Multi-Ontology sense making concept maps for handling complex communications, information and values.
Concept Maps have been used as efficient tools for individual and collaborative methods for organizing and representing knowledge. However, questioning the epistemological integrity of decision making through such maps due to ontological challenges faced by the system, remains a complex area of inquiry.
Multi-ontology sense making points out that it is important to approach an ontology in both structured and unstructured manner, depending on the context. A mechanism is lacking to tackle the challenges of the epistemological foundations and origins of concepts that would improve the Universality in any one of these systems, which leads to visual and cognitive fragmentation with ever changing models.
On the other hand, universality and mapping the highest natures of being was the format of esoteric concept maps such as the ‘Hindu’ Sri Yantra and ‘Jewish’ Sefirot. Hence, researchers could perhaps get insights for working toward a stable, comprehensive, macrocosmic framework for multi-ontological sense making.
It would be good to note that such esoteric knowledge representations are distant from any linguistic and cultural means of interpreting it. However, on the flip side, one could say that this is not a system of knowledge. Instead, this is a method of using and representing the mind borrowed from self-reflective metaphysical frameworks that have existed since Antiquity. And the concept map that I am interested in developing has to speak about all of the above in the most simple way.
- Upon testing the outcome of this concept with several people, it seems there is immense growth potential when design thinking is adopted by business to survive the complex internet labyrinth.
- The competitors in this category are making money by offering softwares to handle collaborative information (google docs), offering online mindmap collaboration tools (mind42), offering project management with collaboration of knowledge (pricing schemes), etc. There are open source projets like VUE and Compendium that are great too. However, in all of these tools, what happens is that the ontological complexities are left to the cognitive context of the user. They are unable to verify their interpretational integrity because they have an ontological bias, which again is mixture of culture, academics, personality etc. Hence a mind or concept map can get fragmented into parts that are hard to categorize quite easily. Precisel this is where this product wants to differ.
The following analysis of my concept map is based on Alex Osterwalder’s business model canvas.
Personally, I feel if the idea is drawn from designer’s educated guesses, the core of the concept would be able to convey that it will work WITHOUT verifying it from each section of the canvas. Educated design guesses are prophetic often, and the components in business model diagram can be taken as self organization structure mostly that results after idea is carried forward.
1. The customers are everyday people and companies that want to use an information map that gives them macro as well as micro level flexibility.
2. Value Propositions: Resolving problem of visual fragmentation for holistic view in mind maps. Tracing social and value based activities(paint a sun in the sky on the wall) effects in an opposed ontology (business).
3. Customer Relationships: Yes, that would be immensely helpful if you could ad.
Similarly, revenue streams are in shape of products or services to a company though this concept mapping. Key resources are minimal, however there maybe several stakeholders who will see the value first. Key activity is to finish formal documents etc, and its easy to be distracted as many continue to do as they are told. Key partnerships could be a genius number of combos. Like in a media arts festival vs university having it as a compendium tool, etc.
——————————–
Netnography and the product concept:
Having a background in Ethnography, the methods and usefulness of ethnographic research is quite familiar to me. Netnography is ethnography applied to the living networks that we call Social Media, Forums, collaborative filtering sites etc. In my concept there is a collaborative aspect. However, that is not necessarily serve a ‘social’ function but hopefully a ‘need’ or ‘problem solving’ centered one. Consumption patterns are seen in several ways. Companies like Facebook and Google infiltrate into everyone’s private content. However, one has signed up for the service, and hence think the companies have no right to do that. Our gmail ids and content devices are the biggest CONTENT portals than just a social media. This is because consumption patterns need validity, and in a social media culture, where social currency is not necessarily related to ‘consumption’ as much as a letter maybe, it is still a rich breeding ground of data for marketing research.
Personally, I would not be too keen to use netnography as an information provider for designing this concept map. In a way one is inventing the campaign, based on the anthroppological structure of viewer’s consumption patterns and the other is speculation created by by products of that campaign.
