WEBVTT 00:10.630 --> 00:11.190 Very good. 00:12.010 --> 00:17.310 So let's start with the case studies, so this first one I call the meaning breakdown. 00:18.500 --> 00:24.410 And it's very common, I see it all almost every day in business situations and real world situations, 00:25.400 --> 00:31.400 it's a little bit subtle, but if you think about what we talked about so far, you probably spot what 00:31.400 --> 00:32.690 I'm what I'm hanging out here. 00:33.140 --> 00:38.060 So let's say that we have a couple of people, they standing and discussing a problem in their business. 00:38.150 --> 00:42.260 Maybe they have a new customer and they have made an offer and they need to discuss how they should 00:42.260 --> 00:45.980 actually implement this and support us in the business, in the I.T. systems. 00:46.370 --> 00:48.880 And one of them is saying, dad, blah, blah, blah. 00:49.040 --> 00:53.490 An agreement is created between us as a supplier and the client regarding this product. 00:54.110 --> 00:57.050 Yeah, another one is the Nazaryan. 00:57.050 --> 00:59.030 Like, yes, that is how I see it two. 00:59.600 --> 01:05.060 And the third one is saying that if the client wished to use these other services, we just add them 01:05.060 --> 01:06.240 on as well. 01:06.500 --> 01:06.820 Right. 01:08.420 --> 01:14.240 And the second person says that I totally agree, I'll make sure the business processes in our system 01:14.240 --> 01:18.740 supports this, we might also need to contact legal to fix the general terms. 01:20.300 --> 01:20.700 OK. 01:20.960 --> 01:26.710 Quite a common conversation going on in many businesses every day, more or less. 01:28.220 --> 01:33.140 But my question is, do they think that they agree and do they agree? 01:35.760 --> 01:41.070 I think it was say that they actually think that they agree here, so they are using common terms like 01:41.070 --> 01:47.310 agreement and product and client to supply are very common terms, but you can actually have multiple 01:47.310 --> 01:50.090 different conceptualisation of those very common terms. 01:50.490 --> 01:57.030 So let's say, for example, that the first person had a conceptualisation like this saying that an 01:57.030 --> 02:05.280 agreement, it's something that is put up between one of many suppliers, which is a party that act 02:05.280 --> 02:13.860 as a supplier towards a specific agreement and when or how many clients, which is also a party that 02:13.860 --> 02:15.720 acts in the role of being a client. 02:16.020 --> 02:21.360 That means that one in the same party could be client and one agreement a supplier in another agreement. 02:21.390 --> 02:21.740 Right. 02:22.350 --> 02:27.540 And an agreement regulates the use of one or several products. 02:27.720 --> 02:30.140 And a product could be goods or service. 02:31.050 --> 02:31.290 Right. 02:31.500 --> 02:33.960 That's one common conceptualization of what an agreement is. 02:34.200 --> 02:39.240 And let's say that the first person to have that and let's say that the second person that he spoke 02:39.240 --> 02:45.600 to actually have this kind of conceptualisation, saying that we have something called product agreements 02:45.600 --> 02:48.750 that we set up with clients. 02:49.080 --> 02:52.410 And a client here is just kind of a client. 02:52.770 --> 02:56.880 It's not a general party, a notion of a general party's client. 02:57.060 --> 03:02.010 And we have product agreements with client regarding one and only one product. 03:02.520 --> 03:06.960 And then we have service agreements regarding one and only one service with a client. 03:08.320 --> 03:16.870 So that's a little bit simpler conceptualisation, but I then ask the question again, do they think 03:16.870 --> 03:17.470 they agree? 03:17.980 --> 03:18.910 Probably, yes. 03:19.300 --> 03:24.880 But do they agree if they actually have those very two very different conceptualizations up in their 03:24.880 --> 03:26.070 minds when they're talking? 03:26.620 --> 03:31.630 So just looking at the natural language here, using the terminology of product and agreement, nothing 03:31.630 --> 03:36.910 actually reveals that they might actually disagree when it comes to more detailed questions in the same 03:36.910 --> 03:37.430 scenario. 03:38.500 --> 03:39.070 So. 03:40.240 --> 03:47.950 This first kind of network concept is not equal to the second network, a concept, so just put some 03:47.950 --> 03:54.160 very simple questions here to see, so how many groomer's will a customer need to sign in each of the 03:54.160 --> 03:57.850 cases in the first case to sign one agreement? 03:57.850 --> 03:58.180 Right. 03:58.720 --> 04:01.270 Regulating the use of both products and services. 04:01.990 --> 04:05.620 Again, in the second one, we actually have two agreements. 04:07.080 --> 04:14.550 Even even if it's just saturated like that in the system, that tends to also be how the business functions 04:14.820 --> 04:22.940 and then what happens if we just broker a service and we are not the supplier to the service? 04:22.950 --> 04:28.110 So let's say that in a certain situation in the future, we will have to broker a service. 04:28.110 --> 04:31.490 And there is another party that is actually acting as the supplier. 04:32.310 --> 04:37.260 What will happen in the first case is that we just represent that second party as a supplier. 04:38.220 --> 04:38.640 Good. 04:38.640 --> 04:42.500 And that party is a supplier and towards that specific agreement that we brokered. 04:43.200 --> 04:47.700 But in this in the other conceptualisation, there are actually no supplier at all. 04:48.270 --> 04:49.320 It's not even there. 04:49.500 --> 04:52.950 And there is no common party that could act as a supplier. 04:52.950 --> 04:55.800 A client is a client, according to that conceptualisation. 04:57.480 --> 05:00.850 And how many agreements in place do we need to develop and so on? 05:00.870 --> 05:04.140 How many legal terms do we need to develop and so on and so on. 05:04.410 --> 05:11.700 So you can see that those two quite different conceptualisation will lead to drastically different implementation. 05:14.620 --> 05:21.280 So this is a little bit what I call the kind of demeaning breakdown, and this produces a lot of communication 05:21.280 --> 05:26.380 waste, as I said, to have people and they can be stained and talking to each other for hours and hours 05:26.380 --> 05:27.040 and hours. 05:27.410 --> 05:32.320 And yet when they go out the room, they actually haven't understood each other, even if they think 05:32.320 --> 05:33.240 they understood each other. 05:33.250 --> 05:39.250 And that's even worse, because then they don't will then they will not naturally kind of take it up 05:39.250 --> 05:42.130 and try to to figure out what went wrong. 05:42.520 --> 05:46.070 And this happens so many times per day. 05:46.510 --> 05:47.740 So I'm very sad. 05:47.740 --> 05:51.550 And what I usually do is try to pinpoint them as soon as I see them. 05:51.550 --> 05:55.320 I won't do that with my with my kids or my wife or with my friends. 05:55.330 --> 05:57.220 Of course, there will be pain in the --. 05:57.220 --> 06:05.080 But when I'm in very important situations in a business, I usually try to highlight when I think that 06:05.080 --> 06:09.880 two people actually are having two different conceptualisation of the same terms they're using to try 06:09.880 --> 06:12.740 to get rid of that communication waste as soon as possible. 06:14.680 --> 06:15.030 Good. 06:15.370 --> 06:23.950 That was the first example of a very common problem and that could be old using these types of techniques 06:23.950 --> 06:27.670 and also the techniques that were going to go into in the next section where we actually started modeling 06:27.670 --> 06:31.420 the conceptual apparatus that we have in our minds. 06:32.290 --> 06:34.000 Very good afternoon, X10.