TALE: A Possible Discipline called “Platform Ecology”

People and Platform

The above picture represents a Possible Theme called “Platform Ecology”.

• Name: Platform Ecology
• Clue: People and Platform
• Type: knowledge theme
• Contributor:
• Reference: Curativity Theory, Activity Theory, Configurational Theory
• Related Themes: Possible Personas, Possible Practice, Possible Discipline

On April 28, 2023, I wrote a post about a possible theme called “Possible Discipline” and mentioned Configurational Theory.

Configurational theories constitute unique frames of reference for the objects they describe. Configurational theory commonly focuses on how elements and their relationships constitute a whole.

If you read my articles, you may know I have been working on Activity Theory and Curativity Theory for many years.

• Activity Theory: its primary concept is “Object of Work”.
• Curativity Theory: its primary concept is “turning pieces into a meaningful whole”

Now we can connect these ideas with “Possible Discipline”. See the diagram below:

We can use Activity Theory, Curativity Theory, and Configurational Theory to explore the theme of “Possible Discipline”.

Today I am going to develop a configurational theory for the possible theme of “Platform Ecology”. First, I will introduce an example from the field of HCI research. The second part of the article will focus on Platform Ecology.

A Configurational Theory of HCI

In 2023, HCI researcher and Design theorist Erik Stolterman gave me a secret weapon for understanding “Possible Discipline”. See his paper about the disciplinary identity of HCI research:

The Disciplinary Identity of HCI Research: An Investigation Using Configurational Theory

The secret weapon is called Configurational Theory. The paper develops a configurational theory for the field of HCI. We will learn how to do it from this example.

What kind of theory is attachment theory? It offers a basic form of a configuration of the Object of Work of a discipline. According to the papers of the authors:

…it must be clear and easy to understand while at the same time accounting for the complexity of the phenomena it aims to describe. And it is crucial that the theory not only leaves room for different interpretations of the nature and character of the elements and their interrelationships but also encourages different interpretations.

Definitions of elements and their interrelationships need to be intuitive to some extent and not require too much interpretation and value- based judgments to understand their meaning.

HCI stands for Human-Computer Interaction. The authors believe that the simplest configurational theory of HCI includes those constructs present in the name of the field.

• These include a human, a computer, and their interaction. Some of the more common definitions appearing in textbooks, and other widely available resources, appear to be variations of this configuration (Preece et al., 2015).
• Interaction, as a core object of study, operationalizes the relationship between humans and computers. But this definition is quite broad, and interaction itself can be thought of as meaningful because of the position it occupies with respect to humans and computers.
• …In each of these other cases, configurational theory suggests that the nature and quality of interaction are different due to its relationship with unique elements in particular configurations. Interaction between two humans, a teacher and a student, is different than interaction between two friends on the playground. Interaction between a smart thermostat and its environment is different than interaction between a self-driving car in rush hour traffic. Interaction is both a complex and contingent category.

The authors suggest that a way to amplify the basic configuration is to reframe “human” and “computer” as abstract constructs. See the diagram below.

It seems the authors are turning Names into Concepts. It’s clear that User, Interaction, and Artifact are theoretical concepts that can represent more ideas than normal words.

After defining three core elements of HCI, the authors move to the configurational level of these elements. See the diagram below.

The authors emphasize that a configurational theory should be seen and evaluated both as descriptive and generative.

As a generative artifact, it becomes possible to alter the configuration and to explore the implications of each alteration. For example, Figure 2 shows three arrangements containing the same elements in different configurations.

In one (top left), the user is elevated above the other ele- ments, and all three exist in a closed box — devoid of con- text. In another (top right), user and artifact are elevated above interaction — arranged in a triangular formation but outside the form, which suggests broader contextual details that may have implications for each element.

In the third (bottom) configuration, user and artifact are divided by interaction in a flat hierarchy contained by a porous rectangular volume—a composition that most closely resembles the basic configuration. The rectangle distinguishes these three elements and suggests that undefined external elements can “get through” the rectangle’s boundaries and affect the elements within.

It is quite clear that each configuration leads to certain assumptions about each element and how they interact. They also suggest a hierarchy with the user occupying dominant positions (the top or top-right) in all three configurations.

Finally, the authors go further with the third (bottom) configuration and offer more details. See the diagram below.

In this configuration, interaction can be framed as a function of the relationship between a user and an artifact:

I=f(UA)

Such a configuration lends itself to the proposal of a typology of interaction where different kinds of interaction are generated through the combination of different users and artifacts.

In these configurations, users’ behaviors, cognitions, and emotions differ. How they differ and the significance of these differences might be reasonable questions for an HCI researcher.

Our proposed configurational theory provides both a framework for elaborating types of interaction through various user-artifact configurations and guidance with respect to which constructs, and their dimensions, could be studied from an HCI research perspective. In this way, we position configurational theory to both elaborate, and center, the core object of study for HCI researchers.

The goal of a configurational theory is to define the core object of study of a discipline. By identifying core elements and their relationship, the members of a discipline can share the same core object of study while keeping their creative freedom in interpretations.

A Configurational Theory of Platform Ecology

On April 27, 2023, I wrote an article titled Mental Moves #2: Creative Swapping of Mental Elements and reflect on a mental element named Platform[Project(People)] which is about the “Platform — Project” relationship. See the diagram below.

I used the above Mental Configuration for two projects and I found there is a Creative Swapping between these two projects.

• 2020: The Platform Ecology Approach
• 2022: The Project Engagement Approach

After publishing the article, I realized that I could use it to develop a configurational theory of Platform Ecology. You can see the final result in the diagram below.

The Platform Ecology project aims to explore platform-based social practices, especially the Platform — People relationship.

From the perspective of Project Engagement approach which is inspired by Activity Theory, “Platform” refers to a unit of analysis of Project Engagement. See the diagram below.

You can find more details in Project Engagement (v2.1) as an Innovation Approach.

For the Platform Ecology approach, the primary unit of analysis is “Platform”. We can also see my “Platform” thematic space as a large context of the Platform Ecology approach. See the diagram below.

You can find more details about the above diagram in Mapping Thematic Space #3: The “Platform” Thematic Space.

Platform Ecology refers to my vision of applying the ecological practice approach to study Platform-related social practices. I consider it as a knowledge enterprise that could lead to different projects such as the Platform-for-Development framework, Platform as Container, Platform Innovation as Concept-fit, etc.

In 2021, I also used the Theme U diagram to represent the landscape of “Platform Ecology”.

The goal of Platform Ecology is to develop a series of heuristic models and frameworks for theory-based reflection and practice-based reflection. The above diagram has presented a list of such models:

• DEKIN Innovation System (2018)
• Social Platform Experience Design (2020)
• The Platform-for-Development Framework (2020)
• Action-based Creativity (2020)
• The Supportive Cycle model (2021)
• The Concept-fit Framework (2021)

Now we can try the configurational theoretical approach and redefine “Platform Ecology” as a possible discipline.

If we see “Platform Ecology” as an approach or a perspective, then the word “Ecology” refers to the Ecological Practice approach which is a particular theoretical approach.

If we see “Platform Ecology” as a possible discipline, then the word “Ecology” refers to the normal word which means the study of the relationship among living organisms and their environment. In this manner, Platform is the primary environment for People.

The configurational theoretical approach separates “Object of Study” and “Theoretical Approaches”. For the same Object of Study, different researchers can use different theoretical approaches.

Object of Study: the Platform-based Social Practices

The configurational theoretical approach aims to capture the core object of study for a discipline. In order to define the object of study, we need to discover the basic elements and the primary configuration of these elements.

On March 4, 2020, I developed the Social Platform Experience Design (#SocialPxD) framework and listed 25 types of O-E relationships for discussing platform ecology.

The ecology view focuses on the “organism—environment” relationship. It suggests each and every living organism has its specific surrounding medium of environment called niche. An organism is also part of other organisms’ environment.

For the PxD framework, I consider five components: People, Practice, Software, Product, and Platform. Each component can be considered as Organism and Environment as well. Let’s use O to represent Organism and E to represent Environment. Now, we can generate the following O-E relationships.

People (O) — Platform (E)
People (O) — Product (E)
People (O) — Software (E)
People (O) — Practice (E)
People (O) — People (E)

Practice (O) — Platform (E)
Practice (O) — Product (E)
Practice (O) — Software (E)
Practice (O) — Practice (E)
Practice (O) — People (E)

Software (O) — Platform (E)
Software (O) — Product (E)
Software (O) — Software (E)
Software (O) — Practice (E)
Software (O) — People (E)

Product (O) — Platform (E)
Product (O) — Product (E)
Product (O) — Software (E)
Product (O) — Practice (E)
Product (O) — People (E)

Platform (O) — Platform (E)
Platform (O) — Product (E)
Platform (O) — Software (E)
Platform (O) — Practice (E)
Platform (O) — People (E)

On Oct 1, 2020, I focused on the “People (O) — Platform(E)” relationship which is the primary O-E relationship within platform ecology. Inspired by Activity Theory and Derek Layder’s Social Domains Theory, I developed the Platform-for-Development Framework (v0.1). See the diagram below.

How did I develop it?

The first step is expanding O-E to O-A-E. The A stands for Activity. Inspired by Activity Theory, I adopted the concept of “Activity” and turned the O-E relationship into the O-A-E relationship (People — Activity — Platform).

There are several models and approaches within the theoretical tradition of Activity Theory. In 2014, Andy Blunden edited a book titled Collaborative Projects: An Interdisciplinary Study and argued that there is a need to establish a concept of “project” as a unit of activity theory and human sciences.

I was fascinated by Andy Blunden’s innovative approach. The “project” is a perfect concept for conceptualizing various activities within platforms. Inspired by Andy Blunden’s idea “Project as a unit of activity”, I use “Program” to refer to informal organizing activities on platforms. Thus, I made a new triad: People (O) — Program (A) — Platform (E).

The second step is to adopt Derek Layder’s Social Domains Theory as another theoretical resource.

Layder suggested four principal social domains: Psychobiography (including self-identity), Situated activity, Social setting (including fields), and Contextual resources. We have to notice these four social domains are “principal” and they can be subdivided into smaller “domains” or even understood as component elements of larger “domains”.

Thus, I applied it to expand the People (O) — Program (A) — Platform (E) framework:

• Psychobiography: Purpose (personal motivation on the development of self-identity)
• Situated activity: Program
• Contextual resources: Position
• Settings: Platform

The result is a 5P framework: People (O, organism) — Purpose (M, motivation) — Program (A, activity) — Position (R, resources) — Platform (E, Environment).

If we consider “Purpose”, “Program”, and “Position” as three aspects of “Project” — (this is not the original claim of Andy Blunden’s approach) — then we get a simple model of a nested social structure:

If we put Project and Platform together, I’d like to claim that Project is an “embedded social context” and Platform is the “setting of Project”. Without any Project (informal and flexible social activities), a Platform is only a Tool that helps People take individual actions.

You can find more details in The Platform for Development (P4D) Framework (v1.0).

The concept of Platformba was developed on Feb 14, 2021, for the Platform-for-Development framework (v2.0). I used the metaphor of Container to develop the concept of Platformba.

One day In 2017, I saw a sideways flower pot in a local supermarket. As a guy who was not familiar with gardening, I was curious about such a container and the plants it contains. I used to think that plants always grow upward. That day, I was surprised that there are some plants that grow horizontally. I feel ashamed of my ignorance of botany.

This dramatic experience inspired me to reflect on the concept of Container. In 2017, I was fascinated with George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s conceptual metaphor Container and image schema Containment. For Lakoff and Johnson, Container refers to the in-out orientation and boundary of space. After the day, I moved my attention from the boundary of the container to the dynamic relationship between the Container and the Things it contains. For the sake of discussion, I coined a new term called “Containee” in order to simply represent “Things contained by Container”.

The sideways flower pot taught me an invaluable lesson in which I learned the initial idea of the ecological practice approach. Though a plant is held by a container, the living space occupied by the plant in the world is beyond the interior space of the container. Later, I theorized this phenomenon with the following terms and diagrams.

• Inside Space: the interior space of the container.
• Outside Space: the exterior space of the container.
• Spilling Space: the living space occupied by the containee.

We have to notice that the Spilling Space is a dynamic space because it can be smaller than the inside space or bigger than the outside space. In this way, the spilling space connects the inside space and the outside space.

The above description has defined the Platform as Super Large Container. Thus, the basic logic of Container can be applied to Platform.

• Platform: a super large container
• Participants: the containee of the platform
• Inside Space: the interior space of the platform.
• Outside Space: the exterior space of the platform.
• Spilling Space: the living space occupied by the Participants of a Platform

To facilitate discussion, I coined the term Platform-ba (or Platformba) to describe the sum of Containee and Spilling Space for the Platform Ecology project.

For the Platform-for-Development framework and the Supportive Cycle model, I defined Platform-ba as a platform-based sociocultural field.

The “ba” is originally found in Japanese. The concept of “ba” has been used extensively by Japanese management researcher Ikujiro Nonaka in his SECI model of knowledge creation. The platform-ba is an emergent social substance that is formed by people who have relations to a platform. While a platform is designed, managed, and controlled by its owner, its platform-ba is determined by people, the users, and stakeholders of the platform. By using the new term Platform-ba, I can highlight the active aspect of platform practice which refers to people’s activity.

You can find more details in Platform, Platform-ba, and Platform Ecology.

Primary Configuration and Secondary Configurations

The above discussion defines four elements: People — Project — Platform — Platformba.

There are many possible configurations of these elements. I consider the hierarchical structure as the primary configuration for Platform Ecology. See the diagram below.

However, Hierarchy is not the only way to make a configuration. The diagram below is another configuration.

The triad of Platform — Container — Network is adopted from the Ecological Practice approach. The above diagram uses it as a frame of reference for developing the Platform — Project — Platformba configuration.

Where are People?

People are moving between Platform, Project, and Platformba. You can find more details in TALE: A Possible Theme called “Social Pieces”.

This configuration can be used as a secondary configuration for discussing multiple-platform issues.

Both the above two configurations are developed from the synchronic perspective. We can also explore the diachronic perspective.

The diachronic perspective considers Platform as a large Project.

Pieces and Whole: The Platform — Project — People Relationship

The basic configurations don’t offer an explanation of Platform Ecology. Researchers can select a theoretical approach to develop their perspectives on Platform Ecology.

For example, I used the Ecological Practice Approach to understand the Platform — Project-People relationship. See the diagram below.

The Ecological Practice approach was developed with the following core concepts:

• Affordance
• Attachance
• Supportance
• Genidentity
• Curativity
• Container/Containee
• Infoniche
• Thematic Space
• etc

The above diagram only used Affordance and Supportance. At the first layer of ecological analysis, Affordance is assigned to Platform. As the basic environment, a platform offers ecological affordances to its users and stakeholders.

By actualizing the platform’s affordances, people take real actions which form Activities. People and their activities form a Platformba. Then, some people and their activities offer Supportances to other people. In order to simplify the discussion, we can say that Platformba offers Supportances to People.

The concept of Supportance is similar to Affordance, both of which point to the potential action possibilities. However, the concept of Affordance only applies to the natural environment and material environment, it only discusses the perception from the psychological perspective. Some scholars have coined a new term called Social Affordance. I don’t like this approach very much because I think it is better to develop a new concept for discussing the potential of support between people. The major reason is the concept of Affordance is about one-side agency because the natural/material environment doesn’t have agency, while Supportance is about two-side agency because the “social environment” has agency. Some social theories such as ANT (Actor-Network Theory) argue that there is no distinction between humans and non-humans, some scholars also talk about material agency. From the perspective of the Ecological Practice approach, I do believe there is a distinction between humans and non-humans and we shouldn’t expand the concept of Agency from human to non-human. In this way, I can keep the concept of Affordance and develop the concept of Supportance.

It is clear that I want to set two hierarchical loops. First, the Affordance — Supportance loop is located at the potential level. Second, the Action — Activity loop is located at the actual level. Third, The potential hierarchical loop is corresponding to the actual hierarchical loop: Affordance — Action, Supportance — Activity.

By curating Ecological Psychology, the Ecological Practice approach, and Activity Theory together, this model sets the theoretical foundation for the Platform-for-Development framework and Platform Ecology in general.

The Concept of Platform

As mentioned above, the “Object of Study” of Platform Ecology is Platform-based Social Practices. The above discussion has presented several pairs of concepts for this challenge:

• Platform — Platformba
• Affordance — Supportance
• Action — Activity
• People — Project

While most authors use the term Platform as a metaphor to describe large digital websites/apps and the companies behind them. In the 2016 book Platform Revolution, Parker, van Alstyne, and Choudary (2016) define a platform as “a business based on enabling value-creating interactions between external producers and consumers. The platform provides an open, participative infrastructure for these interactions and sets governance conditions for them. The platform’s overarching purpose: to consummate matches among users and facilitate the exchange of goods, services, or social currency, thereby enabling value creation for all participants.”(p.5) In fact, what the authors suggested is not a new theoretical concept, but a new metaphor for an old concept: two-sided markets. In order words, we can reduce the term Platform to the old-fashioned term Market.

Some authors have discussed Platform-based Social Practices. For example, van Dijck, Poell, and DeWaal (2018) published The Platform Society which focuses on public values in a connective world. From a macro perspective, the authors examined three case studies: private & public transport, journalism, and higher education.

I believe it’s possible to claim Platform as a new type of social structure that incorporates the duality of human actions: the material/digital environmental aspect and the sociocultural aspect. Thus, we can build a new concept of Platform at the ontological level. In order words, the Platform is just the Platform. We don’t have to reduce Platform to Market or other theoretical concepts.

The category of Digital Social Platforms is a great example of this new ontological concept. However, I want to claim that some large organizations and local communities can be understood as Platforms from this new perspective as well. So, Platform-based Social Practice is not only about digital social platforms, but a new type of social reality in the age of the platform.

Three Challenges of Platform Ecology

Now we can define Platform Ecology as a brand new research program on Platform-based Social Practices from the ecological practice approach and other theoretical approaches.

There are three theoretical challenges for Platform Ecology: the Nature—Culture relationship, the Individual — Collective relationship, and the Technology—Society relationship. These are classical issues of social science. By adopting the Ecological Practice approach and the Project-oriented Activity Theory, the Platform Ecology project can provide its own solutions to these challenges.

First, the Environment — Culture relationship is about the duality of human actions. The material environment level refers to the natural/technological attribute of human actions while the sociocultural activity level refers to the societal attribute of human actions. While the concept of Affordance from ecological psychology is perfect for discussing the material environment and natural/technological attributes of human actions, it is overwhelming in handling the sociocultural level analysis. I believe the concept of Supportance has a certain potential to solve this problem with a commitment to keep the ecological approach.

Second, the Individual — Collective relationship is nothing less than echoing the classical debate on Structure and Agency in theoretical sociology and social theories in general. There are many theoretical accounts we can find in the literature. For instance, Structuration theory (Anthony Giddens, 1984), Critical Realism and Analytical dualism (Margaret Archer, 1995), and Relational Emergence (Dave Elder-vass, 2010), among others.

For the Platform-for-Development framework, I adopt Project-oriented Activity Theory to discuss the Individual-Collective relationship. This is the reason the framework uses the term “Project”. From the perspective of Project-oriented Activity Theory, the best unit of analysis of Activity is “Project”. By adopting the concept of Project, we can identify and watch the structure and dynamics of collective actions. I think it is also possible to apply this approach to Platform Ecology.

Third, the Technology — Society relationship refers to the debate around Technological Determinism in social science. There are two major accounts of the debate. On the one hand, technological determinism claims that technologies have a strong and defining influence upon whole complexes of cultural shifts that make the problem of locating an agency difficult. Some authors suggest that it is better to place determinism on a spectrum of beliefs about the nature or degree of deterministic possibility. On the other side, social constructionism argues that technology is a social construct and it can be interpreted and reinterpreted depending upon the people involved, the context or situation in which it is designed, developed, or deployed, and the historical moment it resides within. (Robert R. Johnson, 1998. p.87, p.93)

According to Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, the editors of The Social Shaping of Technology (1999), there are two theoretical approaches, that emerged in the mid-1980s, that have a significant influence on the issue of the technology-society relationship. The first is the “Social Construction of Technological Systems (SCOT)” perspective, developed by Wiebe Bijker and Trevor Pinch. The SCOT approach uses concepts such as relevant social groups, interpretive flexibility, and closure to develop a heuristic method for practical case studies. The second one is ANT which is mentioned above, ANT scholars suggest that both society and technology are made of the same “stuff”: networks linking human beings and non-human entities (“actors” or “actants”). (1999, p.24)

From the perspective of the Ecological Practice approach, I prefer “Possible Practice” rather than “Existing Practice”. Thus, the debate about technological determinism is not very attractive to me. What I really care about is the possibilities offered by technology, culture, or both. By adopting the Affordance — Supportance potential hierarchical loop, we can translate the Technology — Society relationship into the Affordance — Suportance relationship.

The Development of Platform Ecology (2020–2022)

In the past several years, I worked on the Platform Ecology project and developed several knowledge frameworks. Sometimes, I considered Adult Development as the primary theme. Sometimes, I moved to the position of the platform owner.

Now I can use the configurational theoretical approach to turn Platform Ecology into a possible discipline. Though my knowledge frameworks take different theoretical perspectives, they do share the same object of study.

In this way, I can turn these pieces into a meaningful whole.

Moreover, I can invite others to join the possible discipline. I can curate others’ work and consider their theoretical perspectives as members of Platform Ecology.

In this way, the Platform Ecology project transforms from developing a theoretical approach into developing a possible discipline. I can detach my focus from Knowledge Creation, and attach my focus to Knowledge Curation.

The list of below is a collection of articles about the Platform Ecology project.

• Social Platform Experience Design (#SocialPxD) — March 4, 2020
• The Platform as Container Framework (private document, link to my Gmail) — March 20, 2020
• Platform Creativity: Domain, Field, and Person — Aug 18, 2020
• The Platform for Development Framework (v1.0) — Dec 13, 2020
• The Supportive Cycle (v1.0) — Feb 9. 2021
• The Developmental Platform — Feb 25, 2021
• Platform as Infoniche — Feb 26, 2021
• Platform Innovation as Concept-fit — March 24, 2021
• Platform for Development (2.0) — March 31, 2021
• Platform Curativity (a Twitter thread) — April 20, 2021
• Platformization: Rethinking Digital Transformation (Linkedin post) — April 23, 2021
• Mapping Thematic Space #3: The “Platform” Thematic Space — Jan 21, 2022
• The SET Framework for Digital Platform Research — Feb 14, 2022
• Once Upon A Whiteboard (a research project about digital whiteboard platforms) — April 2022
• Taking Digital Affordances: The Power of Emojis (Linkedin post) — May 20, 2022
• The Power of Platform Curativity and Platform Innovation (Linkedin post) — May 21, 2022
• The Talent — Platform Fit (Linkedin post) — May 23, 2022
• Digital Space Affordances (Linkedin post) — May 25, 2022
• Platform Genidentity: The Movements of Unfolding Uniqueness — May 29, 2022
• The Platform Hackers (Linkedin post)— June 2, 2022
• [Diagram] The Basic Model of Platform Genidentity Framework (Linkedin post)— June 3, 2022
• [Platform Genidentity] Knowledge Center as Developmental Platform (Linkedin post) — June 6, 2022
• The Platform Migration Strategy (Linkedin post)— July 3, 2022
• Platform-based Service — August 11, 2022
• Developmental Service Design (DSD) — Nov 7, 2022

A major outcome of the Platform Ecology project is a book (draft) titled Platform for Development: The Ecology of Adult Development in the 21st Century.

I wrote the first draft of the book from Feb 2021 to March 2021. The Platform for Development framework refers to an intersection between digital platforms and adult development. I have been paying attention to these two domains for over ten years. As a participant in digital platforms, I am both a user, a curator, and a maker. As a participant in adult development, I have founded several non-profit online communities which aim to support the life development of university students and young professionals.

The diagram below presents my mind behind the work. The picture has seven red dots: Domain, Resource, Tools, Problem, Method, Concept, and Diagram. These elements are from the HERO U framework (the article, the diagram). The seven red balls refer to Personal Conditions of Knowing. The first group is Domain, Resource, and Tools, they define the outside setting of the knowing activity. The second group is Method and Problem, they define the source of competence and solution. The third group is Diagram and Concept, they define the representation format of the outcome of knowing. These three groups form a process of knowing.

I have used the same diagram for my interpretation of Yrjö Engeström’work on developing the model of human activity and Andy Blunden’s “Project as a unit of analysis of activity” approach. However, these two projects are knowledge curation work. For the Platform-for-Development project, I used it for knowledge creation.

You can find more details about the book in Platform for Development (2.0).

Reference

• TALE: A Possible Theme called “Possible Discipline”
• The Disciplinary Identity of HCI Research: An Investigation Using Configurational Theory
• Mental Moves #2: Creative Swapping of Mental Elements
• Project Engagement (v2.1) as an Innovation Approach
• Platform, Platform-ba, and Platform Ecology
• TALE: A Possible Theme called “Social Pieces”