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

Advertisements

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

Beware of the Logical Thinking Process apparent simplicity

It happens often with methods and tools that look simple: people giving it a try think they master the subject when in reality they more or less failed with their trial. It is not different with the Logical Thinking Process.

The Current Reality Tree is maybe one of the logic trees the most attractive to rookies. The classic Theory of Constraints’ Thinking Processes as well as Bill Dettmer’s Logical Thinking Process propose a structured and step-by-step approach to go from gathering “undesirable effects” or UDEs to revealing the root causes via a Current Reality Tree (CRT).

Even so the two approaches have slight differences, they follow the same construction and analysis pattern and both the stress the need to build the CRT with the mandatory logical soundness. Therefore there are rules to follow as well as a check process called the Categories of Legitimate Reservations (CLR).

Alas, what most people recall is that the Current Reality Tree is built by connecting UDEs with cause-and-effect sufficiency logic relations using a simple if…then… verbalization. Then, look at the bottom of the tree and somewhere there lies the mother cause of all evil. Kill this root cause and the whole tree of negative consequences will collapse. Tada, job done.

The apparent simplicity of building a CRT and some overconfidence, mixed with the laziness to go through thorough checking ends up with disappointing trees which are not logically robust.

Besides the risk of failing to find the right causes to problems and consequently proposing inappropriate solutions, the analysts may be taken by surprise by someone listening to their brilliant demonstration and pointing out flaws of logic. Embarrassing.

This can be devastating, because even if the analysis is ultimately leading to the real core problems, the doubts raised during a flawed presentation may end up in disbelief or rejection of the conclusions.

As Bill Dettmer warns in his personal style at the end of his 6-day intensive Logical Thinking Process Training Course, “You are now armed and dangerous”. In essence he gave the participants potent weapons, but their lack of practice may lead them to shoot themselves in the leg.

Well, considering my own scars, I can only agree.


View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

What advice to people wanting to experience the Logical Thinking Process Training Course?

Paris June 28th, 2017. The 6-day Logical Thinking Process Training Course with Bill Dettmer is just over. We asked the participants not in a hurry to rush to an airport or train station if they would share their thoughts about the course in front of a camcorder?

Cédric, Sverre and Leo were so kind. Bill asked them about their favorite takeaways and advices for people willing to take the course.

As a veteran with 5 attendances (being part of the organizing party) I delivered my testimony long ago, however, I reflected on what I would say now.

My favorite part of the course changed over the sessions, which is understandable with all that repeat. Now my favorite part is working hands-on on trees, cross presenting them and have them scrutinized. That’s the closest we can get in a room session while working on somebody’s real-world case.

This brings me to my advice: come prepared (read the pre-course reading material) and have a real-world problem to work on. The best is a problem with which the participant has enough inside knowledge and enough influence – if not power – to make change happen.

What happens during the course?

This last June 2017 session was in my opinion a good one because the cases were mostly about founding a new business, spinning-off from actual one, or trying to reinvigorate an existing fading one.

With entrepreneur spirit and most of the options open, the Goal Tree was piece of cake. Well it seemed to be piece of cake. Once in front of a large empty sheet of brown paper and a demanding mentor in the back, the candidate entrepreneurs had to turn their brilliant idea in a compelling and robust Goal Tree.

The Current Reality Tree (CRT) brought most of them back into their unsatisfactory actual state, but at least with clear understanding of what causes the Undesirable Effects (UDEs). Conflicting objectives or decisions were uncovered and creativity called in to dissolve the conflicts.

Logical Thinking Process / Theory of Constraints’ Thinking Processes aware readers recognize the Evaporating Cloud (EC) to do that.

On the group went, injecting solutions into their current reality in order to turn the UDEs into Desirable Effects (DEs). This was done thanks to the Future Reality Tree (FRT), a kind of logical (and virtual) proof of concept to test the solutions.

Bill instructed the group to look for possible Negative Branches that may grow out of a seemingly brilliant idea and end up in a new and unexpected UDE. When such a branch is spotted, the trainee can be happy to have tested the solution on paper before messing up in real world! Luckily there are ways to trim such unwanted negative branches and it’s part of the training.

The final exercise is to list the possible obstacles to implementation and overcome them with a Prerequisite Tree.

Five trees per attendant gives a lot to review and scrutinize! And just as many learning opportunities!

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Goal Tree Chronicles: can I have more than one goal?

I started publishing on the Internet in 1998 with the available means at that time. My undertaking had several purposes and expected benefits, but it was all intuition and nothing thoroughly planned.

Years after, knowing the Goal Tree and being fan of the Logical Thinking Process, reflecting about my author debut, I wondered if a Goal Tree can have more than one goal.

Choosing the easiest way I asked my mentor and friend Bill Dettmer instead of giving it a personal thought.

His response, wise as usual, was: “Multi-tasking doesn’t work. It dilutes focus and effort (../..) If you have what appear to be multiple goals, what you more likely have are Critical Success Factors to a higher, as-yet-undefined single goal. If you find such a situation, pose the question, “What higher level SINGLE outcome are all these multiples there to achieve?” That inevitably gets people thinking of one goal.”

I found myself a bit stupid. Would I have invested some minutes, I could have come to this obvious conclusion myself.

Yet I got a bonus. Bill continued his explanation with a Tour de France (our famous bicycle race) metaphor: “I liken the goal to the finish line of a race. There are never multiple finish lines.”

Full stop.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Goal Tree: Why must top management define the Critical Success Factors?

Top managers discovering the Goal Tree frequently ask what input they must give and how “deep” they should commit themselves, where is the point of handover to lower ranking managers?

In this article I remind some basics about the Goal Tree as well as the necessity for top management to define the Critical Success Factors.

Some Goal Tree basics

It is the owner’s prerogative to define the Goal of the organization they purposely created. The organization’s top management takes over by delegation and has to lead it toward the achievement of this Goal.

Yet many ways may lead to the Goal but all of them are not desirable and some of them are not consistent with the organization’s values, adrift from the core business or core competences. Therefore, in my opinion top management must define/recall the organization’s’ Goal as well as the few Critical Success Factors, which make the very top of the Goal Tree.

A quick reminder about Critical Success Factors

Critical Success Factors are the few very important objectives that have to be achieved just before achieving the goal.

The Goal Tree is built upon  necessity logic. To read more about necessity logic click here.

Critical Success Factors should be expressed in measurable units in order to serve as the high level objectives and KPIs altogether.

These targets must be set in accordance with the Goal and as long as these targets are not achieved, the Goal cannot be achieved.

Critical Success Factors are therefore top management’s dashboard, the few KPIs to watch in order to see if the organization is getting closer to its Goal or drifting away from it.

Direction, values and culture

Critical Success Factors are also giving direction because for achieving them it is necessary to roll out specific actions and ensure specific Necessary Conditions are sustainably fulfilled.

Setting the Critical Success Factors will constrain the lower structure of the Goal Tree, which is a network of nested Necessary Conditions. Thus giving clear directions on what to work on in order to achieve the Critical Success Factors and ultimately the Goal.

Conversely, not setting the Critical Success Factors would let all options open including those hurting the core values or taking the organization away from its core competences and what makes a corporate culture.

Furthermore, letting lower rankings set the Critical Success Factors would be equivalent to let the tool choose its work.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Why is the Logical Thinking Process so hard to sell?

This is probably the greatest frustration for Logical Thinking Process (LTP) fans: why don’t more people get interested in? Why is the Logical Thinking Process so hard to sell?

Please understand “sell” with the quotation marks, I mean promote, advertise, grow the community, attract participants to seminars and courses altogether.

This post is a reflection of mine and an invitation to other LTP savvy and practitioners to share (please use comments) their analysis and thoughts.

The first reason is the weird sounding proposal to learn how to think. I got this reply of course.

Most people are convinced they are able to thinking in a logical way and don’t see the point learning anything about it. Those knowledgeable about the Logical Thinking Process changed their minds acknowledging they believed they were thinking logically until they went through the humbling experience of the LTP.

Make a clear statement that is both rationally sound and without any ambiguity is one example of the “thinking qualities” so many believe to master naturally but don’t.

Guiding an audience through a chain of causes-and-effects with rock-solid logic and in a crystal clear way is another “gift” commonly thought innate.

From what I’ve seen, everybody going through a Logical Thinking Process training course gets a lesson, regardless of how brilliant a speaker the person already was.

The second reason is maybe the jargon. Theory of Constraints (ToC) is full of jargon, metaphors and poetic names that do not help getting into it without a true motivation.

Other business philosophies and methodologies have their own lingo. Lean for instance “requires” to accept Japanese words without being a serious obstacle for its spreading.

The difference I see between Lean’s Japanese words and ToC jargon is that Japanese words are accepted because most people understand them through their translation / transliteration only. To them, those words have no other meanings that can be misleading.

In the Logical Thinking Process, “Evaporating Cloud” most people (with sufficient command in English of course) try to understand the literal sense in the context but can’t.

The Evaporating Cloud makes sense once the metaphor is decoded. It would have been so much easier to call it a Conflict Resolution Diagram (a proposed and sometimes used alternate name), which it really is, first hand.

Explanation about the sticking to the Evaporating Cloud can be read in Lisa Scheinkopf’s book “Thinking for a Change: Putting the TOC Thinking Processes to Use

Besides poetry and metaphors, acronyms are just as numerous. Take “POOGI” that stands for Process Of OnGoing Improvement in ToC’s lingo. The already popular “Continuous Improvement” was obviously not good enough and led to craft a weird-sounding new acronym, requiring more explanations and learning.

Even some ToC and/or Logical Thinking Process aficionados don’t like all the jargon, it is now the language of the ToC community and its mastery the price to pay for any new comer.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn