Comments on: The case for a Visual Mapping Body of Knowledge

By: Hypershifters.com » Blog Archive » Is it now time for a Visual Mapping Body of Knowledge?

Sun, 06 Sep 2009 01:38:02 +0000

[...] Below is an almost verbatim of my interview with the very unique and professional Chuck Frey during February 2009. I recently revisited the interview to assess the validity of my statements, and I updated a few sentences to align with what I have been recently discussing with Chuck Frey, Philippe Boukobza and other professional visual mapping colleagues. To view the original interview, go here: [...]

By: Eric Blue’s Blog » Blog Archive » Visual Mapping Body of Knowledge

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 04:03:59 +0000

[...] that Chuck Frey posted earlier in the month on the Mind Mapping Software Blog. In the article, The case for a Visual Mapping Body of Knowledge, Chuck interviews Wallace Tait. Wallace Tait is a professional visual mapping consultant based in [...]

By: Alex (Captive Mindsystems Tech)

Alex (Captive Mindsystems Tech) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:44:32 +0000

I am responsible for the technical aspects of product development and other technical issues that Mindsystems. While it is true that I do not have the wide grasp on the general world of visual mapping as our executive director, it is nevertheless extremely important that I continuously improve my knowledge in this area.

So the question is simple: “How does a techie, such as me, get quality information on visual thinking and visual mapping?”

I sometimes find it extremely difficult to obtain information which I consider valuable or even useful. One very good source is to talk to people, such as John and Wallace, which of course I do often. However being a techie…you know I prefer point and click to verbal discussion  …it would be wonderful to have a well developed VMBOK to consult, but what are the advantages of such a database?

Well for me the advantage are:

• Access to the information whenever I needed it and not just when someone has the time to talk to me,
• The ability to select the exact information I need at any one time without having to filter information from a verbal smokescreen (sorry John and Wallace, but I’m sure you know all what I mean!),
• The security that comes from knowing the information I am reading is likely to be accurate and has been moderated by professionals.

Clearly my requirements of such a database are perhaps not as lofty as the original conception; then again there must be many people like me who want quality information at their fingertips exactly when they need it. I fully support this initiative and look forward to seeing it happen.

By: Business Process Management

Business Process Management — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:28:21 +0000

Thanks for sharing all of this stuff. It is simply incredible.

By: Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 04:31:19 +0000

Great point Nick, and your on the ball: we need to transform this environment though, and it starts with a mindset. As a third party developer (Gyronics) for Mindjet you indeed encourage this in and through Mindjet integration.

If graphical formats for visualizing knowledge are merely techniques and not an information management Mindset, a vmbok may indeed be a waste of time.

IMO and experience within business management consulting; graphical expressiveness of data, information, process, knowledge, Context and system are all part of a Mindset.

The Mindset is that of continuous improvement, and this is directly linked to process and systems thinking within the framework of effective business management.

Great points Nick, and they’re well worth the challenge.

By: Nick Duffill

Nick Duffill — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:49:59 +0000

The challenge in establishing a Body of Knowledge of sufficient depth to support a qualification is that visual mapping is a technique, not a discipline. Vendors of visualisation technology have long struggled with the fact that there are no budget line items called “visualisation”. The solution is well defined, but the problem is not. The first step is to find a comparable practice that has successfully taken this path.To my mind, PMBOK is not comparable, as project management was a a well defined activity with commercial value long before technology became part of it. By contrast, the driving force for reform in modern visual mapping seems to be primarily technological, which is important to recognise. Academia has not ignored this field (for example the work of Joesph Novak, or research in argumentation visualisation, are well grounded in academia), but is perhaps weakened by the widespread connection with pseudo-science. You know who I mean
It is also worth pointing out that visualisation does not own the copyright on good structure or organisation of knowledge to make it useful – it is a representation of structure, not a definition of structure. There are established projects such as the Semantic Web and Topic Maps that are relevant here.
Thanks for bringing this subject to the fore – I think it is an important discussion.

By: Olin Reams

Olin Reams — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:24:09 +0000

Yes, I think that the development of a VMBOK is critically important to defining visual mapping and the building of a standards body of knowledge were people can find commonality in how they express themselves. I see this as a big undertaking that will benefit both industry and academia. Right now this does not exist and so many organizations end up reinventing the wheel many times over. The wheel has been invented, now it time is time to pull together a definitive body of knowledge that will build communication and success.

I think the definition and standardization of meta data visualization is critical to future success. Right now I believe we have an opportunity to do it right the first time, and I find that very encouraging. At CS Odessa we see that our ConceptDraw products help our users achieve a comprehensive visual mapping of whatever process is developed, all of our products reinforce this goal. We see visual mapping as an important step in team and stakeholder communications and therefore success.

By: Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:11:47 +0000

During January a colleague said to me relating to the proposed VMBOK: “This is your baby, you should go with this”. Well, “IT’S NOT MY BABY” and many professional visual mappers may too want agree to the creation of this initiative within a proposed professional body.

This whole initiative has it’s Genesis in a thought, and it’s now in the process of being Resisted, Ridiculed and…….Accepted.

Having looked at Roy Grubb’s excellent wiki at: http://www.informationtamers.com/WikIT/index.php?title=Special:AllPages you’ll plainly see this is already being done at Roy’s proprietary environment of informationtamers.com, and it’s absolutely free to register, join and contribute.

I would however differ regarding any person or business making a VMBOK proprietary to any personal agenda and/or business entity. The body of knowledge IMO, may best serve as being free to access. The difference I envisage being express between Roy Grubb’s work and the VMBOK is that: the information submitted may be best analyzed by an accepted group of our professional peers and thought leaders, for suitability to a BOK.

The BOK then may become a repository both for knowledge gain and for potential academic content to be extracted and potentially used and offered as part of a certification process for prospective Visual mapping graduates seeking certification to the BOK.

Looking forward to your input and feedback

By: John England

John England — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:32:34 +0000

I would start by saying that I support Wallace’s proposal as it makes very good sense. It may be almost too obvious to state, but I expect that the biggest challenge will be to get contributions of the correct sort. I believe that we can classify contribution on a continuum that ranges from academic research to trivia. So the question is: “what sort of content would be most useful?” My personal feeling is that for this sort of information and knowledge bank, the focus should be on good practical content that will enable people to become more professional in the field. That does not mean to say that I see no place for a measure of academic input, but I repeat, I believe the majority of the content should be of a practical nature.
So the next question is: “where are we likely to find material of a practical nature”. I would suggest that the bulk will be held by practising consultants as against the theorists. Here in lies the real problem: experience has taught me that many consultants are terrified that hteir “intellectual property” will be stolen by others. Some years ago I was involved in setting up an accreditation and training scheme to raise professional training standards in Australia. Part of the accreditation process involved the trainer providing a tape of themselves in action for assessment by a committee. The unfortunate fact was that the more “professional” the trainer believed himself or herself to be, the more reluctant they were to be assessed by their peers. While I am sure that many people would participate, I believe it will be much more difficult than it ought to be.
My personal philosophy is to share information with other professionals whenever I reasonably can. I perceive only benefit (and have proved this over many years) can come from sharing my knowledge and experience. My next comment might seem arrogant, but I believe I am very good at what I do which means even if someone tries to reproduce the way I operate or the techniques I use, they are welcome to try as they always will be playing a game of “catch up”. So I for one am more than happy to contribute what little knowledge I have gained over the years with this scheme. The simple fact is that we will only grow by listening to others and building on their knowledge and experience. I guess it can be summed up by saying “let’s build a better mousetrap”.