Systema: Zachman Synonyms

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.


Systema: Off with the Hats, Off with the Coats

In having attempted to think with the Six Thinking Hats metaphor developed by Edward de Bono and attemping to extend it by creating a Six Coat metaphor, I came to the conclusion that Edward was taking the wrong approach. He was using different colors, but he was not differentiating by shape. Consequently, his mnemonic device was hard to retain.

Using the icons I created in the previous post I am now going to abandon Six Hats, Six Coats and abstract the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture using these new mnemonic devices. I hope to improve them with time.


What is not recognized by John Zachman and Enterprise Architects is that the rows and columns of the framework are synonymous and fixed. That indeed there is only one methodology. This means the following:

  1. All concepts are created only by motives. Each motive has a unique set of the six focus concepts or entities.
  2. All contexts are created only by people. Each person has a unique set of the six focus contexts or relationships.
  3. All logics are created only by functions. Each function has a unique set of the six focus logics or attributes.
  4. All physics are created only by data. Each datum has a unique set of the six focus physics or constraints.
  5. All spherics are created only by nodes. Each node has a unique set of the six focus spherics or definitions.
  6. All episodics are created only by events. Each event has a uniques set of the six focus episodics or manipulations.

This is what social networks are teaching us on a smaller scale. When we look at a social network we are seeing contexts being created by persons. But there are five additional focuses (motives, functions, data, nodes, events) that create five additional perspectives (concepts, logics, physics, spherics and episodics) respectively. This we do not fully understand or apply.

Although our thinking is organic and we do not recognize the above framework, any reproduction and refinement of the results would require recording and executing them in this disciplined fashion.

Systema: The Seventh Hat


I didn’t expect it, but I had an epiphany regarding the Six Hats, Six Coats concept. Basically I realized the focuses (columns) of the Zachman framework do not necessarily have to be within the confines of a computer system. It suddenly became obvious that a media perspective (row) had to be added to the framework to account for non-computer media.

The result is the following diagram:


The implication is a greater flexibility for system specifications.

Related Posts:

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links

Six Hats, Six Coats: The Structured Thinking System

Thought I would take a moment to briefly review how far we have come.

First, we looked at a variety of tetrads.

Here is James Moffett’s Universe of Discourse:

We concluded that human systems are hexads and we arrived at the Six Hat, Six Coat Framework:

Next, we will look at the Entities, Relationships, Attributes and Constraints within the framework.

Defining the Six Hat, Six Coat Entities has been very much like defining a periodic table. I have had to suspend my own biases many times to align myself with the concepts the Cartesian product were revealing to me.

I have stated that the relationships between entities are one to many left to right and one to many top to bottom. John Zachman believes the structure is like a table with movable columns. I do not. I believe the framework and the entities are fixed in a hierarchy implicitly. However, explicit relationships can exist contrary to this fundamental structure.

We have also explored the attributes for each of the entities and their constraints/freedoms. I provided an alternate set of names: Morality (cause), Compatibility (observer), Reliability (energy), Fidelity (matter), Accessibility (space)  and Availability (time).

I will be coming back to the Structured Thinking Language and experiment further.

Related Posts:

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links

Structured Thinking System: Entities R0.3

 I have again revised the STS Entities.  I have added headers to the columns and rows.  Note name changes for entities: Regularity, Regular, Regulate and Chronal.


When I talk of “regularity” I am referring to addressing physiological needs on a routine basis.  I am also referring to sensitivity and response to any interospective or exterospective irregularities.

Structured Thinking System: Entities R0.2


Just when I thought I was in a comfort zone I had an interesting discussion with Bob Dobbs, former archivist for Marshall McLuhan. Bob challenged some of my perspectives and in responding it became apparent to me that I could still abstract the Structured Thinking Framework further.

Here is the Hats and Coats Framework:


  1. REVISE: Create. Conceptualize. Capability.
  2. RELATE: Associate. Contextualize. Portability.
  3. REPORT: Attribute. Logicalize. Reliability.
  4. RECORD: Constrain. Physicalize. Profitability.
  5. REPOSE: Entrust. Localize. Accessibility.
  6. REFER: Coincide. Synchronize. Availability.
  1. CAUSE: Motive. Conscience. Moral Law.
  2. OBSERVER: Person. Governance. Command.
  3. ENERGY: Method. Profession. Discipline.
  4. MATTER: Object. Education. Training.
  5. SPACE: Locale. Residence. Terrain.
  6. TIME: Moment. Existence. Climate.

And here is the new release of the Structured Thinking System entities:


I like this because it drops all references to computer systems and object oriented languages. The system is considerably more generic.

Fundamental Freedoms

I’ve been working on understanding where the attributes and constraints are taking me and I today was thinking about motives.

Reality: Freedom of Conscience. Congregation. Conviction. Religion.
Unity: Freedom of Government. Assembly. Election. Candidacy. Vote.
Quality: Freedom of Profession. Incorporation. Commerce. Production. Trade. Service.
Quantity: Freedom of Education. Association. Communication. Speech. Information. Media.
Safety: Freedom of Residence. Family. Posession. Property. Privacy. Mobility.
Remedy: Freedom of Existence. Life. Liberty. Pursuit of Happiness.

For every state a Structured Thinking System entity has, one of these six motives in effect.