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.
Thanks Juergen. I agree, this can be a very useful and I'm sure also that it will evolve. As for the diagram, it is not mine but an example taken from a presentation just to give an idea of the structure. The source is provided at the bottom of the diagram.
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.
Thanks Juergen. I agree, this can be a very useful and I'm sure also that it will evolve. As for the diagram, it is not mine but an example taken from a presentation just to give an idea of the structure. The source is provided at the bottom of the diagram.