Appendix: Introduction to the Conceprocity notation

Appendix: Introduction to the Conceprocity notation

Figure Principal symbols used in Conceprocity

Different kinds of arrow are used to represent the various relationships; we start with the most basic:

Figure Types of arrows used in basic Conceprocity relationships

Notes or commentary can also be used to enumerate property lists and/or hierarchies. Sweep of history arrows are used to indicate the best way in which to read a Conceprocity model.

1. How to build a Conceprocity model

Define a focus question to which your model will be a (partial) answer, or at least delimit a clear topic area

Decide the usage profile which is appropriate to you and to the situation you are modelling

Create a Google Drive directory (folder) to contain the files that will constitute the model

Begin to build a Conceprocity dictionary and glossary using Microsoft Excel or Microsoft Access containing initial lists of:

Concepts (and specific instances: facts)

Actors (and specific instances: e.g. named persons)

Processes

Create some examples for each notion

Think about the relationships between the concepts, actors and processes

Can you identify structural relationships between concepts?

Or are concepts related only by processes?

Can you identify principles (rules) which affect the modelled situation? Include constraints

Start to sketch out the initial Conceprocity model

It’s often necessary then to go back, reconsider and refine the initial lists in the dictionary

This stage also typically requires further research around the original question

Add principles, events and logical operators to the model

Create, refine and use the model in Lucidchart

2. TROPICPEA structural relationships

Figure Conceprocity structural relationships

Figure Conceprocity relationship types

3. Where to find out more concerning Conceprocity

References

Ackoff, R.L., Gupta, S.K. and Minas, J.S., 1962. Scientific method: Optimizing applied research decisions. [online] Wiley New York. Available at: [Accessed 16 Jun. 2013].

Allen, D., 2003. Getting things done: The art of stress-free productivity. Penguin Books.

Argyris, C., 2000. Double loop learning in organizations. Classics in management thought, pp.115–125.

Ausubel, D.P., 1963. The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. [online] Available at: [Accessed 19 Sep. 2013].

Ausubel, D.P., 2000. The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Kluwer Academic Pub.

Avison, D.E., Wood-Harper, A.T., Vidgen, R.T. and Wood, J.R.G., 1998. A further exploration into information systems development: The evolution of Multiview 2. Information Technology & People, 11(2), pp.124–139.

Baskerville, R.L., 2011. Individual information systems as a research arena. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(3), pp.251–254.

Basque, J., 2013. La modélisation des connaissances en milieu organisationnel. [online] Available at: [Accessed 16 Apr. 2013].

Behar, R., 1997. The vulnerable observer: Anthropology that breaks your heart. Beacon Press (MA).

Boisot, M. and McKelvey, B., 2010. Integrating modernist and postmodernist perspectives on organizations: A complexity science bridge. The Academy of Management Review (AMR), [online] 35(3), pp.415–433. Available at: [Accessed 13 Jul. 2012].

Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J. and Jacobson, I., 2005. Unified Modeling Language User Guide, The (2nd Edition) (Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series). Addison-Wesley Professional.

Bunge, M.A., 1973. Method, model, and matter. Reidel.

Bunge, M.A., 1977. Treatise on basic philosophy: Volume 3: Ontology 1: The furniture of the world. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Bunge, M.A., 1979. Treatise on basic philosophy. Volume 4: Ontology II: a world of systems. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Bunge, M.A., 2003. Emergence and convergence: Qualitative novelty and the unity of knowledge. [online] University of Toronto Press. Available at: [Accessed 23 May 2014].

Buzan, T. and Buzan, B., 1996. The mind map book: how to use radiant thinking to maximize your brain’s untapped potential. Plume Books.

Checkland, P., 1981. Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley.

Checkland, P., 2000. Soft Systems Methodology: A Thirty Year Retrospective. Syst. Res, 17, pp.S11–S58.

Checkland, P. and Tsouvalis, C., 1997. Reflecting on SSM: The Link Between Root Definitions and Conceptual Models. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci., [online] 14(3), pp.153–168. Available at: