, look at Fig. 25-18. The cause-and-effect relationships would be read as: If [B] and [C], then [A]; or [A] exists because [B] and [C].

Additionally, if [D], then [A]; or [A] also exists because [D].

FIGURE 25-18 Cause clarity.

As we explore the full, integrated TOC TP, I will use examples from the case study of a bank, which was described in detail by Cox, Blackstone, and Schleier (2003) in their book, Managing Operations: A Focus on Excellence. (Used by permission, Cox, Blackstone, and Scleier)

What to Change?

Mad let us grant him them, and now remains that we find out the cause of this effect-Or rather say, the cause of this defect, for this effect defective comes by cause. Thus it remains, and the remainder thus.

-William Shakespeare In order to answer the question, What to Change?, we will use two of the TP tools: the CRT and the EC. Over the years, two approaches have emerged as "standard." The "Snowflake Method" is considered to be the more traditional approach, mainly because it is an older method than the "Three-Cloud Method," and the "Three-Cloud Method" is generally easier for people to learn. The main difference between the two approaches is the sequence in which the two tools are used, and in which the core problem is identified. The "Three-Cloud Approach" tends to be easier to learn. Both methods have proven to be quite effective in gaining an understanding of the situation and the core conflict (core problem) that has prevented the otherwise natural harmony to be in place.

Current Reality Tree (CRT)

We find in the course of nature that though the effects be many, the principles from which they arise are commonly few and simple, and that it is the sign of an unskilled naturalist to have recourse to a different quality in order to explain every different operation.

-David Hume A CRT is a cause-effect model of an existing situation. The main use of a CRT is to answer the question, What to Change?, so the cause-effect relationships that are focused on in the CRT are the UDEs-the aspects of the situation that we want to improve.

One important aspect of the inherent simplicity concept is convergence. Goldratt explains that "science is simply the method we use to try and postulate a minimum set of assumptions that can explain, through a straightforward logical derivation, the existence of many phenomena of nature" (Goldratt and Cox 1986, Introduction). When we look at a well-constructed CRT, we are able to see clearly the very few causes for a much larger set of effects.

The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.

-Albert Einstein

Evaporating Cloud (EC)

The peak efficiency of knowledge and strategy is to make conflict unnecessary.

-Sun Tzu By definition, a problem is something that we want to solve. In other words, if I have a problem, then I want to replace it with its opposite non-problem. Whether a given problem is a core problem (the cause for many UDEs), or an UDE (an element of the system that is undesirable), it is an obstacle to harmony that should be eliminated. This means that any problem can be verbalized as a conflict, which leads us to the use of the EC. In the "Snowflake Method," the EC is used to summarize a core problem reflected in a CRT that has been constructed by logically connecting the UDEs. In the "Three-Cloud Method," the Cloud is used to derive the core problem and then logically connect it with the UDEs.

The "Snowflake Method"

1. Pick a subject matter. What is the system or situation that you want to understand better in order to improve it? Perhaps you want to understand your markets better to develop a product or offer that would address a significant need; or you want to understand your organization better to determine why it is not growing faster, serving its customers better, or retaining its employees longer; or you want to understand your supply chain to find the keys to improving the relationships with both your suppliers and your customers; or you want to understand your family or other relationships better to figure out what to change to make them more meaningful. Hospitals have used the TP to understand what needed to change to improve their emergency rooms and surgical centers; even a religious denomination15 used the CRT to understand what was preventing it from better accomplishing its mission. The list of potential subjects is limitless. There are two criteria that you should use to determine a subject on which you will construct a CRT: a. You really care about it to the degree that you intend to roll up your own shirt sleeves when it comes to implementing the solution.

b. You have enough experience to have some intuition about it.

2. Identify several aspects of the situation that are undesirable, and write them as entities. These entities are called UDES. An UDE is defined as an entity that describes an element of the situation that we want to improve; in other words, it describes an aspect of the system that is undesirable, and which we would like to change. Try not to identify fewer than six or more than twelve in this early step of the process. This simply defines the starting point for the analysis.

3. Your intuition will point you to some of the UDEs that are closely connected to each other through cause and effect. Starting with these, construct the cause-effect map that shows how they are ultimately connected. Remember to verify that the entities really do describe elements of the situation as it exists, validate the causality, and ensure that what is written is clear and understandable. Once you are satisfied that you have a cluster that is solid from a logical cause-effect perspective, go back to your list of UDEs and, one by one, let your intuition guide you to the area on the tree to which they are connected, and then use cause-effect logic to connect them. Do not stop until all of the UDEs are contained in the diagram.

4. If your intuition tells you that the tree you have is not telling the whole story, add the causes and effects so that it does. You may also discover that many of the entities you initially defined as UDEs really are not, but that others in the tree really are. Go ahead and identify the "real UDE's."16 Remember to keep the view of the scientist.

5. Check the entities that are causes only. Can you identify one that is responsible for the majority (say 70 percent or more) of the UDEs in the tree? If so, you have uncovered a core problem. If not, select the few that together are responsible for most of the UDEs and see if you can identify the common cause for them. If not, don't worry-your work on the CRT has provided you with enough understanding of the situation that you would be able to use an EC to clarify the core problem and establish a direction for the solution.

6. Construct the EC in order to crystallize the core conflict of the system. There are two approaches to constructing the Cloud from a CRT. One approach is to summarize the CRT. Another is to use the core problem that has been identified in the CRT as the D entity, its opposite as the D entity, the goal of the system as the A entity, and fill in B and C based on the understanding of the system that has been established by constructing the CRT.

The Bank Case: What to Change, Snowflake Approach

A brief background (step 1) to the bank case, as provided by Cox et al. (2003): The bank has a problem with employee turnover and pay levels. Other businesses pay more than the bank can pay for entry-level positions and hire the bank's employees. Employees are constantly turning over so the bank is unable to develop loyalty with its customers . . . .

In order to get a holistic view of the bank and not just of an individual within the bank, the Branch Manager, the Head Cashier, and the Director of Human Resources defined the UDEs (step 2). They checked for the existence and clarity of the entities, and after some wordsmithing, the list of UDEs they used to begin their CRT was: 1. Many bank tellers quit and take better job positions.

2. Some single-parent bank tellers quit to make more money on public assistance and be with their children.

3. Many bank teller job vacancies occur each year.

4. The bank's budget for hiring, training, and raises is quite small.

5. Some bank tellers (students or their spouses) quit at college graduation.

6. Bank teller jobs are low paying entry-level positions.

7. The bank loses a lot of revenue from past, existing, and potential customers.

8. Some tellers make errors in customer accounts.

9. Some tellers do not know how to handle multiple complex transactions.

10. Some tellers are extremely slow.

11. Many customers go elsewhere to bank.

12. Many customers complain about poor service to other customers (existing and potential).

13. New employees do not know the names, likes, and dislikes of loyal customers.

The team immediately identified three causes for UDE #3 and mapped them accordingly (step 3), as illustrated in Fig. 25-19.

They then added UDE #6 to the cluster (step 3-2 Fig. 25-20).

They continued to follow the steps (step 4), and Fig. 25-21 is the CRT on which they agreed reflected the reality of the situation.

of the vast majority of the "real UDEs."

FIGURE 25-19 Bank CRT step 3.

FIGURE 25-20 Bank CRT step 3-2.

As you examine the bank's CRT, you may find yourself questioning some of the entities and the cause-effect relationships as they are represented in the model. If so, and if you had been sitting in the room with the bankers at the time, your reservations might have helped them end up with a more "perfect" CRT. Nevertheless, I do believe this is a "perfect example" to share with you. It is from real life, not an ivory tower. Real managers expended real human energy to understand their environment better for the purpose of making decisions and taking actions that would cause real improvement for their bank and their customers. "Perfect" logic may be a good aspiration to help you keep the mindset of the scientist. However, it is quite inappropriate to spend an exorbitant amount of time to map out "the perfect CRT." Do not allow "analysis paralysis" to set in! As you will see, the full set of TP provides excellent safety nets. Even if the CRT is not "perfect," the subsequent steps will help you pick up anything important that you may have missed.

The Branch Manager summarized the CRT in the Cloud shown in Fig. 25-22.

The bank team identified entity #140 (step 5), "The bank is unable to maintain an adequate pay structure to provide stable employment." If the bank would have instead constructed the Cloud using the core problem entity as the D entity of the cloud, the Cloud may have looked like the one shown in Fig. 25-23.

Note that in either case, the conflict is well represented in the CRT (step 6).

FIGURE 25-21 Bank CRT.

The "Three-Cloud Method"

The first two steps are the same as in the "Snowflake Method." Define the subject matter and identify several (6 to 12) UDEs. The next step leads us to identifying the core problem in the form of a conflict-a core conflict-and the subsequent steps are used to identify the cause-effect connections between the core conflict and the UDEs. We will pick up from Step 3.

FIGURE 25-22 Bank Cloud.

FIGURE 25-23 Bank Cloud 2 UDE the bank puts up with being unable to maintain an adequate pay structure to provide stable employment.

3. Select three UDEs, making sure to select them from diverse aspects of the system. A good guideline to follow is to select UDEs that do not seem to be connected to each other via cause and effect. Create a Cloud for each of the selected UDEs according to the template shown in Fig. 15-24.

Three of the bank's UDEs, verbalized as ECs, are shown in Figs. 25-25 through 25-27.

4. From the three Clouds, create the Generic Cloud of the system, which is the core conflict. When you examine the three Clouds together, you will be able to uncover a theme for the As, the Bs, the Cs, the Ds, and the Ds. I find Table 25-4 useful, and have used it to illustrate how the bank's three specific UDE Clouds are converted into a Generic Cloud.

Now you can create the Generic Cloud as seen in Fig. 25-28.

The bank's Generic Cloud, according to the Three-Cloud Method, is shown in Fig. 25-29.

Notice the similarity between the Cloud in Fig. 25-29 and the Cloud that was generated with the core problem (entity #140) identified in the Snowflake Method (Fig. 25-22).

5. The CRT is completed by establishing the cause-and-effect linkages between the core problem and the UDEs.

FIGURE 25-24 Template for UDE Clouds.

FIGURE 25-25 EC for bank UDE 13.

To What to Change

My interest is in the future because I am going to spend the rest of my life there.

-Charles F. Kettering We will utilize a few of the TP tools to answer the question, To What to Change? The Cloud that has already been constructed is used to surface assumptions, identify those that are invalid, and define the initial injection for the solution. We will then complete the solution with the FRT and NBR.

FIGURE 25-26 EC for bank UDE 12.

FIGURE 25-27 EC for bank UDE 1.

TABLE 25-4 Converting the Bank's Individual UDE Clouds to a Generic Cloud FIGURE 25-28 Generic Cloud template.

FIGURE 25-29 Bank Generic Cloud based on three clouds.