Systema: Whyever? Part 3

270px-extensive_form_game_1.jpg

Considering the definition of strategy that I have adopted in part 2 of this discussion, I also want to adopt a new definition for “tactics” and “operations”. The definitions would be as follows:

goals: the beginning, intermediate and terminal states of a system.

rules: the navigational and non-navigational processes relating goals.

strategy: a single path to a terminal goal observing the rules.

motivation: the complete set of strategies for a system.

tactics: the actual path followed during an actual session by a user or users.

Note: I have changed the definition of operation and added result based on the comment by Rita Heinlein. – relationary

operation: the actual non-navigational rule with parameters found in a tactical path.

result: the actual goal state achieved by an operation found in a tactical path.

With all the above considered I would suggest that information architecture be renamed to motivational modeling.

Advertisements

Systema: Whyever? Part 2

270px-extensive_form_game_1.jpg

Part 1 is here.

strategy (n)

4. a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.

goal (n)

1.the result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end.

rule (n)

1. a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.: the rules of chess.

An extensive form game is a specification of a game in game theory. This form represents the game as a tree. Each node (called a decision node) represents every possible state of play of the game as it is played. Play begins at a unique initial node, and flows through the tree along a path determined by the players until a terminal node is reached, where play ends and payoffs are assigned to all players. Each non-terminal node belongs to a player; that player chooses among the possible moves at that node, each possible move is an edge leading from that node to another node.

It should be noted that even in a game with a finite number of moves (steps) there are generally countless strategies (paths).

Looking at the Extensive Form diagram above and considering the definitions, we can see that the game above has two players: 1 and 2. The numbers by every non-terminal node indicate to which player that decision node belongs. The numbers by every terminal node represent the payoffs to the players (e.g. 2,1 represents a payoff of 2 to player 1 and a payoff of 1 to player 2). The labels by every edge of the graph are the name of the action that that edge represents.

I would like to play with the terminology. I would call the nodes “goals”, I would call the edges “rules” and the paths I would call “strategies”. Goals are actually states of the system and the rules are actually processes. Thinking about it this way makes me think of information architecture and website architecture. Browsing and navigation in this case becomes a one player strategy where the website provides the goals and rule set. However, the design process of the system is to determine the goal set and rule set of the player and provide a “natural” or even more optimal set of strategies for the user to follow.

Part 3 is here.

Systema: Whyever? Part 1

270px-extensive_form_game_1.jpg

Over the past few weeks I have been reflecting on the concept of a Business Motivation Model and have thought about it in the context of physics as “cause”. The Business Rules Group attempted to create a Business Motivation Model, but I came to the conclusion they have failed. When they should have been attempting to create a notational system, they instead came up with a generalized business model.

The purpose of the “Why” focus in the Zachman Framework and correspondingly the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework, is to gauge the order of the system. The Green Hat row and Green Coat Column describe how legalistic the system is–how many causes a system contains.

The best way to think about the causality of a system is not business rules, but game theory. In particular, causality as a three dimensional network relating strategies. A good Business Motivation Model notation would allow the modeler to represent the strategies of all parties, how they interact and the expected outcomes. The Extensive Form Game notation is a good start but I think with some work I could come up with something better.

Part 2 here.

Related Posts:

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links

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:

Six Hats, Six Coats and Knowledge Management

I was passed this link to a free Knowledge Management Course by a friend today.

I gave the entire course a read (it is not that long) and concluded that there was only one thing that the course covered that is not covered by the Six Hats, Six Coats as it has been explained so far. The issue is valuation, how do we know the cost/benefit of any fact. Otherwise, the authors wave the term “knowledge” around with little restraint to the point of its being meaningless. If they had it their way, everything would be knowledge. (I’ve been known to rant that everything is objects.)

zachmanframeworkabstract03.jpg

To perform valuation of the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework, facts are each of the Six Coats columns: Motive, Locale, Object, Method, Person and Moment. Each of these can be reduced to their atomic granularity at the Blue Hat perspective row. One additional row can be added to the bottom, which is the benefit per manipulation. Each of the Six Hats is a row and can be accumulated in a seventh column, which is the cost per perspective. Each cell of the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework has a cost when it is created, but the benefit accumulates with each manipulation of its column at the Blue Hat level and is rolled up to the appropriate cell.

The rest of the Knowledge Management concepts are covered by the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework.

The Six Hats, Six Coats Framework provides not only knowledge. The Six Hats provide:

  1. Green Hat: Wisdom. Conceptualization. Creativity.
  2. Yellow Hat: Knowledge. Contextualization. Relativity.
  3. White Hat: Information. Logicalization. Optimicity.
  4. Black Hat: Data. Physicalization. Pessimicity.
  5. Red Hat: Regulation. Humanization. Anthropicity.
  6. Blue Hat: Conduction. Detectors and Effectors. Synchronicity.

The Six Hats, Six Coats Framework gives a clear definition of knowledge. Meta-Knowledge is the modeled relationships between the each of the entities within a system. This is the entity relationship diagrams for the facts. Knowledge is the actual references between each of the instances within a system. This is the actual database containing the facts. A rule relationship model, a node relationship model, a data relationship model, a function relationship model, a person relationship model and an event relationship model are meta-knowledge. Rule instance references, node instance references, data instance references, function instance references, person instance references and event instance references are knowledge.

“Mentifacts” and “Sociofacts” are obtuse terms. Person associations are extragroup, intergroup, intragroup, extrapersonal, interpersonal and intrapersonal. They are different perspectives a human takes to interaction and the adoption of facts from another system. Motive, locale, object, method, person and moment are all artifacts, better termed entities.

The definitions the course offers: “Know-what”, “Know-why”, “Know-how”, “Know-who” is incomplete and ill defined.

  1. Yellow Hat, Green Coat is Know-why. Contextual Motive.
  2. Yellow Hat, Yellow Coat is Know-where. Contextual Locale.
  3. Yellow Hat, White Coat is Know-what. Contextual Object.
  4. Yellow Hat, Black Coat is Know-how. Contextual Method.
  5. Yellow Hat, Red Coat is Know-who. Contextual Person.
  6. Yellow Hat, Blue Coat is Know-when. Contextual Moment.

Knowledge management is not simply Informal and Formal. Knowledge Management can be Implicit, Explicit, Tacit and Sonit. Implicit knowledge management handles knowledge that is documented and unchanging in the organization. Explicit knowledge management handles knowledge that is documented and changing. Tacit knowledge management handles knowledge that is undocumented and unchanging. Sonit knowledge management handles knowledge that is undocumented and changing.

The Six Hats, Six Coats Framework does not use the metaphor of a factory for knowledge processing. Instead the framework uses a system lifecycle of induction and deduction. The system repeats, refines, records, reports, relates and revises input; and revises, relates, reports, records, refines and repeats output. Only during the relate phase is input or output knowledge.

The concept of knowledge claims, I found intriguing, but confused between what is meta-knowledge and what is knowledge. I could only conclude that a knowledge claim is really a meta-knowledge claim. Validation of references, knowledge, is protected by referential integrity. A meta-knowledge claim would be validated by a corroboration of exceptions.

The quality of meta-knowledge is a question of how well the relationships for the dimensions handle input and output. If the probability of no exceptions is high the quality of the meta-knowledge is high. A change in context is a change in interacting systems and will affect the quality of an entire system’s performance not just one of its dimensions or of only its knowledge.

Validation of a system is not only knowledge validation. Validation of Conduction, Regulation, Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom are all necessary excercises. Because no system is completely Implicit, Explicit, Tacit or Sonit there will always be room for normal and exceptional input and output that has not been accounted for.

Knowledge has intrapolative predictive capabilities. Wisdom has extrapolative predictive capabilities. From this course Knowledge Management appears to know little about systems at all.

The course also attempts to use the three layer ANSI model of World, Knowledge, Meta-Knowledge to describe itself. I have no problem with that. However, because of the poor definition of knowledge in the first place the author begins fantasizing about endless additional layers. I have only found there needs to be three layers in every case I’ve tested. There is the world, the referential and the relational layers.

The sixth lesson of the course talks about innovation as the goal of Knowledge Management. I beg to differ. Innovation is a completely different perspective in the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework. Innovation is the Green Hat, conceptualization perspective. Knowledge assists conceptualization, however conceptualization is concerned with the entities of each of the fact dimensions, not the relationships. Relationships are interpolative, they can only exist between entities that exist. Entities are extrapolative, they can come into existence out of nothing and do not depend upon relationships to exist.

As far as the seventh section, Metrics, goes there is ultimately a cost/benefit ratio. All other metrics are irrelevant if the cost/benefit is done correctly. Cost is the expenditure required to build each cell, each model, of the system framework down to the atomic level. Benefit is the profit gained from each manipulation of the system at the atomic level.

“Knowledge Transfer” is the ability of your system to induct another system and then deduct with a profitable outcome.

You don’t need a Knowledge Management Team. You need a System Modeling Team and the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework. “Everything is a system” holds up to scrutiny better than any knowledge management claim.

Business Modeling White Papers

The Zachman Framework states there are six focuses to any system. I have searched the web and have come up with white papers I feel best address each of these focuses. I also correlate them with my Six Coats metaphor:

Green Coat: Business Motivation Model from the Business Rules Group

Yellow Coat: Business Network Model (could not find an example)

White Coat: Business Data Model from Embarcadero Technologies

Black Coat: Business Process Model from the Business Process Management Initiative

Red Coat: Business Person Model from Cooper

Blue Coat: Business Event Model from IBM (Closest I could find)

relationary business modeling white papers relationary business modeling white papers relationary business modeling white papers

Green Hatting a Website

greenhat.jpg

Green Hatting in the Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor is about the conceptual perspective of a system.  Edward de Bono calls this the creative hat.

Green Hats take the feedback provided by the other five hats and look for the an opportunity to improve the quality of life, right a wrong or prevent the end of something good. In the Green Hat perspective designers evaluate goals, networks, data, processes, people and times that could, should or would exist. Green Hat conceptual design is used by the Yellow Hat contextual design team.

Like the other hats, the Green Hat is worn with each of the Six Coats. The basic question is what is the greatest benefit we can offer.

Green Hat, Green Coat: What is our meaning?

Green Hat, Yellow Coat: Why are we navigating?

Green Hat, White Coat: Why do we need data?

Green Hat, Black Coat: Why do we process?

Green Hat, Red Coat: Why are we personas?

Green Hat, Blue Coat: Why do we need convenience?

Green Hat also has a reverse purpose when variances occur in the transacting system. Green Hats decide how to handle a opportunity which is to insert a new product or service for the system to accomodate the exception. The buck stops here.