Conditional Reality and the Logical Thinking Process
The Conditional Reality Tree as a discrete analysis tool
When we are faced with a decision we fear may result in a negative outcome, or when we have to identify the potential adverse consequences of an event, actual or potential, developing a visual cause-effect analysis is a good option. This short paper contains my initial thoughts regarding a proposed new analysis tool meant to deal with such situations, the Conditional Reality Tree, and how it relates to the Logical Thinking Process.
The Future Reality Tree and the Negative Branch
The two thinking process tools that deal with future reality are the Goal Tree and the Future Reality Tree. The Goal Tree is used to define a system's goal and the critical success factors and conditions necessary to reach it, not to perform bottom-up cause-effect analysis. The Future Reality Tree is a bottom-up cause-effect analysis tool, intended for analysing how an injection - an idea for a solution - will lead logically to achievement of the system's goal. However, sometimes an injection, given one or more conditions or assumptions, may lead to negative consequences which must be prevented, or if this is not possible, the solution changed or abandoned. The term used for the analysis of this possibility is called a Negative Branch Reservation and it is created by using the negative branch reservation process, which is a part of the construction of a Future Reality Tree[i].
However, according to H. William Dettmer, the Negative Branch has a broader applicability. In The Logical Thinking Process - A Systems Approach to Complex Problem Solving, Dettmer classifies the Negative Branch as a "kind of predicted effect existence reservation... But instead of using them to prove the existence of an intangible cause, we use predicted effects to expose any possible undesirable outcomes associated with an injection we're thinking of using."[ii]. He then goes on to describe a "Stand-Alone" Negative Branch[iii], independent of a Future Reality Tree, and how this tool may be used to analyse day-to-day decisions without any relation to a Future Reality Tree, an Evaporating Cloud or a Current Reality Tree. He discusses two examples where an independent decision leads to a potential negative outcome, given a certain condition or assumption about reality, in the former example an assumption based on prior knowledge, and in the latter a condition which may potentially apply to future reality.
Both of Dettmer's examples deal with a possible action or decision which, coupled with an assumption or a condition, leads to a negative outcome. What then if no decision is made and no action taken? Is there any reason not to use the Negative Branch to analyse the outcome of any potentially negative event regardless of its origins? I cannot see why not. The Negative Branch is, in its essence, simply a cause-effect analysis of the consequences of an event with relation to a systemic objective, and it should not matter whether that event is a deliberate action initiated by a decision, or simply any external or internal event that negatively affects the system, even though not initiated by an internal decision. It should be stressed though, that a Negative Branch used in this way is not strictly speaking part of the thinking process as such. It is simply an independent cause-effect analysis tool.
The Conditional Reality Tree
Recently, a novel thinking process tool, Conditional Reality Tree, was introduced in a PhD thesis by Dr. Abeer Yousseff[iv]. This is a bottom-up cause-effect analysis that begins with a hypothetical condition, a possible event which is expected to have adverse consequences, but which does not have its roots in an injection, or for that matter in a decision made by the system owner in question at all. As such, it works similar to a stand-alone Negative Branch, albeit being limited to the analysis of a potential event outside the span of control of the system owner. It is not a Negative Branch however, according to Yousseff, since its purpose is only to analyse the consequences of the event, not to "trim" the branch. Neither is it a Current Reality Tree, for the reality is conditional, not actual, and perhaps even more importantly because the analysis of conditional reality is a bottom-up, not a top-down analysis; the proposed root cause is known already. Nor is it a Future Reality Tree, since the Future Reality Tree is intended for testing if and how decisions made by the system owner may result in the system achieving its goal.
The system definition
What, then is the Conditional Reality Tree and what is its relationship with the thinking process? In my view, this depends on the definition of the system:
The purpose of the thinking process is to identify and solve existing systemic problems which are within the span of control of the system owner. The process begins by the establishment of a goal and ends with a detailed implementation plan. Each logic tool serves a specific purpose as part of this holistic process. Bottom-up cause-effect analysis involving externally originated conditions comes into play only when constructing a Future Reality Tree. Strictly speaking, independent analysis focusing solely on the effects of externally originated conditions on a system is not part of the thinking process as such. It is rather a universal, independent cause-effect analysis.
The negative event dealt with in Yousseff's thesis is Ethiopia's construction of a new dam on the Nile, expected to adversely affect Egypt. The system the thesis deals with is the country of Egypt, and to this system the event is external, outside the system owner's span of control.
However, if we broaden the definition of the system to include both (and possibly more) countries, this picture changes. In that scenario, the decision is no longer external but internal to the system, intended to move the system as a whole closer to its goal. The construction of the dam would then belong within the Future Reality Tree as an injection and the feared adverse effects in Egypt, the downstream part of the system, would spark the development of a Negative Branch.
When used solely to analyse the consequences of a potential external condition outside the span of control of the system owner, the proposed Conditional Reality Tree can be regarded as a universal cause-effect analysis tool. Since the root cause is not inherent in the system in question, the analysis is independent from the full thinking process as such. In this case it should be noted also that a condition that at first sight seems negative may in fact have positive effects also, and this cannot be known until the cause-effect analysis has been performed.
When the potential condition is an injection developed by the system owner, the Negative Branch should be applied.
The same goes if a potential externally originated condition, not independently but coupled with one or more injections, leads to negative consequences.
Conclusion
In my view therefore, The Conditional Reality Tree may be regarded as an discrete version of the Negative Branch, applied when analysing the potential effects of an event or a decision that originates outside the system in question, while still affecting it. This tool does not represent a completely new and different logic that must be learned. It is close enough to the Negative Branch that its construction procedures and the use of the Categories of Legitimate Reservation for verification are mostly the same. But because it is intended for analysing the effects of an externally originated event, rather than the execution of an injection of a more limited Future Reality Tree, it warrants another name. In this respect the difference may be comparable to the difference between the Prerequisite Tree and the Goal Tree, which share the same construction and verification procedures (apart from the obstacles) but serve different purposes.
Many thanks to Eli Schragenheim, H. William Dettmer and Leo Lauramaa for their constructive feedback, insights and suggestions for improvement.
[i] TOCICO Dictionary, 2nd edition, p. 78. https://www.tocico.org/general/custom.asp?page=dictionary
[ii] H. William Dettmer: The Logical Thinking Process - A Systems Approach to Complex Problem Solving, Milwaukee 2007, p. 225.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Yousseff, Abeer: Management of Risks to Egypt’s Water Supply due to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam: A Multi-Perspective Study Using a Multi-Framing Approach, Victoria University of Wellington 2023, p. 154.
This addition can be useful in all the case where the system status is depending of events that are outside of it.
This cover a full range of situation, specially in the domain of climate change or sociologic analysis.
Such a tools can help understanding the dependencies of the system upon external conditions and be useful to build resilience.
Definitively a tool I will look at to add to my toolbox.
At first, a remark about the diagram of the Conditional RT. According to the diagram, we see that UDE 2 OR UDE 1 cause UDE 3. You added an AND junctor / ‘ellipse’ / ‘banana’ between UDE 2 and UDE 3 without an additional cause. Therefore, your tree is not sufficiently described.
For me, the proposal for an additional Cond. RT is very useful. An example:
Today, we are at a starting point of the transformation towards CO2 emission-free German industries. Not all the details are already defined by German and or European government. Nevertheless, as a company owner you have to move forward with all potential UDE’s (UnDesired Effects), but also DE’s (Desired Effects). Which means, one day you have to fulfil a number of requirements. But you are currently not in a situation to write these things already in a common CRT, FRT, Goal Tree, or whatever. Anyhow you have to deal with it.
Therefore, a Cond.RT seems to me very useful to document what will happen in near future and what might be the consequences on my system (UDE’s, DE’s). At a certain moment in time, you have to integrate an updated Cond.RT into your TP documentation anyhow. Then it doesn’t matter whether the UDEs and DEs are caused by an internal or external demand. Furthermore, an early integration can avoid contradicting measures at an early moment.
Whether you work on a Cond.RT with known tools like Evaporating Cloud and or Negative Branch Reservation depends finally on the content of that tree in case of expected UDE’s.