Slowly getting higher level ideas

Need -> Goal -> Concept -> Architecture

Need

Beneficiary <-> Need

Goal

Solution Neutral Operand <-> Solution Neutral Process

Concept

Specific Operand <-> Specific Process (Function) o- Instrument (Form)

Architecture

Functional Architecture + Formal Structure

Beneficiary

those who benefit from your actions

Stakeholders

those who have a stake in your project

Problems are more complex than what our brains can handle so we over simplify and ignore parts of it, or fill in the unknown with our mental models of the way we think it should be, this can have dramatic consequences on the results.

Attributes of acceptable requirements

Actor-verb-object requirement

System Problem Statements

A Need -> solution neutral

to, by, using -> solution specific

captures the essential elements of the problem statements

Can you use a generic form as the instrument on a solution neutral concept ?

I guess I’m seeking dynamism and simplicity

more symmetry between solution neutral and solution specific diagrams

Goals

should be tradeable

go down one level in abstraction temporarily, then down a further level

go back up after you’ve gone down two levels to get a more accurate first level

the idea is that you can’t know the first level right away, the second level down illuminates how the first level should be structured. So you don’t worry about getting the first attempt at the first level down right