Shane Ian Murphy: A Cambridge Process Diagram Is Still a Proposal

An arrow on a page can make a tentative idea look settled. Put several arrows inside clean boxes and the reader may assume that the described sequence already happens, that someone is responsible for each stage and that the difficult questions have been answered elsewhere. A process diagram can be useful precisely because it simplifies a discussion. The writer still needs to explain what has been simplified and what remains only a proposal.

Imagine a fictional Cambridge organisation named Orchard Makers Room, considering how it might describe a small set of stored objects. The organisation is invented, and so is the proposed diagram. Its boxes read “identify”, “describe”, “review” and “discuss”. Those four words provide a starting point for an educational conversation. They do not establish that anyone has agreed to carry out the steps, that the sequence is sufficient or that an operation exists behind the illustration.

I am Shane Ian Murphy, an affiliated cofounder of TriParty Tokenisation. In this kind of early discussion, I would place the status of the diagram close to its title. A reader should encounter “proposed discussion sequence” before interpreting the arrows. A note hidden at the end of a long document is less helpful because the visual has already supplied its own confident story. The status belongs with the object that creates the impression.

Each box should then have a question beside it. “Identify” might ask how a reader would distinguish one object from another. “Describe” might ask which information is available and which is missing. “Review” might ask who would read the draft and what they would be invited to check. These questions give the diagram a useful purpose. They turn the boxes into places where uncertainty can be discussed, rather than presenting short labels as though they were complete instructions.

Arrows also deserve explanation. A line from description to review could suggest that all description must finish before any review begins. That may be merely a drawing choice. If the intention is to allow people to return to an earlier question, the text should say so. Readers should not have to infer whether a diagram is a strict sequence, a rough ordering or a set of related topics. The relationship between the boxes is itself part of the proposal.

Responsibility is another point where a sketch can overstate its reach. Adding “review team” to a box might sound as though a team has been established. In an illustrative example, “possible reviewer, to be discussed” carries a different meaning. The language should reflect the actual stage of the conversation. A proposed role can be described without inventing a person, an appointment or an agreement. That keeps the page useful for considering alternatives.

The fictional makers room might also have questions that do not fit neatly inside a box. Some objects may be difficult to identify; some notes may conflict; some participants may disagree about what belongs in the group. A diagram that only shows forward motion can make those ordinary difficulties disappear. An accompanying list of unresolved questions would give them a visible place without forcing the drawing to represent every possible branch in the discussion.

Version wording can help readers understand change. A draft might explain that its current purpose is to explore the order of questions, while a later draft might focus on the information needed for one particular stage. Those are different documents even if the four boxes remain visually similar. A brief explanation of purpose is more informative than a revision number alone. It tells a reader what kind of comment would be useful at that moment.

For TriParty Tokenisation’s educational process commentary, the strongest diagram would leave its provisional character easy to see. I would want a reader to be able to challenge a box, question an arrow and suggest that something important has been omitted. A proposal becomes more useful when it invites that response. Clean drawing can make an idea easier to discuss; clear language must ensure that the drawing does not claim the discussion has already produced an operation.