Slide Concept Diagrams

Slide: Concept Diagrams (图示)

This skill teaches how to choose and construct conceptual diagrams that express logical relationships in business slides — distinct from quantitative charts (slide-data-viz-principles). The line:

Diagrams (图示) carry RELATIONSHIPS. Charts (图表) carry NUMBERS.

When the user has concepts and needs to express how they relate (sequential? parallel? overlapping? nested? causal?), this skill applies.

When to Activate

Trigger on user requests like:

• "我有这几个概念，怎么画一个图示"
• "design a diagram showing [relationship]"
• "this is a wall of text, can we visualize the structure"
• "我要画流程图 / 循环图 / 矩阵图 / 维恩图 / 金字塔 / 房子图"
• "express [process/cycle/hierarchy] visually"

Do not activate when:

• Numbers / quantitative comparison → slide-data-viz-principles
• Whole-slide layout choice → slide-consulting-layout
• "How do I draw a circle in PowerPoint" — basic shape ops, not skill-worthy

Foundational Principle: 概念 + 关系 = 图示

Every diagram is built from two ingredients:

1. Concepts (概念) — the items the diagram contains
2. Relations (关系) — how those items connect

Framing: a diagram is a crystal (晶体) — concepts as atoms, relations as bonds. Constructing a diagram is crystal-grinding work.

When a user asks "what diagram should I use," the right counter-question is:

1. What concepts (3-9 items typically)?
2. What relationship binds them?
   - Are they peers (parallel)?
   - Do they have order (sequential / temporal)?
   - Do they form a closed loop (cyclic)?
   - Do they nest / contain (hierarchical)?
   - Do they overlap (set-theoretic)?
   - Do they combine algebraically (formula / decomposition)?
   - Do they classify on 2 dimensions (matrix)?

Skip this analysis → user ends up reaching for a "cool-looking" diagram that doesn't match their semantic relationship → cargo-cult slide.

Mastery Mindset: 自己构建 vs 套模板

Junior approach: Find a pre-made diagram online → force the content to fit the diagram's shape → end up distorting the message.

Senior approach: Understand the underlying concepts and relations → construct the diagram from first principles → reach for templates only to refine, not to drive.

The diagnosis of senior consultants: "They build their own diagrams. If they reuse a template, they adjust the template to their content, not vice versa."

When this skill activates, default to construct-from-relations, not template browsing.

The 3 × 9 Taxonomy

Conceptual diagrams classify into 3 macro-categories (by abstraction) × 9 sub-types (by relationship pattern).

Macro-categories

When sketching a diagram, first decide which macro-category the relationship belongs to. This narrows the search space dramatically.

The 9 Sub-types

The catalog is not strictly mutually exclusive: "It's a thinking hook (思维的钩子), not a watertight ontology." The point is to give you a fast lookup; if your relationship spans two categories, pick the dominant one and move on.

Selection Decision Tree

The relationship between my concepts is...

├─ Items are peers, no implied order
│     → Parallel (并列图)
│
├─ Two (or N) sides being contrasted on common axes
│     → Comparison (比较图)
│
├─ Items have a temporal / staged order
│     │
│     ├─ Sequential, with elevation/maturation per stage
│     │     → Stair (阶梯图) / Three-Horizons / Time-axis / T-Map
│     │
│     ├─ Sequential, no elevation; arrows pull next
│     │     → Flow / Process (流程图)
│     │
│     └─ Sequential AND closes back to start
│           → Cycle / Loop (循环图) / 因果回路图 (causal loop)
│
├─ Items nest in levels (one contains the others)
│     → Hierarchy (层级图): pyramid, iceberg, issue tree, fishbone, house, funnel
│
├─ Items classify on TWO independent dimensions
│     → Matrix / Quadrant (矩阵图): 2×2 quadrant or 3×3 heatmap
│
├─ Items SHARE membership / overlap as sets
│     → Venn (韦恩图) and variants: stacked-Venn, stacked-matrix, stacked-fan
│
└─ Items combine ALGEBRAICALLY into a result
      → Formula / Decomposition (因式分解): A + B = C, A × B = C, factor trees

Sub-Type Reference Sheet

1. 并列 (Parallel)

When: Items are peers; order is arbitrary; you want side-by-side listing.

Variants:

• Vertical parallel (纵向并列) — labels on left, body on right; like a 2-column or 3-column table
• Horizontal parallel (横向并列) — labels on top, body below; the most-used layout in working PPT
• Grid parallel (网格并列) — N×M arrangement, each cell a peer concept
• Radial / divergent parallel (发散并列) — center concept with peer rays

Pro tips:

• Add divider lines between cells to assert structure
• One column/cell can be color-emphasized to mark priority
• Keep each cell's text length similar — visual rhythm

Anti-pattern: Using parallel when items have order. If steps imply sequence ("first do A, then B, then C"), use Flow, not Parallel.

2. 比较 (Comparison)

When: A vs B (or N-way), comparing on the same attributes.

Common shape: Two-column or N-column table where rows are dimensions and columns are items being compared.

Pro tips:

• Highlight the row where the difference is sharpest
• For binary contrast, before/after layout reads naturally
• Avoid trying to compare 5+ items in one diagram — split into pairs

3. 阶梯 / 三层面 / 时间轴 / T-Map (Staged)

A category, not a single shape:

Pro tip on 三层面: It's a strategic management tool — only use when talking about portfolio across maturity. Don't shoehorn it into generic timeline contexts.

Anti-pattern: Using 阶梯 when stages don't actually elevate. Sequential stages without growth → use Flow instead.

4. 流程 (Flow / Process)

When: Steps with input → process → output, or sequential operations.

Variants:

• Horizontal flow — left-to-right, most common; the rightmost element is usually the conclusion
• Vertical flow — top-to-bottom, with arrows or chevrons
• Input-Output (IPO) — input(s) → process → output(s); used in operations / R&D contexts
• Branching flow — decision points with conditional paths

Pro tip: For consulting decks, the right-most step usually IS the recommendation. Make it visually heavier (color, frame thickness).

Anti-pattern: Decorative flow with stylized arrows, glossy boxes, big icons. These are widely considered "amateurish." Plain rectangles

• thin arrows = senior tell.

5. 循环 (Cycle / Loop)

When: Process that closes back to its start; repeated cycles.

Variants:

• 2-element loop — two arrows in opposite directions
• 3 / 4 / N-element loop — circular arrangement with sequential arrows
• Two parallel cycles — when two related cycles run side by side
• S-shaped loop — when "cycle" is more figurative (e.g., feedback loops)
• Causal loop diagram (因果回路图) — system-dynamics tool: nodes = variables, edges = + / − causal influence; identifies leverage points

Pro tip: PDCA, retrospective→action, learn→teach—loops are everywhere. Default to simple geometric loops (3 or 4 nodes) unless system dynamics demands a complex causal map.

Anti-pattern: 因果回路图 with too many nodes — overwhelms readers. PPT compresses cognition; if the causal map is genuinely complex, simplify or split.

6. 层级 (Hierarchy)

A category covering many shapes:

Pro tip on 议题树:

• Reuse value is highest in this entire taxonomy
• Combine with formulas: KPI tree where each branch = factor decomposition
• Strategy → Themes → Initiatives → KPIs all flow as one tree

Pro tip on 房子图:

• Used for one-page strategy summary in exec presentations
• Carries enormous content density — its quality reflects the designer's ability to compress a strategy into one page
• Avoid in routine reports; it's an exec-pitch device

Anti-patterns:

• 鱼骨图 — note: rarely belongs in exec PPT. It's a quality-management tool; the visual is bulky. Use 议题树 or table form for issue analysis instead.
• Pyramid with arbitrary levels — if pyramid layers don't carry real hierarchical meaning, it's decoration.

7. 矩阵 (Matrix / Quadrant)

When: Items classify on TWO axes; or grouped into 2×2 / 3×3 cells.

Variants:

• 2×2 Quadrant — Boston Box, Eisenhower, growth-share, etc.
• 3×3 / N×M Heat-matrix — risk matrix, probability × impact, etc.
• With overlay arrows — show migration trajectories between quadrants

Advanced view on matrices:

"Matrices are a tool for organizing thinking, not for deepening it. They're useful when you've found two good axes; they don't help you find good axes. Over time, I rely on them less."

This is a senior insight. Beginners reach for matrices habitually; pros ask first whether a matrix earns its place. Use matrices when the two axes are genuinely the dominant variables for the decision being made. If you're inventing axes to fit the matrix shape, stop.

Pro tip: When using a matrix to show change, add directional arrows between quadrants (e.g., "current state → target state"). Static matrices are weaker than dynamic ones.

8. 韦恩 / 包含重叠 (Venn / Overlap)

When: Items have set-theoretic overlap, shared membership.

Variants:

• Classic Venn (3 overlapping circles) — must-do / can-do / want-to-do; or strategy "sweet spot"
• Stacked-Venn (堆积维恩) — concentric expansion: 2025 → 2030 → 2035 business scope
• Stacked-matrix (堆积矩阵) — products × customer types with marked coverage cells; reveals which products serve which segments
• Stacked-fan (堆积扇形) — fan-shaped expansion variants
• Zoom-in (扩大图) — main diagram + drill-in box magnifying one element

Pro tip on Stacked-matrix: If a product covers all customer types (row of marked cells across columns), it's a "main / horizontal" product; if it covers only one column, it's a "specialty" product. The matrix's cell-pattern reveals product strategy automatically.

Pro tip on Zoom-in: Use to bridge a deck-level overview page with a detail page that expands one element. The zoom-in box on the overview hints at the next page.

9. 因式分解 / 公式 (Formula / Decomposition)

When: A target metric / outcome decomposes into factors that combine algebraically (sum, product, function).

Pattern: Target = f(Factor_1, Factor_2, ..., Factor_n)

Variants:

• Additive: Total = A + B + C (e.g., Revenue = Region_A + Region_B + Region_C)
• Multiplicative: Output = A × B × C (e.g., Revenue = Price × Quantity)
• Functional: Result = f(Drivers, Constraints) — variables + their direction (drive up / drag down)
• Tree-form: nested factor decomposition (议题树 with operators)

Note: This is a particularly favored pattern for one reason — it forces thinking discipline. To draw a formula diagram, you have to explicitly decide what factors compose the target. You can't fudge it.

Pro tip: Combine with hierarchy → formula trees. Each branch is a factor; its sub-branches are its factors. The leaves are operational KPIs / actions. This is one of the most reusable strategy-to-execution visualizations.

Example:

战略成功 = 正确的市场 × 正确的客户 × 正确的价值主张 × 好的团队 × 好的执行力
                                                    +
                                            (− 风险 + 主动管控)

Compound: Diagrams of Diagrams

Real consulting pages often combine sub-types:

• 议题树 + 公式 → KPI / strategy decomposition
• 阶梯 + 房子 → roadmap with pillars per stage
• 流程 + 漏斗 → process with conversion at each step

When the relationship is genuinely multi-layered, compose. Don't force one shape to do everything.

Cross-Cutting Construction Discipline

Regardless of sub-type, every diagram obeys:

简洁优于浮夸 (Simplicity beats flashiness)

The simplest geometric shape that carries the relationship wins. Heavy gradients, 3D extrusion, glossy effects, themed icons — all reduce reuse value and make the page look amateur.

Rule of thumb: if your audience notices the diagram's visual style before its meaning, the style is too loud.

复用率优先 (Reusability first)

Build diagrams as if they'll be reused 50 times. This means:

• Plain shapes (rectangle, circle, line, arrow)
• One color palette with one accent
• No "themed" icons unless directly needed
• Editable structure (not a flattened image)

When you've built it right, future you can copy-paste the diagram into a new deck, swap labels, and ship in 5 minutes.

设计藏于结构 (Design hidden in structure)

The viewer should grasp the meaning first; only on second look do they notice the design. If the design announces itself first, it's overdone.

标识重点 (Mark the focal point)

Even the cleanest diagram needs one element visually emphasized to direct the eye. A single colored box, a single bold label, a single arrow — pick the element that carries the page's so-what.

千万避免艺术化倾向

Recurring warning: "Visualization's purpose is communication. Art's purpose is itself. Don't conflate them."

If you're tempted to add a "creative" twist to a diagram (a literal house shape, a 3D pyramid, a curved arrow with gradient), ask: does this serve communication, or just my creativity? In working PPT, communication wins.

PowerPoint Shape-Construction Tactics

Brief tactical layer for executing diagrams in PPT:

Shape Selection

• Prefer the simplest 6-8 shapes: rectangle, rounded rectangle, circle, triangle, line, arrow, basic block-arrow, and (sparingly) chevron
• The fancy shapes in the gallery (callouts, banners, stars) lower professionalism — avoid

矩形 vs 文本框 (Rectangle vs Text Box)

• Rectangle: must click on its edge to select; default has visible border
• Text Box: clickable anywhere; default has no border
• Pro convention: set rectangle borders to 0.25pt, text boxes to 0pt; white fill on both for uniform editing experience

Boolean Operations (布尔运算)

Master these for custom shapes:

• Union (合并) — fuse shapes
• Subtract (减除) — cut one from another (build pyramids by subtracting horizontal bars from a triangle)
• Intersect (相交) — keep overlap only
• Fragment (拆分) — break into all overlap pieces

Edit Points (编辑顶点)

• Right-click shape → "编辑顶点" to manually adjust vertices
• Use to break a closed shape into open paths (for under-line emphases, custom callouts, irregular brackets)
• Critical for: double-line frames, asymmetric arrows, custom call-outs

Reusable Pattern: Build a Personal Layout/Diagram Library

Killer tactic:

1. Open a fresh PPT and create one slide-master with all your reusable diagram shells — not just shapes, but full-page layouts with 2-up, 3-up, 4-up, with-side-callout etc.
2. Save as your personal template
3. When starting a real deck, "Reuse Slides" or "Insert from Template" — drop a layout, swap content, ship
4. Grow the library as you encounter new patterns worth saving

This is where senior PPT speed comes from — not faster typing, but faster recall via a personal pattern library.

Anti-Patterns (DO NOT)

1. Aesthetic-driven diagram choice

Reaching for "this looks cool" diagrams (3D pyramid, illustrated house, funnel with gradient). Always anchor on what relationship am I expressing.

2. Forcing content into a famous framework

3C, 4P, 5F, SWOT, BCG matrix — when the underlying content doesn't fit, they should construct from scratch, not distort to fit.

3. Decorative arrows / shapes

Arrows that "make it look like a flow" but don't convey actual sequence. Boxes that group items that aren't actually related. Decoration ≠ structure.

4. Pie-of-pies / chart-of-charts inside diagrams

Sub-pies inside sub-bars to "give density." Always misleading.

5. Mixed metaphors

Putting a Venn diagram inside a flow diagram inside a hierarchy. The relationships don't compose cleanly — pick one dominant relationship.

6. Over-decorated 鱼骨图

Fishbone diagrams in exec PPT are almost always wrong. Use 议题树 or table form.

7. House diagram (房子图) for routine reports

It's an exec-pitch device. In a weekly report, it's overkill.

8. Tiny matrices forced into 4x4 when 2x2 suffices

If you only have 4 meaningful cells, don't draw 16. Match grid resolution to actual content.

Quick Self-Check Before Shipping a Diagram

• I can name the relationship type (parallel / sequential / cyclic / hierarchical / overlap / matrix / formula)
• The relationship I named actually describes my concepts (no shoe-horning)
• The diagram uses simple geometric shapes, no glossy / 3D / themed icons
• Element count is 3-9 (more = simplify or split)
• One element is emphasized to mark the focal point
• Reading the diagram alone (no title), the audience grasps the relationship
• Each element pulls weight; nothing is decorative
• If reused 5 times across decks, would it still hold up? (reusability test)
• I'm not using a 鱼骨图 in an exec deck (or if I am, I have a strong reason)
• I'm not using a 房子图 for a routine report

Quick Reference: Vocabulary