Move from a recurring symptom to the underlying system structure and a concrete leverage point.
An understood system pattern with an identified core conflict and a concrete leverage point for the next intervention.
You can decide which injection is implemented as the next intervention in the system.
Set up the found injection as an experiment and keep tracking its effect using the behavior-over-time graph.
Which conditions produce a recurring pattern, and which assumption keeps it in place?
The iceberg model prevents work from staying at the visible symptom and directs attention to the structure behind it.
The assumed patterns can then be checked against real data over time.
How does one clearly defined variable change over a relevant period, and what might explain turning points?
The graph shows whether this is truly a recurring pattern or an isolated case.
A confirmed pattern can now be condensed into an ordered cause-and-effect chain.
Which common causes can sufficiently explain the observed undesirable effects?
The current reality tree logically connects several symptoms and makes visible which core problem explains them jointly.
The core problem usually contains an unresolved conflict of goals that must be explicitly resolved.
Which assumption sustains the apparent conflict between two legitimate needs, and which injection resolves it without compromise?
The evaporating cloud makes the opposing assumptions behind the conflict explicit and opens the view to a real leverage point instead of a weak compromise.
The found injection becomes the concrete next intervention in the system.
Artifacts stay collapsed until you actually need them.
Plan a session or initiative to match the actual scope of work.
# Iceberg Model: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Prepare the full method
Time: 30–60 minutes for an initial group analysis; data review and intervention are separate.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Event evidence, time-series data where available, affected perspectives and a shared worksheet.
- **Roles:** Facilitator · affected domain roles · data owner; separate hypotheses from findings.
- **Advance information:** Choose materials, data access and participants to fit the research or decision question.
- **Overall time needed:** 30–60 minutes for an initial group analysis; data review and intervention are separate.
- **Setup:** Open the method-specific structure. Fictional examples are for orientation only; keep the blank worksheet separate from actual findings.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Event: Observe a specific event
- Choose an event and record source, period and system boundary.
- Event evidence, time-series data where available, affected perspectives and a shared worksheet.
#### Patterns: Check patterns over time
- Shared, verifiable starting point
- Event evidence, time-series data where available, affected perspectives and a shared worksheet.
#### Structure: Investigate possible structures
- Evidenced or explicitly tentative trend
- Event evidence, time-series data where available, affected perspectives and a shared worksheet.
#### Assumptions: Test assumptions and interventions
- Structural hypotheses and evidence needs
- Event evidence, time-series data where available, affected perspectives and a shared worksheet.
## Iceberg Model working record
### Events
What happened, when, and according to which source?
...
### Patterns
What is recurring across a stated period?
...
### System structures
Which rules, resources or relationships might produce the pattern?
...
### Mental models
Which belief or goal may sustain the structure?
...
Blank worksheet: prompts only; do not copy example data.
[Introduction to Systems Thinking](https://thesystemsthinker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Introduction-to-Systems-Thinking-IMS013Epk.pdf)
## Event: Observe a specific event
Expected artifact: Shared, verifiable starting point
Shared, verifiable starting point
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is direct observation separate from interpretation?
## Patterns: Check patterns over time
Expected artifact: Evidenced or explicitly tentative trend
Evidenced or explicitly tentative trend
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the evidence support a pattern claim?
## Structure: Investigate possible structures
Expected artifact: Structural hypotheses and evidence needs
Structural hypotheses and evidence needs
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are mechanism and evidence status visible?
## Assumptions: Test assumptions and interventions
Expected artifact: Intervention hypothesis with feedback
Intervention hypothesis with feedback
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is there a signal and review date?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/iceberg-model/run-sheet
Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
# Behavior Over Time Graph: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete run
Time: 45–90 minutes for one to three variables; validate data beforehand if needed.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** BOTG axes, data or explicitly estimated points, event notes, uncertainty markers, and hypothesis log
- **Roles:** Facilitator · people with system experience · data owner · decision owner
- **Advance information:** Set one influenceable variable, unit, and time span; prepare data sources and known events.
- **Overall time needed:** 45–90 minutes for one to three variables; validate data beforehand if needed.
- **Setup:** Prepare a workspace with Variable · Curve · Events · Pattern · Hypotheses; separate example from live data.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Variable: Labelled axes
- Set one influenceable variable, unit, and time span; prepare data sources and known events.
- BOTG axes, data or explicitly estimated points, event notes, uncertainty markers, and hypothesis log
#### Curve: Evidence-backed curve
- Labelled axes
#### Events: Event annotations
- Evidence-backed curve
#### Pattern: Pattern description
- Event annotations
#### Hypotheses: Test plan
- Pattern description
## Behavior Over Time Graph · working structure
| Variable | Unit | Period | Data points | Pattern | Turning point | Evidence | Hypothesis |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| p80 waiting time | | | | | | | |
| Warehouse calls | | | | | | | |
- **p80 waiting time:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **Warehouse calls:** Add evidence and rationale.
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
[Reference · original teaching example](https://thinkingtoolsstudio.waterscenterst.org/resources/catalog)
## Variable: Labelled axes
Expected artifact: Labelled axes
Set the variable, unit, system boundary, and a sufficiently long time axis.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are variable, unit, and period explicit without mixing measures in one curve?
## Curve: Evidence-backed curve
Expected artifact: Evidence-backed curve
Plot data points or clearly marked estimates and connect them into a trajectory.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Can actual data, gaps, and estimates be distinguished?
## Events: Event annotations
Expected artifact: Event annotations
Annotate events at their time on the curve without already declaring them causes.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are event and timing evidenced and separated from causal claims?
## Pattern: Pattern description
Expected artifact: Pattern description
Describe slope, delay, plateau, oscillation, and turning points; compare perspectives.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the pattern describe the trajectory without mixing explanation and judgment?
## Hypotheses: Test plan
Expected artifact: Test plan
Form several explanations for relevant turning points and specify needed evidence.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does each hypothesis have a distinguishing signal and next data source?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/behavior-over-time-graph/run-sheet
Collect system boundary and verifiable UDEs; keep observations, causal assumptions and possible solutions separate.
# Current Reality Tree: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete cycle
Time: Several sessions; 60–120 minutes per logic block
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** UDE cards, evidence, directed links and visible AND junctions.
- **Roles:** System experts with different perspectives and facilitator familiar with TOC logic.
- **Advance information:** Collect system boundary and verifiable UDEs; keep observations, causal assumptions and possible solutions separate.
- **Overall time needed:** Several sessions; 60–120 minutes per logic block
- **Setup:** Arrange UDEs above causes; read arrows from cause to effect and mark AND junctions visibly.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### UDEs: UDEs capture
- System observations
- Evidence
#### Causal chains: Causal chains
- UDEs
- Process knowledge
#### Logic review: Check logic
- Causal skeleton
- Counterevidence
#### Core causes: Examine common driver
- Reviewed logic
- Scope of influence
## Current Reality Tree· worksheet
### UDEs
Which observed undesirable effects and evidence belong to the system?
...
### Causes and conditions
Which complete statements describe causes and intermediate effects?
...
### If-then links
Which conditions operate jointly and what effect follows?
...
### Checks and gaps
Which arrows are evidenced, what assumptions remain and which counterexamples are checked?
...
### Change focus
Which confirmed cause warrants further change analysis and where does the claim end?
...
Answer the prompts with your own information. Explicitly mark unknowns and assumptions.
[Flying Logic: Current Reality Tree](https://docs.flyinglogic.com/thinking-with-flying-logic/current-reality-tree)
## UDEs: UDEs capture
Expected artifact: UDE list
Is every UDE verifiably observed?
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is every UDE verifiably observed?
## Causal chains: Causal chains
Expected artifact: Causal skeleton
Are the named conditions sufficient for the effect?
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are the named conditions sufficient for the effect?
## Logic review: Check logic
Expected artifact: Reviewed logic
Does the link withstand a concrete counterexample?
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the link withstand a concrete counterexample?
## Core causes: Examine common driver
Expected artifact: Change focus
Does the driver explain multiple UDEs through checked paths?
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the driver explain multiple UDEs through checked paths?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/current-reality-tree/run-sheet
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](https://learningcenter.tocico.org/courses/0-to-60-introduction-to-the-thinking-processes-tp)
## 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