Goal Tree ok, what about the other logic tools?

For those of you following my works, you know that I am a big fan of this wonderful tool called the Goal Tree. The Goal Tree was initially intended to be the first logic tool used in a sequence of the Logical Thinking Process (LTP). The Goal Tree can be used as a stand-alone tool, but what about the other logic tools, why do I focus mostly on the Goal Tree?

Contents

• What my customers lack the most
• How the Goal Tree helps
• The Current Reality Tree, next in line
• Why not going for the Current Reality Tree next (and the whole LTP)?
• The Goal Tree as a roadmap and a benchmark
• Keeping things simple
• Where the other logic tools can be useful
• Wrapping up

What my customers lack the most

First things first, what my customers lack the most is a clearly stated Goal and alignment of contributions of the stakeholders. It can be either one or both, clear statement and/or a means to align the contributions. If the Goal is poorly stated, many interpretations may lead teams to go astray, drifting away from the original intent.

A clear Goal is not sufficient by itself to ensure alignment. In order to funnel and focus all contributions to achieve the Goal, à roadmap is required. Without à roadmap, many paths may lead to the Goal, but not all of them Will be à Good choice.

How the Goal Tree helps

The Goal Tree is a visual roadmap displaying all necessary conditions to achieve the Goal. The Goal Tree is built with the help of a rational analysis that identifies all those necessary conditions and rejects off-topics and nice-to-haves.

Once the Goal Tree is built and scrutinized, which means checking its logical soundness, its robustness, the Tree will give high-level inputs to the next tool of the Logical Thinking Process: the Current Reality Tree.

The Current Reality Tree, next in line

The Current Reality Tree (CRT) is another type of Logical tool used to identify the critical root causes of a problem, like for what reasons are we not achieving our Goal yet. From the Goal Tree’s Critical Success Factors, the analysts dig down until finding the critical root causes.

Unlike the Goal Tree, the CRT uses sufficiency logic, which is a cause-and-effect relationship. It is sufficient to have a trigger condition to have the corresponding effect. In other words, the relationship is in the form: “if…then…” Once the critical root causes are identified, eliminating them eliminates all the chains of cause-and-effect relationships that lead to the Undesirable Effects, in our case not achieving the Goal.

Why not going for the Current Reality Tree next (and the whole LTP)?

So if a structured logical process, based on several logic tools exists, why not going for such a sequence, but sticking to the sole Goal Tree? While studying the Logical Thinking Process, being trained and certified, I noticed that it is common for practitioners to have a favorite logic tool among the six.

Many fall in love with the Evaporating Cloud (the one I do not like at all), others cherish the Current Reality Tree and I happened to fall in love with the Goal Tree. Anyone having a strong affinity with a specific tool tends to use, overuse and bend it for any occasion. Yet, I will share more rational reasons for using the Goal Tree as a stand alone tool, beyond my personal preference.

The Goal Tree as a roadmap and a benchmark

Once built and verified, the Goal Tree as a roadmap. It displays all milestones towards the Goal. It is also a benchmark that indicates what must absolutely be mastered in order to achieve the Goal. Why not going one step further and assess the current situation against this ideal state shown in the Goal Tree?

My idea was simple: starting at the bottom of the Tree, use the 3-color code to assess the Necessary Conditions as they are today: in place and mastered, in place but variable, missing or failing. As Necessary Conditions are prerequisites to the conditions above them, the status will propagate bottom-up. A red condition at the bottom will end with a red Critical Success Factor, thus a red, not-achievable Goal.

Keeping things simple

For me it was an obvious additional step to go and have the Goal Tree turned into a true benchmark, not only displaying the ideal future condition, but also the colored version that shows the actual state! Color-coding the tree is quite simple, the Tree builders know enough about their company and its condition to put the right colors on the entities. If necessary they may ask subject matter experts for advice.

Many entities’ assessment may be binary: we have it or not, it works or not. If being ISO certified to enter this new market and the company is currently not certified, no need to make a root cause analysis to understand that this very certification is a missing prerequisite.

A side note here, we use present tense to state the content of the entities, the boxes containing the Necessary Condition. The rationale behind the use of present tense is to put the Tree Builders in the state of mind of the future achievement. The tree is then read like the Goal is achieved. But an interesting corollary is that reading a statement in present tense is a good test of its validity.

For example, if someone reads the statement “we are constantly delivering On Time and In Full”, then the audience can immediately react if it is not or not totally true yet.

Once the tree is colored, it is usually pretty an autumnal tree, with a lot of red and amber leafs. This means that the management and their teams have a lot on their plate to work on, in order to green-up the tree (solve the problems) and gradually reach the Goal. Why then should we need to switch to the next tool, the Current Reality Tree, which uses a different kind of logic, for likely pointing at the same issues. Sticking to the sole Goal Tree helps to keep things simple.

From my experience, counting 30+ Goal Tree built with my customers at this very moment, the Goal Tree has proven sufficient and efficient to help companies to build their roadmap to their goal and have a clear view about what to work on to achieve it.

I insist that the Goal Tree is good enough, especially for the C-Suite. No need to identify the critical root causes now. It will be done later, most likely by their subordinates, when it’s time to get things done in order to green-up the Tree.

Where the other logic tools can be useful

Now this said, I do not mean that the Current Reality Tree is useless. I indeed use CRTs as well, when it is the right pick for solving a problem. Yet the LTP tools are meant to solve complex problems, especially those resistant to traditional tools, because the problems are dynamic or involve policies, beliefs, myths and so on. Going for the full LTP sequence is also suitable when the people involved need a more detailed understanding and detailed, a-step-by-step approach to solve the problems.

Wrapping up

I have found the Goal Tree by itself to be sufficient and efficient for assisting my customers to get clarity about how to achieve their Goal, to identify what is currently hindering their ambition, what to work on in what order. This is usually done during a two-day workshop. It may require some upstream preparation with the top management, but is usually quite cheap as a consultant’s assistance with regards to the delivered value. If the teams need further assistance to roll out the action, this is another story!