Complexity Continued
I have pondered for several weeks now exactly how to define “complexity”. One can easily retreat to principles like complex systems being typified by emergent behaviour. These are evidences of a complex system. One could sum them up in the aphorism “The whole is more than the sum of its parts” – but extend this to say that at times the whole is less than the sum of its parts. And that aphorism would come close to capturing a key element of complexity.
Perhaps to better understand this concept it is worth considering the scientific method. As pointed out by Gharajedaghi, in the scientific method the whole is NO MORE than the sum of its parts i.e. A=B+C+D. The scientific method then suggests that, for example, we hold C and D constant and they measure the impact of varying B on the sum of the parts (A). Under the scientific method this allows the scientist to actually understand more about the nature of B and how it affects A.
Complex systems, on the other hand, do not necessarily reflect a direct correlation between variations in A as a result of varying B. The outcome may actually vary from analysis to analysis. To take the concept just a little further, varying B,C or D or any combination of these three may result in the same outcome with respect to A. Clearly something else is impacting the changing nature of the outcome.
Complexity analysis looks at A, B, C and D as a collective which interacts as a system. Furthermore A, B, C and D are understood to be independently acting, purposeful systems – systems which seek their own outcomes. Thus the outcome reflects the results of a continuous, struggle to find a balance between the purposes of the independent elements and the purpose of the collective higher system. Clearly this is that nature of social systems.
It explains, for example, the behaviour noted by the Tavistock Institute team in the productivity of coal seam mining as a result of new technologies. It is also explains why, for example, Government policies fail first contact with the public. The recent debacle surrounding the well intended insulation subsidy scheme is a good example. In time the thinking surrounding the so called “Super Tax” on the mining industry will need to understand how to trade the purposes of the various elements to achieve a desirable outcome.
I guess the final important thing to note here is that understanding and shaping behaviour in complex systems is not a one off event. The trade between purposeful elements is a continuous negotiation between individual purposes and the higher purposes of any system.
Architecture and Engineering
It seems that I am having to take side journeys whilst trying to get back to the issue of complexity. It seems necessary, however, for me to assert a position regarding the linkage between architecture and engineering in the context of the enterprise.
Within the Enterprise Architecture community and the wider information systems architectural community, there seems to be a developing trend to move away from the term Enterprise Architecture and towards Enterprise Engineering. I have considerd this move and actually started moving towards it in the language of my client work. However, a recent experience has reasserted for me the view that architecture is the language we seek at the interface between the business, its aspirations, and the information systems which support the achievement of those aspirations.
Recently I attended a traditional latin mass at a Cathedral in Melbourne with all its attendant mystery and ritual. I realised as I sat there transfixed by the experience, that here was a process being applied to the use of a technology (and great Cathedrals are certainly technological achievements) that was a perfect expression of the aspirations of a community.
In like manner, the discipline of Enterprise Architecture was intended to express the vision of the enterprise in a means that would allow it to be translated into the relevant technologies to deliver that vision or aspiration.
One of the conclusions I have drawn is that the push to move to the use of the term enterprise engineering instead of enterprise architecture is flawed. The discipline of EA was intended to be the means for expressing the vision of the enterprise. As you will see my thinking has evolved to encapsulate techno-social systems. Such systems have a deep impact on the evolution of human communities. And once you put the pieces together it becomes obvious that what we are actually talking about is the evolution of the human enterprise. Ever since those earliest ancestors of homo sapien sapien picked up rock and bone and turned them into tools, the ascent of man has been the story of human evolution through the application of process to the use of tools to either shape or respond to the environment. The very use of those tools has even shaped the evolution of our own bodies - the opposable thumb being a great example.
The discipline of architecture in the built environment is one of expressing the aspirations of a community, group or family in the shape of a built environment. Engineering is about taking the architectural vision and translating it into pipes and bricks and cement and all of the other materials that make up a built environment. Therefore, to try and reframe EA as an engineering discipline is to remove the business vision from the organisation. We are then back to the IT centric view which expresses the solution in terms of databases and transactions and communication systems. Engineering at the solution layer is right. The concept of a solution architect has never been about anything more than working out how to put the pieces together.
It is fundamentally wrong to try and reframe EA though. If we remove the architecture from the concept then where does the enterprise go to, to express the linkage between the enterprise goals and aspirations and the processes and technologies used to deliver that vision. To further try and reframe it because the IT industry has done a poor job of providing EA services is, again, a flawed approach.
EA expresses the concept of Aristotle's "holon" in it's holistic intent. With Husserl I believe that the disciplines of information systems are the source for the philosophy of our time. For that philosophy to be relevant it must, as expressed by Hegel, represent "it's very age comprehended in thought". EA is the right frame of reference for expressing the aspirations of the organisation. Enterprise engineering does not in my humble opinion.
Technological Society?
This may seem like an oblique way to tackle the question of complexity, but I think it will become evident as we pull together the threads of this discussion over the next few posts.
In reviewing the literature on technological development and social systems development I was struck by the consistent reference to the thought that we live in a technological society - and that somehow, we are the first generations to do so. In addition we somehow think that the complex issues we face as a society such as climate change are somehow new and difficult to understand and respond to.
I will return to the question of climate change and the human response to it in a later blog.
For the moment, I would like to address the observation that a technological society is somehow new. Dare I suggest that there is a certain generational arrogance implicit in this view. It is true that the volume of technological change is unprecedented. However, technological change is not.
Our earliest ancestors began a new phase in the ascent of man when they started to manipulate bone and rock to use them as tools. Since that time we have adapted and developed new tools, new practices for the use of those tools and as a result the ascending ape species known as man increasingly shaped the environment instead of just responding to it.
EcoThought staff regularly use the principles of Enterprise Architecture when seeking to understand and manage complexity. The underlying principles we use suggests that humans and organisations apply principles and processes to the use of technology to shape or respond to the environment.
The application of process to the use of technology is a consistent part of the rise of the human enterprise.
As an example, the tools depicted above were developed by Cro-Magnon man. A range of simple tools are depicted - they are forms of technology. Each of them were used to perform a task or process which met the needs of the individual and the community. With these tools the cro-magnon communities could begin the processes that would lead ultimately to the formation of larger communities. What is important to note though is that the application of technology was still a feature of these ancient communities.
Complexity and Complex Systems
In our work we frequently refer to undertaking analysis of complex systems, or reducing complexity in order to under understand how a given situation might be better understood or a solution developed to a complex problem. What do we mean though when we talk about a complex system or complexity analysis? This will be the first in a series of blogs about the concepts of complexity and the conduct of analysis in complex systems. The discussion is not intended to be authoritative in any way. It is simply an opportunity to consider complexity and, perhaps, take some little steps towards understanding complexity and complex systems and their importance in human design.
Complexity - What is It?
It is probably easiest to start by stating what complexity is NOT. The most certain thing to state up front is that complexity is NOT chaos. Chaos theory has its roots in mathematics, and anyone who wants to delve into the beauty of chaos theory is pointed to the work of Henri Poincaré, James Gleick and others. Personally I find the beauty and wonder of a Mandelbrot set a delight to explore. But chaos is NOT complexity. There is a linkage between the concepts however, which we will explore in a later post.
Transformation and Inflection Points
Transformation and Spirituality
Jonas Salk, the medical pioneer who developed the vaccine for polio went on to undertake significant research into the cycle of existence for various species. In his work he concluded that there were three very distinct patterns to the lifecycle of any species. In brief they were:
• Following long and stable growth, the rate of growth suddenly spurts upward, after which the species ceases to exist;
• Growth accelerates, then rapidly declines, then accelerates, then declines again, fluctuating throughout its entire existence;
• A long period of steady growth is maintained, then spikes upward and then hits a plateau on which it maintains itself from then on (this is the normal pattern for species which survive).
In the third type of transformation, the species reaches a “point of inflection” which divides the entire mode of the species’ existence into two distinct epochs. At the point of inflection, a transformation is triggered in the existence of a species which creates the conditions conducive to the long term survival of the species. Salk concluded that the human species was entering the point of inflection and that there would have to be a significant shift in human values and modes of survival if the species was to continue to survive. Critical to this period was that Salk concluded that as a result of our work on genetics and other related fields we have reached a point where we can affect the genetic outcome, and closely aligned to this that we had reached a point where we could, through the application of human will, affect the outcome of our own evolution.
A Heirarchy of Sustainability?
There is probably no modern issue more subject to misrepresentation, extremist views and non-scientific assertions than the problem of defining human sustainability (except perhaps the climate change issue). There is no doubt that the human species has reached the boundaries of the closed system known as the Earth's biosphere. However, finding long term solutions to the maintenance of human existence within this biosphere is not well served by taking non-scientific extreme positions which fail to take into account the closely linked considerations in creating a sustainable environment for future generations.
In considering the meaning of sustainability it is critical that we understand and model sustainability in terms of four main views:
- Natural Sustainability (sustainability of the planetary biosphere);
- Social Sustainability (the sustainability of social systems and structures which sustain human existence such as individual rights and responsibilities, and respecting the integrity of those constructs which maintain social resilience within the human collective)
- Economic Sustainability (sustainability of economic mechanisms which form the basis for the ongoing development of the human enterprise)
- Human Performance Sustainability (the creation and maintenance of built and natural environments which encourage and support the sustainable performance of human elements within the overall human enterprise (domestic / employment / recreation)
The Practice of Enterprise Architecture
The practice of Enterprise Architecture is rapidly becoming established in the Corporate environmnent as a basis for linking the development of systems and capabilities to business outcomes. However EA as a field is still relatively new and the field is developing rapidly as Enterprise Architects gain experience in the application of the discipline to resolve business problems and identify new capability requirements. EcoThought is contributing to the development of that body of knowledge in corporate environments.
However, whilst the field of Enterprise Architecture is comparatively new, it has it's roots in the basis of the Human Enterprise itself. This linkage will be explored in a later post. This blog explores the Enterprise Architecture model itself.
A Systems Philosophy for Human Sustainability
"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe , a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty... We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."
Albert Einstein
For several decades the concept of sustainability has been held captive by a limited understanding of the meaning of the term. All too often the focus of human sustainability is in terms of ecological sustainability or, more recently, eco-footprinting - both of which are admirable and extremely important principles. However, human sustainability also needs to be understood in terms of the human capability to exist / operate in an environment for long periods of time.
In the workplace, for example, we create environments based on artificial lighting, rigid desk layouts and high levels of technology, all of which create in most people a desire to get to the end of the day and get back outside - back to where they feel comfortable. An alternative approach is to view the workplace as an extension of the way of life that an individual has chosen.
One special application of these principles is the work environment in which human crises / natural disasters are managed. In these environments, individuals will frequently operate for extended periods of time, operating under high workload, with high consequence decisions a key part of their task. Examples of these environments include Emergency Services operations rooms, Casualty wards/ Emergency Rooms and stock trading floors. In these environments it is critical that the design accounts for the human propensity to work long hours during crisis and design appropriately. The application of a relatively new discipline which has emerged from the Information Technology arena gives us a fresh way to look at these environments and better understand how to design for human sustainable performance.
The Paradoxes of Modern Existence
As we once again honour the holiday season in the West one cannot help but ponder the paradoxes of modern existence. For many (if not most) in the West, there is a total denial of the Christian belief system as a way of life. We may claim a return, rather, to the worship of the promise of sun return and perhaps there is some sense in this. Of all the forces that shape human existence, none is more vital to us than the warmth and energy which comes to us from this inconsequential star. However, for we in the South there is no need to worship Sun return. The Sun is high in the sky, the air is warm and we worship instead at the altar of sport, beachside activities and the laden table.
But in the midst of all this, there is one form of worship which for many has become all consuming. Once again, here in Australia, the shops have opened and Australians have yielded to the temptation to spend way beyond their means. Indications are that as a nation we have spent somewhere around $5 billion dollars in a single day. Yet we can ill afford such expenditure. Not only is this profligate purchasing of things, many of which are probably unnecessary, and a consequent expansion for many of their total debt situation. It also represents the generation of vast volumes of additional waste in the form of packaging, not to mention the waste associated with the production of goods of questionable value. For many, one cannot help but wonder how long the joy of the new possession will last once the packaging has been removed and yet another item is added to the cupboard to be subsequently forgotten. And how much will end up in of the self storage parks that dot every large community.
When is the Time to Innovate?
I have listened with interest to the discussions surrounding how to respond to the global financial crisis. Amidst the clamouring noise I heard one message which, whilst unsurprising, is still, nevertheless disappointing. Many suggest that we now just tighten our belts, and just keep things ticking over "until conditions improve". We should stop all spending on research and just do what we already know.
To this I ask the question framed above - when is the time to innovate? We have just come through a period of great wealth in Australia. As a country we became very comfortable, but the economic rationalists suggested that we should save that wealth for harder times. An admirable concept - but we were told that we should not spend money on research. Yet the paths to future wealth all go through the road of innovation and research. Australia has built it's current wealth on the sale of primary goods. Our industry has been demolished and sold off over time. We are left with a country that is primarily dominated by primary industry and tertiary services industries - many of which repatriate their profits to other countries.
The key to our children's future is to innovate. Can someone tell me when the best time to do that might be?
Posts by date
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « May | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Categories
- Complex Systems (1)
- Complexity (2)
- Corporate Behaviour (1)
- Enterprise Architecture (3)
- Government (1)
- Human Behaviour (4)
- Human Enterprise (2)
- Human Sustainability (5)
- Human Transformation (2)
- Short Term Thinking (2)
- Uncategorized (3)
- Vision (3)
Beige Thinking Built Architecture Case study Complexity Complex Systems consumer worship Enterprise Architecure Human Aspiration Human Enterprise human performance Human Transformation Innovation Jungian Thinking National Infrastructure Nietzsche On Being Human Online Business Online etiquette Philosophy political dogma role of Government Sustainability systems thinking The Blogsphere The Human Condition Trust
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
Licensing Panel
If you want to see my LinkedIn profile, click on this button:
