• Can the IFR equal zero while still maintaining supersystem ideality and value?
  • If the answer is yes, then the best solution is to proceed to implement
  • If no, then proceed to test two AND three

• Is the current output A greater than or equal to the required output R as well as any problems P or harms H of achieving the required output?
  • If yes, then the current output A remains intact, and, precautions are necessary to ensure A is not negatively affected by any proposed system change (reduce output or introduce new problems or harms)
  • If no, then identify the change (delta) necessary for A to be equal to or greater than the required output taking any problems or harms into account. Identify the characteristic zone and team system characteristics impacted and proceed to test three.

• Are the current benefits B greater than or equal to the cost C of the benefits?
  • If yes for either, then the current benefits B and/or cost C remains intact, and, precautions are necessary to ensure B and/or C is not negatively affected by any proposed system change
  • If no for either, then identify the change (delta) necessary for B to be equal to or greater than the costs. This can be a delta to B or C or both. Identify the characteristic zone and team system characteristics impacted and proceed to the solution analysis.

The analysis in steps two and/or three will have produced a necessary delta, representing the change required to produce a change within a team system. The delta will be specific to a zone and have identified team characteristics to improve and to protect.

The next step is to analyze this information and develop a proposed solution. The change necessary could be small or it could be large; it could be simple, or it could be extraordinarily complex. When contemplating change, it is important to conceptualize the order of magnitude necessary to bring the system test back into balance and to implement the delta successfully with the correct level of impact.

There are five levels of solutions, TSoT solutioning is not necessary or applicable for all levels of problems.

• Level One: Routine Solution––straightforward design. This is the utilization of one or a small number of existing roles across one or a small number of zones without necessary consideration of other team system zones or a larger supersystem impacts. Routine problems solved by routine methods well known within a specialty. Little or no TSoT analysis is needed in these cases.
• Level Two: Simple Solution––minor improvement needed to an already well-functioning team. This is the analysis of an existing role inside a system largely rearranging existing tools and choosing one known type of solution out of several. TSoTcan be used for this type of analysis if you suspect that a more innovative approach can be obtained or if you suspect that there are broader considerations that may be obstructing further opportunities for broad system improvements or supersystem innovations.
• Level Three: System-Wide Contradiction, Multiple Contradictions––difficult design, process, and team contradictions. This is the need for fundamental improvements to multiple teamsystems using methods outside of a single team’s control, where multiple potentially conflicting viewpoints and possibilities exist. This is an area where TSoT analysis provides additional viewpoints and analysis so that all parties can understand solution options.
• Level Four: Difficult System Design Problems––new roles to perform primary functions, the need for new team systemor substantial possible additional supersystems, or the complete modification of a role, system, or supersystem. TSoT provides innovative prodding at this level and transitions from a direct solutions framework to an opportunity identification toolkit.
• Level Five: Requiring New Tools That Do Not Exist in the Current Supersystem––development of a completely new complex supersystem. TSoTcan be used as part of concept development here; however, it may not be a good fit unless its tools can be used to transition from specific technical considerations to strategic and directional considerations.

In many situations where there are contradictions, the typical approach is to weigh the positive and negative outcomes of a course of action and choose the actions that result in the most positive benefits with the least negative consequences. Instead of a series of trade-offs that improve one part of a system and negatively impact another part, the use of the solution algorithm and corresponding solutions within TSoT is meant to resolve the contradiction in order to advance the overall system.

An expert TSoT analyst is capable of abstract, imaginative, and analytical thinking as well as utilizing logic based on knowledge. Use of TSoT concepts and steps results in better control of mental processes and an increasingly stronger methodology for developing team system solutions and paths based on experience and practice.