These buttons represent the networks that can exist.
For background go to the following link:
I came up with this representation of de Bono’s “Six Thinking Hats” and Zachman’s “Framework Focuses” early in this blog’s lifetime. I am hoping I have achieved the final form as we see it here. The major change is the switch between the last two rows and the switch between the last two columns. I consider this structure a fixed hierarchy both vertically and horizontally.
As part of my reflection upon this I created a table to think about the various hexads I’ve encountered:
One thing I realize from this exercise is that events are the definitions of the system. If you do not define an event you will never observe it. In other words, you cannot see what you are not looking for. Nodes are the instances of the system and provide the affordances the outside world can manipulate.
You can also see here that I have categorized cause, energy and time as “logical” and observer, mass and space as “physical”. I am just playing here, but what are the potential implications? Could cause, energy and time be simply logical constructs? Could observer, mass and space be the only truly physical constructs?
In many early posts in this blog I was looking for different fits of different conceptual groups. Tonight after wracking my brains into the wee hours some of the conceptual sets began to fit. And fit very well.
The first column represents the six entity relationships and my extended James Moffat Speaker Audience relationships. The second column represents the Zachman Framework Focuses. The third column represents the Zachman Framework Perspectives. The fourth column represents the Galilei/Newton/Einstein equation. The fifth column represent my extended James Moffatt Time Contexts. The sixth column represents my terms for Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats. The seventh column represents the Associative Structure of the six entity relationships.
The rows in the table represent the synonyms across the conceptual sets. I will leave you free to reflect on the implications.
After going over the system models in an earlier post I had to revise my thinking and conclude that the Structured Thinking Lifecycle takes on the following character:
What this reveals is the lifecycle of a system is about communication. It also reveals that the Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor is actually a continuum from Repeating Moments to Revising Motives for induction and from Revising Motives to Repeating Moments for deduction.
This is Edward de Bono’s wisdom: “Analyze the Past, Design the Future”. That is all there is to communication. Listening is inductive; speaking is deductive.
Think about this from the perspective of the DIKW hierarchy:
Since I created the Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor I have made several modifications to the language used. It has lead me to come up with what I call the Structured Thinking Language (STL). I am working on the syntax and will discuss this in later posts. The one term I want to draw attention to in this post is in the left column, the new verb “INTUIT”.
I have chosen the verb “INTUIT” first, because of Edward de Bono’s inspiring six thinking hats, second because I do not like the verb “develop”. To intuit is in part to provide the materials and know how to build the system based on the result of the REDUCE statement. The other part is consideration of the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, social customs and beliefs of the users to create affordances. The use of the term “affordance” is much broader than and includes Donald A. Norman’s usage in The Design of Everyday Things. In STL an “affordance” is synonymous to the Zachman Framework’s “focus”. A complete system is composed of motivational, spatial, formal, functional, personal and temporal affordances which are complete intuitively designed subsystems including the appropriate intuitive cues. I want to use a word that implies not only developing, but developing with the REDUCE result and the intuition of persons who interact with the system as primary considerations.
I do not disagree with these six hats. I tip my hat to de Bono. However, I feel that de Bono made a few mistakes. I am going to coin my own Six Hats:
The Conceptual hat is Creativity. The Contextual hat is Compatibility. The Logical hat is Reliability. The Physical hat is Economy. The Mechanical hat is Intuitivity. The Operational hat is Actuality. These are your six Perspectives.
Now, here is where I extend de Bono’s concept. This extension I call the Six Coats:
The Motivational coat is Goals. The Spatial coat is Networks. The Formal coat is Data. The Functional coat is Processes. The Personal coat is People. The Temporal coat is Time. These coats are your six Focuses.
Together, you take your hats and coats and wear them in a set order to get a project done. You start at the top and proceed left to right, row by row, to the bottom. This takes a chaos of perspectives and focuses and turns them into a methodology:
You may notice that the colors of the hats and coats complement each other. This is intentional:
If you follow my blog you will see that my definitions are evolving. This is to be expected as I am learning between and during every post. I hope you enjoy the process with me.
To see a more recent version of the Six Hats, Six Coats model Click Here.