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.

sts-entities-04.jpg

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

bob_dobbs.jpg

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:

sts-framework.jpg

  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:

sts-entities-02.jpg

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.

Structured Thinking System: Attributes and Constraints

A wise man will make more opportunities than he finds.
Sir Francis Bacon

One of my regular readers has asked me to put Lao-Tzu aside and tighten up my language. Since he is a Director of Emergency Management for a metropolitian area, I can understand his requirement for clarity and brevity. So I will put away my gong and see what I can do regarding what he says. He also asked me if I intend to use this concept and I want to make it clear that I will be the first to use it and I will use it until it works smoothly before putting anyone else at risk.

Another question that has come up is my continual tinkering with the terminology. I am doing so because the semantics are crucial to understanding this concept. I have found so far that wrestling with the terms reveals new layers of the concept I hadn’t seen before. For example, I have to distinguish between induction and deduction using a consistent terminology. This is not always obvious at first and requires several interations of refinement. I also wish to create a set of terms that are easy to remember. For example, I have been attempting to find a six letter word that starts with “RE” and means “trust”. Quite accidentally I came upon the term “REPOSE” and will be incorporating it into the vocabulary.

Anyone who has been following the full thread of this blog has probably discovered one of the underlying conclusions I have reached regarding the variety of Hexads I have created and explored. That conclusion is that the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework is a Cartesian Square. I also believe that the Structured Thinking System Entities are a Cartesian square. And now I am faced with the challenge of using the verb REPORT to create the attributes for the thirty-six Structured Thinking System entities.

Here is the latest version of the Structured Thinking System Entities:

sts-entities-01.jpg

I have already concluded the REPORT verb works with only six attributes:

  1. Motive
  2. Person
  3. Method
  4. Object
  5. Locale
  6. Moment

The RECORD verb is constrained to only six values per attribute:

  1. Motive: Reality, Unity, Quality, Quantity, Safety, Remedy
  2. Person: Creator, Leader, Master, Novice, Guide, Contact
  3. Method: Revise, Relate, Report, Record, Repose, Replace
  4. Object: Motive, Person, Method, Object, Locale, Moment
  5. Locale: Universal, Global, Official, Collegial, Habitual, Physical
  6. Moment: Year, Month, Day, Hour, Minute, Second

One of each of these attribute values are captured by the RECORD verb to define a Structured Thinking System entity’s state. The Structured Thinking System relationships define which of the states can be assigned according to the hierarchy.

Related Posts:

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links

Structured Thinking System: Relationships

In the last post, Structured Thinking System: Entities, I laid out the the thirty-six fundamental entities of the Structured Thinking System. In this post I will discuss the relationships between these entities.

sts-entities.jpg

The relationships in the Structured Thinking System are a recursive hierarchy both vertically and horizontally. What I mean by this is each column is a series of one to many relationships proceeding down the column and the bottom most entity has a one to many relationship to the top most entity in the column. The same applies to the rows. Each row is a series of one to many relationships proceeding from left to right across the row and the rightmost entity has a one to many relationship to the left most entity in the row. For example, in the Green Coat (motive) column one Verity has many Unities, one Unity has many Qualities, one Quality has many Quantities, one Quantity has many Safeties, one Safety has many Reliefs and one Relief has many Verities. In the same way, one Verity has many Creators, on Creator has many Motives, one Motive has many Creates, one Create has many Universes, one Universe has many Years and one Year has many Verities.

The reason for such a structure is due to the nature of “centrisism” in system design. Although the Structured Thinking System always starts with Verity as the central concept of the system’s design it is possible for other centrisms to exist. It is equally possible for a Leader centric design, an Object centric design or a Moment centric design. Note how the center can move not only horizontally, but vertically, however the direction of the one to many hierarchical relationships remain the same.

Structured Thinking System: Entities

When a thing has been said and well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it.
Anatole France

Here is the final version of the STS Entities:

sts-entities.jpg

And here are the STS Entities abstracted:

sts-abstract.jpg

So what have I accomplished? What I have done is defined the six fundamental motives (Green Coat column), the six fundamental personas (Blue Coat column), the six fundamental objects (White Coat column), the six fundamental methods (Yellow Coat column) , the six fundamental locales (Black Coat column) and the six fundamental moments (Red Coat column) of the human experience. These are the entities of the Structured Thinking System. Alternatively, I have defined the six focuses of the creativity perspective (Green Hat row), the six focuses of the relativity perspective (Blue Hat row), the six focuses of the objectivity perspective (White Hat row), the six focuses of the optimicity perspective (Yellow Hat row), the six focuses of the pessimicity perspective (Black Hat row) and the six focuses of the intuitivity perspective (Red Hat row).

Don’t expect to understand this post without at least visiting these Related Links:

Structured Thinking System: Persons

He who knows others is wise.
He who knows himself is enlightened.

Lao Tzu

sts-entities.jpg

The PERSON column: Creator, Leader, Master, Novice, Guide, Contact.

Creator is defined as “A person who makes reality”. The second person is Leader which I define as “A person who unites in purpose.” The third person is Master which I define as “A person who has mastered a discipline”. The fourth person is Novice “A person who is an apprentice to a master”. The fifth person is Guide which is defined “A person who to assists in travel through, or to reach a destination in, an unfamiliar area, as by accompanying or giving directions”. The sixth motive is Contact which I define as “A person who recognizes existence”. One Creator has many Leaders; one Leader has many Masters; one Master has many Novices, one Novice has many Guides; one Guide has many Contacts and one Contact has many Creators.

In Summary:

  1. CREATOR refers to the Moral Law maker.
  2. LEADER refers to the Command maker.
  3. MASTER refers to the Discipline maker.
  4. NOVICE refers to the Training maker.
  5. GUIDE refers to the Terrain maker.
  6. CONTACT refers to the Climate maker.

If you are following this thread, you probably notice the names of the cells changing. I am working toward a finished product. Each post is a phase toward completion.

Related Links:

 

Implicity and Explicity

Nothing can be so amusingly arrogant
as a young man who has just discovered an old idea
and thinks it is his own.
Sidney J. Harris

By now I think I have established the legitimacy of the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework and I am presenting it here in what I am going to consider its final form:

zachmanframeworkabstract03.jpg

Every notational technique is a combination of two or more of the Six Coats. What we are working toward ultimately is a language to interrelate all Six Hats and Six Coats at once.

In this post I want to think about the terms “implicit” and “explicit” and how they relate to the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework. For the purpose of this framework implicit is defined as unchanging and invisible; explicit is defined as changing and visible.

Every entity, relationship, attribute, constraint, definition and manipulation has an implicit and explicit name. As well, every motive, locale, object, method, person and event has an implicit and explicit name. An implicit name is unique and once assigned cannot be changed. An explicit name is unique, but it can be changed. The implicit name is not visible to the user. The explicit name is visible to the user.

An entity which contains its own primary key is an implicit entity. An entity which contains a key from another entity in its primary key is an explicit entity.

A relationship that connects one entity’s primary key as part of the attributes of another entity is an implicit relationship. A relationship that connects one entity’s primary key as part of another entity’s primary key is an explicit relationship.

If the primary key is never made visible to the user and cannot be changed it is an implicit primary key. If the primary key is visible and can be changed as long as it is unique it is an explicit primary key.

Attributes that are foreign keys are implicit attributes. Attributes that are non-key are explicit attributes.

Constraints are implicit when they are data listed in a foreign entity. Constraints are explicit when they are a datatype.

Definitions are implicit when they protect explicit child tables. Definitions are explicit when they cascade manipulations.

Implicit manipulations maintain an audit trail. Explicit manipulations do not maintain an audit trail.

So, what is the purpose of implicity and explicity? Primarily it is strength and flexibility. Implicit design results in rigid, but more integral systems. Explicit design results in flexible, but less complete systems. For example, in an office you have work to rule, which is implicit, and work to allow, which is explicit. Ultimately, in dealing with implicity and explicity it is best to strike a balance. No system is fully normalized or fully exceptionalized. It is necessary to allow for both normality and exceptions as no system is fully closed or fully open.

Implicity and Explicity