Part 4 — Structuring perception of unstructured situations — reasoning about applications
Mapping the perception of situations in the world around us might help change it in the desired way. Inspired by my previous articles, I was wondering whether the same toolkit could be applied to structuring other situations. Well, one just needs to start with the description of some situation or problem, collect words or phrases, make relations between them, and voilá… one builds the structure, detect forms of treatments and traffic, consider applied forces, and build the story.
One pretty wicked situation imposes itself these days which is hard to resist considering. The epidemic of COVID-19 is an unavoidable topic and a challenging case for applying the language of structure as a way of reasoning. Consideration of this case is leaning on the initial information and recommendations of doctors. Hence, before continuing with this, and other topics, a brief disclaimer: my intention is not to give a rigorous point of view on the real-world situation or propose solutions, but rather to test whether the thinking toolset can be applicable on different cases.
So, after the epidemic outbreak, aim was to stop spreading it, or at least to slow it down as much as possible. In a rather lay language, suppose that the manifestation of the virus can be described like “Highly contagious virus that transmits from human to human like respiratory infection via nose and/or mouth, stays long on surfaces, with an incubation period of approximately 2 weeks”. Now, depending on the point of perception, different structures can be constructed. In one point of view, let’s code the whole VIRUS-RELATED with terms {highly contagious, human-human interaction, nose, mouth, stays long on surfaces, incubation period of approx. 2 weeks}, and the goal is to perform actions which will decrease the size of this whole.
In an arbitrary scenario, the application of different policy measures might cause the decrease of whole VIRUS-RELATED, hence transforming it into elementary features. For example, let the sequence of actions be: compulsory mask wearing; physical distancing (like lockdown); disinfection of surfaces. After performing each step of action, the size of the whole is decreasing, until only virus-related traits are left.
In another point of view one can consider two wholes, one is called VIRUS-RELATED and it is the same as the one before, and the additional one, called HUMAN-RELATED coded with terms {human-human interaction, nose, mouth}. In this scenario, the whole HUMAN-RELATED is subcomponent of the whole VIRUS-RELATED, yet distinct whole. Now, suppose that to the whole HUMAN-RELATED is associated a numeral representing the number of persons in one society which are not infected with COVID-19, whereas to the whole VIRUS-RELATED is attached the number of infected persons. As time passes, people get infected, and they “transfer” from HUMAN-RELATED to VIRUS-RELATED, since two wholes share coded descriptors. Then, the goal is to make them somehow disconnected so that the flow of persons over the structure is obstructed, as before, and it can be achieved say by applying policy measures.
The above case suggests possible application of applied way of reasoning on reconstruction of the wicked problem, and provides a stage for building scenarios of possible futures when different actions are imposed to the coded structure.
But, in some other cases it is desirable to increase the number of persons on parts of the structure. Say, in the case of carbonated soft drink beverages like COCA-COLA, PEPSI and COCKTA, where the ingredients and brands build the structure. For this example, the taste of COCA-COLA can be attributed to the mixture of ingredients like {carbonated water, natural flavoring, caramel color, phosphoric acid, caffeine, corn syrup}, PEPSI to the mixture {carbonated water, natural flavoring, caramel color, phosphoric acid, caffeine, corn syrup, sugar, citric acid}, whereas COCKTA to {carbonated water, natural flavoring, caramel color, sugar, citric acid, a mixture of plant extracts}. Consumers of these beverages “populate” different parts of the structure depending on their taste preferences, and as they consume different beverages, they are moving along this structure thanks to the ingredient-sharing connectivity. Interestingly, the triangle {carbonated water, natural flavoring, caramel color} is shared by all three beverages, and it is easy to extend this way of reasoning by adding other carbonated soft drinks like Coca-Cola Zero Sugar, Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Cherry, Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Caffeine Free, Pepsi Max Raspberry, Diet Pepsi, Mirinda, Fanta, and many others.
Two above cases show that the nature of connectivity of structure is context- and purpose-dependent. The disconnected structure of descriptors is favored for epidemic spreading and different actions are necessary for achieving this, whereas the connected structure of ingredients enhances consumption of carbonated soft drinks.
Equipped with tools and reasoning from this and previous articles, another thing that comes to my mind related: the innovation process. When people innovate, they usually combine different chunks of knowledge into new wholes by introducing relationships that are not previously present. Say, Gutenberg invented the PRINTING PRESS in the 15th century combining innovations that have already existed: ink, wine press, paper, movable type.
Following the same way of reasoning, one can reconstruct the evolution of wholes that represent the COMPUTER PRINTER, or SCANNER, or PHOTOCOPIER, all of which were invented in the 20th century. Similarly, the whole CELL PHONE is formed by {telephone, computer, radio waves}, while the whole GPS NAVIGATION is formed by {space flight, radio waves, atomic clocks}. These innovations, together with two additional descriptors (app ecosystem, touch screen) form the new whole: SMARTPHONE.
In similarity to working on scientific papers, when innovating, people take different chunks of knowledge and introduce new relations between them.
What about persons? They can also build wholes through versatile mutual relationships, hence forming collaboration teams. Say, the first team is formed by two designers A and B, and the second team is formed by three designers C, D, and E. At some moment they meet all together and form a larger TEAM 1={A, B, C, D, E}. Meanwhile, five designers {C, D, E, F, G} form TEAM 2, and now TEAM 1 and TEAM 2 share a triangle formed by members {C, D, E}.
In this structural construct, the design information flows through the system made by teams via a process of transmission, which depends on the underlying connectivity of structure formed by teams.
Now, we can go even further. Each team member builds his or her structure of ideas and brings them to the meeting. These ideas are treated in different ways, say like verbal statements and text, sketches and drawings, and then communicated so that the team creates new ideas. These new ideas are combinatorially and integratively combined in ways that would not be comprehended by each team member individually. As an outcome of their teamwork, these new ideas are communicated like verbal statements and text, sketches, and drawings with persons who are not team members.
Okay, team members form these structures of concepts and descriptors, but what drives the whole process of idea generation? And out of curiosity, how could brand formation be considered within this toolkit? Team members want to position their new brand in the most suitable place in the space of brands so that it could attract the target group to the brand. They start by coding the relevant brand descriptors, as well as those of other brands, alongside adding new descriptors. In accordance with the underlying structure, they combine descriptors into new compositions and form a new idea. This process can be applied at different stages of the design process, but also in wicked problem (re)solution, innovation process, defining scientific research topics, …
Reflecting on the all considered cases, it seems that the approach is anchored between convergent and divergent ways of thinking. Then the application of the language of structure is like moving the pendulum between two ends. Although hierarchies of concepts were neglected, I hope that the message reaches the reader and inspires further applications. Maybe these various cases resemble Maslow’s Hammer — “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”, but the application of the methodology actually sets the stage for making ‘hammers’ for a particular ‘problem’.
DISCLAIMER: The examples and results presented here are not scientifically rigorous, neither linguistically nor semantically, in the sense of interlacing the generality of terms, or mathematically, in the sense of strict formalism application. It represents just an informal attempt of reconstruction of conceptual maps and getting an insight into the structural relationships between them. The way of reasoning is inspired by outcomes my own works (published with collaborators), which is on the other hand notably influenced by works of Ronald Atkin, Jeffrey Johnson and other Q-analysists.
