Universe: Interrogative Spaces


In my previous post I gave thought to Tim Brown of IDEO’s “design thinking”, Clayton Christensen’s “Innovator’s Dilemma”, Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point”, and Buckminster Fuller’s “Synergetics” concepts.  What emerged was the above Czerepak Framework.  My claim is this framework is fundamental to designing a system.

The thing that the above table shows is interaction within what I am now going to call the “Interrogative Spaces”: HowSpace, WhatSpace, WhySpace, WhoSpace, WhenSpace, WhereSpace, HowMuchSpace, HowManySpace.  Each ellipse I call a “vortice”.  The Interrogative Spaces are composed of one or more vortices.  The Framework above shows how Spaces are composed within the Interrogatives,  but what about interactions between the Interrogative Spaces?   A good example is speed or velocity.  Speed is the intersection of WhenSpace and WhereSpace:

v = r / t

Where v is velocity, r is radius and t is time.

If you are increasing Speed, which is acceleration, you have one dimension of WhereSpace and two dimensions of WhenSpace:

a = r / t’ * t”

Where a is acceleration, r is radius, t’ is the first clock and t” is the second clock.  You cannot measure acceleration with one clock. This uniqueness of every vortice applies to all the Interrogative Spaces and all inter-relationships between all of the Spaces.  .

Another way to look at the Interrogative Spaces is as sets and subsets.  The first row are the complete Space vortice sets.  The second row are the first Space vortice subsets.  The third row is the intersect between the row two and row three Space vortice subsets. And the fourth row are the intersects between the row two and row three and row four Space vortice subsets.

I do not believe that anything is constant.  Not the speed of light, not gravity, not cosmology.  Every intersection of dimensions creates a vortex in Universe and every one is unique.  We are simply unable to measure and manage the uniqueness of everything, therefore we make generalizations which create models that can always be falsified.


The Innovator’s (and SQL’s) Dilemma

Let’s look at Christensen’s four marketing issues again:

  1. Availability
  2. Compatibility
  3. Reliability
  4. Economy

How can this be correlated with SQL? First, data availability is determined by the SELECT statement. You query the database to determine if data that meets search criteria exists. Second, data compatibility is determined by the INSERT statement. Data is accepted if it is within the database structure’s definition. Third, data reliability is determined by the UPDATE statement. Data has to change as the database’s state changes to continue to meet the database’s objectives. Finally, data economy is determined by the DELETE statement. Data that is no longer of use can be removed from the database to free up available resources to achieve cost effectiveness.

  1. Select
  2. Insert
  3. Update
  4. Delete

Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma tetrad has provided us with another viewpoint on the SQL tetrad.

The Innovator’s (and Zachman’s) Dilemma


Clayton M. Christensen wrote The Innovator’s Dilemma almost a decade ago, but the insight his book provides is classic. Christensen’s research into the disk drive industry lead him to discover four categories of competition:

  1. Availability
  2. Compatibility
  3. Reliability
  4. Economy

Availability answered the question: Can it be done? Compatibility answered the question: Can it be done for me? Reliability answered the question: Can it be done when I need it done? Economy answered the question: Can it be done at the lowest price? The greater the number of customers you can respond to with a “Yes” answer the broader your market. However, your smart competition is looking for the niches you are responding “No” to.

When I look at these four categories I am brought back to John Zachman’s perspectives in the Zachman Framework. These same questions are posed when developing any system:

  1. Conceptual
  2. Contextual
  3. Logical
  4. Physical

The conceputal perspective answers: Can it be done? The contextual perspective answers: Can it be done by us? The logical perspective answers: Can it be routinized? The physical perspective answers: What is the lowest cost to do it? And these questions are asked for each of the focuses (People, Data, Network, Time, Functions and Motives).

So what Christensen really achieves is to provide a substantiation of his tetrad, and consequently Zachman’s, through a solid body of historical data.