Conflict cloud: challenge assumptions

Conflict cloud: challenge assumptions

Begin by stating an objective both sides can support. Describe each legitimate need and the action each side believes is required to satisfy it. Put the conflicting actions beside each other, then examine the assumptions connecting the boxes. Look for a change that can satisfy both needs without preserving the conflict. That proposed injection remains a hypothesis: test its practical consequences and look for unwanted effects. Do not disguise a preferred solution as neutral logic or assume compromise is the only option. The drawing supports a respectful discussion of policies and beliefs, not a verdict about which person is wrong.

Follow the method

1. Shared objective
2. Need A
3. Need B
4. Action A
5. Action B
6. Test an injection

Test the assumption behind the batch-size conflict

Fictional workshop: production manager Arun wants large batches to use scarce setup capability responsibly. Customer-service manager Mei wants small batches to respond to changing demand. Both want reliable delivery. Facilitator Sol helps them investigate the apparent conflict without treating either person as the problem.

Follow the method

1. Objective
2. Need A / action A
3. Need B / action B
4. Injection
5. Unwanted effects

Large batches and small batches are positions

State a shared objective, represent both legitimate needs fairly, expose the assumptions behind incompatible actions and design a test that checks both needs and unwanted effects.

Fictional workshop: production manager Arun wants large batches to use scarce setup capability responsibly. Customer-service manager Mei wants small batches to respond to changing demand. Both want reliable delivery. Facilitator Sol helps them investigate the apparent conflict without treating either person as the problem.

Role: Neutral facilitator with both decision owners and affected operators.

Normal condition

An improvement should meet the legitimate needs behind both positions and preserve necessary quality and safety conditions.

The gap

A proposed compromise batch size has been chosen before anyone tests why each action is believed necessary.

• The cloud represents necessity assumptions to examine, not proof that the arrows are true.
• The proposed injection is a hypothesis that requires practical validation.

1. Agree an objective both parties recognize

   Sol asks Arun and Mei to restate the goal in terms both accept: reliable customer delivery under the required operating conditions. She checks that neither side’s private target has been substituted.

   Why: Without a genuinely shared objective, the diagram can force agreement that does not exist.

   Evidence: Both owners confirm the objective and the necessary conditions.

2. Separate needs from actions

   Record setup capability and responsiveness as legitimate needs. Place large and small batches as the conflicting proposed actions, using each person’s own explanation.

   Why: Treating a chosen action as a need can make the conflict look unavoidable. Fair representation allows alternative actions to emerge.

   Evidence: Two needs and two distinct actions are visible; neither person is blamed.

3. Expose and test the necessity assumptions

   Ask why responsible setup use is believed to require large batches and why responsiveness is believed to require small batches. Investigate actual setup work, mix changes and delivery effects.

   Why: An arrow is a claim about necessity. Evidence may show that a specific assumption, such as unavoidable preparation during stopped time, is not always valid.

   Evidence: Assumption log distinguishes observed facts, beliefs and missing evidence.

4. Propose an injection that could serve both

   The team considers preparing verified changeover kits externally where approved, reducing avoidable stopped preparation while retaining required internal controls. It predicts whether smaller releases could then serve demand without unacceptable setup burden.

   Why: The injection addresses an assumption; it is not simply the midpoint between two batch sizes. It remains a proposal until both needs are tested.

   Evidence: Trial checks setup burden and customer responsiveness, with quality and operator workload retained.

5. Check unwanted effects and revise

   Review missing kits, wrong configurations, extra preparation workload and delivery results during a bounded trial. Accept, adapt or reject the injection with both owners.

   Why: A solution that satisfies one need while shifting hidden cost or risk onto another person has not resolved the stated conflict.

   Evidence: Decision cites evidence for both needs and the necessary conditions.

A minimum processing batch is technically required

Evidence shows an approved process requires a specific processing batch, and no alternative is yet qualified.

Retain that requirement and explore other assumptions, such as transfer batching or preparation delay, with the responsible owner.

Challenging an assumption does not grant authority to ignore a verified process constraint.

The revised cloud distinguishes a validated condition from an untested belief.

Run a practice session

Materials

• Five cloud-element cards and an assumption log
• Separate trial/undesirable-effect sheet

1. Agree the shared objective · 4 minutes

   Would both owners sign this wording?

2. Separate positions from needs · 8 minutes

   Why is batch size an action rather than the underlying need?

3. Build the office cloud · 8 minutes

   Which necessity assumption might the daily slot change?

4. Design the test · 5 minutes

   How could the proposal help one side but harm the other?

Debrief

• Invite each participant to restate the other person’s need accurately.
• Distinguish an untested assumption from a verified process restriction.

Write both sides in respectful first-person language, then test one arrow rather than arguing for a favored action.

Transfer into the work

Owner: Both decision owners with a neutral facilitator

Record: Agreed cloud, assumption evidence and bounded injection test

Review: At trial agreement and after evidence from the defined test period

Evidence: Both legitimate needs met with necessary conditions and unwanted effects examined

Revise the assumptions or injection jointly; do not report a plausible diagram as a validated resolution.