The first time I checked out a time map, I was quite impressed because I was able to identify a map, and then I was able to layer on the element of time. It was great.

It was very practical as well because this time map can be applied to political developments, economic growth, investment and development, and so on and so forth. However, I also quickly became aware of its limitations you.

It’s one thing to come up with a map, it’s another to read in all sorts of variables and see it in a graphical form, and it’s actually another to come up with something new. You see, layering on data points is practically quite easy when you have the initial framework set up. Once you are able to go beyond spatial measurement, also chronological measurement, you have taken the technology to the next level. However, there’s a lot lost in translation.

There’s a lot of room for improvement. This is why we’ve set up this website. Our ultimate goal is to take mapping technology to the highest level. The only way with this can be done is when we present this mapping information in such a way that people will remain constantly challenged to keep pushing the technology to its fullest potential.

How do we go about doing that? Very simple, we present many different implementations of time mapping technology. We list out the context in which people interact with that technology. It is our hope that when people come up with their version, this would trigger other people to comment, and otherwise, try to pick apart the implementation.

Once we get to this stage, there would be a debate that’s created as people try to improve an implementation based on the limited context that it’s in. This internal dialogue among innovators, critics and counter innovators keep expanding the technology. It keeps producing variations of different implementations that people can subsequently take action on. In turn, this then triggers another round of innovation.

Of course, this can only happen if there is a robust and active community around these ideas. This is why we don’t believe in censoring information, or limiting innovation by saying that one implementation is necessarily and absolutely superior compared to another. Instead, we see all these different versions as essentially jazz riffs.

There is no such thing as a right or wrong answer, or a perfect form. We understand that what makes an answer correct or incorrect is more of a function of context rather than absolute, intrinsic value. Accordingly, by fostering an open and encouraging environment where debates, through the software code, as well as idea and implementations, can lead to a fluid state. A state where people can easily refer to a somewhat framework and come up with a variation or mutation that speaks to the needs of a particular time, which can then be projected forward to apply to another context.

This is our goal because ultimately, all other ways of growing an idea, or challenging and some sort of orthodoxy, fall flat. They become dogmatic, or routine. It’s not uncommon to find otherwise too brilliant and intelligent researchers who are simply going through the motions because they are part of some sort of academic machine. This is our background this is where we come from and what we are exposed to, and we are of course obviously looking for a better alternative.

The internet is so exciting because by presenting all this information in the form of a framework that you can move around, blow up, reassemble, take apart, deduct, subtract, slice and dice, and rework to your image, we get closer and closer to better implementations, which can take mapping to a much higher level. This is much better than working with some sort of corporate structure that has some virtual monopoly on innovation, which will eventually be informed by corporate motives and agendas that ultimately may be too limited and too short-sighted.