status quo analysis tree
Current Reality Tree
Problem Solving Compendium as I read and interpreted it.
Write down in the center of three columns what is wrong (problem surface)
Write down to the right what that problem aspect brings (results)
Write down the causes and conditions that bring about the problem aspect (causes)
Use arrows to represent the relationship between the items written out.
Add items as needed.
If multiple arrows are AND conditions, specify them.
Trying to be "logical" and thereby reducing omissions
Often the same thing appears in multiple parts of the tree
Like cause and effect are the same thing.
→ vicious circle loop can be noticed occurring
Current Status Analysis Tree and Future Analysis Tree.
Starting with the current "bad things" is the status quo analysis tree
Future Reality Tree (Future Analysis Tree) starts with future "good things" (ideal).
It is consistent with the basic concept of gold rat, which is that taking out a part of an interdependent system and optimizing it does not result in total optimization; one must grasp the whole, find out what needs to be improved, and make those improvements.
On the other hand, Dr. Goldratt's Logical Thinking Process says "find constraints. Need to check.
→I mentioned "finding constraints" earlier, but also "finding vicious cycles" on p. 103
One interesting point is that you start with more than one problem surface.
When problems are intertwined, picking one problem at random and coming up with a solution will not work.
I had mistakenly thought the markings on the arrows were AND/OR, but apparently not.
Cause insufficiency
Multiple causes, any one of which can be "insufficient" to bring about a result if any one of them is missing.
In other words, this is an AND.
The translation reads "Sufficient cause," not "sufficient condition."
I think you have made a mistake in what should be "inadequate cause."
additive cause ? Another cause ?(additional cause)
There are two special situations. The first is called another cause, and another cause itself can consist of more than one cause (sufficient cause).
Chances are good that the person doing the translation didn't properly understand this part.
The second situation is quite different. This is the idea of "amplification" and intensification, where another independent cause intensifies the result.
https://gyazo.com/8ea6450b487f190f41593c1d4ab4dab7
p.90
I'm using the word "additive" here.
Independent (OR) conditions can be expressed by arrows without any symbols in the first place, so I think the bow-tie type symbols are deliberately introduced to express "mutually amplifying" and "additive" relationships.
Goldratt's Theory of Constraints: A Systems Approach to Continuous Improvement divides it into three categories
Ellipse: Conceptual "AND": complete dependency
No Symbol: Additional Cause: complete independence
Bow Tie: Magnitudinal "AND"
https://gyazo.com/2e179a422ad680e9d05498d782e93f94
P. 47
---
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/現状分析ツリー. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.