Thread by @swardley

X : Why do you always use cups of tea or a tea shop in your maps?
Me : It's familiar.
X : Are maps just about technology?
Me : Oh no. Lets start ... with a cup of tea.

… the evolution axis (that’s the x-axis) which is used to describe movement comes from this graph (something I finally got around to publishing in 2007).

… that graph appears to be general for capital. I’ve added terms on it for a type of capital to make it easy to understand rather than Stage I to IV. In this case the capital is activities i.e. things we do. Hence Genesis, custom built. In reality, the graph is this …

… the graph itself comes from changing publication types. The way we talk about things changes as they evolve and we become more certain about them. There is a shift in publication frequencies. It's also how I build the cheat sheet. It's also useful for weak signals of change.

X : So why is this not just tech?
Me : It’s not just activities that evolve through that pattern. Other forms of capital do, with the same changes in publications and characteristics. We can just use different terms for practices, data and knowledge.

… so if I look at a practice like “Agile” then it has evolved and continues to evolve. Notice at the bottom, I’m using Novel, Emerging, Good and Best … that’s the practice equivalent of stages I to IV.

… now when I’m mapping, I’m often mixing activities and practices on the same map e.g. for example when I’m explaining co-evolution of practice with activities. For this reason, I always use the activities as the x-axis. It makes it easier to read than Stages I to IV.

X : Agile is still tech.
Me : Well, we can map the evolution of maps or the data they represent. Note, I’ve changed the x-axis again to reflect how data has evolved. Again, in practice, I’d just draw this on the activity axis. I know it means stages I to IV regardless of capital.

… or we could map an area of science. I’ve changed the x-axis to knowledge. Again, in practice I just just use the activities axis. It’s all capital, it all evolves - if there is competition. Science has lots of competition.

… normally in any complex map, I’m using multiple forms of capital on the same map. To be more accurate, I could replace the x-axis with Stages I to IV but I suppose its habit. Activities are just a clearer way of writing. That map has no tech in it.
X : What is it?
Me : Policy

X : I think your science map is wrong. You’re missing components and I don’t agree with how you have connected it.
Me : Aren’t maps wonderful? Challenge, communication, exposure of assumptions and learning. I should say "Tea, Vicar?"
X : Why?
Me : Monks that map?
X : You lost me.

Me : Ah, that happens. It's just practice. Hey, I've even use mapping to guide mapping but then I've been doing this for a long time. The good news, all those patterns (e.g. climatic, doctrine, gameplay) seem to apply regardless of capital. Even science has inertia.

X : Don't you worry about analysis paralysis?
Me : Not really. All maps are imperfect, they're also wrong. So don't spend too long. It only takes me a day to map nation state competition in something like the automotive industry. And then I'm motoring :-)

X : I find maps make things too complex to handle.
Me : Each node on a map can represent a map in itself. Take "Audit" in the middle of the policy map ... I can draw a whole map on that space.

... you'll get used to zooming in and out of the map until you have just enough details or maps to understand the space.
X : How do I do that?
Me : Practice. Lots of practice. The secret is to start mapping. It's like playing a guitar. You won't get better just reading about it.