Site Logo

STPrism

12. can this be represented as a mermaid diagram

3 min read

Yes, the sources provide several frameworks that can be combined into a comprehensive systemic inquiry cycle represented as a Mermaid diagram. This structure moves from establishing a mindset to defining boundaries, diagnosing system dynamics, and initiating an iterative learning loop.

The Systemic Inquiry Cycle

graph TD
    subgraph Phase_1_Groundwork["PHASE 1: GROUNDWORK (Mindset)"]
        A1["Admission of Ignorance: Do I know the answer? [1, 2]"]
        A2["Necessity: Why are we doing this? [3, 4]"]
        A3["Values: What is 'Actually Needed' (WIAN)? [5, 6]"]
    end

    subgraph Phase_2_Framing["PHASE 2: FRAMING (Boundaries)"]
        B1["DSRP: What distinctions and perspectives define the system? [7, 8]"]
        B2["CATWOE: Who benefits (Client) and who can stop it (Owner)? [9-11]"]
        B3["Environment: What factors are beyond our control? [12, 13]"]
    end

    subgraph Phase_3_Diagnosis["PHASE 3: DIAGNOSIS (Nature of Complexity)"]
        C1["Cynefin: Is the cause-and-effect relationship Retroactive (Complex) or Analytical (Complicated)? [14, 15]"]
        C2["Iceberg: What underlying structures generate these behavior patterns? [16, 17]"]
        C3["Laddering: Why is this important (Goal) and How can it be achieved (Means)? [18, 19]"]
    end

    subgraph Phase_4_Action["PHASE 4: ACTION (Stewardship)"]
        D1["Minimalist Nudge: What is the smallest action that makes change inevitable? [20, 21]"]
        D2["Ideality: Does this solve the contradiction without adding mass or cost? [22, 23]"]
    end

    subgraph Phase_5_Learning["PHASE 5: LEARNING (Feedback)"]
        E1["Appreciative Cycle: How does the result reset our reality and value judgments? [24, 25]"]
        E2["L=P+Q: What fresh questions (Q) have emerged from this experience? [2, 26]"]
    end

    Phase_1_Groundwork --> Phase_2_Framing
    Phase_2_Framing --> Phase_3_Diagnosis
    Phase_3_Diagnosis --> Phase_4_Action
    Phase_4_Action --> Phase_5_Learning
    Phase_5_Learning --> Phase_1_Groundwork

    style Phase_1_Groundwork fill:#f9f,stroke:#333
    style Phase_2_Framing fill:#bbf,stroke:#333
    style Phase_3_Diagnosis fill:#dfd,stroke:#333
    style Phase_4_Action fill:#fdd,stroke:#333
    style Phase_5_Learning fill:#fff4dd,stroke:#333

Key Elements of the Question-Based Structure

• Establishing the Observer: Before measuring anything, you must acknowledge that you are not detecting a pre-existing “thing” but are carving a “figure” out of a background based on your specific filters[1][2].

• The Teleological Anatomy: C. West Churchman’s framework structures inquiry around the Client (who benefits?), the Decision Maker (who controls resources?), and the Witness (who represents the victims?)[3].

• The Diagnostic Sort: Dave Snowden uses the relationship between cause and effect to determine if you should Probe-Sense-Respond (Complex domain) or Sense-Analyze-Respond (Complicated domain)[6].

• Laddering and Mean-Ends: Colin Eden structures maps by “laddering up” with “Why?” questions to find goals and “laddering down” with “How?” to find detailed options[9][10].

• Filtering Complexity: James Wilk and Claude Shannon advise using binary (Yes/No) questions to bisect the probability space, reducing uncertainty until a specific constraint or “lever” is identified[11].

• The Learning Partnership: Reg Revans insists that in a “mess,” true learning (L) comes from balancing Programmed Knowledge (P) with Questioning Insight (Q) shared among “comrades in adversity”[14].

Does this visual flow accurately capture the “structured readiness” you need for your investigation, or would you like to drill down into a specific author’s questions—like Churchman’s nine teleological queries?

Graph View