D as Diagramming: The Defining Zone
A by-product of the iART Framework and my tacit knowledge about the startup activity
This post aims to introduce a new concept: The Defining Zone. If you read a previous article D as Diagramming: The iART Diagram Network, you probably notice a similar diagram.
The difference between the above diagram and the similar diagram for the article is the yellow ellipse and the text “The Defining Zone”.
The diagram below is the original diagram:
I made the above two diagrams on August 27, 2021. Though the original diagram is part of the iART Framework, I consider the concept of “The Defining Zone” as a by-product of the iART Framework project and the D as Diagramming project because the concept refers to the startup activity.
1. The iART Framework for the Startup Activity
Why did I produce this by-product? First, I use the relationship of “Founder — Investor” as an example for discussing the iART Diagram Network. Second, I have over 10 years of experience in the startup field. In the past years, I joined startups as a co-founder and offered advice to founders of other startups. I am also active in building non-profit communities as a co-founder and advisor.
The iART Framework is part of the D as Diagramming project which aims to explore the power of diagrams and diagramming. What I really want to know is about the value of diagrams for turning tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.
Since I have so many years of work experience in the startup field, I think I have some tacit knowledge about building startups and non-profit communities. However, I didn’t want to write something about startups because there are so many books about startups. This time, the diagramming activity just triggers me to write something about the relationship of “Founder — Investor” because I have to find a concrete example to talk about the abstract iART Framework.
The below diagram is the expanded model of the iART Framework. What an intricate mesh! I bet the real life of a startup is more complicated than this picture.
If you want to know more details about the above diagram, you can read the previous article: D as Diagramming: iART Diagram Notation.
2. The Defining Zone v.s. The Early Stage
The name “The Defining Zone” is inspired by Meg Jay’s 2013 book The Defining Decade: Why Your Twenties Matter And How To Make The Most of Them Now.
If you are familiar with the startup field, you might think it should be called The Early Stage. For example, we can search “early-stage startup” and find the answer from Google:
Yes. What I am talking about is the early stage of business. However, I want to use The Defining Zone to highlight two things:
- I want to use the word Defining to emphasize the importance of the early stage of startup for the whole innovation system because most innovations are defined at this stage. Moreover, business innovations and social innovations define the historical development of the human lifestyle.
- The word Zone refers to my theoretical account of intersubjectivity: the Ecological Zone framework.
In 2018, I developed the Ecological Zone framework to highlight a theoretical creative space between Gibson’s Affordance Theory which is placed at the animal-environment analytical level, and Barker’s Behavior Settings Theory which is placed at the level of higher-order extra-individual social activity.
The term Ecological Zone refers to an interactive space between two subjects with a shared activity for a short duration or long duration. Though a ZONE is a basic unit, I use at least three ZONEs together for concrete analysis because I need one ZONE as an environment for another ZONE.
The above diagram is the basic model of the Ecological Zone framework. This is not a normal account of intersubjectivity because my focus is Ecological Aspects. My goal is to add a layer between Gibson’s Affordance Theory and Barker’s Behavior Settings Theory. It is also inspired by Gibson’s idea “Ecological Self”.
One ecological aspect of the Ecological Zone framework is “Ecological Force”. The term “Force” is inspired by Lewin’s topological psychology. However, my term “Ecological Force” highlights the source of force. I pay attention to the ecological source of force. For instance, the above diagram displays two signs:
- - Da
- - Db
D refers to Distance which is claimed as an ecological force from the perspective of Ecological Zone. Distance is a fact that exists due to two people. If there is only one person, there is no Distance. The fact of Distance doesn’t depend on any person of the two people but on their relative positions.
Let’s say the shard activity is a project of remote work in which Distance is a solid ecological force. Person A perceives a negative impact from remote work due to the Distance. This experience is represented by the sign “-Da”. In like manner, I use the sign “-Db” to represent a negative impact perceived by person B.
Due to the individual difference, person B may perceive a positive impact caused by Distance from the project of remote work. Furthermore, Distance is only one type of ecological force, there are many types of ecological forces in different types of activities.
The above diagram is the basic model. However, the standard model of the Ecological Zone framework is its “Tripartness” version. See the right diagram in the following picture.
I usually use the Ecological Zone framework with at least three zones together. The tripartness version of the model represents the standard usage and its unique theoretical values.
For iART Framework, it considers both the relationship of “Self — Other” and the relationship of “Present — Future”. From the perspective of the Ecological Zone framework, the “Present — Future” relationship can be understood as a shared theme within the zone.
The relationship of “Founder — Investor” refers to a shared activity: the startup business.
3. Five Developmental Themes
Based on the above basic diagram, I expand it with some notes which turn my tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.
I add five Developmental Themes to the defining zone. From the perspective of adult development, I think there are five critical themes for early-stage entrepreneurs.
Each developmental theme can be understood as a guiding question.
- Situation: Where are we?
- Orientation: Where should we go?
- Projection: What should we try?
- Engagement: How to find our sweet spot?
- Improvement: How to scale it?
The following sections will discuss these themes with “The Dialectical Room” diagram.
4. Situation: Where are we?
The situation theme refers to the position of the founder at the starting point. There is a structural tension behind this theme: Stance v.s. Perspective.
The Stance means the founder has to make decisions and take actions due to his own position and situation. The Perspective means the investor and others could have their perspectives on the idea. Though the founder could take perspectives from others, he still should follow his own stance because others may not know the whole situation. For example, the founder’s motivation, resources, beliefs, knowledge, health status, social relations, etc.
This tension is adopted from the DEKIN Innovation System framework which was developed in 2018. I used the framework to discuss the relationship between social positions and innovation. The diagram below is one of the original sides.
The above diagram doesn’t mention a critical issue: Developmental Resources. From the ecological practice approach and the perspective of adult development, I’d like to emphasize the importance of resources and offer a new perspective on this issue. In order to highlight the difference between my view and my normal view on resources, I use a new term Developmental Resources to name my view.
The diagram below is the basic model of the Ecological Practice approach. If we apply it to the startup activity, then we can say the startup activity is a container. The founder attaches to the container with developmental resources and detaches from the container with developmental returns. Thus, the resource — returns define the container.
The founder should have rational and reasonable anticipation about the returns due to his initial resources. Unfortunately, some founders don’t know they already have some resources which could lead to a great business. Other founders overrate their resources.
From this perspective, the startup business should be understood as a path of moving between social positions in order to acquire appropriate developmental resources.
5. Orientation: Where should we go?
The Orientation theme refers to the direction of the startup activity. There is a structural tension behind this theme: Potential v.s. Possible.
The Potential refers to the size, growth tendency, and competition of the target market. How big is the opportunity? The Possible refers to the complexity of the activity and the competence of the team. Can we do it? This tension echoes two strategic views: Outside-in v.s. Inside-out perspective (see the table below).
Though this tension is common sense, I’d like to go deep with a relevant topic called Platform Orientation. On March 4, 2020, I published an article titled Social Platform Experience Design (#SocialPxD) and suggested a framework for discussing social platform design.
In the above diagram, I use social platforms as an example. If we remove “social” from the diagram, I think it works well too. To be honest, this framework just presents common sense. However, it led me to think deeply about platform building and platform development.
Later I found that it is useful to make a distinction between the Vertical Platform and the Horizontal Platform. Since the former is about common sense, I am attracted by the latter. The Platform Orientation for building horizontal platforms is a very tough challenge because Horizontal Platform points to a variety of directions of concrete applications. At the early stage, which direction is the best direction for building the Horizontal Platform?
Finally, I built a framework to model this process. On March 24, 2021, I published an article titled Platform Innovation as Concept-fit. The article suggests the Concept-fit framework for understanding Platform Innovation. The term “Concept-fit” means six types of concepts fit together from two sides and three levels.
The Concept-fit framework is inspired by Hegel’s approach to Concept and Project-oriented Activity Theory. You can find more details in the original article.
6. Projection: What should we try?
The Projection theme refers to the design and development processes of the startup activity. There are many models and frameworks for design and development. What I want to contribute to the field is a structural tension behind this theme: Affordance v.s. Supportance.
The concept of Affordance is adopted from James J. Gibson’s ecological psychology. It is a great idea for understanding Material Engagement. You can find more details here. The concept of Supportance is about Social Engagement and it is adopted from my own account the Ecological Practice approach.
If a person can accomplish something by himself/herself, then the person doesn’t need support from other people. For this situation, I consider the action is only about the relationship between people and natural (physical/technological) environments. Let’s call this type of action an individual action.
If a person needs at least one other person to support him in accomplishing something, we can refer to this type of action as intersubjective action. Moreover, some actions need indirect support from other people within the settings of an organization or other social entities. We can define the third type of action as institutionalized action.
I consider the latter two are about the relationship between ‘people — social environments”. The concept of Supportance refers to a new unit of analysis for this type of ecological relationship. You can find more details here.
If you want to find a framework for this theme. You can check out my Lifesystem framework which is developed by the “Affordance — Supportance” loop.
The above diagram is the basic model of the Lifesystem Framework. A Lifesystem has two parts: Lifeway and Lifeform. The term “Lifeway” is inspired by the ecological psychologist James. J. Gibson’s writing: “The natural environment offers many ways of life, and different animals have different ways of life.” I use the term “Lifeway” to refer to the “human—material” engagement which is related to physical environment and Affordance.
The term “Lifeform” is inspired by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein’s writing: “It is easy to imagine a language consisting only of orders and reports in battle…And to imagine a language means to imagine a form of life…Here the term ‘language game’ is meant to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity or a form of life.” I use the term “Lifeform” to refer to the “human—human” engagement which is related to social environment and Supportance.
You can find more details in an old article: Lifesystem: Modeling Ice Skating and Other Social Practices.
I also apply the pair of concepts “Affordance — Supportance” to other frameworks and diagrams. For example, the Concept-fit framework.
The above diagram is part of the Concept-fit framework. There are three steps for building a platform: Orientation Development, Product Development, and Market Development. These three steps correspond to three movements of the formation of concept: “Universal,” “Individual,” “Particular”. Though we use steps to describe the process, we should notice this is not a simple linear path.
For the Projection theme, this means the balance between the evolution of Affordance and the evolution of Supportance. If the product focuses on the interaction between humans and machines, then the Projection should pay attention to Affordances. If the product focuses on the interaction between humans and humans, then the Projection should pay attention to Supportances. In the real world, it is a mix of both Affordances and Supportances.
7. Engagement: How to find our sweet spot?
The Engagement theme refers to the market-fit movement of the startup activity. This is about market development. At this point, the founder starts to face a new challenge: a structural tension between Consumers and Supporters such as early enthusiasts.
The tension of “Consumers v.s. Supporters” is not new. The below diagram was featured in Geoffrey Moore’s classic business book Crossing the Chasm which was inspired by Everett Roger’s innovation diffusion curve.
We should notice that the above model is about the technology adoption lifecycle. The present discussion is about the mix of affordances and supportances. So, the product that we are talking about is not pure technology.
One thing I want to emphasize is that Supporters such as early enthusiasts are not the same as Consumers in the age of social platforms. In some cases, the early supporters represent the ideal consumers. In other cases, we see the opposite situation.
It could be good for attracting early supporters to earn feedback for testing and improving the product and building the initial brand and community. However, we should be careful in selecting the right samples of the ideal consumers.
8. Improvement: How to scale it?
The Improvement theme refers to the growth phase of the startup activity. This is about management. At this point, the founder needs to maintain more and more complexities at the execution level. There is a structural tension between User Experience and Team Management.
This phase is tough for a tech-background founder or a product-focused founder because they have to move their focus from product to market and management.
For most people, this is a huge challenge because this is a life transformation from an inventor to a leader. It means both personal innovation and business expansion. The good news is that the company could hire a CEO as the leader of the business.
9. Practice! Practice! Practice!
I have mentioned three types of heroes in HERO U — A New Framework for Knowledge Heroes.
- Business Leaders: Founders, entrepreneurs, and managers who make great market impacts.
- Social Changemakers: Non-profit founders, activists, and social workers who make good social impacts.
- Knowledge Heroes: Scholars, authors, and artists who make unique epistemic impacts.
The HERO U framework is for people who want to become knowledge heroes. However, the Defining Zone is only for reflecting on my tacit knowledge of the startup activity.
The HERO U framework suggested three kinds of knowing: knowing-for-all, knowing-for-us, and knowing-for-me.
If we adopt the HERO U framework for the startup field, then Container Z is the Startup activity. The knowing-for-us is about Organizational Learning and Corporate Knowledge Management. The knowing-for-me is about Entrepreneurial Cognition.
However, the most important thing for the founder is Practice! Practice! Practice!
You are most welcome to connect via the following social platforms:
Polywork: https://www.polywork.com/oliverding
Twitter: https://twitter.com/oliverding
Boardle: https://www.boardle.io/users/oliver-ding
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/oliverding
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.
