Useful numerical synergies
(return to synergies page or see other key terms)
These notes describe synergies as relationships that are auspicious because they deliver abundance.
- This is implied in the popular shorthand for synergy as: 1+1=3
- i.e. each '1's' represents a thing that we combine to obtain the surplus (i.e. a '3' instead of a '2').
- Harry Beck adapted his famous (1933) London Underground map notation from Leonhard Euler.
- In mapping teamwork we represent the nodes as 'things' (agents/actors) and the interconnecting lines as relationships.
- The above diagram represents 1+1=3 if we can accept that the relationship (line) exists as 'Thing 3'
- If we start with 3 'things' we will get an equal number of relationships (i.e. potential synergies).
- We can represent this as 1+1+1=6 if we only count each 'things' as a 1, then add in the relations.
- If we increase the number of interconnected things we transition from a 2D to a 3D figure.
- As we increase the number of nodes (i.e. ingredients/players) the number of interrelations increases exponentially.
- In 1751, Euler noticed a pattern in polygons that can be usefully applied to the organisation of creative teams.
- Euler's Law states that V + F = E + 2 where -
- V represents the number of vertices
- F represents the number of faces
- E represents the number of edges
- Each relationship has the potential to be regarded or applied as a useful synergy.
- Therefore, by focusing on relationships, rather than agents we may notice important synergies.
- Leonhard Euler's formula for polygons (1751) demonstrates that quartets have 6 x more relations than duets.
- This can be charted as an ingredient:relations ratio.
|
|
|
|
1 | 0 | infinite
| |
2 | 1 | 1:0.5
| |
3 | 3 | 1:1
| |
4 | 6 | 1:1.5
| |
5 | 10 | 1:2
| |
6 | 15 | 1:2.5
| |
7 | 21 | 1:3
| |
8 | 28 | 1:3.5
| |
9 | 36 | 1:4
| |
10 | 45 | 1:4.5 |
- At the low number end of the scale the biggest increase (300%) is from 2 ingredients to 3.
- but 3 is not ideal because there is no additional benefit from combining the relations to create 'relations-of-relations' (3 creates 3 ad infinitum)
- After 3, the rise to 4 agents means that the relations double from 3 to 6
- Going from 3 to 4 players therefore doubles the advantage of clustering
Maximum number of relations within a set of agents
This can be calculated thus:
R = {(n-1) x n} / 2
Where:
R = maximum number of relations among agents
n = number of agents
A Table of Results
Number of interconnected agents | number of first order relations | number of second order relations | number of
third order relations |
1 | 0 | 0 | 0
|
2 | 1 | 0 | 0
|
3 | 3 | 3 | 3
|
4 | 6 | 15 | 105
|
5 | 10 | 45 | 990
|
6 | 15 | 105 | 5460
|
7 | 21 | 210 | 21945
|
8 | 28 | 378 | 71253
|
9 | 36 | 630 | 198135
|
10 | 45 | 990 | 489555
|
11 | 55 | 1485 | 1101870
|
12 | 66 | 2145 | 2299440
|
13 | 78 | 3003 | 4507503
|
14 | 91 | 4095 | 8382465
|
15 | 105 | 5460 | 14903070
|
16 | 120 | 7140 | 25486230
|
17 | 136 | 9180 | 42131610
|
18 | 153 | 11628 | 67599378
|
19 | 171 | 14535 | 105625845 |
- A more quantified analogy of the different granularities of thought can be expressed as the difference between noughts and crosses, chess, and 'Go'.
- Noughts & Crosses = board with 3 x 3 squares = 765 essentially different moves
- Chess = board with 8 x 8 squares = Ten to the power of 120 possible moves
- GO board = 19 x 19 squares = Ten to the power of 761 possible moves