When we're trying to understand a situation it is often very helpful to have a sense of the historical trends of several dimensions relevant to the situation.
While understanding the interacting components responsible for the situation is important it is even more important to understand the stakeholders as they are the ones responsible for the interacting components being the way they are.
Developing a strategy for dealing with a situation begins with a description of the situation and the preferred state for today, not in some distant future, and the perceived implications of not doing anything.
To this point the Situation, Behavior, Model, Stakeholder and Boundary aspects of this situation have been investigated. It is now appropriate to consider the assumptions that have been made to this point and ensure we are on a solid foundation before proceeding to the Leverage and Strategy aspects are considered.
When the relevant interactions are identified it's appropriate to identify which elements are the responsibility of which stakeholders, which elements are part of the addressable interactions and which elements are part of the environment.
Now that we have some context for the situation it's appropriate to begin to investigate, though possibly not where you might think. And the investigation is actually a bit hindered because management fired the accounts receivables department. What I'm really interested in is trends as to how things have evolved over time.
The limits to results structure endeavors to bring a balance between a current state and a desired state though more often than not the action is limited by some constraint. See also Archetypes.
Eroding Goals shares a basic similarity with Shifting the Burden - the dynamic tension between a symptomatic solution and a fundamental one. In the case of Eroding Goals, managers are faced with performance that fails to meet a stated goal.
The limits to results structure endeavors to bring a balance between a current state and a desired state though more often than not the action is limited by some constraint. See also Archetypes.
An introduction to what seems to be our typical approach to dealing with problems that arise unexpectedly when we're focused on dealing with other immediate issues.
A shifting the burden structure occurs when there are different ways to address a situation. With one approach being easier, faster, and requiring fewer resources, which do you think gets pursued? The problem is that taking the easier path ensures one will have to take the easier path repeatedly, and makes it harder to pursue the long-term better solution.
The limits to growth structure is based on the basic growth structure. And, as should be obvious, nothing grows forever as growth requires resources. Those required resources become a limits to growth.
A shifting the burden structure occurs when there are different ways to address a situation. With one approach being easier, faster, and requiring fewer resources, which do you think gets pursued? The problem is that taking the easier path ensures one will have to take the easier path repeatedly, and makes it harder to pursue the long-term better solution.
An escalation structure results from two or more competing entities with the competition taking them to somewhere none of them want to be. See also Archetypes.