Cognitive structures comparison for IT-market prediction

0. Abstract

Here you can find: 

• The cognitive heuristics that are properly applicable to qualitative prediction of the current and future desires of IT-consumers, because on IT-markets those desires directly arise from frustrations of cognitive needs of consumers. 

Crucial, please have in mind: 

• The estimations of the future commercial success of the given application should be measured by such a tool as application’s current and awaited commercial indicators, but not by such a tool as cognitive heuristics. 

1. Cognitive heuristics

The main cognitive need of the consumer on any given IT-market is, in fact, to cognize the problem field on the basis of the cognitive structure which is used by the developer of the IT-product. 

This is true, because it is only the possession of the same cognitive structure with IT-producer that is able to give IT-consumer the most full satisfaction of his or her non-cognitive, practical needs. 

This, in turn, is true, because there definitely exists positive correlation between this three measures: 

    (m1) the measure of closeness of the cognitive structures of the consumer and of the developer of the application; 

    (m2) the measure of cognitive convenience of the application; 

    (m3) the measure of overall convenience of the application. 

So, the cognitive analysis of the differences of the core cognitive structures of the consumers and the producers of IT-products on a given IT-market can directly lead us to understanding the current and future frustrations (and, thus, needs) of the consumers on that IT-market. 

2. Example of usage

For example, and speaking in terms of system analysys, human releations ARE: 

     (A0) the processes of cunstractuion, destruction and transformation of communicational network graph; 

     (B0) the processes of signal transmission between the vertices of the graph; 

     (C0) the proceesses of two kinds of memorizations: 

          (C0.A) memorization of A0 processes; 

          (C0.B) memorization of B0 processes; 

…, but human relations ARE NOT: 

     (А1) the vertices at the communicational network graph; 

     (B1) the edges of the communicational network graph. 

So, the objective of UX-modelling of contemporery human communications SHOULD be: 

     (*A0) To make a human-convenient model of A0; 

     (*B0) To make a human-convenient model of B0; 

     (*C0) To make a human-convenient model of C0; 

…, but the objective of UX-modelling of contemporary human communications SHOULD NOT be: 

     (*A1) To make a human-convenient model of A1; 

     (*B1) To make a human-convenient model of B1. 

Talking in terms of more formal definitions, we can introduce the two more or less formal types 0 and 1 of UX-modelling: 

     UX.Type.0 := {Objects.0, Objectives.0} 

             where: 

                    Ojects.0 := {A0, B0, C0} 

                    Ojectives.0 := {*A0, *B0, *C0} 

     UX.Type.1 := {Objects.1, Objectives.1} 

              where: 

                    Ojects.1 := {A1, B1} 

                    Ojectives.1 := {*A1, *B1} 

To continue that formal or semi-formal definition, almost all contemporary applications are based on UX.Type.1 more superficial type of UX-modelling. 

That superficiality of underlying UX-modelling of contemporary applications creates the good modern marketing niche for applications that will be based on UX.Type.0 more deep type of UX-modelling.