Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [502]
—Richard Bach, Illusions
The second standard TOC TP tool that is used on a regular basis is the Evaporating Cloud (EC).7 The Cloud is the tool that enables us to eliminate any conflict, and paves the way for a win-win solution. In a world where conflicts do in fact exist, and in which nearly everyone believes that the only way to deal with a conflict is to compromise (which typically means that all parties settle for less than what they really need in order to “meet in the middle”), why is TOC so bold to claim that every conflict can be eliminated?
We look no further than the concept of inherent simplicity for the answer. A conflict is a situation in which each side thinks that it needs something that is in direct contradiction with (cannot coexist with) what the other side thinks that it needs. If we accept Newton’s statement that nature is “always consonant (harmonious) to itself,” then we must accept that in reality, there are no real contradictions. It must be, then, that any conflict contains an erroneous assumption that blocks the ability for each “side” to get what it needs, and is thus blocking what should otherwise be a naturally harmonious reality.
Eli and Efrat Goldratt provides an excellent explanation in The Choice (Goldratt, 2009, 46–47).
Suppose that we have two different techniques to measure the height of a building. And when we use them to measure the height of a specific building we get two very different heights. Facing such an apparent contradiction no one would say, let’s compromise; let’s agree that the height of this building is the average between the two measurements.
What we would say is that somewhere along the line we have made an erroneous assumption. We’ll check to see if, in the time that passed between the two measurements, additional floors were added. If that’s not the case, we’ll explore if our assumption—that each of the measurements was carried out properly—is correct. If they were, we’ll look for an erroneous assumption in the techniques themselves; we’ll explore the possibility that one of these two techniques is faulty. In extreme cases, we’ll even doubt our understanding of height. But we’ll always look for the erroneous assumption and never contemplate the possibility of compromise. This is how strong our belief is that there are no contradictions in nature.
In other words, I say, when we face a conflict, especially when we cannot easily find an acceptable compromise, let’s do exactly the same thing we do when we encounter a contradiction; let’s insist that one of the underlying assumptions is faulty. If, or should I say when, we pin down the underlying assumption that can be removed, we remove the cause of the conflict; we solve the conflict by eliminating it. (Used with permission by E. M. Goldratt, © E. M. Goldratt. All rights reserved.)
Up to this point, we have been discussing cause and effect in terms of “sufficiency.” (See Fig. 25-9.) To say that “Y” is an effect of “X” is to say the following:
If “X,” then we must have “Y.”
“Y” exists because “X” exists.
If “X” exists, then we know that “Y” must exist. If “Y” exists, “X” may not—something else might cause “Y” to exist.
When viewing cause and effect in terms of “necessity,” we are looking at conditions that must be in place in order for something (e.g., an objective) to be able to exist. To say that “B” is a necessary condition for “A” is to say the following (see Fig. 25-10):
In order to have “A,” we must have “B.”
We cannot have “A” unless “B” is in place.
If we do not have “B,” then “A” is impossible.
If “A” exists, we know that “B” must exist. However, if “B” exists, “A” may not—additional conditions may be necessary to cause it.
FIGURE 25-9 Sufficiency illustration.
FIGURE 25-10 Necessity illustration.
FIGURE 25-11 Cloud illustration.
The EC consists of five entities, and the arrows connecting them indicate the logic of necessity (see Fig. 25-11). The conflict itself—the conditions that are perceived as needed but that are in direct contradiction with each