Mapping Strategic Moves #5: Ideas, Possible Project, and Actual Project

Oliver Ding

Published in

CALL4

29 min read6 days ago

Using the House of Project Engagement as a Strategic Map

This is part of the series of Mapping Strategic Moves.

The previous articles use my four creative journeys between 2019 to 2024 to test the House of Project Engagement as a strategic map.

Today I will return to the map itself and discuss three thematic rooms.

1. Social Landscape: The House of Project Engagement

In May, I developed version 3.0 of the Project Engagement approach. While version 1.0 focused on the Developmental Project Model, version 3.0 expanded on this by curating a range of knowledge frameworks to explore project-oriented social ecology.

This is a comprehensive theoretical toolkit, as illustrated in the diagram below.

The diagram consists of two key components:

The top section represents a Map.
The bottom section showcases several knowledge frameworks.

Between May and June, I collaborated with friends to test this theoretical toolkit in various fields, including higher education teaching, life narrative practices, and youth developmental discovery.

In June, to support a friend’s workshop, I simplified the Project Engagement approach (v3.0) by selecting only its Map component. This led to the creation of the House of Project Engagement.

Designed as a Map, the House of Project Engagement uses a “Museum” metaphor to represent space. The House is organized into 12 thematic rooms, with each room representing a distinct type of social landscape. Together, these rooms depict the following themes:

Before
Role Models
Ideas
Possible Project
Meet with Others
Actual Project
Settings
Supportive Platform
Public Square
Network of Project
Conflict
After

In previous articles, I didn’t delve into these 12 thematic rooms. In this article, I will use data from earlier discussions to explain these themes.

1.1 Thematic Room: Boundary, Symbol, and Key Term

Each thematic room is constructed around three key elements: Boundary, Symbol, and Key Term.

The seed of this idea is the sign of Creative Life Theory, illustrated below.

The above image was designed with three components: a square, a circle, and a sandglass. Each of these elements represents a key aspect of the Creative Life Theory.

The Square symbolizes the “Lifescope, ” also called the “World of Activity, ” which defines the boundaries of a person’s creative space throughout their life. Find more details, see Lifescope: The World of Activity for Creative Life Curation.
The Circle represents the “Knowledge Center,” a container for Knowledge Engagement. You can explore this further in TALE: A Possible Theme called “Knowledge Center”.
The Sandglass signifies the S-T-O Tendency, a core idea of the Creative Life Curation framework.

The Square is used to design 12 thematic rooms for the House of Project Engagement. To reflect additional aspects of human life and the social landscape, I introduced various symbols inspired by the Developmental Project Model diagram.

As a Map for strategic narratives and life narrative practices, I use simple words as Key Terms to highlight the uniqueness of each thematic room. There are no strict rules for interpreting these key terms; they are meant to trigger recall, association, and discussion.

The previous case studies offer practical examples of how these Key Terms are used. Let’s begin with “Ideas”, “Possible Project”, and “Actual Project.”

1.2 The “Ideas” Thematic Room

The Key Term “Ideas” refers to an individual’s specific thoughts, such as a theme, concept, insight, intention, strategy, objective, etc.

It can also be associated with abstract ideas such as theoretical concepts, cultural norms, laws, rules, and ideologies that shape social life.

The above picture presents relevant data from the previous four case studies.

A3

Inspired by Gruber, I launched the Slow Cognition project in January 2022 to explore the long-term cognitive development processes of professionals.

B3

I soon realized that engaging with Activity Theory required an additional step: applying it to conduct a case study.

C3

The Ecological Practice approach was primarily inspired by James J. Gibson’s work, which focused on visual perception. Influenced by Kurt Lewin, I began exploring the creative possibilities of extending the ecological approach from visual perception to social interaction.

C5

Inspired by Schatzki’s concept of “site ontology”, I developed the metaphor of “app ontology” to describe the theoretical perspective and epistemological stance of Attachance.

C13

My work on a network of projects between January and June 2022 generated many new ideas, one of which significantly impacted the concept of Thematic Space. Drawing on Spatial Narratology, I adopted the idea that “Theme (Topos) is Space” to define the ontology of Thematic Space, where theme and space are viewed as a unified concept.

D2

In mid-2020, I searched for new project ideas. A diagram, “When Theory Meets Practice,” created in March 2020, caught my attention in May 2020.

D19

In September 2022, the theme of ‘Knowledge Engagement’ emerged as I mapped out a creative journey. I selected four projects related to Activity Theory from 2020 to 2022 and viewed them as part of this journey. Realizing that I had engaged in both Knowledge Curation and Knowledge Creation, I chose ‘Knowledge Engagement’ as the central theme for this process.

Let’s categorize these items based on the description of “Ideas”:

A3 — objective
B3 — intention
C3 — strategy
C5 — concept
C13 — concept
D2 — objective
D19 — theme

In general, the key term “Ideas” pertains to what we think, especially ideas that influence our journey. For mapping strategic moves, we focus on ideas connected to action and project execution.

1.3 The “Possible Project” Thematic Room

The key term “Possible Project” serves as a bridge between “Ideas” and “Actual Project.”

It encompasses an individual’s anticipations, plans, explorations, experiments, and tentative actions.

When paired with the Key Term “Actual Project” in mapping strategic moves, early-stage, canceled, unfinished, or failed projects can be placed in the “Possible Project” thematic room.

The value of the “Possible Project” lies in tracing the progression from ideas to objectives, from objectives to objects, and from objects to outcomes — including both planned products and unexpected by-products.

For the Strategic Moves project, the “Possible Project” thematic room is used to explore the adaptability and creativity of strategy.

The above picture shows relevant data from the previous four case studies.

A4

I designed Knowledge Discovery Canvas to initiate this project as Phase I of Slow Cognition. While it produced a new tool for mapping knowledge discovery, it didn’t achieve the original goal of the project.

B4

In 2018, I applied Activity Theory to reflect on my work with the BagTheWeb project. However, the results of this exercise were not as successful as I had hoped.

C7

In January 2022, I initiated the Slow Cognition Project (Phase I), which involved developing the Thematic Space Canvas. The concept of Thematic Space later became crucial to the further development of Attachance Theory.

C14

In July 2022, I compiled an archive of articles and links documenting the development of the Life-as-Project approach and its associated Project Network. This archive is not a formal book but serves as a resource for future reference.

D3

In May 2020, I modified the diagram (“When Theory Meets Practice”) and developed the HERO U framework.

D13

At the end of Diagramming as Practice, I designed the Opportunity Space Canvas to explore diagram productization. This inspired the Thematic Space Canvas in January 2022.

D16

Originally, I intended to launch the Activity U Project (II) in October 2021 but created a new website with a new name, Activity Analysis, instead. I delayed the launch due to my involvement in the D as Diagramming project.

D20

From January to March 2023, I developed several versions of the Knowledge Engagement framework. However, I am not satisfied with them, as I feel they lack flexibility, primarily because they were developed using a categorical approach.

Let’s categorize these items based on the description of “Possible Project”:

A4 — Shifting of Objective — Prototype — By-product
B4 — Experiments / Failed Project
C7 — Early-stage project / Unexpected by-product
C14 — Unsatisfied Outcome
D3 — Early-stage project
D16 — Anticipation without Actions
D20 — Exploration / Unsatisfied Outcome / Early-stage project

Note that A4 and C7 refer to the same Possible Project, but I used different interpretations in two case studies. This illustrates a concept I call the Narrative Frame within the Mapping Strategic Moves method.

The Narrative Frame serves as a hidden layer between the Story and the Action. By picking unique perspectives and arranging the narrative order, the same Possible Project can be framed into different Stories, each with distinct meanings.

1.4 The “Actual Project” Thematic Room

The Key Term “Actual Project” designates the central thematic room of the House of Project Engagement.

Unlike “Possible Project,” which deals with early-stage, canceled, unfinished, or failed projects, the term “Actual Project” refers to long-term, completed, successful projects.

“Actual Project” also includes satisfied outcomes, such as planned products or unexpected by-products.

The above picture shows relevant data from the previous four case studies.

A6

In May 2022, I launched the Slow Cognition project (Phase II), using my creative process as a case study. The actual project was born.

B5

By September 2018, I revisited the “Activity Theory — BagTheWeb” project. This exploration eventually led me to transition from Activity Theory to Ecological Psychology. The outcome was my first theoretical book, Curativity.

B7

In August 2020, I launched the Activity U project as a knowledge curation initiative.

C6

In May 2020, I wrote After Affordance: The Ecological Approach to Human Action, where I introduced the concept of Attachance as the central idea.

C9

On May 19, 2022, I concluded Slow Cognition (Phase I) with a draft of a book titled Knowledge Discovery: Developing Tacit Knowledge with Thematic Space Canvas. In September 2022, I launched Slow Cognition (Phase II), returning to its original goal: exploring the long-term development of thought and creative work.

C16

In July 2022, I completed a thesis titled Project Engagement: Life, History, and Multiverse, expanding Project Engagement (v1.0) as a practical framework into Project Engagement (v2.0) as a social theory. The major change was the introduction of the Life-History Topology module and the notion of Engagement as Moving between Thematic Spaces.

C18

During this period, I conducted several case studies on the Slow Cognition Project, resulting in a book draft titled Creative Life Curation. Some of these case studies, including the development of the AAS framework, inspired me to launch the Mental Moves project in March 2023.

C19

In June 2022, I launched a new Medium publication for Curativity Center and initiated the Knowledge Center project. By 2023, my experience running a network of knowledge centers provided valuable material for both the Mental Moves and Value Circle projects.

C20

In March 2023, I began the Mental Moves project, focused on collecting examples of “Moving between Thematic Spaces.” The project later expanded on Dean Keith Simonton’s Chance-Configuration Theory (from Scientific Genius, 1988), extending it from “head” to “head-body-environment,” which led to the development of the Attachance approach to creative cognition.

C21

In August 2023, I launched the Social Moves project, which centered around the concept of “Social Territory.” While Social Moves explore Social Actions, Mental Moves delve into the corresponding Mental Activities. In December 2023, I concluded the project with a book draft titled Social Moves: The Attachance Approach to Social Cognition.

D4

In September 2020, I started the Activity U project as a Knowledge Curation initiative. Early outcomes included two book drafts: Activity U (2020) and Project-oriented Activity Theory (2021).

D9

Inspired by discussions about the HERO U framework during the program, I drafted a book reflecting on writing three book drafts. Titled The ECHO Way, it emphasized connecting theory with practice.

D11

The Once Upon A Whiteboard project spurred 10 sub-projects. One notable outcome was my return to the D as Diagramming project (August–December 2021), where I explored the power of diagrams in turning tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. This led to two book drafts: Diagramming as Practice and Diagram Blending.

D14

From January to May 2022, I used the Thematic Space Canvas to develop a series of canvases and wrote Knowledge Discovery: Developing Tacit Knowledge with Thematic Space Canvas.

D21

Between January and April 2023, I studied Ping-keung Lui’s Gaze, Actions, and the Social World (2017), producing 228 pages of notes. This research led to several frameworks forming Creative Life Theory (v2.0). These notes became a book draft, Knowledge Engagement: Knowledge Center and Creative Life Theory (April 2023), followed by the English draft Creative Life Theory: Building A Knowledge Enterprise (December 2023).

D23

TALE Center inspired several knowledge projects, leading to book drafts such as Product Engagement, Thematic Exploration, Grasping the Concept, Mental Moves, and Social Moves, which comprise the Aspects of Early Discovery series.

Once again, we encounter the Narrative Frame!

Several Actual Projects are framed across multiple case studies:

A6 = C18
B7 = D4
C9 = D14
C19 + C20 + C21 = D23

The D23 item is particularly interesting because I mentioned C19, C20, and C21 in one story. This could be elaborated further using the “Network of Projects” thematic room to tell a more comprehensive story.

2. Modeling A Strategic Journey

I chose the subtitle “Mapping Knowledge Engagement and Structural Choice” for a possible book about the Strategic Moves project.

The theme of “Structural Choice” refers to the process of selecting significant insights and curating opportunities for achieving creative knowledge engagement. Over the past few months, I developed a simple method to transform this concept into an operational framework for the Strategic Moves project.

The Structural Choice framework is built around three key components:

Maps
Models
Moves

For each case, I select an existing map or design a new one to represent the social landscape relevant to the case.

I distinguish between Maps and Models: where Maps represent the social landscape, Models are representations of predictive models made by actors. In some cases, actors use specific knowledge frameworks as their predictive models to guide their projects.

Finally, I use Moves metaphorically to describe real actions taken by actors within these contexts.

The House of Project Engagement serves as a Map for mapping strategic moves. It operates independently of Models.

However, the Mapping Strategic Moves method goes beyond simply using the House of Project Engagement to narrate events. To dive deeper into the complexity of the Moves, we adopt various knowledge frameworks as Models.

In Mapping Thematic Journey (Engaging with Activity Theory, 2020–2022), I introduced the unit of analysis of “Creative Journey” for Creative Life Theory. I will modify it to develop the concept of a “Strategic Journey” for the Mapping Strategic Moves method.

Life is a meaningful journey. And behind this metaphor lies a profound idea: Life is about Spatial Difference.

This idea draws inspiration from George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s exploration of the Cognitive Science of the Embodied Mind in their 1999 book Philosophy in The Flesh and other books. According to Lakoff and Johnson, “Very little of our understanding of time is purely temporal. Most of our understanding of time is a metaphorical version of our understanding of motion in space.” Lakoff and Johnson introduce a metaphorical system of time in the book, as shown below:

In their 2000 book Where Mathematics Comes From, George Lakoff and Rafael E. Nunez use the Source-Path-Goal schema as an example of the cognitive science of the embodied mind. See the picture below:

The Source-Path-Goal schema reveals that there is an unrealized trajectory between the location of the trajector at a given time (present) and the goal (future). The Temporal Difference between Present and Future is the Spatial Difference between the present location and future goal.

From the perspective of Cognitive Metaphor theory, the metaphor behind the journey is the Event-Structure metaphor. According to George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Journeys represent long-term activities:

A journey takes an extended period of time, covers a lot of ground, and usually involves stopping at a number of destinations along the way before one reaches a final destination, if there is one.
Given the rest of the Event — Structure metaphor, journeys correspond to long-term activities, usually with a number of intermediate purposes. The intermediate purposes are intermediate destinations, the ultimate purpose is the ultimate destination, the actions performed are movements, progress is movement toward a destination, the initial state is the initial location, and achieving the purpose is reaching the ultimate destination.
Every aspect of the source domain of the Event — Structure metaphor may occur in some kind of journey, and hence journeys are very useful for talking about long-term activities of many kinds. (Philosophy in the Flesh, 1999, pp.193–194)

If we put the Source-Path-Goal schema and the Event-Structure metaphor together, we can better grasp the two levels of “Journey”:

Journey: Represents long-term activities, aligned with the Event-Structure Metaphor, involving multiple intermediate purposes.
Project: Follows the Source-Path-Goal schema, where each project represents an intermediate goal within the broader journey.

The previous four case studies of Mapping Strategic Moves illustrate four distinct Strategic Journeys, each comprising Ideas, Possible Projects, and Actual Projects.

To model a Strategic Journey, I selected the following two knowledge frameworks to capture the two distinct levels:

Journey: The Strategic Changes model
Project: The Mediating Action model

The following sections will introduce these models in detail.

3. Journey: The Strategic Changes Model

The Strategic Moves project follows both the Mental Moves project and the Social Moves project. While the Mental Moves project focuses on creative cognitive cognition, the Social Moves project extends this focus to include social actions as well.

To define the basic unit of social cognition, I introduced a nested structure:

Social Cognition = Social Moves (Mental Moves)

Building on this, we can formulate the unit of analysis for Strategic Changes:

Strategic Cognition = Strategic Changes (Cognitive Change)

This framework allows us to expand on Howard Gruber’s ideas on cognitive change for our present discussion.

3.1 Change Inhibits Further Change

In Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity (1974), Howard Gruber examined cognitive changes in Darwin’s creative work. In Chapter 6, he discussed the theme of “Identity and the Rate of Cognitive Change”.

The stream of thought is incredibly swift, but the emergence and solidification of new ideas is a relatively slow process. Creative thinking is often treated as an isolated act, but if instead it is treated as a growth process it may be easier to understand why progress is slow.
To understand the rate of change of scientific thought we need to consider many things, among them the factors inhibiting change, the relation between method and rate, and the identity of that which is changing. This last point inevitably refers to groups of ideas which are not changing, or which are changing much more slowly than the change process under scrutiny. Most important of all, a full discussion of rate of change in a system must take into account the new problems the system confronts, by virtue both of its own inner development and of its interaction with the larger milieu in which it functions.(p.114)

Gruber used the evolving systems approach to study creative work. Inspired by his theory and method, I worked on the Slow Cognition project to explore the historical-cognitive approach and the long-term development of thoughts from Jan 2022 to Oct 1, 2022.

Gruber pointed out an important fact about creative cognitive change: change often inhibits further change.

Any special system of ideas undergoing change is at all times part of some larger system with which it is interacting, and in such a fashion that change often inhibits further change. Examples of this kind of relationship are the following:
Communication: As the individual departs from accepted patterns of thoughts, he becomes less capable of communicating with others who have not. But such communication is both the instrument and the goal of change, so that the increase in intellectual distance inhibits further change.
Definition of Problems: As the individual departs from accepted patterns of thought, he moves into areas where basic premises defining soluble problems are less and less clear. Ill-defined problems are hard to solve, and some of them, when clarified, turn out to be insoluble. The time devoted to such matters may be not only unproductive but discuptive as well. Normally, one works within a context that defines soluble problems, and provides methods for solving them and criteria for recognizing solutions. The further one moves from this complex norm, the less likely one is to arrive at an effective solution: change inhibits further change.
Interpretation of Observations: The two examples above illustrate ways in which the very process of change inhibits further change. The existing structure of ideas also protects itself more directly from new elements which might lead to change. Observations which might require change are either neglected or assimilated into existing structures. Thus, even in the face of objective novely, the existing structure inhibits its recognition, inhibits change…
Memory: Similarly, a novel achievement is often unstable simply because there exists as yet no structure into which it can be assimilated. It is therefore neglected or even forgotten — but since some change is eventually engendered, the meaning of the term forgotten must be considered carefully. (p.115)

The idea that “change inhibits further change” can be viewed positively or negatively, depending on context. When considering the progression from “Ideas” to “Possible Projects” and ultimately to “Actual Projects,” this principle reveals that the key to understanding the journey lies in how change impacts further transformation.

3.2 Strategic Changes

Building on Gruber’s ideas, I formulated two principles for “Strategic Changes” in the context of Knowledge Engagement:

Emergence First
Solidification First

At the beginning of the Knowledge Discovery Activity, the Emergence First principle applies, while at the conclusion, the Solidification First principle becomes relevant.

These principles align with the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework, which draws on Activity Theory, Anticipatory System theory, and Relevance theory. The AAS framework models the structure of “Self, Other, Present, and Future.”

An Anticipatory Activity System is composed of two parts:

First-order Activity: Knowledge Performance Activity (objectification)
Second-order Activity: Knowledge Discovery Activity (subjectification)

The Knowledge Discovery Activity focuses on developing tacit knowledge, identifying themes, and building concept systems. It emphasizes subjectification. Conversely, the Knowledge Performance Activity is about concrete outputs like academic papers, books, speeches, and software, focusing on objectification.

While First-order Activities align with traditional Activity Theory, Second-order Activities aim to define objectives and goals for future endeavors.

For more details, see Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) and A Possible Book, Advanced Life Strategy: Anticipatory Activity System and Life Achievements, and The Creative Life Curation Framework.

3.3 Curate Stratgegic Intents

The concept of Curate Strategic Intents follows the Emergence First principle, originating from the Strategic Thematic Exploration framework, which frames a creative space for exploring strategic intent through thematic analysis in knowledge engagement.

The term Strategic Intent was coined by Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad in Competing for the Future: Breakthrough strategies for seizing control of your industry and creating the markets of tomorrow (Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad, 1994).

They use the term to describe an animating dream that energizes a company (pp.129–130).

Strategic intent is strategic architecture’s capstone. A strategic architecture may point the way to the future, but it’s an ambitious and compelling strategic intent that provides the emotional and intellectual energy for the journey. Strategic architecture is the brain; strategic intent is the heart. Strategic intent implies a significant stretch for the organization.
Whereas the traditional view of strategy focuses on the “fit” between existing resources and emerging opportunities, strategic intent creates, by design, a substantial “misfit” between resources and aspirations.
As the distilled essence of a firm’s strategic architecture, strategic intent also implies a particular point of view about the long-term market or competitive position that a firm hopes to build over the coming decade or so. Hence, it conveys a sense of direction. A strategic intent is differentiated; it implies a competitively unique point of view about the future. It holds out to employees the promise of exploring new competitive territory. Hence, it conveys a sense of discovery. Strategic intent has an emotional edge to it; it is a goal that employees perceive as inherently worthwhile. Hence, it implies a sense of destiny.
Direction, discovery, and destiny. These are the attributes of strategic intent.

The authors claim that the three attributes of strategic intent are Direction, Discovery, and Destiny. We can apply these attributes to “Mapping Strategic Moves” too.

Direction: A clear sense of where we are heading.
Discovery: The drive to explore new opportunities and competitive landscapes.
Destiny: A sense of long-term purpose and worth.

I also pay attention to the difference between Strategic Intent and Strategic Architecture, “Strategic architecture is the brain; strategic intent is the heart”.

The Strategic Journey is both intellectual and emotional.

3.4 Define Objects and Objectives

The Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) is a self-referential system in which Second-order Activity defines the Objects and Objectives of First-order Activity. Conversely, First-order Activity generates Results and Rewards that feed back into supporting Second-order Activity.

After a Knowledge Discovery Activity, Objects and Objectives should be defined for future Knowledge Performance Activities, such as editing a book. This creates a dynamic, developmental process.

In this context, Concepts and Frameworks serve as the Objects in building a knowledge enterprise, while completing projects or editing a book are the Objectives for each specific knowledge endeavor.

As Objects evolve, so too do the Objectives they inform.

The diagram above illustrates the standard model of the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework, structured around the following concept pairs:

Present — Future
Self — Other
Object — Objective
Result — Reward
First-order Activity — Second-order Activity

You can find more details fro

For a deeper understanding of the AAS framework, refer to D as Diagramming: Strategy as Anticipatory Activity System. It is crucial to distinguish between Objective (future-oriented) and Object (present-oriented).

Objective is tied to Anticipation, projecting a vision of the future.
Object is tied to Performance, representing what is acted upon in the present.

These terms reflect two different complexities. Initially, the complexity of anticipation is high because the outcome is uncertain. As the activity progresses and results emerge, this complexity decreases.

In contrast, the complexity of performance related to the Object increases over time, as more effort is invested and interactions with the Object deepen.

The Object — Objective Gap is not a bug, but a wonderful key for unlocking the deep secret of the Anticipatory Activity System. For more on this topic, see Life Discovery: The “Object — Objective” Gap and Attachment and Life Discovery: The “Means — End” Spectrum and Becoming.

Possible Projects act as the bridge between Ideas and Actual Projects, playing a key role in closing the Object — Objective gap.

4. Project: The Mediating Action model

Building upon the “Mediating Action” model, the foundational concept of Activity Theory, I integrated ideas from other activity-based theoretical approaches and developed a new diagram for Mapping Thematic Journey in September 2022.

This model can be directly applied to the Mapping Strategic Moves method. Below is an example diagram of the model.

The diagram expands the basic Activity Theory model (Subject — Mediating Instruments — Object) by introducing “Model” and “Outcome.” Key elements, highlighted in yellow, include:

Subject
Object
Mediating Instruments
Concept (not present in the current example)
Modeling a Project
Product
By-product
Solution as Contribution
The Next Project
Service (not present in the current example)

These Operational Concepts act as keywords to analyze each project and visualize them in diagrams.

4.1 Operational Concepts and Theoretical Concepts

I distinguish between Theoretical Concepts and Operational Concepts. More details on this typology can be found in Knowledge Discovery: The “Concepts — Notions” Mapping.

Theoretical Concepts form the foundation of meta-theories and specific theories and are used to build knowledge frameworks.
Operational Concepts are practical tools developed for empirical research and reflection. They may or may not be derived from theoretical concepts.

Some terms, such as Subject, Object, and Mediating Instruments, serve as both theoretical and operational concepts. When used operationally, terms like Mediating Tools, Mediating Instruments, and Mediation can refer to the same theoretical concept and can be used interchangeably in empirical research and reflection.

However, “Modeling A Project”, “Solution as Contribution”, and “The Next Project” are Operational Concepts only. They are only useful for the method of “Mapping Thematic Journey”.

However, terms like Modeling a Project, Solution as Contribution, and The Next Project are strictly operational concepts and are particularly relevant to the Mapping Strategic Moves method.

Additionally, I differentiate between Primary and Secondary Operational Concepts for the method. While the highlighted terms indicate primary operational concepts, the smaller text represents secondary operational concepts.

I used the following Secondary Operational Concepts for the four case studies of Mapping Thematic Journey:

Concept
New Concept
Diagram
Meta-diagram
Domain
Content
Basic Principles
Book (draft)
Tool and Method
Framework and Toolkit
Framework
Website
Themes of Practice
Knowledge Center

These terms are central to the Knowledge Engagement Journey and align with the taxonomy outlined in the Knowledge Discovery Canvas.

4.2 Modeling A Project

A key aspect of the Mapping Strategic Moves method is “Modeling a Project.”

Why do we need a model for a project?

While not every project requires a model, having one can help manage information overload and offer creative solutions for idea development, especially when dealing with complex data.

For instance, in February 2022, I worked on the Life Discovery Canvas project. The diagram below illustrates its structure.

The “Ideas” behind the Life Discovery Canvas are pretty unique — both simple for me to understand and potentially complex for others. I borrowed the spatial structure from the Thematic Space Canvas, as both share the same underlying framework. This allowed me to focus on replacing old concepts with new ones relevant to Life Discovery Activity, rather than redesigning the visualization.

In The Life Discovery Canvas (v1.0) — Part 1: Theoretical Background, I introduced the theoretical background of the Life Discovery Activity, which is primarily drawn from the Project-centered approach.

There is a deep analogy between the two projects, as demonstrated in the diagram below.

This analogy is rooted in the basic model of Activity Theory: Subject — Mediating Tool — Object. For more details, see the Activity Analysis website.

I consider both Developing Tacit Knowledge and Life Discovery as activities. From the perspective of Activity Theory, the Thematic Space Canvas and Life Discovery Canvas both function as mediating tools.

Additionally, “Life Discovery” can be seen as a subcategory of “Developing Tacit Knowledge” when the focus is on personal life development. The process of gaining new insights into life development mirrors the process of developing tacit knowledge.

Can we directly apply the Thematic Space Canvas to Life Discovery Activity?

The Thematic Space Canvas was designed for developing tacit knowledge, and we can indeed apply it. However, the concepts must be translated to better align with Life Discovery Activity.

By replacing old concepts with new ones, I can maintain the spatial structure without redesigning the visual-spatial structure.

As mentioned above, there is a deep analogy between the Thematic Space Canvas and the Life Discovery Canvas, as shown below.

The red words represent the Thematic Space Canvas, while the blue words represent the Life Discovery Canvas. It’s important to note that the Life Discovery Canvas is not a direct application of the Thematic Space Canvas, but rather, they share the same spatial structure.

There is no need to map concepts between the two canvases one-to-one. From a broader perspective, these concepts share the same spatial configuration. For further details, see The Life Discovery Canvas (v1.0) — Part 2: Spatial Structure.

4.3 Product, By-product, and Meta-product

A key distinction between creators and others is that creators often use existing tools in inventive ways or develop new internal tools for their work and personal lives. Over time, they may transform these internal tools into external products. For instance, Slack originated as an internal tool for Stewart Butterfield’s company, Tiny Speck, during the development of the online game Glitch.

Furthermore, a crucial difference between knowledge creators and other types of creators lies in the homogeneity between their products and tools. For example, I used a diagram called HERO U as a tool during the Activity U project. One of the project’s outcomes was a set of diagrams related to Project-oriented Activity Theory. Knowledge creators often leverage existing knowledge to generate new knowledge.

For the theoretical foundation of Mapping A Project, I selected Lev Vygotsky’s “Mediating Action” model. This approach allows us to identify patterns in the transformation between Mediations, Models, and Outcomes. The following diagram illustrates this concept.

The method defines the following key terms concerning the Outcome:

Product
By-product
Meta-product

Additionally, I use the diagram below to model the concept of Outcome.

The Achievement Chain is inspired by the following theoretical resources:

The Activity System Model (Yrjö Engeström,1987): Subject — Outcome.
The evolving systems approach to the study of creative work (Howard E. Gruber, 1974,1989): By-product.
The constructive — developmental approach (Robert Kegan, 1982, 2009): The Evolving Self.

The term “Product” refers to the intended outcome within the original activity’s object, while “By-product” refers to unintended outcomes beyond the original objective. The term “Meta-product” refers to the transformation of the self. This concept highlights the evolution of the self as an outcome of a project.

Since the outcome of one activity can serve as a resource for another, we can think of a chain of projects as the “Reproduction of Activity.” This notion helps explain patterns behind journeys with no predefined path.

Moreover, the development of creative work is an interactive process of “Reproduction of Activity” and “Transformation of Self.” It is essential to consider the creative individual’s conception of the “self.” Gruber emphasizes that “Each creative person has certain conceptions of his or her life tasks. Although we think of the creative person as highly task-oriented, rather than ego-oriented (Amabile, 1983), it is also true that the set of tasks taken as a whole constitute a large part of the ego: To be oneself one must do these things; to do these things one must be oneself.”

I see “Transformation of Self” as the Meta-product of activities.

By-products are a common occurrence for experienced individuals and teams. In his study of Charles Darwin, Howard Gruber (1974) demonstrated how even a great scientist embraced by-product thinking during his creative process.

Gruber stated, “In his beautiful book Productive Thinking, Max Wertheimer, founder of Gestalt psychology, focused his attention on the kind of direct thinking that goes to the heart of the probiel under attack. In Darwin’s long and twisting path, however, there are several striking examples of important steps toward the theory of evolution through natural selection being taken as by-products of efforts that seemed to move in other directions…The theory of coral reefs was based on an extrapolation from what Darwin has learned about the formation of continental mountain chains; if mountains are up-raised, he reasoned, the adjacent sea bed must sink; from this slow subsidence of the sea bed, the coral-reef theory followed. That theory does not deal at all with organic evolution, but it does provide a formal model quite analogous to Darwin’s eventual theory. Darwin did not have a five-year plan to move through this important sequence of ideas. It evolved. The monad theory, itself short-lived in Darwin’s thought and not entirely original, led him to his branching model of evolution. This became a cornerstone of his thought.” (1974, p.112)

In modern knowledge work, there are numerous ways to generate by-products. For more details, see Life-to-be-Owned: The Achievement Chain.

4.4 Results, Rewards, and Contributions

Activity Theorists typically don’t use terms like “Results,” “Rewards,” or “Contributions” in their theoretical frameworks.

For the method of “Mapping Thematic Journey” and the Creative Work Study project in general, I consider “Results”, “Rewards”, and “Contributions” as Operational Concepts for empirical research and reflection because these ideas are related to both “Reproduction of Activity” and “Transformation of Self”.

However, in the context of the Mapping Strategic Moves method, I consider these terms as operational concepts for empirical research and reflection. These ideas are tied to both the “Reproduction of Activity” and the “Transformation of Self.”

The concept of Result is drawn from Activity Theory’s idea of Outcome, while Reward relates to human motivation.

I prefer to use the above diagram to understand the concept of Outcome in general and the concept of Result for the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework. More details can be found in Life Discovery: The “Result — Reward” Gap and Achievement.

For the concept of “Reward,” I adopt Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which focuses on the Self and Environment. This aligns with the Anticipatory Activity System framework, where the Other represents the environment of the Self.

However, SDT lacks consideration of the temporal distance between “Result” and “Reward.” I refer to this distance as the “Result — Reward gap,” where “Result” signifies the First-order Outcome, the transformation of the Object into the Outcome.

We can then discuss the Second-order Outcome, referred to as “Reward.” Rewards are based on Results, and I also classify Punishment as a Negative Reward to streamline concepts within the framework.

Positive Results lead to Positive Rewards
Negative Results lead to Punishments (Negative Rewards)

Both Results and Rewards (i.e., Outcomes) can drive new activities. A new activity may arise from a Result, indicating a material change in an object, or from a Reward, which represents a mental reflection on a Result.

This model explains the relationship between Outcome and the Reproduction of Activity.

As for the concept of “Contribution,” it refers to the evaluation of Results. For the Creative Work Study project, I adopt Robert J. Sternberg’s Propulsion Model of Creative Contributions (1999) as a tool for discussion.

Sternberg defines a creative contribution as something that is (1) relatively original and (2) of high quality with a clear purpose. Scholars have developed various approaches to categorize creative contributions.

In 1999, Sternberg introduced the Propulsion Model of Creative Contributions, identifying seven types of contributions. In 2001, he expanded the model to include eight types. See the diagram below.

The eight types of creative contributions are:

Replication
Redefinition
Forward Incrementation
Advance Forward Incrementation
Redirection
Reconstruction/Redirection
Reinitiation

This article does not use this model for case studies, but I see it as a valuable tool for the Mapping Strategic Moves method. It may be used for case studies in the future.

For more details, see The Propulsion Model of Creative Contributions Applied to the Arts and Letters.

5. The “Ideas — Possible Project — Actual Project” Path

In this article, we discussed three thematic rooms: Ideas, Possible Project, and Actual Project. If we connect them together, we see a circular path of a strategic journey. This path illustrates the transformation from abstract thinking to concrete action, and back again, in a continuous loop of creation and evolution.

Ideas are an individual’s specific thoughts, a theme, a concept, an insight, an intention, a strategy, an objective, etc. It also can be associated with abstract ideas such as theoretical concepts, cultural norms, laws, rules, and ideologies that shape social life. Ideas frame the Strategic Journey by impacting our Strategic Intents.

The Actual Project is the Central Activity of a Strategic Journey. Unlike the Possible Project, which refers to early-stage, canceled, unfinished, or failed projects, the Actual Project is a term reserved for long-term, finished, and successful endeavors. It represents the full realization of an idea into a completed objective.

The Possible Project serves as a bridge between Ideas and the Actual Project. It encompasses an individual’s anticipations, plans, exploration, experiments, and tentative actions. The value of the Possible Project lies in understanding the transformation from ideas to objectives, objectives to concrete objects, and finally from objects to outcomes, which include both planned products and unexpected by-products.

The Possible Project provides a framework to study the adaptability and creativity within a strategic journey, viewed as an Anticipatory Activity System. It allows us to track how ideas evolve and respond to changing conditions, ultimately guiding them toward successful realization.

In essence, the Strategic Journey is not a straight line but a loop that encourages both reflection and progression, inviting creators to continuously explore, experiment, and transform. As we apply this path to our own projects, we can embrace the fluidity of creation and the iterative nature of knowledge and action.

The process itself becomes the product — a living testament to the ongoing journey of discovery, driving Creative Life forward!

How You Can Support the Strategic Moves Project?

As an independent researcher and creator, my work is driven by curiosity, creativity, and a desire to explore new ideas. Projects like Strategic Moves, as well as others focused on creativity, social cognition, and knowledge engagement, require time, dedication, and resources.

If my work resonates with you and you find value in the ideas I’m exploring, there are several ways you can support it:

Visit my Ko-fi page: Your contributions help sustain ongoing research and creative development. Even small donations make a significant impact and enable me to focus on producing high-quality work.

https://ko-fi.com/oliverding

Engage with the content: Share my projects with your network or provide feedback. Engagement from a community of like-minded individuals helps spread the word and adds new perspectives to the work.
Collaborate: If you’re interested in collaboration, whether through joint projects, research, or workshops, feel free to reach out. Creative synergy can expand the scope and reach of these projects in exciting ways.

Your support, whether financial or in the form of engagement, is invaluable in helping me continue to explore and map creative landscapes, develop new frameworks, and share meaningful insights with the world.

Thank you for being part of this journey!

References

Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) and A Possible Book — August 12, 2022
Social Moves: Weaving the Mind and Clarifying the Order — Dec 7, 2023
Slow Cognition: Mapping Thematic Journey (Engaging with Activity Theory, 2020–2022) — Sept 15, 2022