D as Diagramming: The NEXT Way

Oliver Ding

Published in

CALL4

6 min readSep 5, 2021

The Networked Transactional Anticipatory System

This is the last one post about the iART Framework. I have talked about the three perspectives for the framework:

Intrapersonal Analysis
Interpersonal Analysis
Transactional Analysis

Today I want to add one more perspective:

Collective analysis

The above diagram presents two models of networked iART diagrams. It means two types of network structure: hub and chain.

The Hub Model

A person connects to several other people. The diagram below puts three iART diagrams together:

Self — Other 1
Self — Other 2
Self — Other 3

The Self can adopt different perspectives for these three different iART systems because there are different types of relationships. For example, if the Self is a founder of a startup, Other 1 may be an investor, Other 2 may be a family member, Other 3 may be a mentor.

If we put these three iART systems together, we face the challenge of Collective Analysis. The good news is we have a tool for handling it.

The Ecological Zone Framework

I have introduced the Ecological Zone Framework in a previous article D as Diagramming: The Defining Zone.

The left diagram in the following picture is the basic model of the framework. The right diagram is the standard model of the framework.

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.

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 which 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. For person A, he perceives a negative impact from the 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 concept of “Ecological Force” is a very useful tool for Collective Analysis of the Hub model of iART Framework.

The Chain Model

The Chain model represents a landscape view of social networks. For example, the diagram below shows a chain of social relationship:

Self > Other 1 > Other 2 > Other 3 > …

Each two people form an iART system with a particular relationship. The whole social network is a networked system of many iART systems. This is a very complicated model because each person has his/her own perspective of his/her iART system. Each person has his/her social position. Also, the interpersonal relationship is dynamic.

In order to discuss this model, we need new terms such as “indirect anticipation” and “the degree of indirect anticipation”.

Let’s use the startup activity as an example. Self is a founder, Other 1 is a professional investor from a venture capital (VC) firm, Other 2 is a General Partner of the VC firm, and the Other 3 is a Limited Partner of the VC firm. Each person has his/her own anticipation about the startup activity. Other 1’s anticipation is the first degree of indirect anticipation while Other 2’s anticipation is the second degree of indirect anticipation.

The Network

We can also adopt knowledge about social network analysis for the networked iART systems. For example, the diagram below is quoted from an article about social network analysis.

The above diagram represents four types of roles: Energizers, Brokers, Connectors, and Challengers.

For the iART Framework, what we need to pay attention to is the role of the Other and his/her social network.

The NEXT Way

I name the networked iART Systems The NEXT Way.

N: Networked
E: Expectation
X: Uncertainty
T: Trust and Trends

I’d like to emphasize the difference between the Networked Transactional Anticipatory System and the Collective Analysis.

The Collective Analysis means the NEXT Way, it just refers to the networked iART systems. It doesn’t point to a particular anticipatory system.

However, the Networked Transactional Anticipatory System means the Self chooses a scope of whole. For example, the founder chooses “Self + Other 1+ Other 2” as a whole and he/she perceives the whole as a Networked Transactional Anticipatory System.

The iART Framework project 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.

I use three approaches for the project:

Reflect on my own works
Interview others
Collect examples

This post is about my own work around the iART Framework. On August 16, 2021, I got the initial idea about the framework while I was reading a book. After designing an initial diagram for the framework, I expanded it to a diagram network with a set of diagrams.

I realized this is a great example for the D as Diagramming project. Thus, I write several articles to present my ideas. You can find more details from the following previous articles: