Together, we* create...
Defining Theory
An ongoing series— Defining Theory explores today's topics of Root Theories, Futurism, Nowism, and Systems Wind℠
I began writing Theory at the age of 26. Up until this point and living as a Visual Artist—diagrams were either naturally captured in my work through the form of self-expression, or they simply weren't needed.
Defining Creative Strategies for Brand Systems, Business & Economic Models for Customer and User application and growth; patternized interactions require diagrams and representational models to provide the basis for scale, asking big questions, and providing platforms for things like access & change. Theory quickly and steadily became a tool I rested much (if not all) of my thinking on. Theory has become a trusted space to combine Futurism, Imagination, scientific & mathematic thinking, application, study, and determinism. For me, Theory is a place to work through big, seemingly disconnected or undetermined problems to propose hypothetical answers for further study, breakdown, and reapplication.
Early Theoretical focus was rooted in exploring The Who Theory, a four part model that exploded Simon Sineks 3-circle, target-like Why model, running a tube-like pipe through the center that issued the concept of "Who." Working with this model— I determined that Who we are impacts Why we create, or Who we are determines Why we have access to a certain forms of education, legacies, concepts, or ideas. In other words— Starting With Why simply didn't include the biases of Who We Are. Later, I would find, through study of this model (and equation) that Who We Are Holds Matter, and Who We Are Is Who Our Products Become. Root Theories that continue to define all Core Principles & Values within my work, mission, vision, and standards.
Working in a field (and industry) where Theory is typically categorized as Futurism–I avoided this term for years. Futurism holds, in its own right, a particular set of self-defined boundaries. By nature, Futurism is focused on what lies ahead. Building for the future, Futurism is not the only state of Time required to properly develop, uphold, test, and recategorize change for. While deeply important—Futurism presents the very real challenge of getting lost in its nature. Nowism is a comical term I began using 4 years ago to ensure that all Future-focused Theory continue to fall into grounded, practical, attainable, measurable, useable, and accessible application.
Learned traits, characteristics, and outcomes across things like budget, timelines, business models, and creative pipelines are determined by Nowism; requiring deeply grounded and practiced application to continue to scale, grow, and yield specific-to-need value(s). If, for example, a Brand Access Point cannot hold up in day-to-day practice equal to future-forward concepts, timelines, and needs; the entire root equation of whatever provided model is created, will break down on itself. To further this example— Brand Systems Design requires that all Brand Access Points provide unbiased, overarching support equal to hyper-relative, product, company, trend and economy-focused tools and mediums to ensure proper group, team, and individual usability. Building a Brand System that is devoid of Brand Access Points— a Brand remains in-operable to scale, flex, and relate as time, space, and need change. Access Points encourage the theoretical expansion of Principle Constants & Value Relatives. Categorizing Brand Systems into one of two camps—Principle Constants provide an over-arching set of global principles to follow, whereas Value Relatives yield Creative frameworks that are relative to the need of the value provided.
Principle Constants and Value Relatives outline how theory is used to build for simplicity—Access. Adoption. Need. Desire. When used with intent, Theory appears to be non-existent, invisible. Users, Clients, Business Partners, and Customer alike can't be hung-up on Why a Design works; it simply must. If they are— Design, as a greater Principle (and all cascading Values) has failed.
It was within the formal pursuit of Theory that I began studying how Naming Systems were used across Brand Systems Design. Akin to how a gust of wind moves across a field, Naming Systems are deeply engrained into how, why, what, and where our cultures, socio-economics, industries, and personal forms of identification (Who) gain Access. When studying this phenomenon—Naming Systems became increasingly important as place to entertain "where a gust of wind stems from?" Equal too... "what are the effects of each gust of wind across every blade of grass?"
The Theoretical term Systems Wind became an early adopted example that explored the Economy Of Words. How and why does a household "parent-brand" like Target hold importance as it scales all Access Points within a "child-brand" such as Room Essentials? Or how do Apple Products stay systemized within yearly Brand & Product launches without having to explain these category changes/updates to users and customers? While Naming Systems aren't the only element in play—the names of Brands, Products, and Companies themselves hold increasing importance as to how and why customers become early adopters and life-time users.
Parallel Thinking encourages that both possibilities of 0 and 1 (wind versus grass) are at play when standing in a field. Rather than focusing on one element at a time, Parallel Thinking introduces a greater concept called Binary+. No longer operating in an "either, or" structure— Binary+ encourages "both", "neither," and "all" as possibilities as to why grass moves within a field. Further, Binary+ expresses that the growth and degradation of wind can further sway which way grass moves. Thinking about it this way– Naming Systems hold infinite impact in to Who has access to Brands, Products, and Companies, and the economics that sway things like trends, society, culture, and climate.