X : Have you written more about the gameplay table?
Me : Oh, this thing? There are bits and pieces scattered throughout my blog and the medium site.
X : I'd like to learn more.
Me : Ok ...
Me : Oh, this thing? There are bits and pieces scattered throughout my blog and the medium site.
X : I'd like to learn more.
Me : Ok ...
Me : Are you familiar with my doctrine table? The list of universally useful principles?
X : Yes
Me : Awesome ...
X : Yes
Me : Awesome ...
Me : Does your company look roughly like this? Everything pretty much green except "exploit the landscape"?
X : No.
Me : Ok. Well, fix that first. The problem with the gameplay is that it can be very dangerous even counter productive in the hands of an enthusiastic amateur.
X : No.
Me : Ok. Well, fix that first. The problem with the gameplay is that it can be very dangerous even counter productive in the hands of an enthusiastic amateur.
Me : Get doctrine sorted and that means mapping in your organisation. Then we can think about it.
X : You don't seem in a rush.
Me : I'm not. I've been using mapping for 15 years. Most have barely started. I could name the organisations on one hand who are capable of gameplay.
X : You don't seem in a rush.
Me : I'm not. I've been using mapping for 15 years. Most have barely started. I could name the organisations on one hand who are capable of gameplay.
X : Why "Design for constant evolution"?
Me : Hmmm ... whoops. Silly me. This is what I should have shared. You see, even I make mistakes with mapping.
Me : Hmmm ... whoops. Silly me. This is what I should have shared. You see, even I make mistakes with mapping.
X : Where does the gameplay come from?
Me : From mapping. Same as the doctrine. Same as the climatic patterns that are used for anticipation / scenario planning of change. It's all derived and explained through mapping.
Me : From mapping. Same as the doctrine. Same as the climatic patterns that are used for anticipation / scenario planning of change. It's all derived and explained through mapping.
X : It's all self contained?
Me : Well, there's one anomaly.
X : Which is?
Me : My assumption / driving force for filling out the tables in the first place - "seek the best". That is not adequately explained through mapping but the tables and mapping would not exist without it ..
Me : Well, there's one anomaly.
X : Which is?
Me : My assumption / driving force for filling out the tables in the first place - "seek the best". That is not adequately explained through mapping but the tables and mapping would not exist without it ..
... you can almost think of it as the paradox at the heart of mapping. The one thing that drove mapping to exist is the one thing that I cannot explain with mapping.
