|
Parallelism : Accounting - Geometry - Management of
intangibles
Accounting - Geometry
The previous sections have
widely demonstrated the rational links that we can build between
visual representations and double-entry accounting - and between
visual representations and a system within its environment.
As illustrated in the figure
here below, this section will now make the all set rational
by completing it with the exactness of geometry.
In turn, dealing with "geometry
and visual" or with "double-entry and accounting" will become
equivalent.
The figure illustrates the
advantage that geometry provides: when you master it, you are not
obliged to be an expert in accounting and system dynamics to
comply with those two domains.
This actually means that the
value of the previous sections is only at demonstrating that links
exist between a geometrical construction and the practices in
usages in business management - say double-entry accounting - and
system dynamics - say classical and statistical mechanics.
This means - at the reverse to
what many people think including us at
page 1.5 -
that the empowerments recognized in some visual expressions
are not "mysterious magics" but are rational translations between
geometrical properties and different informational, analytical and
managerial systems.
So the value of this work
mostly lays in this section 5 where rational methods are
demonstrated to operationally handle the geometrical properties
which ground the relationships between the different systems.
Otherwise said in a sharp
short cut, we needed the previous sections to make this one
understandable, but at operational practice only this one section
might be required.
Management of intangibles
Nowadays the numerical base of
the holotomial analysis remains very simple and accessible - say
that the base remains at combining simple T-accounts.
However the experience shows
that describing an accurate accounting system - and inferring
numerical values - may still remain a too expensive task with
regard to the value of some situations and - worse - the
experience shows also that - in many cases - deciding for an
accounting "taxonomy" from only a digital analysis may never
satisfies realistically the stakeholders of a case.
This might be due to the
taxonomy itself that is unable to reflect the large amount of
aspects owned by the intangible world but also to the fact that a
digital format requires the computation - say creation and
maintenance - of numerical data and that this task can rarely be
completed in a comprehensive manner by all the stakeholders of a
case when the stakeholders number is not limited to a few.
At the opposite, a design -
say like a map or a perspective - may embed a lot of implicit
knowledge and can more easily accommodate a consensus with a fair
diversity of stakeholders - even if they do not own similar
motivations and knowledge backgrounds for the agreement they can
afford at the visual representation.
The point here is that when a
visual representation is made on the base of a rational
geometrical logic which respects the holotomial analysis
principles, the visual representation will be equivalent to a
double-entry accounting system - so that from the holotomial
design experience one can possibly infer accounting systems and
sets of associated values that generate the digital from the
visual.
The visual representation may
so constitute a more accessible means of generating numerical
values into a digital equivalent accounting but it may also
provide with a more accurate analysis - i.e. when the implicit
knowledge is significant - by its ability to better encompass the
intangible aspects of a case.
|
