Geometry of Organizations, Policies and Programmes
- / -
of Towards Transformative Conferencing and Dialogue: Collection of papers and notes, problems and possibilities on the new frontier of high-risk gatherings concerning social development
The purpose of this note is to explore the possibility of a new "language"
through which policies, programmes and institutional structures can be articulated. In the
conventional language, it is typical to see "points" made in a "line"
of argument about a subject "area". Such points may be enshrined in policy
principles, in programme mandates, or in the departmental structures of organizations
intended to implement them. Normally such nested point structures are embedded in linear
text (possibly with the aid of an outliner on a text-processor). Typically the only
organization structure expressed in graphic form is the hierarchical (pyramidal)
organization chart, with all that that has implied.
In what follows, there is an attempt to look at the possibility of expressing points
and lines in geometric form on the assumption that a coherent policy or organization takes
a coherent geometric form. By extending the language beyond "lines", to
"areas" and "volumes", it is hoped to enrich the range of
possibilities that can be clearly distinguished and discussed. It is also hoped to
introduce an extra degree of rigour into understanding of debate, especially where it is
common for people to "go on and on" without contributing to the articulation of
a larger strategic vision.
Organization charters (constitutions), policy documents and programmes are the result
of considerable effort at articulating and integrating understanding. It should be
possible to represent/interpret/translate such structures into geometrical form,
especially by adapting any pattern of nested points.
1. Points and lines:
It takes several points to establish a line of argument
It takes the intersection of two or more lines of argument to establish a point of
higher order than those defining any one line of argument. A 2-order point is defined by 2
lines, a 3-order point is defined by 3 lines, etc
Points may be (or be held by): individuals, nodes (in a network), concepts, principles,
Lines may be (or be held by): bonds between people, lines of communication, arguments,
lines (courses) of action, lines of authority, etc
Duals: point and line structures can be inverted as a standard geometric operation.
2. Elaboration of structure:
Once a line of argument has been defined, a point in the line may be used as a
departure for another line. This process may continue without any effort at closure,
namely reference back to earlier points or lines in the debate. The debate is then
unconstrained, but does not define a structure transcending the linear processes of the
In "developing" a line of argument, references may however be made to other
"supporting" points. A distinction should be made between the case where such
points form part of the line of argument, and the case where they define the context
within which the argument is developed. In the latter case, subsidiary lines link the
developing line to the reference points.
A structure may be understood as acquiring coherence when cross-reference between
points effectively triangulates the pattern of points and lines.
Enclosure of areas: lines of argument may be structured in relation to one another so
as to refer back to earlier lines, intersecting them, and thus creating closure. Closure
typically takes the form of an area, of which the simplest is the triangle. The range of
relevance of the lines is thus constrained relative to that area. Pursuing a line of
argument beyond the points at which it borders a particular area makes it
"irrelevant" to that area -- typically associated with the phrase "going
on" unnecessarily (about a point).
An area is defined by three (or more) lines and in its simplest form these lie in the
same plane (whose existence they define)
Areas may be understood as: (co)missions of nodes with a shared concern
Types of area (polygons): triangle, square, pentagon, hexagon, etc
4. Contiguous areas:
A line may be common to two (or more) areas. The areas will not necessarily lie in the
same plane and there is then a form of conceptual discontinuity between them.
Different subject areas may then be considered "related". In a debate, the
accusation of haing "changed the subject" may be understood as having shifted
from one area, through discontinuity, to a neighbouring area. Accusations of "missing
the point" are of similar significance.
Elaboration of structure: contiguous areas may define a complex surface of which the
simplest is the grid pattern. Typical examples are the many 2x2, 2x3, 3x3, etc matrices of
categories common to academic texts and to presentations by consultants. More complex is a
tiling pattern, or arbitrary structures such as might emerge from network maps.
5. Symmetry and integration:
Integration of more complex structures is achieved by ensuring the presence of
dimensions of symmetry. The integrative potential increases by constraining contiguous
areas to define volumes characterized by such symmetry. Coherence and integrity are
properties of such volumes. It is through such properties that significance can be
attributed. The volume thus becomes a "container" for meaning.
6. Enclosure of volumes:
Volumes are defined by systematically constraining areas in relation to one another,
accepting the necessary degree of conceptual discontinuity between the areas of common
concern. This discontinuity is proportional to the angle at which contiguous areas
intersect (possibly understood as a torsion on the common line of intersection). The areas
must be constrained so as to enclose a volume. Thus a 2x2 matrix of categories might be
folded into a tetrahedron, a 3x2 matrix could be folded into a cube.
- Minimal discontinuity occurs when the volume approximates to a sphere. Here the
challenge is to interrelate the many necessary areas required for such a structure
- Maximal discontinuity occurs with a minimum number of areas. Here the challenge
is to constrain the areas, given the high degree of discontinuity. Exploring an area
beyond its line of intersection with a particular volume makes it "irrelevant"
to that volume.
Types of volume (polyhedra): a distinction must be made between regular and irregular
polyhedra. A regular polyhedron is a more idealistic structure and presupposes that all
areas are of the same pattern. With an irregular polyhedron, areas may be of many
patterns. As the number of patterns diminishes, the polyhedron approximates more to an
ideal structure. Buckminster Fuller made the point that all systems may be understood as
Regular polyhedra: a point in a polyhedron is usually defined by the intersection of
three (occasionally four) lines which together define three (or occasionally four) planes.
A line is thus common to two contiguous areas, whereas a point is usually common to a
minimum of three areas. A point can then "tolerate" the discontinuity between
8. Fluidity of the language:
One purpose of the language is to channel, and give rigour to, the fuzziness of normal
policy debate. This raises the question of when to "code" a sequence of words
(whether verbal or in documents) as a point, a line or an area. Often the point structure
of a document is a major guideline. This tends to be absent in verbal debate.
It is important to recognize than there are geometric operations which are a useful
guideline to the ways in which an existing structure can be "manipulated" during
a debate. "Points" may be converted into "lines" and "lines"
into "areas", etc. through operations such as projection and rotation. Items can
be expanded out of points and contracted back into points. These processes could be
effectively tracked with the aid of such a geometric approach to "minute"
There would be considerable advantage in being able to provide a visual display of an
evolving debate in such terms. Under the best circumstances participants will in effect be
endeavouring to construct a coherent and integrated form so that feedback on its
intricacies would prove of value. At the same time, and under less favourable
circumstances, some participants will be endeavoring: to extend lines outside the
structure, to expand areas into volumes (as execresences on the structure), or to deny the
existence of parts of the structure already established.
9. Developmental and transformational possibilities
The fluidity noted above is basic to the potential for representing developmental and
transformational pathways without loss of continuity.
Growth and extension can be tracked by allowing a full range of geometric extensions of
a structure. The principal methods of generating polyhedra are:
- 9.1 Folding the two-dimensional net,
- 9.2 Creating the dual of an existing polyhedron,
- 9.3 Truncating features (faces, vertices, and/or edges) of a polyhedron. This may be
understood as flattening the vertex or edge to obtain a new faces, vertices or edges. The
reverse process is to pull the centre of a face away from the centre of a polyhedron to
obtain a new vertex and hence new faces and edges. Truncating the five platonic polyhedra
generates all but two of the semi-regular polyhedra.
- 9.4 Rotating-translation involves: (a) rotation of each face of a polyhedron about its
central axis, (b) translation of each face along its axis by a motion that holds the face
perpendicular to that axis, (c) maintenance of one connection (whether vertex or edge)
between two faces during the roation/translation process, and (d) creation of new faces
defined by the voids which appear as a consequence of the process.
- 9.5 Vertex fusing and separating involves: (a) disappearance of faces and edges, (b)
fusion and separation of vertices, (c) continuous alteration in face angles, and (d)
continuous change in face positions.
Also of great interest is the range of manipulations of the cuboctahedron with flexible
joints, as discovered by Buckminster Fuller.