The Mandala Plus Diagram
The Hubhood diagram + The Theme Plus diagram = The Mandala Plus diagram
Yesterday I published The Dynamics of Tacit Knowledge and used The Theme Plus as an example. This morning, I did a new version of Theme Plus and named it the Mandala Plus.
This is a new case of Diagram Blending! I’d like to share more details with you.
This morning I realized that the Hubhood meta-diagram and the Theme Plus diagram share the same deep spatial structure. So I modified the Theme Plus diagram and adopted a small piece from the Hubhood diagram.
This experience of Diagram Blending also creates a connection between the above two diagrams. The Theme Plus could be understood as a canvas of the hubhood diagram.
I’d like to share an example of an application diagram.
The Strategist’s Mandala
This morning I adopted the Hubhood meta-diagram to design a new diagram called The Strategist’s Mandala.
The Hubhood meta-diagram was born on Feb 6, 2021 when I was re-thinking on the Platform-for-Development (P4D) framework (v1.0) with the concept of Supportance. You can find more details from here and here.
On Dec 21, I used the Hubhood meta-diagtam to design a new diagram called The Founder’s Mandala. On Dec 23, I made the Creator’s Mandala. On Dec 24, The Curator’s Mandala was born.
This morning I continued playing the Mandala meta-diagram and applied it to discussing strategists’ mental models. I started from the following question:
What’s the major difference between designers’ mindset and strategists’ mindset?
My answer is that the former only considers two spaces (Problem — Solution) while the latter considers two more spaces (Opportunity — Resource). So, the Strategist’ Mandala was formed by these four spaces.
The next step is identifying four movements between spaces. This is a hard part of the process, and it is fun as a challenge.
Inspired by some theoretical approaches, I adopted four perspectives to define these four movements.
1. Insight: Idea/Concept
2. Attachance: Attach/Detach
3. Intention: Objective/Object
4. Mediation: End/Means
So, what are the theoretical approaches behind these four movements?
1. Project-oriented Activity Theory
2. Attachance Theory
3. Anticipatory Activity System
4. Activity Theory (Mediating Instrument)
What’s the primary theme of this mandala? The answer is “Degrees of Freedom” which is a traditional term of strategic thinking. I learned the term from the Japanese strategy consultant Kenichi Ohmae’s writings.
So, this mandala offers a new integrated framework for understanding “Degrees of Freedom” for the next generation of strategists.
The Strategist’s Mandala Plus
In order to test the Mandala Plus Diagram, I made the following diagram.
What’s the difference between the above two diagrams? The Plus version is an expanded version of the original one because it added more details. Both two diagrams share the same deep spatial structure.
Four Thematic Spaces
The Hubhood meta-diagram was formed by four thematic spaces and four connected hubs. The Mendala Plus diagram expands a thematic space into a Theme U diagram.
Originally, the Theme Plus was formed by four Theme U diagrams. Now we can understand one Theme U as a thematic space.
Four Connected Hubs
A unique part of the Hubhood meta-diagam is four connected hubs.
The original Theme Plus diagram doesn’t have four connected hubs. By observing two diagrams’ spatial structure, I realized I can add four connected hubs to Theme Plus.
An Intermediate Frame
The red square is called an intermediate frame. From the perspective of Topology, the intermediate frame and the Hubhood roughly share the same topological structure.
I use the notion of topological structure to understand deep spatial structure which ignores texts and some visual details.
A Primary Theme
Each mandala diagram has a primary theme. For the Strategist’s Mondala, the primary theme is “Degrees of Freedom”.
This is version 1, we could change the primary theme later.
Pairs of Themes
The notion of “Pairs of Themes” is adopted from the Theme U diagram.
The Theme U diagram presents six themes on a U shape. However, it is not only about six themes, but about representing complex thematic relationships with spatial mediation. For example, I used the following diagram to explain Pairs of Opposite Themes with the Theme U diagram.
The structure of the pairs of themes is flexible for any situation. You can choose low complexity or high complexity. For example, I use “Pairs of Opposite Themes” for The ECHO Way (v2.0) which is a practical framework about boundary innovation. The notion of “Pairs of Opposite Themes” refers to significant differences between two themes. If we want to explore strategic innovation, the great starting point is Pairs of Opposite Themes because they could lead to Structural Tensions such as boundary, distance, difference, heterogeneity, contradiction, and complementation. If we can turn one or more structural tensions into creative opportunities, then we could find a way of strategic innovation.
You don’t have to use “Pairs of Opposite Themes” for your mandala plus applications. Since you are the only curator of your thematic spaces, you could find your own ways of selecting pairs of themes for each thematic space.
Though the Mandala Plus only uses two pairs of themes for each thematic space. We can expand it to three pairs of themes or more pairs of themes. It all depends on situational applications. For example, if we use it as a large size canvas in a physical space, we can post many pairs of themes on the canvas.
Pairs of Themes as Tacit Knowledge
I selected 8 pairs of themes for The Strategist’s Mandala Plus. This process is a special way of Developing Tacit Knowledge.
Why?
As discussed above, the Mandala Plus is organized with a three-level structure:
- 1 primary theme
- 4 thematic spaces
- 8 pairs of themes
In fact, each thematic space refers to a large cognitive container of your personal knowledge. For example, the “Opportunity” thematic space, you could think about many ideas, concepts, notions. Then, you have to select 8 pairs of themes for the mandala plus. The selecting process is an operation of the activity of Developing Tacit Knowledge because you understand more connections about the “Opportunity” thematic space.
For example, I chose the following two pairs of themes for the “Opportunity” thematic space:
- Affordance v.s. Supportance
- Permeability v.s. Curativity
If you are familiar with my writings, you probably know Affordance, Supportance, and Curativity are core concepts of my work, the Ecological Practice approach. I often mention these three concepts in my articles.
However, the notion of Permeability is a brand new concept to you because I didn’t publicly mention it in my articles. In fact, I considered the notion of Permeability as a concept for the Ecological Practice approach two years ago. The concept of Permeability is the opposite theme of the concept of Curativity.
I haven’t written articles about the concept of Permeability. However, I can use the concept for my work and private discussions with friends. So, I consider it as a tacit knowledge for me.
Now, I put it on the Strategist’s Mandala Plus. That means I attach it to a new container which is a project of making the Strategist’s Mandala Plus. In this way, the concept of Permeability could be transformed into an explicit knowledge.
1, 2, 4, 8, 16…
In the article titled Diagram Blending: Building Diagram Networks (Table of Contents), I used the following simple method to develop the Diagram Blending Framework:
- 1, 2, 4, 8, 16…
It seems we can apply the same method to the Mandala Plus:
- 1 =1 primary theme
- 2 = ?
- 4 = 4 thematic spaces, 4 connected hubs
- 8 = 4 thematic spaces + 4 connected hubs, 8 tendencies (generated from 4 connected hubs)
- 16 themes (form 8 pairs of themes)
The missing part is 2.
Can we find two dimensions for the Strategist’s Mandala Plus? I’d like to leave this challenge for you!
A CALL for Slow Cognition
The article is also part of the Slow Cognition Project which is about the development of long-term thought.
On April 26, 2021, I sent an email to a friend of mine and introduced my book The ECHO Way which reflects on my journey of writing three books in six months.
I coined a new term called Slow Cognition to describe my favorite methods such as Howard E. Gruber’s the evolving systems approach to creative work.
Scholars use Hot Cognition and Cold Cognition to describe two types of cognitive studies. Cold cognition refers to pure cognitive processing of information that is independent of emotional involvement. Hot cognition considers emotional aspects.
You probably read Daniel Kahneman’s 2011 book Thinking, Fast and Slow which highlights two models of thought: System 1 and System 2.
My term Slow Cognition is related to System 2. However, I personally don’t like the System 1/System 2 framework because I adopt Keith E. Stanovich’s model of three types of mind: Autonomous mind, Algorithmic mind, and Reflective Mind.
The major difference between my term Slow Cognition and Kahneman/Stanovich’s terms are research methods. My term Slow Cognition refers to the historical-cognitive approach which is about long-term development of thoughts. Cognitive psychologists focus on short-term thoughts.
The notion of Developing Tacit Knowledge is the primary theme of the Slow Cognition Project.
You are most welcome to connect via the following social platforms:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/oliverding
Twitter: https://twitter.com/oliverding
Polywork: https://www.polywork.com/oliverding
Boardle: https://www.boardle.io/users/oliver-ding
License
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License. Please click on the link for details.
