Can Industry 4.0 rejuvenate Total Productive Maintenance?

In this post:

The youngest among my blog readers may not understand what I mean with Total Productive Maintenance, this pre-Lean management approach to maximize machines and equipment effectiveness and aiming to improve companies’ performances.

TPM in a nutshell

In a nutshell, Total Productive Maintenance or TPM in short, originated in Japan, 1971. It was a participative spin-off of the american Productive Maintenance (a mix of maintenance policies to maximize machines’ availability and effectiveness), aiming to minimize all kind of losses by involving every department and everyone.

TPM had its heyday in the 1985-1995s in the western companies and failed to get mainstream despite the efforts to rebrand it Total Productive Management. The original name and much of the content, even so transposable to almost any activity, was too much linked to industrial machinery maintenance.

Total Productive Maintenance gave way to Lean Manufacturing and somehow got absorbed by Lean. TPM brought Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) indicator to the world, a still very popular KPI nowadays.

Industry 4.0 and Total Productive Maintenance 2.0?

My basic assumption for this prospective thinking is that industry 4.0 environments will be highly automated so that the human factor will have lesser impact on the machines / cells / lines /workshops performance. Conversely machines’ utilization will regain focus.

Performance is determined by market requirements, but it will continue to be a mix of responsiveness, speed (time to market, lead time… ) and quality, with a higher expectation for agility than today. Costs may come second when dealing with high customization.

Performance will be mainly driven by machines’ availability, speed and yield, the latter being roughly the right first time rate. In other words OEE.

Availability is key for agility and responsiveness. This stresses the need of preventive maintenance and quick changeovers. Preventive maintenance starts with daily cleaning and inspection in order to keep all equipment in operational state and detect any wear or damage early. Some equipment will probably also need periodic calibration and geometry checks to ensure accuracy e.g 3D printing.

These tasks may be passed to former operators now converted into level one maintenance technicians. Further more in-depth periodic inspection will also be required by more expert staff that can be either company’s own or third-party. This reminds of the ‘autonomous maintenance’ pillar of TPM.

TPM autonomous maintenance in 4.0 environment

Autonomous maintenance intent was/is to give operators greater “ownership” of their equipment in order for them to take care and use responsibly. By increasing operators’ technical knowledge of the equipment they use and entitle them to do the simple daily maintenance tasks, autonomous maintenance aim was/is to:

  • ensure equipment is constantly well-cleaned and lubricated
  • maintenance experts’ time is freed for higher-level tasks
  • emergent issues are noticed and identified before they become failures
  • enrich the job of production operators.

if operators showed interest and demonstrated capacities, they could be trained further and assist maintenance experts for more complex maintenance tasks and even take part in repairs and overhauls.

In a industry 4.0 environment, the content of this ‘autonomous maintenance’ pillar of TPM must be adapted to the new technologies. It could encompass data management, using the digital twin, simulate… and require digital literacy.

In a industry 4.0 environment the role of operators as machine feeder, unloader and tool fitter may be marginalized thanks to automation. The jobs for production operators as we knew them may diminish and new jobs will be created requiring different skills and abilities, but not as many.

I could imagine recycling some of the former production operators into ‘autonomous maintenance’ operators, but my guestimate is that one operator could take care of 5 to 20 3D printers. The operator-to-equipment rate compared to traditional manufacturing will surely shrink. Besides, everyone will not show the necessary capacity to evolve.

Can Industry 4.0 rejuvenate Total Productive Maintenance?

As for the autonomous maintenance my guess is that chances are good, even so it may need to be updated in a new 2.0 version fitting the new technical environment.

Focus will be on equipment because of the investment, because of managers in love with tech, because equipment performance will be the main driver for (a production) company’s performance, and for probably more reasons.

For the other 7 traditional pillars I am not sure. You’re welcome to share your own thoughts.


View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Advertisements

Industry 4.0 promoter’s flaw of logic and Categories of Legitimate Reservation

Promoters of any solution or change agents of are usually in love with the object of their promotion. Love is said to be blind and oblivious of any negative aspect of the loved thing. That is why so often promoters of change highlight all the benefits of the change, regardless of any Undesirable side Effects for the people they try to convince to change. They usually also complain about resistance to change when skeptic listeners do not show enthusiasm for the promoted brilliant solution.

But promoters may also forget to adapt their communication to the targeted audience. They may know well their subject and cut corners, leaving the audience with doubts and questions about a logic they can’t completely follow.

In this post I will address:

For that I pick two sentences from an Industry 4.0 promoter’s blog post which does not seem logically sound.

The statement

“Brave companies who adopt new approaches (e.i. Industry 4.0) and adapt how they manufacture and run their businesses will be rewarded with success. While those who drag their feet and avoid risk will get left behind.”

There is no further explanation in the blog to backup these two sentences.

The first sentence, rephrased in logical cause-and-relationship reads: “if companies adopt new approaches (e.i. Industry 4.0) AND if companies adapt how they manufacture and run their businesses THEN companies will be rewarded by success.”

The AND here suggest that the two conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously in order to cause the success.

Necessity-based logic versus sufficiency-based logic

The statement is made with sufficiency-based logic, because it suggest that the adoption of new approaches and adaptation are sufficient to cause the companies to be successful.

Sufficiency is base on “if…then” or cause-and-effect relationship.

If the article was about listing all the conditions necessary to make the companies successful, it would have been necessity-based logic. In this case the relationship would have been: “in order to… the companies must…”.

The logical structure that Logical Thinking Process aware people “see” in the statement is either a Communication Current Reality Tree or a Future Reality Tree.

Reservations

1 – Clarity

The first reservation about this statement is a clarity reservation about the meaning of “success”. What is “success”? How can we measure it? How can we know whether the company is “successful” or not?

Unfortunately there is no way to ask the author for clarification. One could understand that deployment of industry 4.0 technologie(s) together with adaptation of the work procedures is a success. A project manager in charge of such a program would surely agree about this definition of success.

The CEO and the board are probably looking for more than having the latest technologies installed, even it probably helps the image of the company to have a nice techno-showcase. In their view, success is more likely increase of sales, profit and market share. Let’s assume this one is meant by “success”.

We could go on and challenge the meaning of “new approaches”, “industry 4.0” or even what is exactly meant by “how they manufacture”. In case someone really need clarification, the question could be raised, otherwise let’s not go for unnecessary wordsmithing.

2 – Entity existence

An entity in the Logical Thinking Process parlance is a statement that conveys an idea. An entity is also the logical box holding the statement in the various logic trees.

An entity must only convey a single idea, therefore when building a logic tree on this statement we must have 3 entities combining their effects to produce one outcome: the success of the companies (read figure from bottom to top).

3 – Causality existence

Causality existence is checking the existence of the causal connection between entities.

“if companies adopt Industry 4.0 AND if companies adapt how they manufacture AND if companies adapt how they run their businesses THEN companies will be rewarded by success.”

Does it exist? One example would be enough to demonstrate it exists, but, in absence of hard evidence, the likeliness of the causality existence must be evaluated. We assume it’s ok.

4 – Cause sufficiency

Are the 3 proposed causes sufficient alone to produce the effect “successful companies”? I would intuitively say no. There is a lot more necessary. We are here facing a typical “long arrow” which is a leap of logic from some causes directly to the outcome, ignoring intermediate steps and conditions in between.

This is typical when people discuss matters they know well because they don’t have to detail everything, they know what is missing and is implicit. But here it is about promoting something which is quite new (in 2017), relatively complicated and not very well known by laymen. Effort should be paid to elaborate on the message in order to favor buy-in.

5 – Additional cause

This check is looking for other causes that can independently produce the same effect. There are indeed other ways for companies to be successful than going for industry 4.0, but the statement suggests there is only one, as it warns: “those who drag their feet and avoid risk will get left behind.”

Conclusion

With these two last reservations we uncover the major flaw in the statement:

  • The proposed “logic” is not likely to be enough to produce the expected effect
  • There are other ways to be successful

From the audience point of view, the argumentation is weak. This is more likely to raise suspicion about the promoter’s expertise and trustworthiness, thus distrust and reservation than frantic enthusiasm about the proposed idea.

Such a weak argumentation can have devastating effects, making decision makers to turn their backs, refusing a good plan or a clever strategy which was ill-prepared and badly presented.

The Categories of Legitimate Reservation are 8 formal “rules” or “tests” used to check the logical soundness of a reasoning or an argumentation. They are part of the Logical Thinking Process corpus.


View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Jim Womack’s hansei on where lean has failed

Lean leading figure Jim Womack posted a sincere and critical reflection (hansei) on where Lean has failed and why not to give up. I was impressed when reading it and it reinforced my respect and admiration for the author.

You can read the August 29th, 2017 post on planet lean (http://planet-lean.com/jim-womack-on-where-lean-has-failed-and-why-not-to-give-up)

>Lisez-moi en français

Jim Womack is someone to take seriously when he expresses himself about Lean, so when he posts an article titled “where lean has failed” it is probably not just a clickbait nor a questionable joke. Indeed, the critical reflection Jim shares is truly about failure from his point of view. And his point of view with regards to Lean is one that really matters.

Where lean has failed

The failure is, in Mr Womack’s opinion, manyfold:

  • It is the failure to get big organizations to transform themselves in a Lean way and have, at least, “another Toyota” emerging.
  • It is the failure to reverse offshoring, despite the rational proof that companies would be better off keeping operations close instead of trading labor costs for logistics and quality costs.
  • It is the failure to see disaffection among the workers and the growing acceptance of things as they are, without attempt to resist or change them in the Lean Community itself.

This hurts.

I am impressed by the courage to analyze and acknowledge that situation of someone who dedicated his life to promote Lean and share the knowledge. After all the enthusiasm, hype, hope and successes, this must be bitter.

Many people in Mr Womack’s position would deny the situation and keep going on, their ego not allowing them to acknowledge failure. Jim Womack not only has the courage to do it, but refuses to give up and want to avoid the “muda of denial about the situation”.

What I see from my narrower and European (mainly in France) perspective is consistent with Mr Womack’s analysis: the number of lean managers and continuous improvement champions soared in the last years but no company advertises or gets attention because of drastic improvement of its performances.

Furthermore, when called for assistance in companies, I am most of the time appalled by the (very) limited competences of the people in charge of Lean or operational excellence, a fact also reported by Karen Martin in a post on the Lean Edge https://www.theleanedge.org/256088-karen-martin-technical-proficiency-and-leadership-acumen-can-you-nail-the-problem-statement-first-time-right/

So yes, “doing Lean” is reduced to running small kaizen workshops here and there without consistency nor link to a strategic intent. It is merely about patching broken processes,solving local problems at best, or opportunistic muda hunting.

This keeps the additional layer of “Lean” bureaucracy busy and living easy with a lot of complacency about local qualitative results. Once a 5S workshop went through the first 3Ss, they’re done and feel “Lean” now. This is how Lean looks like too often.

No wonder the questions about “what’s next” or “is lean dead?” arise.

Considering Lean transformations, like many armchair generals giving strategic advice in hindsight, I would say that Jim Womack and people around him did well  addressing the diagonal of the 2×2 change matrix: promoting the “pot of gold”, metaphor for reward and benefits of the change, as well as warning about the “alligator”, symbol of the danger of the status quo. I remember well Jim recommending to have a burning platform or even create a crisis to get the change done.

This was the rationale promoting the change, the Lean transformation.

What could have been underestimated was the other, emotional diagonal of the matrix. Many of the decision makers are in love with their “mermaid”. By definition, a mermaid cannot leave the sea and therefore the decision makers stay put, close to the object of love and happy with the current situation. A happiness, they believe, they can enjoy ONLY in their current situation.

Maybe the decision makers are risk averse and see nothing else than the frightening perspective of the “crutches”, the metaphor for risks and big efforts. Indeed, many decision makers may jeopardize their actual position if they dare going for a disruptive transformation with unforeseeable results. Leading a Lean transformation requires leadership, courage, confidence and the necessary freedom to act.

Why not to give up

Despite this bleak picture, Jim Womack is not ready to give up nor let “the muda of defeatism” get in his way. If no other Toyota is likely to emerge, other success stories can be reported. Successes may be experienced in and with start-ups for example.

Acknowledging the limits of the actual Lean promotion and Lean methods training ways, mainly through workshops and workbooks, Jim calls for “thinking hard about more effective ways to pass lean knowledge along to the next generation”.

The last paragraph of Jim Womack’s post sounds like a firm resolution “to rethink the (Lean community) tactics, stick to its purpose, and better understand the challenges preventing it from staying on course”.

I encourage everyone to read the original post as well as to have a look on the comments.

Personal conclusion

It is a sad read, but I can only agree. I empathize with Jim Womack and again, I am impressed by his courage and humility.

Even if Lean loses its shine, I still measure what it brought – and still brings – to me. I think that true Lean-understanding people, once “infected”, will not get away from Lean Thinking. I will continue to promote and use everything Lean at personal and professional level, wherever and whenever it’s meaningful, which should be pretty often. Fashionable or not.

My personal belief is that Lean (Thinking) will keep lingering in operations, but the emphasis will probably shift upstreams to Product and Process Development. I also think that the irresistible wave of digitalization and all the news techs around smart factories will reshuffle the cards on how to plan, organize, drive and strive. All new opportunities to reinvent business and the philosophy, methods and tools that must come with.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

The fallacy of maturity assessments

Maturity assessments are a kind of qualitative audit during which the current “maturity” of an organization is compared to a maturity reference model and ranked accordingly to its score.

As explained in the wikipedia article about maturity model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maturity_model), the implementation is either top-down or bottom-up, but from my experience it is mostly top-down. The desired maturity score is set by the corporate top management in its desire to bring the organization to a minimum level of maturity about… Lean, Supply Chain practices, project management, digital… you name it.

The maturity assessment is usually quite simple: a questionnaire guides the assessment, each maturity level being characterized by a set of requirements. It is close to an audit.

The outcome of such an assessment is usually a graphic summary displaying the maturity profile or a radar chart, comments about the weak points / poor scores and maybe some recommendation for improvement.

The gap between the current maturity and the desired maturity state is to then to be closed by an action plan or by following a prescribed roadmap.

What’s wrong with maturity models/assessments?

1 – The fallacy of maturity assessments

A maturity assessment would be ok if it would be considered for what it is: a maturity assessment. But the one-dimensional assessment is too often used as a two-dimensional tool by assuming that the level of operational performance is positively correlated to maturity.

In other words: the better the maturity, the better the operational performance.

Indeed, such a correlation can frequently be found, but correlation isn’t causation, which means that there is no mechanical nor systematic link between the maturity and performance level.

Even so the high level of maturity matches a high level of performance and vice-versa, there is no guarantee that performance will raise if maturity is raised.

Furthermore, studies have shown that there are exceptions and organizations with low maturity perform better than some high maturity ones. You may be interested reading my post How lean are you part 2, about Awareness / performance matrix about this subject.

Therefore the belief in the positive correlation between maturity and performance that makes it a kind of law is flawed or is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Many organizations boast about their high maturity, the number of kaizen events, number of workshops, number of colored belts, the number of training sessions or worker’s suggestions but there is nothing impressive to be noticed on the gemba.

Now I can understand why most managers and improvement champions like the sole maturity assessment:

  • it is much easier to do
  • the assessment items can be common to very different units with different activities
  • the general roadmap and global target are easy to set
  • maturity objectives are qualitative

On the other hand:

  • measuring overall performance that can be compared can be more tricky, especially in an organization with several different core businesses
  • it is annoying to admit that all efforts to raise maturity are not paying-off in terms of performance and painful to explain why

2 – The one-fits all maturity targets

Another problem with maturity assessment is that some corporations dictate a minimum maturity level regardless to local realities.

That’s how some subsidiaries doing well with regards to performance get bad maturity scores because they do not apply SMED (Single Minute Exchange of Die, an approach to reduce the changeover duration). The point is these subsidiaries have more or less continuous production processes with huge batch sizes that barely change. Why would they go for SMED when they don’t need it? The same case can be told with one-piece flow or heijunka (load levelling) enacted as a must do.

Others are scoring poor because they didn’t Value Stream Map (VSM) their processes. The fact is that those units had no problems a VSM could help to solve. The example list can go on and probably, dear reader, you have faced such situations yourself (leave your testimony in the comments..!)

3 – Doing it to be compliant, not because it makes sense

This third point is a corollary to the previous one. Because the objectives have been set at higher level and in order to be compliant, most unit manager will pay lip service to the dictated targets, get the scores good enough and be left alone once the assessment is done.

The local staff recognizes the nonsense of the demanded score, yet goes for the least effort and instead of fighting against the extra unnecessary work, chose to display what top management wants.

This the typical “tell me how you’re measured, I tell you how you behave” syndrome inducing counterproductive behaviors or practices.

While top management will be pleased with the scores enforcing its flawed belief, the local units managers did not embrace at all the practices, tools or methods prescribed. They only camouflaged the reality.

Wrapping up

Maturity assessment are not a bad thing per se, but their practicality and simplicity are often misused to assess more than just maturity (or awareness). This is most often misleading because of the false underlying assumptions and promoting wrong behaviors and practices.


PS: You may be interested to read Michel Baudin’s comments on his own blog about this post: http://michelbaudin.com/2017/08/22/the-fallacy-of-maturity-assessments-chris-hohmann/


View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Is Lean dead?

Is Lean dead? is the provocative title of a podcast hosted by Mark Graban with guest Karen Martin. The question, the podcast description says, is “easy to discuss, but hard to answer”.

The reason Karen proposed to discuss this question is because of hearing and reading about “what’s next”, “is it time for something new?” and what seems to be a waiting for a “post-Lean” world.

There is an invitation to share thoughts about this, but instead of leaving a comment on Mark’s podcast-related post, I add my two cents here. I hope Mark and Karen won’t mind this piggybacking.

Some takeaways from the podcast

From 4:35 Karen frames the topic and from 6:05 she shares her thoughts, especially two reasons for the “what’s next?” question (rephrased by me):

  1. people don’t get great results from Lean and quit too early with the conclusion Lean doesn’t work
  2. the attention span, especially in business, is (very) short

By 19:45, Karen reminds the listeners that Lean is made of layers of quite “meaty” subjects and is made for constant learners. Yet Lean teaching programs cannot (?) do not go very deep into Lean beyond chosen tools. So it’s up to everyone to go for a never-ending learning journey. At 43:00 listeners get the wrap-up.

My thoughts on this

Ironically, the introduction of new methods and tools was once mocked as “the flavor of the month” with the preconceived belief that it won’t last. Now that Lean has demonstrated a longer lifespan than other management ways, it seems to be precisely too lasting in a time where  fashions come and go very quickly.

The methodologies life cycle

However long Lean is around now, it follows the same life cycle curve than others, made of a slow takeoff as long as long as no organization publicized extraordinary achievements with this approach or no book draw wider attention to it. Once the word spread, the methodology gets hype and many organizations and consultants go for it. After the hype spike, there is a loss of interest and a final plateau. In this later stage the methodology does not totally disappear but does not get the attention it once had.

In that regard, the methodologies life cycles look very much like Gartner’s hype cycle for technologies.

I started my career in the midst of Total Quality Management (TQM) hype, in the mid-1980s. Who aged less than 40 knows about TQM? It is still around in some form, like in the various ISO standards, but it does not get the excitement of the all the problem solving tools deployment TQM once had.

Similarly what happened to Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)? Parts of it is embedded in Lean and some companies keep TPM alive, but I barely hear anything about it anymore.

My friend and mentor Bill Dettmer witnessed the same phenomenon with Theory of Constraints. Not totally gone now, but barely known and not likely to get its fame back again. Six Sigma is said to be dead or is reduced to SIPOCs and DMAIC.

So maybe time has come for Lean to lose attention of the mass and remain a thing for true believers?

Quick wins and newcomers

The impatience about the post-Lean next thing can also come from the younger staff that did not experience the first attempts with Lean, when the organization was so inefficient that almost any structured tool deployment and kaizen events demonstrated significant quick wins. After a while and continuous sustained efforts, the remaining pockets of gains are few and hard/long to address. Newcomers experience Lean from hearsay or don’t notice anything about Lean because they are amidst of a more or less Lean environment. It’s just part of the scenery and nothing to get excited about.

Furthermore, many people have been repeatedly exposed to Lean methods and tools, have been involved in Lean workshops, kaizen events, sketched Value Stream Maps and identified wastes, sorted out, cleaned up and rearranged stuff 5S style. They share the feeling of being Lean, of being done with Lean.

The startup praise of failing fast and pivoting

My last thought about the possible fading of Lean is the growing influence of the startup movement and the praise of failing fast and pivoting. It keeps surprising me that failure can be praised, even so I understand the value of learning from failures. One Undesirable side Effect though may be the spreading of the belief that anything that does not work quickly is a failure – ok, we learned something – and it’s time to move on with something else.

Pivoting is getting away from an original idea that does not prove good fast enough and go for something else that can be 90 or 180 degrees from the original intent. What can make sense in a startup venture, stopping the experiment before the scarce resources are burnt up, may not be the suitable option where long commitment to cultural change and constant learning is required.

With allusion to Kahneman’s work, I think that for business there is a fast way and a slow one, and Lean is definitely a slow one.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Jargon doesn’t make an expert

In a blog post I read the warning about candidates exaggerating their insight by using lot of jargon. It was about Lean Management. The author stated that when recruiting, mastering enough Lean vocabulary is important in order to catch candidates exaggerating their insight by using jargon. Any talented Lean manager can explain the same concepts without Lean management specific language, the author wrote, but inexperienced or unskillful interviewees may lean (pun intended?) on “concept-dropping.

Even so I agree with everything above, the heavy use of peculiar lingo is not specific to Lean and Lean “experts” are not even the worst.

>Lisez-moi en français

I remember a recent (July 2017) conference in which a speaker delivered a pretty convincing presentation about a somewhat uncommon approach we are familiar of. One of my colleagues, intrigued, went to see the speaker and asked him a question on a specific aspect only a true experienced expert could answer. This very question reminded the speaker of an important call he had to make and he vanished. He was indeed only “concept-dropping”.

Nothing really new. Molière, our most famous (French) playwright and actor (1622 – 1673) used to ridicule the physicians of his time in several of his works. Those experts were depicted as pompous and disputing in fantasy latin about this or that just to impress their audience or others fellow “experts” with fake erudition, while their patients usually were bleeding away.

In French slang, a “faisan” (pheasant) is a crook, a good-looking but stupid pretender. I used to hear fake experts being called “faisans”. Nice feathers, but that’s barely all.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Did you already SWOT yourself?

SWOT stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats and SWOT analysis is often used to assess a project, a venture or reflect on the organization’s relative forces compared to competition and business.

A SWOT analysis can be done on one’s self in order to get clarity about one’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats, before a job interview or when facing an important decision.

“SWOTing” oneself can also be useful just to get clarity on one’s status, so to say. Being aware of these four dimensions helps to get clarity about thyself and to take decisions with more than just gut feeling. Let’s start with Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths and Weaknesses are very self-centered. It’s all about individual traits and how they compare to others. Of course, strengths and weaknesses are relative to the circumstances and the self-assessment should be done with a specific “use case” in mind.

Strengths

List your distinctive strengths, what you are really good at, what makes you different from colleagues and other people, what makes you stand out of the crowd, and would be a real advantage over similar profiles. Be honest.

Strengths must be specific and difficult or long to acquire for your “competitors”.

Weaknesses

Being clear about own weaknesses sets the boundaries about what you can do and what not. Awareness about your own limitations and weaknesses will probably prevent you to try something out of reach or likely to fail.

Weaknesses may be disqualifiers when applying for a job or when looking for a promotion.

It is also an indication of what to improve – if possible – and about what your competition is potentially better.

Now to the external factors. Circumstances and social and professional environment are changing constantly, providing new Opportunities but also exposing to Threats.

Opportunities

Circumstances and environment at large may provide personal development or new professional opportunities. Clarity about one’s strengths and weaknesses helps to decide to seize an opportunity or to get prepared for it. Sometimes the gap is too big and thanks again to clearly knowing one’s limits, the right decision can be made.

Threats

Everything is going VUCA, an acronym for Volatile or unstable, temporary, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous. Threats are somehow the flip side of the Opportunities: what can be a real chance for one can be disastrous for another.

Threats can come in a form of a new “competitor” or a technology that trump your skills or make you as a contributor… unnecessary.

Threat can be the obsolescence of your knowledge, the decline of some abilities in time…

Threats can come in so many ways that it is wise to question them about being plausible and their probability. Take into account only the most plausible and likely ones.

Once clear about the exposure to risks, figure out how to mitigate or bypass them.


Related: When facing a choice, get clarity with the change matrix

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

When facing a choice, get clarity with the change matrix

The change matrix is primarily a tool to explain why people seem to resist change, but it can be used to make a decision when the appeal of the proposed change is facing some doubts about losing more than gaining.

Doing the exercise of filling the matrix should help getting clarity about the plusses and minuses of the change, and base the decision on some rational weighing.

In order to understand the matrix and the associated metaphors, I recommend watching the video.


When facing a choice with significant impact on current and future situation

An envisioned or proposed major change in life can be scary. Who never faced the dilemma of daring a change and face the uncertainty or keep everything as is for the sake of some “safety”?

The safety here can be nothing more than an illusion, but the familiarity of the current situation gives some impression to remain in control. In the current situation, everything seems predictable and known while a change will modify many things, adding a lot of unknown and uncertainty.

Furthermore the popular saying states that every improvement is a change but every change isn’t an improvement, adding to the fear of giving up something good for worse.

Relying only on gut feeling may not be the best way to make the decision unless one trusts his or her intuitions. The change matrix can bring some clarity when the exercise is done honestly.

Pot of gold and mermaid

Write down all promoted benefits as well as those the intuition suggests. What makes the change desirable and that CANNOT be gotten or achieved in current situation?

Switch to the mermaid and ask yourself what would make you ignore the pot of gold, something of great value ONLY provided in current situation.

The capital letters stand for extreme wording, a technique useful for identifying false assumptions. If it sounds weird or not true, the assumption is probably false or overstated.

Crutches and alligators

Assess the risks of change figured by the crutches. What can possibly go wrong with the change that WILL end up with SIGNIFICANT damage?

On the other hand what CATASTROPHE WILL happen by keeping the status quo?

Looking at the matrix

It is time to look at all quadrants and check in which direction the matrix points. Hopefully a clear indication is shown, either favoring change or recommending to stay put.

The last time I applied the matrix to a personal important choice I was surprised how clear the best choice appeared.

It was consistent with my intuition but was more elaborate, thus added much clarity to the best choice. The result could have been opposite and could have put a rationalized end to a fantasy. The clarity and the list of pro and cons gives great confidence about the decision to make. I really recommend to give it a try.

Possible biases

When facing a desirable change, one may overestimate the size of the pot of gold as well as the threat of alligators while underestimating the risks (the crutches) and the sex-appeal of the mermaid.

In plain English this means overestimate the gain or benefits of the change as well as the potential danger of not changing, thus making the change desirable. This looks much like fulfilling a self prophecy.

In order to complete the demonstration or reinforce the desirability of the change, the risks associated with the change are minimized or ignored and the advantages of the status quo downplayed.

Conversely, when facing a less desirable change and even more in case of an undesirable change, the person may evaluate the quadrants in an opposite manner: overestimating the number of crutches and the sex-appeal of the mermaid while underestimating the value in the pot of gold as well as playing down the threat of alligators.

Again the translation in plain English: to justify the rejection of a proposed change the risks of the change are magnified and the advantages of the status quo highlighted while the benefits of the change are questioned and the threat of not changing minimized or even denied.

I  order to avoid this pitfall, it is meaningful to share all (emphasize “all”) the elements of the choice in the most neutral manner to a person of confidence or (someone selected as) a coach. A new external point of view may question the rationale and propose a new perspective.


View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Reader question: Goal Tree vs. Current Reality Tree

Here is a reader’s question: I have difficulty seeing the difference between the Goal Tree and the  Current Reality Tree (CRT). With these two trees we assess the process. What are the main differences between the two?

The Goal Tree and Current Reality Tree (CRT) have nothing in common. They are not even meant to care about processes but about the system as a whole. Neither the Goal Tree nor the CRT are process maps.

>Lisez-moi en français

A Goal Tree lists all Necessary Conditions to achieve a Goal, which is not yet achieved, so it is about the future.

The CRT describes why the Goal is not yet achieved in the current state. It starts with identified Undesirable Effects (undesirable for the system as a whole) and drills down to the few critical root causes.

A Goal Tree is built from top-to-bottom with necessity logic while the Current Reality Tree (CRT) is built from top-to-bottom using sufficiency logic. This building top-to-bottom is maybe the sole commonality between the two.

The name Current Reality Tree is somewhat misleading because the CRT is limited to the description of the negative outcomes. It does not describe all the Current Reality. This is saving a lot of unnecessary analysis as well as a warning to not mess with what is currently producing Desired Effects!

What could have caused some confusion to my reader is the fact that a Goal Tree is a benchmark against which to measure the gaps in current reality.

When doing this I use a 3-color code to indicate each Necessary Conditions status. I assess the current condition of the system with the Goal Tree as benchmark. The first autumnal-colored tree should be kept as is as a snapshot of the situation at the beginning. Distinct trees are used later to monitor the progress of ‘greening’ the tree, i.e. closing the gaps to achieve the Goal.

I hope this helps to understand the differences between a Goal Tree and a Current Reality Tree.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Scrutinizing and improving a Current Reality Tree (video tutorial)

In this video, I scrutinize and suggest improvements on a Current Reality Tree (CRT) found on the Internet. A logically sound CRT is key to convince audience about the robustness of the analysis and the reality of the causes to the trouble. If there is room for doubt or the logical has flaws, chances are that the audience will not buy-in, especially those having some “skin in the game”…


View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn