Evaporating Cloud
The Evaporating Cloud is a five-box logic diagram for resolving a conflict between two opposing actions, one of the thinking processes of Eliyahu M. Goldratt's Theory of Constraints. A common objective (A) requires two needs (B and C), each need appears to demand a want (D and D'), and the two wants cannot both be had. The group writes out the assumptions behind every arrow and looks for one that does not hold, so that the conflict dissolves in a solution serving both needs instead of a compromise.
Facilitation script
- 1
State the conflict in neutral words, draw the five boxes and fill in D and D' with the two opposing wants as the parties themselves phrase them.
10 min - 2
Find the need behind each want and write B and C. Check each wording with the party it belongs to.
10 min - 3
Find the common objective A that both needs serve and that both parties sign up to.
10 min - 4
Read the whole diagram aloud in 'in order to... we must...' form and fix any sentence that sounds wrong.
10 min - 5
Surface assumptions for each arrow on sticky notes, several per arrow, without evaluating them.
15 min - 6
Go through the assumptions, mark those that are doubtful, and develop one or more actions that meet both needs.
15 min - 7
Test the preferred solution for unwanted side effects and agree owners, next steps and how others will be informed.
10 min
Tips
Spend real time on B and C.
If each party recognises its own need in the wording, most of the heat leaves the room, because the argument shifts from who is right to which assumption is wrong.
Write the needs as conditions, not as actions, or they become a restatement of D and D'.
Collect many assumptions per arrow before judging any, since the one that breaks the conflict is rarely the first written down.
Common pitfalls
Writing positions into B and C. If the need is just the want in other words, no assumption between them can be challenged and the conflict stays intact
Choosing an objective so broad that it means nothing, such as 'company success'. The parties nod and the diagram gives the group nothing to work with
Skipping the read-aloud check. Faulty logic stays hidden and the group later attacks assumptions under arrows that were never valid
Settling for a compromise that gives each side half. That is the outcome the tool exists to avoid, and both needs remain partly unmet
Letting one party build the cloud for both. The other side does not recognise its need in the wording and rejects the result
Variations
The diagram can be built by one person to think through a personal dilemma, by two parties with a neutral facilitator, or by a team facing a trade-off everyone treats as fixed. When emotions run high, build the cloud with each party separately and bring the two versions together afterwards. Online, a five-box template on a shared board with sticky notes for assumptions works well. H. William Dettmer's term for the same tool is Conflict Resolution Diagram.
Where it fits
When to use it
Two parties each want something reasonable and the two actions exclude each other
The same argument returns in every planning round and has only ever been settled by compromise
Both sides can be brought to agree that they serve the same overall objective
A team treats a trade-off such as speed against quality as a law of nature and you want to test it
One person is stuck in a dilemma and needs to think it through with a coach or colleague
When not to use it
The conflict is about relationship, trust or past hurt. Logic boxes will not reach it, so use mediation or Non-Violent Communication first
The parties do not share an objective. Without a believable box A the diagram cannot be built, and an interest-based negotiation is more honest
There are more than two positions. The cloud handles one pair at a time, so break the issue into pairs or use a different mapping method
A quick preference check among options is enough. Dot Voting or a decision matrix takes minutes
One side holds all the power and has no intention of changing course. The exercise will be experienced as theatre
Related methods
Frequently asked questions
What is Evaporating Cloud?▾
The Evaporating Cloud is a diagram from the Theory of Constraints for resolving a conflict between two opposing actions. Five boxes show a common objective, the two needs it requires and the two conflicting wants that seem to follow from them. By exposing and challenging the assumptions that link the boxes, the group looks for a solution that satisfies both needs.
Why is it called the Evaporating Cloud?▾
According to Lisa Scheinkopf's book Thinking for a Change, the name refers to Richard Bach's 1977 novel Illusions, in which characters make storm clouds disappear by thinking them away. The idea is that a conflict can vanish in the same way once a false assumption beneath it is found. The tool is also called the cloud or the conflict resolution diagram.
What do the letters A, B, C, D and D' mean?▾
A is the objective both sides share. B and C are the two needs that must be met to reach it. D and D' are the wants or actions each side believes its need requires, and these two are in direct conflict.
How is this different from finding a compromise?▾
A compromise leaves the conflict in place and splits the difference, so each need is only partly met. The Evaporating Cloud assumes that at least one link in the logic rests on an assumption that is wrong or can be changed. Removing that assumption makes one of the conflicting actions unnecessary, so both needs can be met in full.
Do you need training in the Theory of Constraints to use it?▾
No, but it takes practice. The structure is simple, while wording the needs and surfacing assumptions well is a skill, which is why the method is rated advanced here. Try it first on a low-stakes dilemma of your own before facilitating it between two parties.
Plan your next workshop with AI
Workshop Weaver helps you combine methods like Evaporating Cloud into a complete, timed agenda in minutes.
Try it freeMethod descriptions on Workshop Weaver are original content written by our team, based on established facilitation practices. This method was inspired by work from Eliyahu M. Goldratt, Theory of Constraints.