You will discover in this article several mind maps without an explicit central idea or main branches, especially one that details the characteristics of a stage of Tour de France. Although they are quite different from standards, I will explain to you why they are interesting and very inspiring.I have recently received a couple of feedbacks saying that some of my artworks are not really mind maps (see previous posts about Tour de France or Food Pyramid). But why some of my mind maps are triggering such a reaction? The answer is simply because there is no explicit central idea and/or main branches. The one I decided to share with you here details a specific stage of Tour de France 2012, the prestigious cycling race. And it may receive the same kind of comments once again.This mind map is fully supported by iMindMap, the mind mapping software. I built it with a succession of branches representing the profile of the route (using freehand feature), linking the start and the finish towns. Although it is not explicitly appearing on the screen, the central idea is "Tour de France 2012 | Macon - Bellegarde stage". At the end of each branch, there is an opportunity to provide additional information with sub-branches (altitude, distance, location, climb characteristics, etc). From those points, you can imagine any kind of additional information (time estimation, race strategy, standings at the top of the hills, ...). The support is ready, mind mapping can happen.
 |
| Tour de France - Stage zoom - Mind map with iMindMap |
So why should I limit myself to draw mind maps that radiate only from a single and central point if I obtain interesting results with an extended approach? For example, this typical mind map about the brain (see picture) actually hides 2 basic ordering ideas (“Left” and “Right”) because of the central image. Note that although it may simplify the overall layout of the mind map or the generation of secondary level branches, it's also limiting the creation of new main ordering ideas (which could be an obstacle during the generative thinking process).
Thinking further, I can imagine starting a mind map with 3, 4, 5 or even more hidden main branches, either because they are implicitly expressed by the central image or because it makes the mind map more readable. Going even further, I can imagine that the central shape outline (triangle, square or more complex ones) is an open line or a curve that contains a couple of points from where I would like to start radiating and organising the information. The central idea and the main branches become invisible and implicit as shown on the figure here below.
- Analyse and/or compare the offer of a triple-play provider
 |
| Provider offer mind map |
- Teach and discuss the main evolution of man on a timeline
 |
| Human evolution mind map |
- Present a product line-up
 |
| Product line-up mind map |
- Capturing, analysing and debriefing player performance on a basketball field
- Coach your rally champion about the characteristic of each curve of a rally race route
- Explain the water cycle phases from a nice 3D picture
- ...
This is what I do in some of my creative mind maps. This is an alternative way of benefiting from standard mind mapping with slightly different starting points. It could even help some of you to start to create a mind map more easily. An important success factor for an efficient mind map is the ability to articulate and connect some thoughts from where it’s then possible to develop the idea with further details. Approach the mind map structure a bit differently should allow you to keep applying this principle.
Be open minded!
Be creative!
Phil - I'm Big Fan - "impossible isn't mind mapping" ;-)
ReplyDeleteThanks Patrick. Indeed the application field is probably infinite. Your are a great contributor and your own regard on it (throughout your own realisations) is an important factor to the development. I have this nice feeling of bringing some fresh air in the room.
DeleteOnce again, another creative map. Thanks for showing us how to combine mind maps with design.
ReplyDeleteMy pleasure Toni. The visual aspect of those mind maps is indeed interesting. What I hope I also managed to explain is the importance of not focusing too much on having the starting point absolutely in the centre. I'm sure this degree of freedom can really help to better adapt some of the lessons in the classroom.
DeleteHi Philippe. As you know you're doing fantastic things for the mind map community. You are truly an innovator in this area.
ReplyDeleteIs it mind mapping? In my mind map book my definition is: "Mind mapping is a visual information management tool. A mind map filters information about a central topic and orders it in an easy to grasp two-dimensional spider-web like structure."
Using my definition the answer would be no. But then would my Ishikawa Fish Bone mind map not fit the definition as well. (http://mastermindmaps.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/ishikawa-fish-bone-mind-map/) This "mind map" is linear in one direction and mind map like in the other direction".
I think it is important to note that mind mapping can be a management tool, managing information and then the central topic is important in helping to master (and subsequently manage the information), but also a visualization tool. In this case there is no necessity to have a central topic as long as -as you stare correctly - the branches are connected.
I think that people like you and me (and other innovative mind mappers) should come up with a strong and tight definition of what mind mapping is.
Having said this: Keep up the good work, Phil.
Hi Hans. I really appreciate your feedback about my work as well as your vision about what mind mapping is. I think that definitions are not written in stone and evolve with time and innovation, especially when the domain is rather recent (like in the medical domain).
DeleteAbout the central topic, I'm more mitigated. I'm convinced about the importance of having a main topic (or initial idea, theme, subject, ...). I do not see clear advantages to have it in the middle instead of left, right, up or down (if we keep radiating and connecting).
But you are right, it's important to come quickly with a consistent definition. I'm currently working on that topic.
Although I certainly don't qualify as a creative mindmapper, I would like to elaborate on this post.
ReplyDeleteYour work always strikes me as beautiful. And beauty undoubtly is a rule of mindmapping. Too many so-called "maps" are boring colourless surpriseless lazy templates. A map is to be "crafted" ; it requires some (joyful) effort.
About the brain map in this post, I keep some doubts. Encapsulating the main branches in the central image binds you to those very two themes : left and right. Why not associate further and develop the forefront and the back of the brain, or maybe the up and bottom parts of it ? Your present central image makes those radiations impossible.
The same qualification applies to the triple-play provider. Of course other main branches may be irrelevant here, but the central image shouldn't close the discussion about what the main branches ought to be, and how many of them there should be. Quite the contrary — the central image sparks the connexions in every direction.
The timeline display doesn't suffer from such a limit. Geometrically speaking, it's just a flattened variant — and a clever one — of the traditional mindmap. It's as if a circular map had been compressed under some heavy weight, but this changes nothing to the topology of the map. You remain free to add as many main branches as you like. (The slight difference is that the main branches become nameless.)
Anyway — just my two cents.
Thank you Alexis for your relevant remarks. They are definitely worth more than 2 cents.
DeleteAbout the brain and triple-play map, you are perfectly right. Implicit main branches hidden in the central image will constraint the generative thinking process. My comments were too restrictive and I updated the article in order to take into consideration your concern.
I also like your explanation about the flattened variant of the mind map. It always good to have an external and different subjective interpretation of the subject.
Thank you again for your great contribution.
I simply don't see what you mean by Paradigm Shift in mind mapping. I believe Tony Buzan has contributed to a mystification about centuries old method of creating knowledge: the hierarchical categorisation of information. In language it is called the hypernemic structure (transport > car > renault > scénic).
DeleteAristotle's claim to it was over-stated, as it was merely the formalisation of folklore organisation of the natural world. There's nothing special, or paradigm shifting, in any of Tony Buzan's work at all. Just marketing.
The main point is that relationships in maps can be evidently seen, whereas in writing it is not self-evident living within the structure of syntax. Bertrand Russell explained this in the 1930, saying that "words which mean relations are not themselves relations" while in maps "a relation is represented by a relation".
Hi Olivier and thank you for your interesting comment.
DeleteMaybe I should clarify a bit what I mean with the paradigm shift. This is exactly what you call hierarchical or hypernemic structure (to which I may include images, curves and colours). This way of representing and visualizing ideas, information or thoughts is quite different from the linear thinking approach and that's what creates the paradigm shift. It means that by entering this way of thinking differently, people will discover new things, achieve more, differently and overcome some obstacles. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying in the article that it is thanks to Tony Buzan. His work has an important influence on mine but I'm open to learn more in the domain.
Your graphics are great. I picture your beautiful, single timeline as representing both the central image & branches. It is an excellent way of presenting information on just one sheet of paper!
ReplyDeleteThank you Lim. I found this interesting blog http://mmapper.blogspot.be/. Is it yours? Do not hesitate to intervene whenever you want and share your mind map experience with us on this blog.
DeletePhilippe,
ReplyDeleteThe way I spell mind mapping is T-H-I-N-K-I-N-G. And, my definition of a mind map is a 2-dimensional reflection of your ideas, emotions, analysis, thoughts, hopes, anxieties captured rapidly on paper in colors, key words, images, icons and connectors.
Since a "mind" has no tangible shape or size how can its "reflection" have a specific structure. The whole idea is to help us think effectively, excellent-ly and expansively.
Why should we ever place any limits or restrictions to us THINKING effectively, excellent-ly and expansively.
Raju Mandhyan
www.mandhyan.com
Hi Raju,
DeleteI really appreciate your comments. You gave a great definition of mind mapping that I share with enthusiasm. The problem often comes from the a close view of what a mind map is whereas the true value is in the thinking process, less in the diagram format. As you said, anything that can help us to think efficiently is great to learn and master.
Beautiful, Philippe.
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I can sum up the different concepts. There are mind maps (hierarchical and thus very quickly to draw and read), there concept maps (non-hierarchical) and there are fishbone diagrams (actually just a certain shape for a mind map). All three are visualizations of content.
On the other side there are net plans and cause and effect models - the visualization of, well, cause and effects. Widely known are quantitative cause and effect models, less known are qualitative models (e.g. www.imodeler.net).
Whether today's mind maps are combining right and left brain thinking is disputed. Without doubt they allow us to put a lot information onto a small place.
The rest is marketing. Mind mapping is so popular that people tend to call even concept maps mind maps. What you are showing is very important. For a long time I wondered why those mind mapping tools didn't become more flexible, e.g. like the www.debategraph.org or the https://imodeler.info/readonly?key=Mvpd8JA5EeGNMuOPAIkdNg&id=_LNAmgZA5EeGNMuOPAIkdNg, not only having not a central node but even a flexible view on something.
What general approach did I miss?
A final remark on the future of mind maps and other content visualizations. They will remain important to handle all the informations that is available out there. But they will certainly loose their strange application for strategy development, project management, organizational development etc. where people only use them because they are so easy to handle. Though some people speak of analysis when they look at mind maps, only cause and effect models provide possibly new insights from analysis. Our current and future challenges are complex. A mind map cannot become complex - only complicated. Complexity arises from dynamics and feedback loops. I think - therefore I model ;-)
Thank you Kai for your detailed comments. I'm indeed voluntary pushing the boundaries in order to demystify "mind maps" and give a chance to anybody to look a bit further than usual. You are right to insist on the difference between content visualisation and information handling in general.I can easily demonstrate that mind mapping helps to inspire and generate content efficiently. But for handling huge amount of information and concepts, the problem is more complex. Mind maps cannot be a single and unique solution there.
DeletePhilippe,
ReplyDeleteBRAVO! I'm new to mind mapping and your way of mapping has shed a new light on how I can create mind maps with zero boundaries!
As Patrick Zimbardo stated above, "impossible isn't mind mapping".
I look forward to seeing more of your mapping.
Thank you!
Glen O'Keefe
I'm happy and proud to inspire and open new horizons. Do not hesitate to share your experiences here ...
DeleteHi , I was googling "car development timeline" and came across your site because of the picture showing the human evolution . I got into here out of curiosity and asking myself : how is evolution related to cars ? . Do similarities in structure indicate evolution or common descent by anyway ? or is it just that we were brought up to believe so ? The directly next picture shows multiple models of Audi which are very similar in their exterior appearance and almost identical interiorly , yet each one of them must have been 'created' and designed ! . The picture showing the Audis totally refutes the idea of the one that precedes it
DeleteSorry for that.
DeleteThis article is neither an article about evolution, nor timline but about mind maps and how to tweak them to present different kind of information. It's true that the images are not related but each of them has a caption which I hope give enough context about what I tried to explain.
Google has the power. No me ...