Recognizing that you are drawing conclusions based on an underlying process can be extremely helpful in clarifying your real message. People frequently make lists of conclusions that allude to rather than state the points they are actually trying to make, as in this example:

Business definition.

1. Relies heavily on creative processes

- Demand segmentation

- Supply segmentation

2. Changes over time

-Early vs late stages of life cycle

-Competitive dynamics

3. Is not necessarily unique in a given industry

4. Influenced by marketer’s own strength vs. competition

Even though there is no point at the top of this grouping, it is easy to assume that the set of points has a message, since the language is understandable and each of the four ideas presented makes sense individually. But if you specifically try to justify the order of the points (first you segment, then you respond to change, then you assess your position) you can see the message is something to do with how you define a business, and you will thus be able to determine a clearer way to get it across:

Defining what business you are in requires careful analysis:

1. To identify market segments

2. To assess your competitive position in each segment

3. To track changes in position over time

The author can now make a reasoned judgment as to whether he has omitted any of the steps required to define a business. In this case the steps are probably complete, but the act of forcing your thinking back to its source does lead you to know the questions to ask to check someone else's thinking. To illustrate, suppose one of your people come to you and said, “Here is what l intend to say at the presentation tomorrow. Is it okay?”

The tradition focus of investment evaluation--comparing future returns and probable costs

1. Is often technically unsound

2. Rests on simplistic concepts

3. Results in misleading prescriptions

If you look immediately for order, you can see that time order might have been in the back of his mind, with the last point going on top because it is the effect of the other two actions:

The traditional focus of investment evaluation results in misleading prescriptions

1. It rests on simplistic concepts

2. It is often technically unsound

However to go front the first grouping to the second, you will have had to visualize the process that served as the source of the grouping.

You can now see that the author makes a comment on the first and second steps in the process, but not on the third. He may not have made a comment on the third (a) because there is nothing wrong with the way they apply the technique or (b) because he forgot. The likelihood is he forgot. But you as the person checking the thinking would know to ask, "Is there anything wrong with the way they apply the technique?" because you would have traced the thinking back to its source.

Sometimes you will find that time order is imposed on an existing structure, so that the structure itself dictates the number and sequence of steps. To that end let's look at structural order.