![]() ![]() Holistically this system structure illustrates a plan, where the system context is clear, the concepts are clear and the solution set will be clear. Then one can place the funnel underneath, to vet and converge elements into usable ideas and thoughts. This upside-down tree establishes a rich context, focusing on coverage and breath that establishes a meta-understanding of the system being designed for. However, if one starts by diverging instead, like turning a tree upside down, starting at the trunk on top and then gradually building finer detail to the tips of the branches. Analysis with a deeper itemized reach would confer obvious benefits in terms of identifying process fallacies, providing spectrums of perspective, or even rendering (potential) novel solutions based on the available data.ĭivergent-convergent thinking cycle: Where many 'designers' utilize the funnel to parse ideas of the 'fuzzy-front-end,' from brainstorms, but by starting with convergent thinking, only funnels thoughts swirling into a muddy bucket of thought. Yet it doesn't yield itself well to the generation of metrics data on the process progression, to logic validation, or to other forms of programmatic evaluation. Evidently, the macro-level is more tangible, intuitively meaningful and immediately actionable - a precision level of choice for illustration and management. Then data is cross-referenced, also this divergent map provides the context to converge, toward the solution space. ![]() At the bottom of this framework, the method elicits both functions of the user and functions of the system. The process uses iterative methods of both analysis and synthesis to develop the system structure and divergent framework. This obviously requires both levels of macro and micro perspectives of this system. It starts as a top-down method of divergent thinking to establish the context of the system that will be eventually conceptualized and designed for. And this observation applies equally to all length scales - from cosmological to cellular to atomic. The interesting observation is that as one gets more "micro," more data is required to set parameters and the model has less generality. Macro analytics model is often the starting point when one is ignorant about the details - more qualitative and general, and "micro" analytics models are "scientific" and specific - more quantitative. Macro analytics is more qualitative, and micro analytics is more quantitative. One could imagine the system map as a diamond shape, first diverging to articulate the various factors as defined by the system, then converge in a process of articulating solutions in tighter and tighter iterations of analysis and synthesis to refine and solve for the system, articulated at the bottom point as a holistic set of ideas that refined converge to a systemic solution. The analysis and synthesis as articulated throughout the system process of refinement first via divergent thinking then via convergent thinking are micro iterations of the system. You could also recognize the entire method as "macro" and the iterations as "micro." If the system structure is a diamond made up of two triangles The top triangular structure of the diamond as a Macro Analysis and the bottom triangle of the diamond as Macro Synthesis. Analysis and synthesis are iterative, first to ask, then to answer, and again, throughout the process of refining the ideas. Where macro or micro are simply methods of viewing or understanding the resolution of the process. ![]() The diamond-shaped macro and micro perspectives are both analyzed and synthesized to establish a direction, but these are iterative. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |