Thinking in Processes
One of the tenets of the Theory of Constraints, 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. I've written about the Evaporating Cloud a number of times in the past in this discussion list, but I'll repeat again that under every arrow including the conflict arrow between D and D' lie assumptions. Brainstorming those assumptions is a matter of reading the "in order to, we must" statements, and then adding the word "because Once the assumptions are sufficiently spelled out, it's a matter of finding one that seems susceptible to questioning -- a chink in the armor of the conflict.
Also known as a conflict cloud, a dilemma cloud, or a conflict resolution diagram, the Evaporating Cloud provides a solvable verbalization of a conflicted situation where solvable is defined as "win-win. These individual conflicts usually turn out to be systemic conflicts, forcing people between "rocks and hard places" when they try to do the right thing for themselves, their individual departments, or the company as a whole.
Often what seems to be the right thing for one of these entities results in a dilemma, the other side of which is doing the right thing for another aspect of the endeavor but that is in conflict with the first action. A group's behavior its culture as well as its practices is defined by the accumulation of these dilemmas and how they tend to resolve them. It may sound strange, but when you look at these dilemmas together, they seem to exhibit a "fractal" nature in their self-similarity. When this generic conflict is identified and addressed appropriately, it can lead quickly to a coherent and consistent set of actions including appropriate training, measures, and policies that will result in the mitigation, if not elimination, of the various individual issues being faced throughout the organization.
These various applications of the cloud involve both construction and communication. The different uses imply different starting points for building the cloud. Those approaches are best left for another time or another venue, like a workshop so I can write about the other tools in my favorite toolkit. If stuck on the proverbial desert island of problem solving, I think it's obvious that the cloud is the tool I would want to have in my pocket, because at the core of almost any problem or decision either minute and personal or broad and strategic that one faces or that a group faces is the dilemma of doing one thing or another, pursuing one direction or another, going for D or for D', even when its as simple as doing something or doing nothing.
The cloud tells you that there really isn't a choice involved at all, it's only a matter of examining the assumptions that make you think there is a choice. The CRT is a sufficiency-based logic if This understanding provides the guidance for developing a solution, as understanding why X leads to an undesirable Y provides guidance for inserting new actions to either replace X or to cause it to result in a favorable Z instead.
The structure of a CRT is hard to draw in the text based format of email, but consists of connected clusters of statements associated with the situation. The connections are "if Graphically, they are statements connected by arrows.
- Jonah Thinking Processes – Pinnacle Strategies?
- Twenty to Make: Crocheted Bears.
- THE SECRET PASSAGE - A POLITICAL AND A PHILOSOPHICAL INTERPRETATION OF ALICE IN WONDERLAND AND THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS.!
These clusters are strung together as effects become causes of other effects. As we are discussing problem solving tools here, it should be mentioned that from a group participation point of view, the CRT is also thought of as a communication and clarification tool.
Its construction is not really suited for a group activity. It is usually best if it is built by one person, or a very, very small group, familiar with the subject matter on their own, and then presented to the group for scrutiny and clarification. An alternative approach to using it is to have the individual members of the group build pieces of a CRT related to their area of expertise, and then use the group presentation and scrutiny to merge the pieces into a whole.
Construction of a CRT is best as an individual process, scrutiny and clarification is most effective with group effort and input. A well-built CRT will confirm that your suspect generic conflict or a modification of it is indeed at the root of the originally identified problems and it will serve as guidance for developing a new view of future reality vision to replace the current.
The FRT is similar to the CRT in structure, but with new proposed actions, policies, and behaviors injected into it in order to create a new vision of the future reality of the system. The power of the logical "if-then" construction is that if any one of the lower-level causes are removed or mitigated, everything that is above it is subject to change. If you can develop various "injections" as new causes, then you can, through restatements of the subsequent logic, predict and direct changes to the resultant effects. The classic example of how this sufficiency logic works is: If any one of the three "ifs" of the CRT are removed or modified, the "then" may be removed from consideration as a problem.
We might choose to develop a system in which fuel and sources of ignition are isolated from one another to prevent fires. Or if the problem is that a fire exists, we may choose to remove the oxygen by covering the fire with water, CO2, or a blanket. These are all possible injections. If only all the "fire-fighting" we do were so clear cut! But maybe it can be almost so. Even in more complex real-life issues, a careful analysis of assumptions, which in this kind of construction become more "ifs" arrowed into the "then," which become more possible sources for things to remove by the "injection" of new actions, policies, or behaviors.
If the CRT is based in a generic conflict, then the initial injection comes from the "out-of-thesided-box" solution of that conflict -- the idea that stems from addressing questionable assumptions. If the CRT was developed simply from linking the various undesirable effects as it used to be done in the process before the discovery of the generic conflict's existence , then the core problem at the base of the CRT might be a single statement in the tree.
1. Empathise
The best way to deal with that result is to do a cloud on that statement. 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 that gains from experienced facilitation is in scrutiny, clarification, and completion of the solution. When a proposal to solve a problem is offered by a member of a group, whether in the form of a seemingly complete FRT or in the form of a standalone idea thrown out on the table, there are frequently concerns or reservations raised on the part of other members of the group.
The key to "trimming the negative branch" again lies in the conversion of internalized intuition into logical if-then steps that can be rationally discussed while avoiding the feeling of "constructive criticism" or more blatant "pot-shots" aimed at the proposal. The "if-thens" must link the proposed action with the suspected negative outcome.
Then we can again apply assumption searches to the arrows, especially those that are merging arrows, not directly related to the initial proposal, in order to find a new injection - a new arrow that will change the outcome of concern. In the following example, it is determined that by instituting a new policy, we will be able to achieve something good for the organization. In this simple negative branch, it's easy to see that to complete the solution, i.
Thinking Processes
By doing so, we avoid the possible misinterpretation and subsequent bad stuff. As a standalone tool, the NBR ranks right up there with the Evaporating Cloud in everyday usefulness in basic facilitation of problem avoidance. The cloud deals with conflicts and dilemmas and the NBR deals with doubts and concerns. They both aid communication so that the conflict or concern can be effectively and efficiently dealt with.
In terms of group accomplishment, the NBRs brought up by group members serve to complete the solution developed in an FRT. It also provides a route to buy-in for participants as their contribution to the solution in the form of actions required to trim their NBRs gives them a sense of ownership of at least part of the overall solution. Actually, even if starting with a single proposal, the identification and solution of NBRs could result in an FRT built on that proposal as open and unguarded discussion of concerns builds upon it.
In essence, the Design Thinking process is iterative, flexible and focused on collaboration between designers and users, with an emphasis on bringing ideas to life based on how real users think, feel and behave. Design Thinking - The Beginner's Guide: Design Thinking is not an exclusive property of designers—all great innovators in literature, art, music, science, engineering, and business have practiced it. So, why call it Design Thinking?
Personas are fictional characters, which you create based upon your research in order to represent the different user types that might use your service, product, site, or brand in a similar way. Creating personas can help you step out of yourself In an age of tight resources and constrained finances companies are more reluctant than ever to commit to big design projects without a thorough understanding of their chances of success.
Google has developed a methodology to make the design process fast and still offer valuable insight.
Thinking as a Process
Forget minimum viable products and focus on prototypes and An integral part of the Design Thinking process is the definition of a meaningful and actionable problem statement, which the design thinker will focus on solving. This is perhaps the most challenging part of the Design Thinking process, as the definition of a problem also called a design challenge will require you to synthesise your observati If you have just started embarking your journey through the Design Thinking process, things might seem a little overwhelming.
This is why we have prepared a useful overview of the Design Thinking process, as well as some of the popular Design Thinking frameworks commonly used by global design firms and national design agencies. Ideation is the process where you generate ideas and solutions through sessions such as Sketching, Prototyping, Brainstorming, Brainwriting, Worst Possible Idea, and a wealth of other ideation techniques.
Ideation is also the third stage in the Design Thinking process. In addition, with the rapid changes in society, the methods we have previously used to solve many of the problems we face are no longer effective. We need to develop new ways of thinking in order to design better solutions, ser Did you know that users are more likely to choose, buy and use products that meet their needs as opposed to products that just meet their wants?
There are many techniques you can use to develop this kind of emp One of the best ways to gain insights in a Design Thinking process is to carry out some form of prototyping. This method involves producing an early, inexpensive, and scaled down version of the product in order to reveal any problems with the current design. Prototyping offers designers the opportunity to bring their ideas to life, test the prac What is empathy exactly? Why is empathy so important to designing solutions that actually work for people?
In 9 chapters, we'll cover: Your browser is outdated. Please switch to a modern web browser to improve performance and avoid security risks. For companies Frequently asked questions Contact us.
Log in Join our community Join us. The Non-Linear Nature of Design Thinking We may have outlined a direct and linear Design Thinking process in which one stage seemingly leads to the next with a logical conclusion at user testing. The Take Away In essence, the Design Thinking process is iterative, flexible and focused on collaboration between designers and users, with an emphasis on bringing ideas to life based on how real users think, feel and behave.
Design Thinking tackles complex problems by: Understanding the human needs involved. Re-framing and defining the problem in human-centric ways. Creating many ideas in ideation sessions. Adopting a hands-on approach in prototyping. What you should read next. Personas — A Simple Introduction Personas are fictional characters, which you create based upon your research in order to represent the different user types that might use your service, product, site, or brand in a similar way.
Stage 2 in the Design Thinking Process: Define the Problem and Interpret the Results An integral part of the Design Thinking process is the definition of a meaningful and actionable problem statement, which the design thinker will focus on solving. A Quick Overview If you have just started embarking your journey through the Design Thinking process, things might seem a little overwhelming.
What is Ideation — and How to Prepare for Ideation Sessions Ideation is the process where you generate ideas and solutions through sessions such as Sketching, Prototyping, Brainstorming, Brainwriting, Worst Possible Idea, and a wealth of other ideation techniques.