What is a logical “long arrow”?

In Logical Thinking Process (LTP) parlance a long arrow is a “leap of logic” or the omission of one or several cause-and-effect steps that connect a cause to an effect.

In the Logical Thinking Process, a cause is linked to its effect by an arrow. The arrow’s tail is connected to the cause and the tip points to the effect. Hence the reference to the arrow.

In the picture, the cause is at the bottom and the effect is on the top.

Ellipses are logical “AND” connectors. Arrows going through an ellipse read “if…. AND if… then…”

Some may refer to the AND connectors as “bananas” but I would not encourage this.

The “long arrow” skips several “if…then…” or cause-and-effect relationships, also considered as logical steps.

Leaps of logic are to be avoided for the sake of logical soundness. Long arrows are likely to confuse an audience as the listeners or readers cannot naturally link the things together.

True listeners may have difficulties to follow the speaker’s logic or readers might get confused, lost or perplexed while reading a text.

Many people speak or write long arrows because the sequence of causes-and-effects is clear in their mind. They don’t pay enough attention how their thinking can be received by someone not knowing about the subject, the unspoken assumptions or the implicit and skipped relationships.

The more logical steps or cause-and-effect links skipped between a specific cause and an certain effect and the longer the arrow.

In the scrutinization process of logic trees, long arrows are generally considered as “mistakes” or at least “logical improvement points”. Long arrows are not officially considered as Categories of Legitimate Reservations (CLR), but could in fact. Long arrows should be broken into more detailed steps in order to get the faulty tree more sound and robust from the Logical Thinking Process point of view.

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Advertisements

Why you cannot use tentative language in a logic tree

I once happen to see a Current Reality Tree cluttered with “coulds” and “shoulds”. Conditional or tentative language cannot be used with logic trees and here is why.

Cause-and-effect (sufficiency logic)

The Logical Thinking Process logic trees use either sufficiency or necessity logic. Sufficiency or cause-and-effect relationship states that a cause, if it exists, is sufficient by itself for the effect to happen. Using conditionals like should or could violates the sufficiency principle as it suggests that the cause is not always producing the effect.

The Current Reality Tree (CRT), Future Reality Tree (FRT) and Transition Tree (TT) are built on sufficiency logic and therefore cannot hold any entity with shoulds or coulds.

If a should or could is found in such a tree, the scrutinizer must raise a “cause insufficiency reservation“. The statement must then be corrected, for example by adding one or more additional cause(s) combining to the first one with a logical AND connector. If this combination is valid, the sufficiency relationship is restored and should or could is removed as the effect is now guaranteed to happen.

If no additional causes can combine to the first one, the cause-and-effect relationship is probably only assumed or false. Anyway no should or could can be left in a logically sound tree.

Using present tense

The entities – the building blocks of the logic trees holding the statements – must be expressed in present tense.

Using present tense is natural in a Current Reality Tree (CRT) as it is the description of the actual situation, the cause-and-effects relationships that exist right now.

The use of present tense in Future Reality Trees (FRT) is highly recommended even so these future situations and the Desirable Effects do not yet exist. Present tense helps to project oneself and the audience into the future and visualize the situation as it were already improved (Scheinkopf, “Thinking for a change, putting the TOC Thinking Processes to use”, p119). Dettmer also recommends to use positive wording (Dettmer, The Logical Thinking Process, p244).

This applies to entities in a CRT, a FRT and in a Prerequisite Tree (PRT) which are verbalized in full sentences.

What about necessity-based logic?

Can necessity logic based tree use conditional/ tentative language?

The Goal Tree (GT), the Evaporating Cloud (EC) and Prerequisite Tree (PRT) are built on necessity logic. They describe the chains of enabling conditions that are required to achieve a goal or an objective. Without the enabling conditions, the objective cannot be attained. Conversely, with the enabling, necessary conditions fulfilled, the objective will not automatically be achieved; additional action is required.

As the Desired Effect is not guaranteed to happen even so all necessary conditions are fulfilled, the use of conditional / tentative language seems legit. Practitioners would not use it though.

First because we need to demonstrate positivity about a desirable change and help the audience to mentally visualize the future where things happen and produce the desired outcome.

Second because we need to give confidence and demonstrate our own trust in the proposed solution. No audience would be thrilled hearing that this solution “may”, “should” or “could” produce the desired result. No decision maker would give his/her go for a change program or a solution implementation which is not certain to produce the expected result.

The use of conditional / tentative language would only raise concern about the feasibility of the proposed solution and appear as a lack of confidence of its promoters.

Wrapping up

Tentative language is recommended in academic writing, not at all with logic trees.

Using tentative language is recommended in academic writing and scientific research in order to leave room for alternatives, later corrections, etc. unless there is solid evidence backing up a statement. Therefore the use of verbs like “appear, suggest, indicate,…”, modals “may, might, can, could, will, would” and adverbs like “possibly, probably, likely…” are recommended.

But when building or presenting logic trees, absolute certainty is required in order to demonstrate robustness of the analysis and the confidence in the conclusions. If a logic tree is built on the canonical logic rules (we’ll consider the use of present tense as a canonical logic rule), has been scrutinized and cleared of all reservations, it is robust and tentative language is no option.


The author, Chris HOHMANN

The author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

The Logical Thinking Process – An Executive Summary (Book)

Bill Dettmer, my friend and mentor often cited on this blog, wrote his 9th book “The Logical Thinking Process – An Executive Summary” that is now in the final stages of the publishing process.

This book will be much smaller in size and number of pages than the famous “The Logical Thinking Process: A Systems Approach to Complex Problem Solving”. The latter is a 413 pages, 17,1 x 3,2 x 24,1 cm (6.8 x 1.2 x 9.5 inches) hardcover book. Bill Dettmer’s students use to call it “The Bible”. It is a complete step-by-step guide, easy to read and understand, but not everybody can invest the time required to read it just to get a primer on the Logical Thinking Process.

That’s where the “Executive Summary” comes in handy. Bill himself stated: “Over the years, I’ve found myself having to explain what the Logical Thinking Process is in 30 seconds or so to people who have never heard of it – or know nothing about it if they have. I came to the conclusion that while the LTP is difficult, if not impossible, to encapsulate in an “elevator speech,” it might be somewhat easier to do in a pocket-sized book.

I was fortunate to be selected by Bill as a kind of sounding board and proofreader, even so Bill did so more out of kindness than necessity, and had a privileged first reading. The book will serve its purpose, I think it can be read during a short business trip on a plane or a train. The final copy should be less than 100 pages.

As soon as I’ll get a copy, I will complete this post with an extended review of the book.

You may subscribe to my blog to keep being informed of new posts or follow me on twitter.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Management attention as a constraint – Part 1

A system’s constraint, the limiting factor that is an obstacle to getting more Goal units* from the system, can be pretty difficult to identify (hence the success of my post on the topic: How to identify a constraint?!).

*”Goal units” can be money, profit, services to citizens, number of patients treated, free meals served, or whatever the organization delivers to achieve its Goal.

The Theory of Constraints community discusses the management attention as a constraint for a long time now and Goldratt himself called management attention the ultimate constraint (the one remaining when all others have been elevated). My own experience convinced me that management attention can indeed be a constraint for the whole system, from the beginning.

Misaligned organization

Striving to achieve the organization’s Goal is management’s sacred mission and it is management’s duty to align the efforts of their subordinates to achieve that objective. Lean Management uses the “True North” metaphor and Hoshin Kanri or Policy Deployment to achieve it. The Logical Thinking Process calls it the Goal and have the Goal Tree as a roadmap and benchmark. Both approaches and their tool sets can be combined.

Now too often management does not clearly communicate about the Goal neither ensure their staff’s energy and initiatives are well oriented towards achieving the Goal.

Surprisingly, some senior managers are not clear among themselves what the organization’s Goal is. Bill Dettmer published a paper on such an experience with a crowd of executives and almost as many Goals as people! The paper is downloadable at http://www.goalsys.com/books/documents/WhatisOurGoal-v5_000.pdf

Management’s attention is on something else, but not on the main objective.

When this happens, scarce resources are often wasted for meaningless purposes, on the wrong things. The longer this goes on, the stronger the evidence that management attention isn’t focused, for whatever reasons, on what really matters.

Chances are that middle managers lacking a clear stated and often reminded Goal define their own objectives for the need of guidance.

Self defined objectives

When subordinates define their own objectives because they have no “True North” to align their own and/or their staff’s work, they may define these objectives to fit their own purpose, their own views or to optimize their department’s performance. Doing so, the probability is high that the self defined objectives will be in conflict with another department’s objectives and at the expenses of the overall organization performance.

Myths and false assumptions

Lack of clear communication about the Goal and lax management may let myths and false assumptions flourish. Most often, myths and false assumptions are the result of lack of clarity, misunderstanding or overinterpretation of some “strategic intent” or senior management statements.

Management attention must foremost be on clarity of purpose, second on the alignment of all actions towards achieving the Goal. With constant attention and frequent repetition about the Goal and checking the progress towards it, deviations as well as false assumptions and misunderstandings can be detected and corrected.

Lax management

Many people have been promoted to management positions even so they lacked the necessary soft skills. Some because it was a reward for past dedication and good job, others because they were technically good and the assumption was they would also be good at managing others. The latter often does not happen.

Unfit for their position, uneasy especially when taking command over former colleagues, lacking the charisma and know-how, many hide themselves behind computers screens or in meetings and shun contact with their subordinates. Management attention is purposely not on what matters because of a form of cowardice, or to put it softer, because of uneasiness.

In order to keep social peace, middle management (at least in France) often tries to avoid frontal assault against deviant behaviors, absenteeism, poor performance and sub-standard achievement.

The situation is often paradoxical between the pressure from above to achieve the objectives and at the same time the strong recommendation not to mess up with work force to avoid social unrest, that middle management is torn between conflicting objectives.

This probably led to management positions popularity to sink to an abyssal low. The younger generations don’t want management jobs anymore.

Additionally, the new generations and their ways of teaming up, networking and work around obstacles. They have no interest in traditional management. They don’t want that kind of job and do not pay the same respect to rank like previous generations did. For them and growing part of the workforce, leadership is more important than status.

All this lead many middle managers to compromise and get lax in their management or give it up for good. Management positions are now harder to man as this kind of job lost much consideration.

Therefore, even if those managers know well about the Goal they should work to achieve, their ability or personal lax attitude does not transmit the necessary energy or inputs to their teams.

Next: Management attention as a constraint – Part 2

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Goal Tree Chronicles – Enablers vs.triggers

In this post I explain the difference between enablers and triggers in logic trees, which basically is explaining how Necessity logic differs from Sufficiency logic. I then explain the basic assumption when building a Goal Tree and why the Goal will not automatically be achieved even if a most of Necessary Conditions are fulfilled.

Necessity vs. sufficiency

Necessity-based logic requires a prerequisite to be fulfilled in order to produce the expected effect. This is why necessity-based logic uses “in order to… [effect] we must … [prerequisite]” wording in the Logical Thinking Process.

Example: in order to have my hair cut, I must go to the hairdresser.

Even so there are alternatives to the hairdresser to have the hair cut, a prerequisite is necessary for the hair being cut.

Sufficiency, as its name suggests, does only require the cause to exist for the effect to automatically exist. The corresponding wording is ”if…[cause] then.. [effect].”

Example: if it rains, then the lawn gets wet. Or if I drop an ice-cube in hot water (the) it melts. In these examples there is little that can be done to prevent the effect to automatically happen when the cause happens.

Enablers vs.triggers

I assume dear readers, you understand the huge difference between Necessity and Sufficiency. While an effect will automatically happen if the cause exists in the case of sufficiency, the existence of the prerequisite (cause) in necessity-based logic is not enough to produce the effect, it only enables it.

For example, many prerequisites are necessary to build a house, like having a ground, having timber, having a permit, and so on. But having all prerequisite will not lead the house to build itself.

In sufficiency logic, the cause is the trigger while with necessity logic, the cause is “only” an enabler.

The Goal Tree is built on necessity-logic

The Goal Tree, one of my favorite logic tools, is built on layers of Necessary Conditions, linked from the Goal on the top to the very first Necessary Conditions at the bottom by necessity-logic. The convenient way to build a Goal Tree and scrutinize it is to check the sound logical relationship between an entity and the underlying Necessary Condition using the “in order to… [effect] we must … [prerequisite]” phrasing.

The logic trees and cloud from the Logical Thinking Process are either necessity-based or sufficiency-based and in the order of their sequential usage they alternate between necessity and sufficiency.

Now because the Goal Tree is built on necessity logic, the entities composing it are absolutely necessary to exist or being granted for to achieve the Goal. By definition, if one Necessary Condition is not fulfilled, the Goal cannot be achieved.

But, as Necessary Conditions are “only” enablers, nothing will happen as long as no real action is taken.

Achieving the Goal

Achieving the Goal requires all Necessary Conditions or enabling prerequisites to be fulfilled, but it is not sufficient.

This can be disturbing for those being exposed first time to the Goal Tree, because there is an implicit assumption that when the enablers are in place, the necessary actions or decisions will be taken, so that from bottom to top, all Necessary Conditions are fulfilled and the Goal eventually achieved.

Promoters, including me, tend to cut corners and advertise about the lower level Necessary Conditions “automatically” turn the upper ones to be fulfilled, and the achievement of intermediate objectives to happen like a row of dominoes propagating the fall of the first one till the very last: the system’s goal.

This is true if people in charge do their part: take the decisions and/or carry out the tasks.

This is why, “surprisingly”, some entities can be Amber or Red (condition not always / not fulfilled) even so their underlying Necessary Conditions are Green (condition always fulfilled).

If you are not yet familiar with my 3-color system, I suggest you read: 3-color system for Goal Trees

Example

Here is such an example. It comes from an operational Goal Tree built to enumerate all Necessary Conditions to pass over simple maintenance tasks from maintenance technicians to line operators. The simple tasks include daily lubrication and check of tightenings in order to prevent wear and possible breakdowns. The aim is to implement the Total Productive Maintenance ‘Autonomous Maintenance‘ pillar.

Once all Necessary Conditions are listed, the Goal Tree is scrutinized for robustness and if ok, it becomes the benchmark to achieve the Goal. The next step is to assess each Necessary Conditions for its status.


We see in the figure above (showing only a tiny part of the Goal Tree) that all underlying Necessary Conditions to “Daily lubrication / tightening is done” are Green, but the expected outcome, the effect is Amber. Since every prerequisite is Green, we expect the effect to be Green as well. Amber means the outcome is not stable, not always guaranteed, not steadily at nominal level.

It means this expected outcome, the task “daily lubrication / tightening is done”  is NOT done EVERY day.

One may argue that we cannot see any mention of the lubrication / tightening being part of operators’ duties. That’s correct. The reason for this is that in logic trees, obvious prerequisites or assumptions are voluntarily omitted for the sake of keeping the logic trees simple and legible. In our case, the work instructions include the daily lubrication and tightening routine. This is a known fact for everyone concerned with this Goal Tree.

In other words, enablers are ok, but the trigger is still missing.

It is now up to management to:

  • make sure operators have a full understanding of the work instructions,
  • make sure these tasks are carried out and
  • clarify what is to be done if operators face a dilemma like catch up late work or go as planned for maintenance routine.

Fortunately those cases are the exception. People truly involved in a project and having a clear understanding of the purpose will contribute. That is, as long as they are not exposed to undesirable effects, from their point of view.


View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

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.

To learn more about necessity-based logic versus sufficiency-based logic, check my post: Goal Tree Chronicles – Enablers vs.triggers

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

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