Shared watersCorrected attempt 02 / 03
What stays?
What changes?
The original compares business as usual (BAU) with a target operating model (TOM). We keep the named organisational pieces and make the comparison explicit—without pretending that a difference is already a project plan.
A current arrangement and a proposed one.
The corrected move
A correspondence,
not yet a functor.
“Sell” and “Build” can be explicitly retained in this comparison. “Design” can correspond to the proposed “Design & procure”. “Market” is an addition, not another destination for an unnamed current node.
The correspondence is authored here. It records the intended comparison; it does not establish equal behaviour or that a new capability exists.
The SMR/depot reading
An organisation already sells, designs and builds packages. It now considers offering the offshore depot a coordinated service, supported by procurement, marketing or a design centre.
Changing a checkbox changes the proposed inventory. It does not hire a team, establish decision authority or derive the work to achieve that arrangement.
The interesting next question remains: what could turn this intended change into useful, feasible work?
Keep the kinds of thing distinct
People are not state values.
These seven named surroundings are retained from the richer BAU sketch. They provide organisational context. They are not treated as resources automatically consumed or created by an arrow, nor as proof that a regulator belongs inside the company.
The view separates process names, participant roles, capabilities and planning context. It is an inventory comparison, not a state-transition system. The original’s unlabelled relations are not replayed as established causal or precedence links.
From the 2022 drawing
What survives the correction?
2022 08 Basic functor setup for TOM.graphml
Retained
Sell, Design and Build; the named organisational surroundings; Market and Design & procure; the distinction between retained structure and added scope.
Corrected
One explicit correspondence per compared process replaces ambiguous orange arrows. New capabilities are labelled proposed. The design centre comes from the scope sketch, not an identified blank TOM port.
Left out of this attempt: The undefined WBS product, natural-transformation arrows, automatic work derivation and isolated unexpected-event mechanism. These remain open questions.
Source → concept → construction → limit
Baez, part4, helps distinguish a kind of network from an instance. Part5 warns that refinement may require search and that forgetting constraints need not preserve composition. Part8 motivates states and tasks for a specified team, a construction not yet supplied by this inventory.
The comparison and typed inventory here are an explanatory repair of the source sketch. They are not presented as an operad algebra, a functor or a derivation of project work.
Original GraphML anchors: n3; n1; n2; n6::n2. These identify the local source drawing; they are not mathematical claims. Original files remain unchanged. This site depicts the corrected construction.