Tool update - Gliffy.com

Just wanted to share that I'm working on my first TP project and I came across this web site that offers a Visio-like, web based, tool. All I had to do was register and start working. The tool is easy to use, for some reason I find it a bit less frustrating than Visio and, graphically speaking, the results are great.
The free account lets you hold up to 5 public diagrams on the server. So if you need more diagrams or privacy you'll have to pay a monthly fee and upgrade. I'm still in my 30 days trial so I can define documents as private. Another great feature is the ability to collaborate with others as you build your diagram. The site sends them a link to connect and they can edit the document as well.
There are no TOC specific abilities, of course, but if you are not ready to commit or know you'll just need a tree here and there it seems like a great tool. Here's an example of how it looks:

Of course I could have taken on  Flying Logic's 30 days trial (I reported on the TP training in their tutorial here) but I don't feel ready for that commitment. At the end of that trial period I'll have to make up my mind - pay or leave and I am not expecting enough TP work in the coming weeks to support that decision, so a TP supporting tool will just have to wait and I'll just have to work a bit more. If you decide to purchase  check it out in Amazon.

Using a simple problem to demonstrate the TP

Looking through my blog's statistics, it is very clear that Thinking Process is the most interesting topic for people. I know it is the part of TOC I found the most mystifying. So I did a bit more web digging and found this little gem in a site filled with TOC examples – a simple example of all the steps of the thinking process. This example takes a very very simple problem and runs it through all the steps. Now we are talking a very simple problem (did I mention the problem is simple?), so putting it through the full TP process seams silly and at first leaves the impression that somebody really lost their common sense and any sense of proportion at the same time. Yet once I have gone through it I immediately had those lovely "A-Ha" moments when everything just clicks in place AND I finally figures out what's a transition tree. So I have to hand it to whoever did all the hard work setting up all those trees – Great Job!

I do want to warn you that some things, though, didn’t work so well, this being a very simple problem (I'm starting to feel like a broken record). First, the use of the Three Cloud Technique (which, by the way has you write 4 clouds; 3 from the UDEs and a generalized one), in this example this step is totally redundant and all 4 clouds ended up being virtually the same cloud with slightly different wording. Second, although once the general cloud was ready, you can easily understand how it was turned into the CRT this CRT has no root cause in it since it starts with the common goal and builds up from it. This CRT basically explores what is the expected reality if we choose to implement only one side of the conflict or the other. Third, the FRT is built from an injection defined in the general cloud phase and is very simply the CRT's negative. This feels way too simplistic and is probably not representative of the way the CRT and FRT will look and feel when using this process on a complex problem.

Hope you find this helpful and I'd be glad to know what you think.