## Systema: The Six Hats, Six Coats Hypercube

Later in this post we will discuss this man:

The following table represents my interepretation of the Zachman Framework:

I have taken this framework and applied the following de Bono metaphor:

I also incorporated my own metaphor to differentiate the axes:

These two modifications produced the following table:

This is where I had an “aha” moment. I asked myself what the entities would be:

I also recognized that in each column these entities were related hierarchically allowing the creation of a six dimensional hypercube. In creating the hypercube it was possible to look at a variety of “slices”. For example:

The table above combines Motive with Person. We can see that Motive is verbal while Person is a noun.

Next we will combine Function and Data to create another slice:

Again, Function is a verb and Data is a noun.

Let’s look at one final slice:

Here we see that nodes and time have many possible states.

But, why am I doing this exhaustive analysis of the possible combinations in the Six Hats, Six Coats hypercube?

Let’s go back in time for a moment and look at this table:

When Dmitri Mendeleev created this table to describe periodic behaviour of the elements, many of the elements had not been discovered. However, the table projected what the properties of those elements would be making the search much easier.

The Six Hats, Six Coats hypercube is also a form of periodic table. Its entire collection of possible cells are called the framework space. Many of the cells in the hypercube do not yet exist, however their properties can be predicted. This makes their search and discovery of system components systematic instead of random or organic.

Related Posts:

## Structured Thinking System: Moments

If you realize that all things change, there is nothing you will try to hold on to.
If you are not afraid of dying, there is nothing you cannot achieve.
Lao Tzu

1. YEAR refers to universal time. Moral Law duration.
2. MONTH refers to global time. Command duration.
3. DAY refers to corporate time. Discipline duration.
4. HOUR refers to scholarly time. Training duration.
5. MINUTE refers to domestic time. Terrain duration.
6. SECOND refers to bodily time. Climate duration.

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

## STL: Shakedown R0.4

I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy
– but that could change.
Dan Quayle

I’ve been playing with writing STL code for a couple of days now and have been working out some major logical issues. Actually trying to write code instead of syntax that is logical has shaken down the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework considerably. Sort of like dismantling and rebuilding a Chevy and then taking it on its first drive through the neighborhood without a muffler.

One of the things I have discovered is that Structured Thinking Language is best for describing Structured Thinking Systems (The Six Hats, Six Coats Framework). So let’s take a look at what I found.

First, we will go over the revised verbs and nouns. Here are the Structured Thinking Verbs:

1. CREATE refers to the extistential. Capability. Right a wrong.
2. RELATE refers to the unity. Portability. Have a mantra.
3. REPORT refers to the benefit. Reliability. Unique and valuable.
4. RECORD refers to the cost. Profitability. Have a business plan.
5. AFFORD refers to the usability. Security. Easy to adopt.
6. ENGAGE refers to the convenience. Availability. Spawn evangelists.

And Here are the Structured Thinking Nouns:

1. MOTIVE refers to the rule hierarchy. Moral Law.
2. PERSON refers to the people hierarchy. Command.
3. OBJECT refers to the data hierarchy. Discipline.
4. METHOD refers to the function hierarchy. Training.
5. LOCALE refers to to the node hierarchy. Terrain.
6. MOMENT refers to the event hierarchy. Climate.

This gives us our Structured Thinking Framework:

What we have as a result is the meshing of six horizontal hierarchies and six vertical hierarchies.

Next, we create all of the entities. There are six entities per noun.

```CREATE	CreateName
MOTIVE	(	Virtue,
Unity,
Esteem,
Accord,
Safety,
Entity
)

PERSON	(	Creator,
Patron,
Member,
Friend,
Teller
)

OBJECT	(	Motive,
Person,
Object,
Method,
Locale,
Moment
)

METHOD	(	Create,
Relate,
Report,
Record,
Afford,
Engage
)

LOCALE	(	ExtraNet,
InterNet,
IntraNet,
ExtraNode,
InterNode,
IntraNode
)
MOMENT	(	Year,
Month,
Day,
Hour,
Minute,
Second
);```

Next we relate the entities to one another. The keys are surrogates, so they are not visible. I am building a set of relationships from left to right on each row and a set of relationships top to bottom on each column:

```RELATE 	RelationshipName
(	MOTIVE.Virtue 	TO MOTIVE.Unity,
MOTIVE.Unity	TO MOTIVE.Esteem,
MOTIVE.Esteem 	TO MOTIVE.Accord,
MOTIVE.Accord 	TO MOTIVE.Safety,
MOTIVE.Safety 	TO MOTIVE.Entity
MOTIVE.Mantra 	TO PERSON.Creator,
PERSON.Creator  TO OBJECT.Motive,
OBJECT.Motive 	TO METHOD.Create,
METHOD.Create 	TO LOCALE.ExtraNet,
LOCALE.ExtraNet	TO MOMENT.Year
PERSON.Patron 	TO PERSON.Member,
PERSON.Member 	TO PERSON.Friend,
PERSON.Friend 	TO PERSON.Teller,
OBJECT.Person	TO METHOD.Relate,
METHOD.Relate	TO LOCALE.InterNet,
...
);```

This gives us the following entities composing our Structured Thinking System (STS):

As you can see, the order of the columns have been changed. You can also see that I have changed the color coding of the hats and coats to better reflect common usage in the industry (ie. Black Hat = Secure). I also think I am coming more into line with de Bono, but the jury is still out on that one.

Another issue raised in making the relationships is they are one to many as they proceed left to right across the rows and one to many as they proceed down the columns. There is no compromise to this if the system is to work at peak effectiveness.

There is no need for normalization or denormalization as the structure is fully normalized. There is also no need for attributes because they are identical for every entity:

• Motive
• Person
• Object
• Method
• Locale
• Moment

I am at a turning point here. I have to go deeper into the model to determine how to create attributes. Which I have not yet attempted. I have to save it for later posts.

Now we can create our reports. This is an alternate function of the six verbs that occurred to me. Note that the selected cells are all adjacent to one another either horizontally or vertically and flow from left to right; top to bottom:

```REPORT	ReportName
(	MOTIVE.Esteem,
MOTIVE.Accord,
PERSON.Member,
OBJECT.Method,
METHOD.Record,
METHOD.Afford,
LOCALE.IntraNode,
MOMENT.Minute
);```

Giving us the following Report:

If you want to throw in some filters it is easy:

```REPORT	ReportName

(	MOTIVE.Esteem,
MOTIVE.Accord,
PERSON.Member = John Doe,
OBJECT.Method,
METHOD.Record,
METHOD.Afford,
LOCALE.IntraNode,
MOMENT.Minute = 30 	);```

The “30” aggregates to every 30 minutes.

Now we can plan our data capture. Again an alternate use for the RECORD verb. Again the cells for capture are all adjacent to the left or down:

```RECORD	RecordName
(	MOTIVE.Esteem,
PERSON.Patron,
PERSON.Member,
OBJECT.Method
);```

This would create the following form:

Here we set up the affordances for the entities:

```AFFORD	AffordName
RECORD.RecordName
TO 	PERSON.Member;```

Finally, we execute the RECORD Script and as the Member isn’t given the Member must log in:

```ENGAGE	EngageName
(	RECORD.RecordName
AND	PERSON.Member
);```

The code I have created here is a radical departure from the syntax releases I have come out with so far as I realized what the design was leading me to create. And that is the clincher. The design brought itself out. I have just been trying to follow it along.

What I am finding is there are not four verbs–Select, Insert, Update, Delete–but six–create, relate, report, record, afford and engage!

Related Posts: