methodatlas

Systems Thinking Mapping tool

Evaporating Cloud

The Evaporating Cloud makes an apparently irreconcilable goal conflict workable through needs and assumptions.

The Evaporating Cloud makes both goals, their underlying needs, and a shared higher purpose explicit. Tested assumptions support an injection that resolves the conflict rather than merely compensating for it.

Core question
Which assumption sustains the apparent conflict between two legitimate needs, and which injection resolves it without compromise?
Plan Evaporating CloudMethod guide
Start comparison
Give feedbackIs this method useful to you?
Participants
2-8
Time
60–120 minutes per core conflict.

The steps form one complete method run.

Paper illustration for Evaporating Cloud.

  1. Demands

    D and D′

    State opposing prerequisites D and D′ as concrete actions.

  2. Needs

    B and C

    Identify necessary need B or C beneath each demand.

  3. Goal

    Shared goal

    Phrase shared goal A for which both needs are necessary.

  4. Assumptions

    Assumption map

    Make assumptions behind every necessity and conflict arrow explicit and challenge them.

  5. Injection

    Win-win injection

    Develop an injection that breaks an assumption and preserves B and C; test side effects.

Add new evidence at review and version decisions with the prior state.

A good fit when

Die Evaporating Cloud macht einen scheinbaren Zielkonflikt sichtbar und bearbeitbar. Sie liest Konflikte als Struktur aus Bedürfnissen und Annahmen, nicht als reinen Positionskampf.

Ideal for

  • Goal conflicts
  • Organizational dilemmas
  • Prioritization conflicts

Not good for

  • Pure fact finding
  • Acute escalation without willingness to talk
  • Simple technical defects

Outputs

  • Win-win injection

    Evaporating Cloud with A/B/C/D/D′, tested necessity assumptions, and justified injection.

Evaporating Cloud · working structure

Fictional example

Fictional values show the actual method fields.

D and D′

State opposing prerequisites D and D′ as concrete actions.

D promise express anytime; D′ promise express only in capacity windows.

B and C

Identify necessary need B or C beneath each demand.

B fast customer commitment; C stable safe warehouse flow.

Shared goal

Phrase shared goal A for which both needs are necessary.

A reliable pickup with strong customer retention.

Assumption map

Make assumptions behind every necessity and conflict arrow explicit and challenge them.

D needed for B because customers only see anytime as fast; data show accepted 30-minute windows.

Win-win injection

Develop an injection that breaks an assumption and preserves B and C; test side effects.

Capacity-visible express windows plus emergency slot provide fast commitment and stable flow.

All values are fictional.

Reference · original teaching example

First step

Choose one recurring conflict with two apparently incompatible actions and a shared goal.

Open the method guide

Good to do first

Paper illustration for Current Reality Tree
Systems Thinking
Current Reality Tree

Supplies the core conflict behind the undesirable effects that the cloud aims to resolve.

Where to go next?

Paper illustration for Future Reality Tree.
Systems Thinking
Future Reality Tree

Tests whether the found win-win injection actually leads to the desired effects.

Paper illustration of a Polarity Map with two poles and four quadrants
Systems Thinking
Polarity Mapping

Reframes a persistent tension behind the injection as a polarity with balancing actions.

Deep dive

Purpose

The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict.

How it works

First the two opposing demands are written down. Then their underlying needs and the shared objective are added. After that, the team checks the assumptions between the objective, the needs, and the demands and looks for a solution that disproves at least one of those assumptions.

In detail

The Evaporating Cloud treats conflicts not as a struggle between people, but as a logical tension between needs. Two incompatible wants are translated into the underlying needs and a shared objective. Then the assumptions that keep the conflict stable are tested. If an assumption is broken or changed, the conflict can disappear without a bad compromise.

Facilitation

Frame both sides fairly and avoid winner-loser language. Work cleanly from wants to needs and test assumptions explicitly. Good facilitation protects psychological safety because conflicts otherwise get personalized quickly.

The method guide walks execution through 5 phases, timing, 5 pitfalls, and clear stop criteria.

Open method guide

Your perspective

Does this method help with your work?

Your feedback helps shape the next improvements to methodatlas.

Sources and topics

Topics
Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking
Sources
Evaporating Cloudlearningcenter.tocico.orgTOCICO learning platform; an introductory course on the Theory of Constraints Thinking Processes, including the Evaporating Cloud.
In playbooks
Understand a Systemic Problem and Find LeverageMove from a recurring symptom to the underlying system structure and a concrete leverage point.
Artifact templates
Evaporating Cloud: WorksheetSet subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
markdown

evaporating-cloud-working-template.md

Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.

Evaporating Cloud: Worksheet

Question

To be confirmed

Desired outcome

To be confirmed

Scope

Complete run Time: 60–120 minutes per core conflict.

Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

  • Materials: Conflict case, cloud A/B/C/D/D′, assumption cards, and injection log
  • Roles: Cloud facilitator · representatives of both sides · goal owner · injection owner
  • Advance information: Choose one recurring conflict with two apparently incompatible actions and a shared goal.
  • Overall time needed: 60–120 minutes per core conflict.
  • Setup: Prepare a workspace with Demands · Needs · Goal · Assumptions · Injection; separate example from live data.

Prepare for the work steps

Demands: D and D′

  • Choose one recurring conflict with two apparently incompatible actions and a shared goal.
  • Conflict case, cloud A/B/C/D/D′, assumption cards, and injection log

Needs: B and C

  • D and D′

Goal: Shared goal

  • B and C

Assumptions: Assumption map

  • Shared goal

Injection: Win-win injection

  • Assumption map

Evaporating Cloud · working structure

D and D′

State opposing prerequisites D and D′ as concrete actions.

...

B and C

Identify necessary need B or C beneath each demand.

...

Shared goal

Phrase shared goal A for which both needs are necessary.

...

Assumption map

Make assumptions behind every necessity and conflict arrow explicit and challenge them.

...

Win-win injection

Develop an injection that breaks an assumption and preserves B and C; test side effects.

...

The blank worksheet contains prompts only.

Reference · original teaching example

Demands: D and D′

Expected artifact: D and D′

State opposing prerequisites D and D′ as concrete actions.

Entry:

...

  • Are they truly incompatible and within influence?

Needs: B and C

Expected artifact: B and C

Identify necessary need B or C beneath each demand.

Entry:

...

  • Are needs legitimate and distinct from demands?

Goal: Shared goal

Expected artifact: Shared goal

Phrase shared goal A for which both needs are necessary.

Entry:

...

  • Do B and C support the same measurable goal?

Assumptions: Assumption map

Expected artifact: Assumption map

Make assumptions behind every necessity and conflict arrow explicit and challenge them.

Entry:

...

  • Is at least one concrete falsifiable assumption visible per arrow?

Injection: Win-win injection

Expected artifact: Win-win injection

Develop an injection that breaks an assumption and preserves B and C; test side effects.

Entry:

...

  • Does it preserve both needs through a testable mechanism?

Open questions and next steps

...

Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/evaporating-cloud/run-sheet

Alternatives and neighbors

Fitting alternatives with decision guidance, followed by other related methods.

All methods
Paper illustration of the Force Field Analysis working structure.
Decision Making
Force Field Analysis

Instead of Evaporating Cloud, choose Force Field Analysis when you want to weigh the driving and restraining forces of a change against each other.

Paper matrix with six colored hat cards for information, feeling, value, caution, ideas and process control.
Facilitation
Six Thinking Hats

Instead of Evaporating Cloud, choose Six Thinking Hats when you want to guide a group through different modes of thinking one after another.

Paper illustration for Theory of Constraints Thinking Process.
Systems Thinking
Theory of Constraints Thinking Process

Moves from current problems through core conflicts and future logic to a viable path through a bottleneck.

Paper illustration for CATWOE Analysis.
Systems Thinking
CATWOE Analysis

Sharpens an ambiguous problem situation through perspectives, transformation, and boundaries up to a root definition.

Causal Loop Diagram workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Systems Thinking
Causal Loop Diagram

Draws feedback, reinforcement, and balance so patterns, levers, and side effects become understandable.

Paper illustration of Futures Wheel with its method-specific working model.
Systems Thinking
Futures Wheel

Arranges direct and indirect consequences of a change radially, so future impacts and cascades of consequences become visible.

Constraints and origin
MediumWorkshop60-120 min

Profile

Method form
Mapping tool
Participants
2-8
Time
60-120 min
Maturity
Established
Origin
Eliyahu M. Goldratt
Paper illustration for Future Reality Tree.
Next up: Future Reality Tree