Very good.
So let's start with the case studies, so this first one I call the meaning breakdown.
And it's very common, I see it all almost every day in business situations and real world situations,
it's a little bit subtle, but if you think about what we talked about so far, you probably spot what
I'm what I'm hanging out here.
So let's say that we have a couple of people, they standing and discussing a problem in their business.
Maybe they have a new customer and they have made an offer and they need to discuss how they should
actually implement this and support us in the business, in the I.T. systems.
And one of them is saying, dad, blah, blah, blah.
An agreement is created between us as a supplier and the client regarding this product.
Yeah, another one is the Nazaryan.
Like, yes, that is how I see it two.
And the third one is saying that if the client wished to use these other services, we just add them
on as well.
Right.
And the second person says that I totally agree, I'll make sure the business processes in our system
supports this, we might also need to contact legal to fix the general terms.
OK.
Quite a common conversation going on in many businesses every day, more or less.
But my question is, do they think that they agree and do they agree?
I think it was say that they actually think that they agree here, so they are using common terms like
agreement and product and client to supply are very common terms, but you can actually have multiple
different conceptualisation of those very common terms.
So let's say, for example, that the first person had a conceptualisation like this saying that an
agreement, it's something that is put up between one of many suppliers, which is a party that act
as a supplier towards a specific agreement and when or how many clients, which is also a party that
acts in the role of being a client.
That means that one in the same party could be client and one agreement a supplier in another agreement.
Right.
And an agreement regulates the use of one or several products.
And a product could be goods or service.
Right.
That's one common conceptualization of what an agreement is.
And let's say that the first person to have that and let's say that the second person that he spoke
to actually have this kind of conceptualisation, saying that we have something called product agreements
that we set up with clients.
And a client here is just kind of a client.
It's not a general party, a notion of a general party's client.
And we have product agreements with client regarding one and only one product.
And then we have service agreements regarding one and only one service with a client.
So that's a little bit simpler conceptualisation, but I then ask the question again, do they think
they agree?
Probably, yes.
But do they agree if they actually have those very two very different conceptualizations up in their
minds when they're talking?
So just looking at the natural language here, using the terminology of product and agreement, nothing
actually reveals that they might actually disagree when it comes to more detailed questions in the same
scenario.
So.
This first kind of network concept is not equal to the second network, a concept, so just put some
very simple questions here to see, so how many groomer's will a customer need to sign in each of the
cases in the first case to sign one agreement?
Right.
Regulating the use of both products and services.
Again, in the second one, we actually have two agreements.
Even even if it's just saturated like that in the system, that tends to also be how the business functions
and then what happens if we just broker a service and we are not the supplier to the service?
So let's say that in a certain situation in the future, we will have to broker a service.
And there is another party that is actually acting as the supplier.
What will happen in the first case is that we just represent that second party as a supplier.
Good.
And that party is a supplier and towards that specific agreement that we brokered.
But in this in the other conceptualisation, there are actually no supplier at all.
It's not even there.
And there is no common party that could act as a supplier.
A client is a client, according to that conceptualisation.
And how many agreements in place do we need to develop and so on?
How many legal terms do we need to develop and so on and so on.
So you can see that those two quite different conceptualisation will lead to drastically different implementation.
So this is a little bit what I call the kind of demeaning breakdown, and this produces a lot of communication
waste, as I said, to have people and they can be stained and talking to each other for hours and hours
and hours.
And yet when they go out the room, they actually haven't understood each other, even if they think
they understood each other.
And that's even worse, because then they don't will then they will not naturally kind of take it up
and try to to figure out what went wrong.
And this happens so many times per day.
So I'm very sad.
And what I usually do is try to pinpoint them as soon as I see them.
I won't do that with my with my kids or my wife or with my friends.
Of course, there will be pain in the --.
But when I'm in very important situations in a business, I usually try to highlight when I think that
two people actually are having two different conceptualisation of the same terms they're using to try
to get rid of that communication waste as soon as possible.
Good.
That was the first example of a very common problem and that could be old using these types of techniques
and also the techniques that were going to go into in the next section where we actually started modeling
the conceptual apparatus that we have in our minds.
Very good afternoon, X10.