Shiki

My father worked in aerodynamics and mechanical engineering. He used the Finite Element Method. FEM is about systematically breaking complex problems into smaller parts using math and physics so engineers can predict failure before it happens. They map pressure points. Study where stress accumulates. Identify what bends first. What collapses under load.

The goal is foresight. Understanding constraints before building.
Cause before effect.

Diagram showing models of a bullet in a channel and the resulting stress and strain distributions under different conditions, with Japanese and English labels.

A Finite Element simulation showing how a rigid object deforms its surrounding structure—re-meshing the grid in real time to reveal where stress accumulates, and failure begins.

—
Mesh Rezoning Technique (1993) — Dr. Yoshihiro Taki & Dr. Hiroshi Torii

At a glance

  • What it is: A strategic framework for analyzing why brand systems break, not just at the surface level of design, but deeper in human decision systems. 

  • Core idea: Like engineers use the Finite Element Method to predict failure before it happens, this page breaks down brand system breakdowns into patterns, decision criteria, and structural lenses to understand root causes. 

  • Intent: To articulate the patterns of breakdown in organizations and propose a map—Shiki for identifying stress points upstream so clearer decisions can be made before design starts. 

  • Key takeaway: Brand systems don’t fail because of aesthetics; they fail because of ambiguous decisions, poor ownership, and human system dynamics. This lab aims to build tools to address them. 

Context

In brand identity work, we use Brand Platform as the equivalent of FEM. It’s the strategic framework meant to guide how a design system forms and evolves. Through discovery sessions, stakeholder interviews, market research, and competitive analysis, the platform is constructed to define purpose, positioning, values, voice, and direction. In theory, it provides a foundation to build from.

A strong Brand Platform is supposed to:

  • Align leadership around a shared direction

  • Establish decision-making principles at scale

  • Protect coherence and culture as the organization grows

  • Enable cross-functional alignment through shared values

  • Guide visual and verbal identity systems

  • Act as a compass during change, pressure, and uncertainty

In theory, it future-proofs a brand. I’ve seen them work. I’ve also seen where they start to break down. Across multiple organizations, brand systems launch strong. The strategy is clear. The assets are polished. The narrative is articulate. Energy is high. Everyone is aligned—for a moment.

But I’ve watched fractures appear quietly during implementation and activation. Intent gets diluted. Execution drifts. Meaning erodes slowly. Market pressure creeps in, pushing decisions to become reactive instead of principled.

Over time, brand identity begin to lose integrity. Mergers reset direction. Leadership shifts rewrite priorities. Months of work are discarded and rebuilt. The cycle repeats.

I started looking for the source of the pattern. Why do we rebuild instead of reinforce? Where the fractures truly begin—the way FEM isolates failure points before collapse.

Patterns

Creative work rarely fails because of execution alone. Most breakdowns occur before design begins and outside the creative function—in how decisions are made, communicated, and maintained over time.

Across organizations, creative teams experience the same recurring patterns:

Upstream condition → Downstream effect

  • Avoidance of early clarity → Decisions delayed or never clearly made

  • Partial alignment mistaken for consensus → Goals shift without explicit recalibration

  • Fear of committing too early → Last-minute pivots that invalidate days of work

  • Lack of defined ownership → Conflicting stakeholder input with no resolution mechanism

  • No shared definition of success → Ambiguity passed down the chain

  • Assumptions left unexamined → Misaligned execution and costly rework

These patterns are often labeled “agility” or “adaptability,” while the root causes remain untouched. The result is a structural imbalance. Execution is asked to compensate for decision debt. Craft is expected to fix strategic ambiguity. Design becomes a buffer instead of a driver.

McKinsey research shows that inefficient decision-making costs a typical Fortune 500 company over 530,000 manager days per year—roughly $250 million in annual wages. Not because people are incompetent, but because decisions are unclear, delayed, or unowned.

In my own experience, a shelved brand identity wasted an estimated $600k in creative resources alone—months of work erased.

Not an execution problem. A decision problem. Failure isn’t explosive. It’s cumulative.

Shiki — Approach

Black floral pattern with elongated petals arranged in a circular fashion on a white background.

1) Insights

To better understand these patterns, I applied FEM thinking—breaking complex systems into smaller parts to identify stress points before failure.

I used the same lens to brand identity work. Because what actually breaks brands isn’t just design.


It’s human systems:

Relationships. Power. Trust. Pressure. Time. Money. Risk. Fear.


These forces are noticeable in their patterns but unpredictable in their behavior. Humans are complex. So I started asking a simple question: What happens when one small decision upstream ripples through an entire organization?

This became an inquiry into two facets: decision quality and system behavior.


Decision quality (cause)

  • Clarity — what are we actually choosing?

  • Confidence — who owns this call?

  • Safety — can people disagree early?

  • Commitment — are we deciding or postponing?

  • Accountability — who carries the consequence?


System behavior (effect)

  • Direction — where do these decisions ultimately steer the organization?

  • Cost — what do they cost over time?

  • Persistence — why do the same patterns keep repeating?

  • Complexity — what hidden mechanisms sustain them?


UT Austin defines decision quality as a structured process—judged by reasoning, framing, and commitment, rather than by outcomes. When that process breaks, everything downstream absorbs the impact.

2) Shiki—A Map

To map these breaking points, I began categorizing them using a single word:

Shiki—One sound. Eight meanings.


Unexpectedly, it mirrors the full lifecycle of identity work—and organizations.

  1. 識 — Awareness / consciousness / discernment

    → Recognition / sense-making / pattern detection

    → What we notice / what we choose to see or ignore

  2. 指揮 — Leadership / orchestration / direction

    → Authority / stewardship / decision ownership

    → Who steers / how power actually moves

  3. 式 — System / method / structure

    → Operating models / protocols / architecture

    → Rules of the game / how work truly flows

  4. 織 — Weave / integration / interdependence

    → Coordination / networks / hand-offs

    → Where friction appears / how parts interact

  5. 色 — Expression / identity / color

    → Character / signature / visual & verbal language
    → What the world sees / brand design

  6. 士気 — Morale / energy / culture

    → Motivation / emotional climate / psychological safety

    → Invisible performance driver / retention signal

  7. 四季 — Cycles / seasons / timing

    → Growth / transition / maturity

    → When to push / when to pause

  8. 死期 — Endings / closure / release

    → Sunset / decommission / letting go

    → Kill switches / strategic endings

Shiki is a map. A way to examine how upstream decisions express themselves downstream.

Output—AI as Amplifier

AI disrupted everything. Threat. Acceleration. Liberation. It forced creatives to ship faster—often without rigor. Output exploded while intent thinned. Yet, I don’t see AI as a replacement. I see it as an amplifier. It accelerated my thinking. What used to take days now takes hours.

Shiki itself followed that arc. It began as intuition, was synthesized, and was finally pressure-tested with AI. That process helped me discover tools like v0 by Vercel, letting me prototype without writing code.

For the first time, I can build what I believe is missing: decision clarity & quality tools.


Exploring practical frameworks to support high-stakes decisions for:

  • Risk assessment

  • Emotional awareness

  • Ownership mapping

  • Tradeoff visibility

This is where Shiki becomes operational—a map I use to navigate these questions, guiding what I build, test, and refine through prototypes in this lab.

Creative work rarely fails because of execution alone; it usually breaks before creation begins. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I do have a direction and hypotheses worth testing. This lab exists to explore the space where real decisions happen, where uncertainty lives, where risk is felt, and where tradeoffs are made.

This is what I call: Design Before Design.

Why Shiki?

Shiki began as a container. I was playing with gradient mesh for Waterfall—abstract, intuitive work—but I needed a concept to hold it. I always do. Even my experiments need a system. At first, I chose Shiki simply for its meaning as method, as structure.

Over time, the other meanings surfaced: awareness, leadership, cycles, and weaving. They had always been there. I just hadn’t noticed.

Then I remembered my father. FEM. Stress points. Failure zones. The meshy graphics he used to print from a Macintosh Classic onto a massive monochrome printer at his lab—grids bending under invisible forces. Different field. Same way of seeing.

The connection wasn’t planned.

It arrived.

Next : First prototype - in progress

—