Introducing the Vroodle (variations on a Venn)

We all use the venn diagram. And overuse it. 

Is there a best practices strategy for venn diagramming for a type of set theory in complex social systems?  Applying mathematical theory to social systems is way out of scope for me. But I can certainly have a little fun with it. So here are some of my Vroodles!

But what’s a vroodle exactly? It’s when a Droodle says hello to the venerable Mr John Venn, the originator of the Venn diagram (1880).

But what’s a droodle ?

The name "Droodle" is really just a made up word suggesting doodle, drawing and riddle. It was coined by Roger Price in 1952.

Go ahead do a few and I'd love to post them here too!

How do teams work? Perception vs Reality

If everyone leaves their ego at the door, who will lead the meeting?

This is just a personal observation based on anecdotal evidence. If you spend all of your time trying to reach a consensus you're spending less time coming up with ideas. The point of multidisiplinary collaboration is to embrace all of the different perspectives at the table, to live in the problem-space with this ambiguity and creative tension and to tred lightly as you work through as many diverse ideas as possible.

(Are you a black triangle?)

Visualizing social behavior.

Even through visual expression, indirect reciprocity appears to be a naturally "expansive" form of social interaction. This is by no means definitive proof. These diagrams just feel and look correct to me.

From thinking to doing: How do you bridge the gap?

Synthesis. 

What does yours look like?

After all of the problem finding and framing, the data collection and parsing, the iterations and the incubation comes the big insight. But how exactly did you get there?

Moving up Ackoff's knowledge pyramid is arduous work. Dissecting the process seems to destroy any hope of finding any definitive structure or element that defines the actual synthesis when shifting from one stage into the next.The insight comes into view not because you're following a particular critical thinking methodology, but because you're doing something. 

Critical thinking methods are important for that reason alone. The make you think about your data in a very structured way. They can't actually lead you to the insight, the methods just keep your thinking agile and focused so that you'll be able to recognize and act on an idea when it does finally flash before your minds eye.

What do you see in our DNA?

What does "logic" look like?

Roger Martin, describes abductive reasoning as "The logic of what might be". I think this statement also embodies the belief that true insights require a leap of faith. They are hard won and the process can be a little scary.

Why is sketching good for your thoughts?

Getting it out of your head to examine your idea or process, automatically gives you more information about it. You see it in a new dimension. Not only is it readily shared with others in the room, it also becomes less “precious”. You have to overcome the natural desire to protect your ideas. If they cannot stand up to the harsh light of reality, then you need to iterate and move on.

Colin Ware(1) describes concept sketches as images that contain both “appearance” and “idea”. Although he is referring to graphical systems or 3-dimensional artefacts, sketches of process can have a true appearance to them as well. In fact, the actual appearance of a process may have even more value than the ideas it embodies. ( More on this later).

The following examples (2) of sketches and prototypes  are of course just plain hilarious and fantastic. No design iteration is required: straight from the visual thinking sketches of a child into production!

1. Ware, C. (2010). Visual thinking: For design. Morgan Kaufmann.
2.(from Jack Beveridge and Joshua Lake)

The "Opposable" mind-set and Innovation

Understanding how great innovators think is not the challenge. The real challenge is, how do to emulate them. To use a technical metaphor, you can’t copy “software” to the hard drive and expect it to work, it needs to be initiated and “loaded” into the cpu according to a specific set of rules.

Reflecting on the anecdotes of successful innovators and even a more careful analysis of how they think is never enough to embed their knowledge and ability into your own process. It's a good start though. Ultimately, it's your own DNA that will need to generate a personal innovation style, call it "opposable" or "a gestalt" or anything you want. It will have to be a cognitive tool that is yours alone, that can only be described to others but never really instilled in them.

see:  http://rogerlmartin.com/library/books/the-opposable-mind/