Elegant Reasonism Driven Knowledge Management

Knowledge Management or simply KM was developed as a concept, process, and software application primarily by the Information Technology industry supported by education both in academia and business as well as HR groups managing skill sets. Ask us about our consulting services today! Information Sciences have embraced these principles and integrated them across the industry. Elegant Reasonism leverages those capabilities as a function of the unified Universe. Elegant Reasonism brings a whole new dimension to KM, and the SolREI company looks forward to working with this community both in establishing new software applications and research associated with the epistemology and knowledge management. As a methodology, it aids in identification of abstractions which lead to Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and then its analytical framework serves to eliminate those same errors. The methodologies, processes, and technologies employed against the IP’s analytics illuminate and illustrate incongruous thinking and paves the way for educational systems to impart needed paradigm shifts to bring belief systems into alignment with the actual real unified Universe. That is to say it illuminates areas where challenges may exist.

Knowledge Management is an over and misused phrase. Data is some factoid. Putting that factoid into context, it becomes information. Place that information into a sentient mind capable of taking independent action on it in net new scenarios, and it becomes knowledge. Many enterprises pay huge sums implementing artificial intelligence systems purporting to be knowledge management systems only to find that their people are training the machine and not each other. What happens all too often is that management in such companies devalue the people and place higher value on the institutionalized information their AI engine has acquired. The AI engine then effectively supplants employees.

The issue relative to Langer’s insights in context of knowledge management arises In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact. Fundamentally the KM discussion becomes:

• What are you missing because you can not think in terms of the unified Universe?
• If you can not fathom the process & methods to perceive and engage the unified Universe; how are you going to protect your existing business & its portfolio of assets from those who can?
• What opportunity can you capitalize because you can think in terms of the unified Universe?
• Can you wield Elegant Reasonism within your organization transformationally?

Fundamental Context Assurance

What Elegant Reasonism brings to the Knowledge Management cycle diagrams presented here which are stereotypical of that industry is fundamental context assurance. These diagrams make a fundamental assumption regarding effective communications and context manifesting any given knowledge domain and it is that 100% of the participants engaged are all interpreting fundamental experience in exactly the same manner. What happens if that interpretive experience, same as it may be, can not close to unification? What if that interpretive experience meets scientific empirical standards, and peer review, but it still can not close to unification? What do you do? Where do you turn? Does any of that even matter? What’s going on?

The answer to what’s going requires inspection of how those interpretations form the knowledge across any peer group, not just that one. At the epicenter of these kinds of scenarios are something called Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs), which occur when we humans mistake abstractions for actual reality. Such errors are epistemologically fatal. Elegant Reasonism is a knowledge management based new epistemology supported by an analytical framework which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science. Elegant Reasonism is specifically designed to eliminate or minimize LEEs, thus preventing and precluding this scenario from impacting an enterprise.

What value is delivered if the context manifesting value currently being delivered to your consumers and shareholders does not close to unification? What value would be delivered if you mode shifted your value so that it did close to unification? What impact would that have to your core business model and how would you manage that through competitive dynamics?

Effective Knowledge Management intrinsically integrates people to assure the integrity of an enterprise’s ability to deliver value to their consumers and shareholders. Elegant Reasonism employs Bayesian Statistics in its analytical capabilities across the plurality of Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) employed for a variety of reasons beyond the scope of this particular page. Simplistically it allows investigators to mode shift belief systems as a function of their knowledge management plans. Teams can take this information and apply it to educational programs that implement required paradigm shifts and maximize skills.

Knowledge Management Life Cycle

The primary point needing to be communicated as a result of Elegant Reasonism is that the fundamental context on which existing knowledge is based may be mode shifted out from under empiricists.  When we think of “knowing something” what we usually mean, even if we don’t necessarily understand this, is as a function of a particular detail set established through traditional means. The issue is that what it is you think you know is a function of an Encapsulated Interpretive Model (EIM) of the Universe that does not close to unification. If the foundations of how you contemplate the Universe does not 100% conform to the realm of the c’s, which intrinsically close to unification as a predicate priority consideration, then you should take great pause in what it is you think you know. And the dangerous consequences are that you commit Langer Epistemology Errors or LEEs. More succinct are the implications of having committed them because then you are acting on a false belief in facts that may only be logically correct with no hope of ever aligning with the actual real unified Universe.

Questing Unification

Seeking the implications to truth as a function of the unified Universe relative to your enterprise, business processes, value chains, or even conduct is likely something few have fathomed, much less considered teh implications of. While the fundamental quest for unification may be over, the real journey hasn’t even started yet. You will repeatedly see all over this website the phrase that unification demands the credible integration of everything real. There are a number of reasons for that statement. One is that many consider the subject something only theoretical astrophysicists deal with and nothing could be further from the truth. Consequently that tapestry is a great deal larger than any single domain of discourse, in fact it necessarily includes them all.

That means that we must also mode shift fundamental areas of philosophy. Axiology, epistemology, ontology, science, and supervenience and a great deal more must all be mode shifted. That includes all scales across the entire entanglement gradient and from both emergence and convergence vectors.

Do You Really Know or Just Believe?

Current predominant thinking is mired and otherwise based on an Encapsulated Interpretive Model (EIM) which can not close to unification exactly because its core constructs preclude it. Despite that failure much of the technological advancement has been accomplished despite that failure. The proper question is what can we achieve now that we know. We should not dwell on the past, but focus on the future. These are the primary questions that should be asked with the same predicate priority as the development of such a model. The reason for that predicate priority should be self-evident. However, if it is not, be aware that if the thinking being employed does not, or can not close, that thinking is minimally only logically correct in terms of its relative and respective detail set.

Neuroscience

There is in neuroscience a telling phrase: neurons that fire together, wire together. That phrase explains a great deal behind intentionally directed neural plasticity programs. Something modern civilization calls education. When we dig into the intentional facet and couple it with an honest desire to build cognition in fully compliant context of the unified Universe then, here, we call that Neural Network Reconfiguration by Programming (NNRP). Behind all this are the natural inner workings of our central nervous systems (CNS) and our Brains. The more rigorously an individual is immersed in the program the more likely their choices (human directed decisions and actions) are aligned, the more their neural patterns are wired to support those choices. There is a concept called a ‘worldview‘. Taking all this into consideration then it is not surprising at how some are manipulated into chaos. The answer is that some who truly believe their corrupted view of reality have had their neural pathways corrupted and aligned such that their thinking patterns result in the demonstrated behavior. The question then is what must be done to bring them back to reality, but that is a discussion for others to tackle. Here, we are concerned with normal educational application of neuroscience to education programs in order for our progeny to gain, and exploit, the precipice capable of perceiving and engaging the unified Universe.

Modern Information Science Based Systems Engineering

Historically science was called ‘philosophy of nature’. Recognizing tradition allows us to reset our thinking and priorities just a little.

Elegant Reasonism holds unification a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science exactly for these reasons and those cited in Richard P Feynman‘s video above. Historically Empiricism seeks truth as a function of experiential congruence across what was perceived as the domain of discourse detail sets consistent with a particular investigation. The problem with that historically is that human physiology can not directly perceive all that is and, as Susanne K Langer pointed out in 1948, the sense organs instantly furnish the brain with abstractions in order to cope and relate. The source of truth must be realigned objectively rather than subjectively and that objective must be larger than us. We can no longer hold ourselves in some special regard. Once we describe the unified Universe Bang to Bang, and we did that, what you are immediately confronted with is a requirement to establish relationships with everything else real. Turning that same coin around establishes a requirement to hold the unified Universe as the ultimate source of truth. The science Feynman spoke of here was that which existed prior to the maturing of the information age. Systems Engineering had yet to be quantified and codified. The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) was not formed until 1990.

Historically Systems Engineering has focused on anthropogenic (e.g. human created) systems (i.e. information technology). Even so over the decades leading up to the formation of INCOSE practitioners notice other types of systems following similar patterns. This became such a nuisance of an issue that the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) began to specify or at least clarify that point. The original systems review which produced Elegant Reasonism and The Emergence Model observed that taking individual MBPs as a system meant that everything real was a system or system of systems. Therefore an opportunity exists to extrapolate these processes, practices, and the profession itself across the broader tapestry presented by unification.

Blinded by Logically Correct Success

GM, Blockbuster, RIM, JC Penny, Sears, and a very long list of technology companies are all examples of great companies in their time, but they all stumbled. Many succumbed to competitive dynamics. Many others simply imploded due to a failure to adapt. Some fast, some slow, but they all experienced great success followed by a failure to deliver value either to consumers or to their shareholders or both. Sometimes the issues are driven by evolution of technologies and others by the paradigms its people hold. In 2008, a phrase wandering hallowed halls was “too big to let fail”. The fundamental issues here are exactly the same as those illuminated by the Metaphorical Puzzle below. A pattern of thinking is established both internally and externally to the enterprise. Entrepreneurs drive a paradigm shift that affects the marketplace and the economy supporting it which in turn influences the infrastructure supporting it, often with highly disruptive results. That is the nature of the free market, but the rhetorical question here is why these organizations did not perceive and engage the new opportunity themselves?  Elegant Reasonism hails from business process reengineering, brand management, core messaging, marketing management, systems engineering, and QMS practices. Anyone who has worked these areas within the global 2000 will tell you that such endeavors are cold merciless endeavors that generally take no prisoners. No area is sacrosanct. Competitive success in a free market demands critical inspection of shareholder value relative to strategic brand intent and the enterprise’s ability to deliver ROI. The marketplace will let the organization die if it does not deliver.

What does this have to do with physics? Quite a bit actually and answering the associated ‘why questions’ demands recognition of the implications of Langer Epistemology Errors. Such errors occur when we mistake abstractions for actual reality. Many physicists today believe they are working directly with reality.

And the very real issue with this critical insight was described by Susanne K Langer in 1948. We now call such errors: Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) to honor her and her work.

Rhetorically ask yourself what happens if your belief system is based on a logically correct domain of discourse with detail sets that empirically deliver expected results within those defined contexts, but those contexts can not ever close to unification with the unified Universe? What are the consequences of the knowledge produced there vs mode shifted knowledge that is fully compliant and aligned with the unified Universe? These are the very difficult questions that Elegant Reasonism was specifically designed to address and attack. Elegant Reasonism (See Elegant Reasonism White Paper) is an epistemology supported by an analytical framework which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science and that utility process was used in a systems review which produced the first Encapsulated Interpretive Model (EIM) to fully close to unification: The Emergence Model (See The Emergence Model White Paper). The Path to Epistemology for Elegant Reasonism took almost 20 years to follow and we had to ask questions never before considered and we had to constantly remind ourselves about what tied everything together. We had to constantly, recursively, explore whether or not we were committing LEEs or were we delivering that aligned truth and for that we developed a Process Decision Checkpoing Flowchart to go along with the Generalized Process Flow.

Mode Shifting Logical Correctness

M1 is logically correct; however, that is necessary but insufficient in order to gain the precipice of unification where all may be perceived and engaged holistically. That means the experiments consistent with that model that are generally accepted as ‘correct’ are just as logically correct. Does that mean they ‘are correct’. In a word, ‘yes’, but only to the extent that the basis for their thinking is logically correct, immersed in a logically correct model, and conducted in a logically correct manner. Does that mean they ‘align with the unified Universe’? No, it does not. What it means is that they align with the context established as a function of that model and the thinking employed to produce those results. The point is that you cannot get M5 results employing M1, nor the other way around.  Their relative and respective relationship patterns are different and distinct. They must be mode shifted through Elegant Reasonism.

Metaphorical Puzzle

If you have seen this before, take care not to be smug jumping to conclusions about what we are going to point out.

Take a blank and clean writing space. There draw three equidistant rows of three equidistant dots each. Now, without picking up your writing instrument from that surface connect all the dots with exactly four straight lines and no line is allowed to retrace its path. The process of creating the lines should be smooth, contiguous, and connect 100% of all the dots. Take your time and try as often as needed in order to solve the puzzle.

Spoiler alert, we are going to tell you the answer to solving the puzzle above. Stop reading if you don’t know that part of the answer already. Number each dot left to right, top to bottom with the number 1 in the upper left and the number 9 at the bottom right. Starting at 1 draw a straight line down through dots 4 and 7 such that it extends far enough so your next line will bisect dots 8 and 6 and extending to a point allowing your next line to return to dot 1, then straight to dot 9. All the dots are now connected with four straight lines and the rules have been met.

The point of this exercise is actually not figuring out the solution. The point concerns the paradigms within your own brain that constrained your thinking as you struggled to solve the problem. If you have encountered the puzzle before think back to your own struggle. Why did the pattern of dots constrain thinking about what was before you in terms of task assignment? This is a bit of a rhetorical question because we are not going to discuss the psychology of the situation as it is different for different individuals.  That you had to get beyond the pattern of dots, while not the point here, is germane. It resonates with ‘you have to get out of your box’ or another similar meme.

The label ‘mode shifting‘ comes from the fact that once we comprehend that EIMs establish foundational context we almost instantly recognize that simple empirical congruence to a given EIM while necessary is wholly insufficient if it does not also philosophically close to unification as a predicate priority consideration and that’s why the sentence describing Elegant Reasonism is written the way it is.  Fundamental constructs of any given EIM must be able to support every detail set definition within their domain of discourse. One very direct implication of this is can be seen considering that all valid geometry must have, is required to have, a geometric basis point. Try performing the metaphorical puzzle above never touching your writing instrument to that surface (or in a computer never creating a starting point or basis point. Geometric validity can be exercised virtually by encapsulating geometric basis within each discrete object. The issue becomes manifest trying to use a single geometric basis point for all real objects in every reference frame. No EIM manifesting the spacetime-mass interface can do that exactly because the fundamental constructs of those EIMs preclude it inherently and intrinsically. The conclusion therefore is more profound than the observation that they do not close, because they will never close no matter how much effort is put into those EIMs. The very real implication is that resources, capital, time and effort put into such efforts are in vain. Such projects waste more even than that because they also miss opportunity to align with the unified Universe and that is the real tragedy.

Mode Shifting Existing Knowledge

There are many Insights, Thought Experiments, Concepts, Propositions, etc., which all flow as a result of increased critical situational awareness thinking driven by effective knowledge management. Mode shifting these various factors is now required in a larger, more formal, setting. Our company believes a formal systems review is now required and demanded of us all. We are prepared to assist in any way we can.  Hopefully the materials we have placed the network will help in that regard.

Knowledge Barriers to Entry

In Marketing and Economics there is a concept known as a ‘barrier to entry’ in the marketplace. They are a set of circumstances which serve to protect the status quo. Knowledge Barriers work in the same or similar manner. They are relationships or conditions that protect status quo thinking and serve as a conduit (sometimes contractually) to make sure that ideas flow in the direction which serves that community, sometimes to the detriment of everyone else. The relationships between institutionalized academia, traditional publishers, government, and other groups is an example of this at the global scale. Often critically key and vital are the various Barriers to Knowledge represented by contractually imposed NDAs, relationships between various institutions and other communities. Today these various entities are themselves filled with individuals committing Langer Epistemology Errors. This directly affects peer review policy often implemented via contract. These contract stipulations, have further entrenched, ensnared, and otherwise shackled the various teams within an EIM derived knowledge barrier trap. See: In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact for many insights and details.

We must all work over time to promote entrepreneurial perception and engagement so long as the evidence chains and treatises submitted align with the unified Universe in a fully compliant manner. Existing groups, agencies, organizations and individuals should embrace Elegant Reasonism precepts and principles as quickly as possible.

Getting Out of Logic Traps

The old adage that you cannot fix something unless you know it’s broken applies here. Elegant Reasonism employs three phases; Recognition, Illumination, and Analysis to its process & methodologies. Investigators employing our ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent will find that diligent, rigorous application of that tool in their thinking will begin to see the logic traps and other types of Langer Epistemology Errors that have hidden sigma defects for over a century. Many of such errors are a function of employing the core constructs of models which are logically correct but do not, or can not, close to unification as a predicate priority. Elegant Reasonism employs a plurality of models exactly for this reason, and so that as the steps and stages are completed enabling a given investigation to mode shift that team’s criteria are illuminated, likely yielding considerable insights.  Be warned that the material traditionally associated with answers to the standard what, why, when, where, and how questions may shift interpretive model to interpretive model. For example one might ask “Why are Newton’s law’s true?”. The M1 answer might be F=ma. In M5 F=ma answers what happens, not why it’s true. Why it’s true is the cogent description for M5.

KM Taxonomy

Elegant Reasonism is an epistemology supported by an analytical framework which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science and as a utility process allowed for the first time the conduct of a systems review resulting in the first EIM fully compliant, (e.g. The Emergence Model), with rules and criteria relative to and respective of the unified Universe. Consequently knowledge priorities are: Philosophy > Domain of Discourse > Detail Set > Construct > Abstraction > Detail Characterization. Herein we often discuss three primary philosophical domains of discourse: Axiology, Epistemology, and Ontology. Elegant Reasonism is herein considered both an Epistemology and a utility process supported by its analytical framework. A key concept within Translation Matrices forming the backbone of that framework are Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs), of which there are fewer than ten (10) recognized and enumerated depending on how you count/order them.

Beware: KM Structuring Establishes Context

What most people do not yet realize are the various implications resulting from committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). Elegant Reasonism rules demand and require a plurality of EIMs be employed for any given investigation or systems review. The reason for this is that, due to Encapsulation, each manifests its own unique and highly systemic context. One key result of this is that other EIMs are not readily apparent from a precipice within a different EIM. That is to say M5 is not perceivable from within M1, M2, or M3, and this simple fact drives insights In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact. McGowen sat down with SolREI Studios to discuss those charts and you may watch/listen on our YouTube channel.We have to objectify the encapsulated relationships and back away from them using the 2D Articulation Layer within Translation Matrices in order to see how each EIM makes manifest a given Paradigm of Interest/Nature (POI/N).

Stereotypical Confusion

Very often individuals, or even groups of people, will be operating within a particular Domain of Discourse‘s Detail Set and adamantly believe they are working directly with reality (e.g. they have committed Langer Epistemology Errors). They will cite centuries old Empirical data resulting from peer reviewed papers (of which there may be hundreds) all firmly establishing the truth of their assertions and that nothing can possibly shake the integrity of that work. It’s been proven over and over again. How can any of that possibly be wrong?!! The answer to that latter point is simple and straight forward: it is not wrong, in the context of the EIM which produced it. The issue is whether or not any of that effort, data, or results can close to unification or not. If the thinking behind all of that material can not close to unification then there is a very fundamental problem with all of the conclusions that result from those endeavors. Every human which existed prior to circa 2022 has at one time or another committed Langer Epistemology Errors whether intentionally or innocently and yes that includes McGowen. Guilty as charged. Working to a mental position where one does not commit LEEs requires a great deal of effort and it is not a linear process. Ironically the more one engages, embraces, and employs Elegant Reasonism exercising the process & methods becomes easier in large part due to something we call NNRP. The rigor and discipline helps to break down barriers to knowledge that is in full context of the unified Universe.

Source of Confusion

When we review traditional epistemologies (e.g. Empiricism, Rationalism, Constructivism, etc) there are two common threads: human physiology and the psychological perceptions resulting from it. When we establish truth as a function of a given epistemology within the context of a given EIM individuals become subject to the “birds of a feather” syndrom. ‘Like Minded’ individuals gather and congratulate each other on strengthening the congruence relative to and respective of their Detail Set. They forget that the Domain of Discourse supporting that Detail Set has fundamental foundational context established by a specific Encapsulated Interpretive Model (EIM). They are so busy saying “see what I did” that they don’t look for logic artifacts or concept compression issues. Sometimes they will even subconsciously alter their interpretations in order to rationalize how what they are perceiving fits with their worldview. Cognitive Biases come into play, especially confirmation bias. These various issues conspire and create Barriers to Knowledge. Elegant Reasonism penetrates these issues in more than several important ways because it demands and requires:

1. Truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science,
2. A plurality of contexts (via EIMs) to justify conclusions presented in Treatised,
3. Employs Bayesian Analytics to discern and distinguish belief system dynamics,
4. ISO 9001 QMS standards, Root Cause Analysis, and Error Detection techniques (e.g. Six Sigma) are holistically employed within an Elegant Reasonism context and rule set,
5. Industry standard Systems Engineering principles, processes, and practices are employed to assure proper requirements are accurately applied against a given endeavor,
6. The Generalized Process Flow and Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart seek to eliminate or minimize commission of Langer Epistemology Errors in order to establish truth as a function of the unified Universe in a philosophically consistent taxonomy supporting science based conclusions.

We must avoid the ‘not invented here’ attitude and work hard to leverage what we are experiencing against the unified Universe which is always held distinct and litmus.

Mode Shifting Transformationally

Groups, teams, and individuals deeply vested in status quo situations will be likely be in initial shock and disbelief at all of this. They will transition through the stages of grief. Whether you ascribe to 7 stages or 5 stages of grief those highly invested individuals will go through some form of these processes. Executives, managers, and leaders should recognize their investment getting to where they are and that should be respected, but recognize that effort will not gain the precipice of unification. Employing transformational leadership principles and practices, along with some hard questions will gain traction with those embracing real science. Individuals whose source of truth is elsewhere it will be more difficult. The key question will be asking if their thinking can close to unification or not. They may proffer excuses rooted in scale, or a traditional epistemology, or maturity of awareness with status quo. They may cite over a century of successful empirically conducted experimentation and cogent results. Again, ask them if any of that closed to unification. Point out that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. Acknowledge that what has been accomplished by civilization to date was great and highly logically correct, and while it was necessary it is insufficient to gain the precipice where the unified Universe may be perceived and engaged. We can not allow our past successes blind us to the future. Get them to engage the free materials on Elegant Reasonism. See if they can break it or find holes in the premise.  Better yet get them to see how they might strengthen it. See if they can come up with a better EIM than The Emergence Model.  Start with the White Papers.

Relationships

In hindsight describing the unified Universe Bang to Bang only presents a demand to characterize everything real in that context. One must show the linkages discussed In Unification’s Wake, Part 04: Relatedness and these various acts demand cogent knowledge management. Once the general infrastructure concepts are understood across the Entanglement Gradient, especially enabling organic from inorganic we can then discuss physiology. Neurology with all its wondrous areas ultimately enabling Human Action. Susanne K Langer’s observations restfully provide the linkages to subjects as far removed from astrophysics as art appreciation.

Example Syllabus

SolREI is working to develop an example syllabus along a continuum from early childhood through post graduate levels that exploit NNRP and significantly improve the opportunity for our progeny to learn and wield Elegant Reasonism to great effect. Individuals who are critically situationally aware in their thinking regarding the unified Universe are inherently aware under dynamic and conversational circumstances whether or not what they are experiencing is or is not in alignment with the unified Universe. Imagine such a person leading litigation during court proceedings. One does not need to go far to comprehend the immense implications of such skills relative to civilization. We strongly encourage everyone to become familiar with In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact.

Executive Summary

Elegant Reasonism represents a new knowledge management based epistemology aligned with the unified Universe. The source of truth it represents is derived as a function of that unified Universe. Elegant Reasonism integrates traditional epistemologies, statistically weighting their conclusions relative to that source of truth and in consequence must be considered a superset epistemology for those reasons. The utility process factors employ industry standard ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standards. Elegant Reasonism is a disruptive technology as a function of the denial it encounters and therefore it is suggested that it be wielded with transformational leadership principles and with empathy and compassion. Never, however, forget the insights In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact. Knowledge Management across these various domains of discourse for the foreseable future will remain vital if not critical to enterprise viability exactly because Elegant Reasonism is a game changer whose epicenter is critical situational awareness thinking. Errors in strategic thinking leveraging Elegant Reasonism KM based insights will likely mean the difference between economic survival or something less. Apathy and slow reaction times will only result in being consumed by competitors or adversaries. The only defense against Elegant Reasonism is wielding contextually aware knowledge management more effectively than the opposition.

SolREI Consulting

Our business services knowledge management experts wield Elegant Reasonism to powerfully conduct business process reviews, systems reviews, and help to align your business plans relative to the unified Universe. We have placed resources online so that any enterprise can begin the journey to institutionalize comprehension of the unified Universe without external assistance, but sometimes you just need extra insights and, well, we invented the process needed to perceive and engage the unified Universe. There is no entity anywhere more fluent in these issues than we are. Contact us today if you need a jump start.

Request A Quote!

Let us know how we can help you help others!

Shop Now!

Educators! Check out the products you can leverage in the classroom in our Educator’s Shop!

 

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #EIM #Philosophy #Science #InformationSciences #InfoSci #KnowledgeManagement #KM #M5 #M6

#Global2000 #WIPO #USPTO #Business #BusinessPlanning #INCOSE #BusinessProcess #SystemsEngineering #SEBoK #NNRP