What needs to be finished first
The problem, goal, or decision is described clearly enough for the method to be applied within a defined scope.
What needs to be ready before start
Working board or document for Conflict Cloud; existing notes, data, decisions, and assumptions; markers for uncertainty, owner, and next steps.
Facilitator; subject-matter experts from the affected area; one owner for outcomes and follow-up; a named decider for decisions.
Scope, trigger, known facts, relevant constraints, prior options or events, and desired outcome of the workshop.
2-4 h
Prepare an empty Conflict Cloud template. Make scope and driving question visible at the top. Mark every assumption as an assumption, not as fact.
The one question this method answers
Which conflict does the system maintain, which assumptions reinforce it, and which breakthroughs can resolve it?
Marker: Phase
| Step | Duration | Action | Hint |
|---|---|---|---|
1Fix scope | 10-20 min | Define trigger, goal, and boundaries of analysis. Capture off-scope topics in a parking lot. | A tight scope produces better results than a complete but diffuse broad approach. |
2Collect raw material | 20-40 min | Bring facts, events, options, constraints, or assumptions into visibility. | Keep facts and interpretations separate. Mark uncertainty explicitly instead of smoothing over unknowns. |
3Build structure | 30-60 min | Fill the Conflict Cloud step by step, clarify relationships between elements, and expose contradictions. | Do not evaluate too early. First stabilize structure, then draw conclusions. |
4Validate and refine | 20-40 min | Mark gaps, weak assumptions, counterexamples, and critical paths. Check output for comprehensibility. | If nobody can explain the logic in two minutes, the artifact is not ready yet. |
5Define next steps | 15-20 min | Document decision, experiment, test, action, or follow-up with owner and date. | A good artifact without next action is knowledge work without impact. |
What comes out at the end
Conflict Cloud with trigger, scope, core elements, assumptions, flagged gaps, result interpretation, and next step with owner and date.
Save artifact with date, scope, and participants. On new evidence, add a new version or a change note to keep decision logic traceable.
Compact working template for Evaporating Cloud with context, input, output artifacts, and next step.
TOC method for resolving apparent conflicts through needs, assumptions, and breakthrough ideas.
When and for what do we use this method?
Which data, observations, decisions, or materials are available?
Short notes along the runsheet.
Owner, date, and success signal.
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Scope: A single project area is reviewed, not the whole company. Driving question: Which conflict does the system maintain, which assumptions reinforce it, and which breakthroughs can resolve it?
Excerpt from artifact:
Result: The team chooses a focused next step with owner and date. Signal: Move from compromise to assumption validation.
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
New topics are added continuously and the artifact loses focus.
Keep scope visible and move new topics to the parking lot.
Discussion sounds confident despite weak evidence.
Mark every uncertain statement and define a validation point.
Team jumps to actions after only a few minutes.
Build structure fully first, then derive options or actions.
Artifact only confirms favorite hypothesis.
Ask explicitly for counterexamples, negative branches, or excluded options.
The result is clear, but nobody follows it through.
Record every next step with owner, date, and success signal.
Done signals checkable in under a minute
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.