I apologize for the delay
in posting the second half of the Categories of Legitimate Reservation (CLR),
but here it is. The CLR’s set the stage
for the development of the Thinking Process Tools such as the Current Reality
Tree (CRT).
CAUSE
INSUFFICENCY
The Cause Insufficiency reservation challenges the
assumption that a single cause is sufficient to cause an effect. The stated cause may be a partial statement
or partial reason why and effect exists, but it is not sufficient by itself to
cause the effect. Let’s walk through an
example.
In the above example A we challenge the assumption that
the cause for the downturn in sales is because the competitor has improved
their product. The fact is there could
be other reason for the downturn and not just because the competitor
improved. There could also be reasons
the the competitor offers a lower price, or perhaps has perceived higher
quality, both of which could cause a downturn in sales. If could also be that “we have not improved
our product” to keep up with customer needs.
The point here is that in example A the reason are sales
are going down is probably caused by more than just our competitor improving
their product. This statement is most
likely part of the cause but, not the entire cause for the effect. In example B we have added another cause
which makes it much more probable to achieve the known effect. The ellipse added to the arrows is the
logical AND statement. If entity 1 AND
entity 2 then, the effect. Neither of
the bottom two entities are sufficient, by themselves, to cause the effect but,
when both causes are present (there could even be more causes) then it is much
more probable to achieve the effect. A
reminder of caution; There can be a tendency to abuse cause insufficiency
by trying to be so fractal in the thinking that the message becomes unclear as
to what is really meant. In other words,
trying to add so much detail in the causes that it becomes unclear what the
message really is.
ADDITIONAL
CAUSE
There are times when a single cause is sufficient to
cause an effect. But, there can also be
times when an effect can also be caused by an Additional Cause. In other words, each cause by itself can be
sufficient to create the effect. The
caution is using the Additional Cause reservation is that the additional cause
must be relevant and have a scale of effect at least equal to the already
stated cause. Just adding additional causes because you can is
discouraged. However, adding additional cause because you must is highly
encouraged. Let’s walk through an
example and understand how this works.
In
example A, the cause of a downturn in the economy is sufficient to cause the
sales to go downward as stated. In the
example B we propose an Additional Cause that could also cause sales to go
downward. Each cause is independent of
each other but, each can cause the effect independently. Therefore, these
entities and arrows are not connected with the “AND” statement (ellipse). We could also add an additional cause such
as, “Congress has not approved a budget.”
As true as that statement might be it is also possible it outside the
relevancy for what your tree is trying to accomplish. Hence the desire to add
additional causes because you can (discouraged), rather than because you must
(encouraged).
CLARITY
The Clarity reservation can be used on arrows and also
with the words in an entity statement.
Sometimes it can make a significant difference with an entity statement
to verbalize correctly the words within an entity. As an example, suppose we had written an
entity cause statement claiming “All employees are frustrated with the
situation.” It might be possible to use
the Causality Existence reservation and determine that not “ALL” employees are
frustrated! By changed the clarity of
the entity statement and changing the word “All” to “many” or “some, or “most”
the meaning is significantly altered.
Instead of “All” Employees being frustrated what we really meant was
only some, or many or a few are frustrated.
Anytime you have a reservation about an entity statement
or the arrows between entities it is important to ask for Clarity and determine
exactly what the proposer meant by his or her statement or arrow. The assumption to invalidate is that everyone
is clear and knows exactly what is being said.
Tautological logic is also known as circular logic. In others, the cause determines the effect,
and the effect circles around and determines the cause. The logic goes no direction except in a
circle. Some examples are: “if our team
lost the game… then, they played poorly.”
So, you might asked “What caused tem to play poorly?” The response is most likely “Because they
lost, didn’t they?”
Most often it is warranted to be suspicion of tautology
when using the when using the Causality Existence reservation. If it is difficult, or impossible, to verify
another effect from a single cause you most likely have an intangible–cause
supported by only a single effect. If
that happens be very suspicious of a circular logic situation.
USING THE CLR’s IN
GROUP
The primary function of the CLR’s is to seek
understanding about what is being presented.
The CLR’s should not be used as a tool, or method, to ridicule,
intimidate, or worse belittle someone based on what they are presenting.
In a group you first challenge is – seek to
understand. This can best be
accomplished using the CLR’s wisely to make sure you understand what someone
else is saying
Your second challenge is – seek to be understood. If, and when, you do have a reservation, seek
to be understood and explain your reservation in a non-threating way. If you happens to raise and additional cause
reservation, or perhaps a Cause Insufficiency reservation you must be prepared
to offer any additional cause(s) and explain the cause insufficiency as you see
it.
CONCLSIONS
As you might be able to tell by now the understanding and
correct application of the CLR’s is a crucial component of any Thinking Process
analysis. Most of the time, it is very
noticeable to discern which Thinking Process trees have been correctly subjected
to the CLR’s and which one haven’t. When
a tree has been properly constructed and scrutinized the smoothness of flow and
clarity floats to the surface. This is
usually most evident when reading a tree to a person or group and what you
notice is that the people just shake theirs heads in agreement. If, by chance, you notice someone with a
puzzled look stop and make sure they understand what is being said.
In our next posting we will lay out a case study for a
company and see how to develop a current reality tree.
No comments:
Post a Comment