Flying Logic Forum
February 19, 2018, 01:49:10 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: • Flying Logic 3.0.9 has been released!
Click here to visit the Flying Logic home page.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Strategy and Tactic trees  (Read 12451 times)
vvagr
Guest
« on: October 31, 2007, 10:34:22 AM »

The major public source of information on S&T trees remains an article by Eli Goldratt, Rami Goldratt, Eli Abramov: http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/holt/em534/Goldratt/Strategic-Tactic.html

Definitions and methodology of Necessary assumption and Sufficient assumption in this article are in direct controversy with statements on the subject in Thinking with Flying Logic.pdf.

FL documentation states:

"...we also need to justify that Tactic as both necessary
and sufficient to accomplish its parent strategy. So we create a Necessary entity and a Sufficient entity and make each one a sibling of each Tactic entity. The title given to each entity should do exactly as the class name suggests: describe why the Tactic must be implemented to accomplish the strategy (Necessary), along with why that Tactic absolutely will work (Sufficient).".

In the article referenced above Mr. Goldratt clearly states in many places that Necessary and Sufficient assumptions are required to justify transition between steps, and not inside a step.

For example:

"The Necessary assumption:We said that a step is necessary to achieve its corresponding higher step. The necessary assumption must be explicite. It explains why the given step is necessary (as part of the group) to achieve the higher step."

Can anyone explain this apparent contradiction? Do you rely on more up to date versions of methodology while designing the software?

Logged
Robert McNally
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 203



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2007, 01:33:30 PM »

I do reference the Goldratt article in the Resources section of Thinking with Flying Logic. But since I am not an experienced practitioner, any contradictions between the two are probably the result of my own flawed understanding of Goldratt's writings.

However, I am not certain that I see a contradiction here. The necessary and sufficient entities are siblings of the Tactic entity because all are "required" to achieve the higher level strategy. This is the condition to transition between steps: 1) that the tactic be necessary for the parent strategy, 2) that the tactic be sufficient for the parent strategy, and 3) that the tactic be implemented, either on its own or through the implementation of its sub-strategies. The arrangement has nothing to do with a "transition inside a step."

The way I specify construction of an S&T Tree in Flying Logic is only one possible formulation, and possibly not the best one— especially because S&T Trees are so new. I encourage others to post their own methodologies here.
Logged
vvagr
Guest
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2007, 01:45:54 PM »

I certainly see a contradiction (or at least a difficulty for not native speaker  Wink) between our common understanding of Goldratt article and current wording in FL documentation! I had not yet had a chance to check whether subtle details of the software (like confidence mechanics) work in accordance with this understanding.
Logged
Robert McNally
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 203



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2007, 01:55:28 PM »

The confidence mechanics should work if, as I specify in Thinking with Flying Logic, the entity operator is set to AND. This would mean that the Necessary, Sufficient, Tactic (and Parallel) entities would all need to have their confidence values set to True for their parent strategy to be True. If the Tactic entity has sub-strategies, then they (via their children) would need to become true first. In other words, since the finest-grained tactics are in fact simply decompositions of the highest-level strategy, the entire S&T tree must be implemented "from the bottom up."
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!