Visualizing The World is Flat
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Sheila Kim
Oct 17, 2006, 7:30:55 PM10/17/06
to visuall...@googlegroups.com
I’m reading Thomas Friedman’s book, The World is Flat, for the first time. (Note: v1, not the recently released update)
I’m finding that I like it, I’m impressed, and I’m also disappointed. The specific reason I’m disappointed is that the book is about some incredibly complex interplays of factors, and there are no visual models in it (at least thus far). As a result, it seems to me that there’s a lot of linear language, which does the book a disservice, in my opinion. My hands have been literally itching to start drawing out what I’m reading and see where it takes me.
For example, here’s one of Friedman’s major points as I understand it, represented (mostly) in a systems model. This point is around how the hyped up forecasts of the web 1.0 boom led to some unexpected results in terms of increased connectivity to work possibilities for countries such as India.
For those of you who are familiar with systems models, I’m a novice at using systems modeling, so please bear with me. For those of you who aren’t, follow the arrows, telling yourself a story with the arrow meaning something like “leads to.” The +/- signs next to each arrow talk about a similar/inverse relationship between the two variables. For example, starting with “forecasts of e$ potential,” you can read its connection to “investment levels” as: “higher forecasts of e$ potential leads to higher investment levels” and “lower forecasts of e$ potential leads to lower investment levels” - there’s a similar (not the right word – what is it?) relationship between them. From “investment levels” to “pressure on cos to be efficient”, there’s an inverse relationship, meaning you can read it as “higher investment levels lead to less pressure on cos to be efficient” and “lower investment levels lead to higher pressure on cos to be efficient.”
I really like systems modeling and am investing in learning it specifically because it enables the modeling of a complex system. It also enables the conversation about where the most effective points of leverage are for changes. That’s immensely powerful. In the next drawing, there are several lines that I would challenge if I were having a conversation with someone about this model because they represent assumptions about the interplay of variables, and getting those assumptions out on the table can lead to great conversations. Also, I like it because the best models are done by groups, and so the modeling process brings groups more into alignment with each other – it promotes conversation. And, once you learn it, the models are easy to read.
Continuing with The World is Flat, here’s a model, at a high level, as I understand it, of a “common-wisdom” story of the interplay between the stock market and job creation in the US has worked.
Now here’s a view of how it’s changing because of the flat world (the blue lines show the major changes).
Wow. Whether I’ve got this right or not, this drawing or ones like it has tons of potential for starting great conversations...and of changing the dynamic of conversations so that they’re about the interplay of several different forces rather than just one. I would have loved to see Friedman and his editor try some of these – it’s the perfect forum for such visual interpretations.
SO: to this group:
Is systems modeling a visual language? Is it ready for the masses? What would have to be done to make it ready for the masses?
Sheila
P.S. Just so you know, I plan on putting these thoughts up on a blog – not the discussion that we have here which I hope to trigger, but something that looks much like this post.
I’m finding that I like it, I’m impressed, and I’m also disappointed. The specific reason I’m disappointed is that the book is about some incredibly complex interplays of factors, and there are no visual models in it (at least thus far). As a result, it seems to me that there’s a lot of linear language, which does the book a disservice, in my opinion. My hands have been literally itching to start drawing out what I’m reading and see where it takes me.
For example, here’s one of Friedman’s major points as I understand it, represented (mostly) in a systems model. This point is around how the hyped up forecasts of the web 1.0 boom led to some unexpected results in terms of increased connectivity to work possibilities for countries such as India.
For those of you who are familiar with systems models, I’m a novice at using systems modeling, so please bear with me. For those of you who aren’t, follow the arrows, telling yourself a story with the arrow meaning something like “leads to.” The +/- signs next to each arrow talk about a similar/inverse relationship between the two variables. For example, starting with “forecasts of e$ potential,” you can read its connection to “investment levels” as: “higher forecasts of e$ potential leads to higher investment levels” and “lower forecasts of e$ potential leads to lower investment levels” - there’s a similar (not the right word – what is it?) relationship between them. From “investment levels” to “pressure on cos to be efficient”, there’s an inverse relationship, meaning you can read it as “higher investment levels lead to less pressure on cos to be efficient” and “lower investment levels lead to higher pressure on cos to be efficient.”
I really like systems modeling and am investing in learning it specifically because it enables the modeling of a complex system. It also enables the conversation about where the most effective points of leverage are for changes. That’s immensely powerful. In the next drawing, there are several lines that I would challenge if I were having a conversation with someone about this model because they represent assumptions about the interplay of variables, and getting those assumptions out on the table can lead to great conversations. Also, I like it because the best models are done by groups, and so the modeling process brings groups more into alignment with each other – it promotes conversation. And, once you learn it, the models are easy to read.
Continuing with The World is Flat, here’s a model, at a high level, as I understand it, of a “common-wisdom” story of the interplay between the stock market and job creation in the US has worked.
Now here’s a view of how it’s changing because of the flat world (the blue lines show the major changes).
Wow. Whether I’ve got this right or not, this drawing or ones like it has tons of potential for starting great conversations...and of changing the dynamic of conversations so that they’re about the interplay of several different forces rather than just one. I would have loved to see Friedman and his editor try some of these – it’s the perfect forum for such visual interpretations.
SO: to this group:
Is systems modeling a visual language? Is it ready for the masses? What would have to be done to make it ready for the masses?
Sheila
P.S. Just so you know, I plan on putting these thoughts up on a blog – not the discussion that we have here which I hope to trigger, but something that looks much like this post.
Sheila Kim
Oct 17, 2006, 7:32:41 PM10/17/06
to Visual Language
All,
FYI - the images I mentioned ended up showing up at the bottom of my
post, not in line with it, as I had written it.
FYI - the images I mentioned ended up showing up at the bottom of my
post, not in line with it, as I had written it.
Sheila
Christopher Peri
Oct 17, 2006, 7:41:57 PM10/17/06
to visuall...@googlegroups.com
Let me know if you cannot get it to work in your blog, I'll post them into
Vyew as a short term solution until you can figure something else out.
Vyew as a short term solution until you can figure something else out.
I think there is a whole discipline and attached software effort around
'mind mapping' that coincides to this. I'll hit the web and see what I can
dig up.
Christopher
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages