Cybernetics • Regulation In Biological Systems • Selection 1

Inquiry Into Inquiry

Regulation In Biological Systems

10/3.The foundation. Let us start at the beginning. The most basic facts in biology are that this earth is now two thousand million years old, and that the biologist studies mostly that which exists today. From these two facts follow a well-known deduction, which I would like to restate in our terms.

We saw in S.4/23 that if a dynamic system is large and composed of parts with much repetition, and if it contains any property that is autocatalytic, i.e. whose occurrence at one point increases the probability that it will occur again at another point, then such a system is, so far as that property is concerned, essentially unstable in its absence. This earth contained carbon and other necessary elements, and it is a fact that many combinations of carbon, nitrogen, and a few others are self-reproducing. It follows that though the state of…

View original post 192 more words

Complexity and systems thinking – January 2011, Merali and Allen

Source: Complexity and systems thinking

Complexity and systems thinking

January 2011

DOI: 10.4135/9781446201084.n1

Abstract
Once the whole is divided, the parts need names. There are already enough names. One must know when to stop. Knowing when to stop averts trouble. Tao in the world is like a river flowing home to the sea. Lau Tsu, Tao Te Ching.

Systemic Design event – the Design Council Mon 2 Dec 2019 at 17:30, Design Council, London, UK

 

Source: Systemic Design event Tickets, Mon 2 Dec 2019 at 17:30 | Eventbrite

DEC 02

Systemic Design event

About this Event

The challenges that we face today — the climate crisis, ageing populations, in-work poverty, polarisation of society — are not ones that anyone can tackle alone, and not ones that all the current answers aligned together would solve. Systems change is an approach that looks beyond individual ideas, creates the space and conditions for radical new ways of thinking to emerge and connects together often disparate groups who have a common cause.

As design has evolved over the last 30 years, growing from the design of products, through services to policy, and from buildings to places, designers have entered the world of systems change. Design adds immense value in the way that it visualises complexity, making it understandable; moves to making and taking action where others feel overwhelmed by that same complexity, and creates playful alternatives which can turn the we see a problem – and find its solution – on its head.

The Design Council and The Point People have been listening to designers who are working systemically to understand their practice, and how it is evolving. This event will share some current practice and case studies about how design is being used to solve some of society’s biggest challenges, which are tricky, complex and can’t be solved by one intervention alone.

This will be an inspiring evening for designers who want to work in this way, leaving you with stories to show how it can be done and approaches to designing deeply, collaboratively and radically, allowing you to play your part in tackling our toughest challenges and moving to a better future.

  • Jennie Winhall, Alt/Now, Rockwool Foundation
  • Cassie Robinson, Strategic Designer and Head of Digital Grant Making at the National Lottery Community Fund
  • Nick Stanhope, Shift Design
  • Alistair Parvin, Open Systems Lab
  • Fashion Revolution – tbc
  • Cat Drew, Design Council

Please register your interest using the ‘register’ button and we will contact you if your place at the event is confirmed.

Hosted by:

Date And Time

Mon, 2 December 2019 17:30 – 19:30 GMT

Location

Design Council Angel Building 407 St John Street London EC1V 4AB

View Map

Organiser of Systemic Design event

Design Council’s purpose is to make life better by design. We are an independent charity and the government’s advisor on design. Our vision is a world where the role and value of design is recognised as a fundamental creator of value, enabling happier, healthier and safer lives for all. Through the power of design, we make better processes, better products, better places, all of which lead to better performance.

Source: Systemic Design event Tickets, Mon 2 Dec 2019 at 17:30 | Eventbrite

Service-dominant logic – Wikipedia

Historical perspectives: https://www.sdlogic.net/index.html

 

Foundations: https://www.sdlogic.net/foundations.html

Axioms and Foundational Premises (FPs) of S-D Logic

Axiom1 FP1 Service is the fundamental basis of exchange.
FP2 Indirect exchange masks the fundamental basis of exchange.
FP3 Goods are a distribution mechanism for service provision.
FP4 Operant resources are the fundamental source of strategic benefit.
FP5 All economies are service economies.
Axiom2 FP6 Value is cocreated by multiple actors,always including the beneficiary.
FP7 Actors cannot deliver value but can participate in the creation and offering of value propositions.
FP8 A service-centered view is inherently beneficiary oriented and relational.
Axiom3 FP9 All social and economic actors are resource integrators.
Axiom4 FP10 Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary.
Axiom5 FP11 Value cocreation is coordinated through actor-generated institutions and institutional arrangements.
Source: Vargo and Lusch (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing” Journal of Marketing 68(January), 1-17. Vargo and Lusch (2008), “Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(Spring), 1-10, Vargo and Lusch (2016), “Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1-19.

[This – specifically Axom 2, value is cocreated by multiple actors, always including the beneficiary – of which an early formulation appears to have been ‘value is cocreated with the customer’ – is a shock to me because I genuinely thought I had invented that! 🙂 – I say ‘value is always co-created with and for the citizen/customer’. Now I wonder if I picked that up somewhere – but I think I did come up with it by myself independently – just not first. Well, I suppose it’s just logic! So much of this fits so much with my public service transformation thinking…]

 

 

 

Source: Service-dominant logic – Wikipedia

 

Service-dominant logic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Service-dominant (S-Dlogic is a meta-theoretical framework for explaining value creation, through exchange, among configurations of actors. The underlying idea of S-D logic is that humans apply their competences to benefit others and reciprocally benefit from others’ applied competences through service-for-service exchange (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Since the publication of the first S-D logic article entitled “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing”[1] in 2004 in Journal of Marketing, S-D logic has become a cocreated effort of numerous scholars across disciplines, who share the common goal of contributing to the understanding of human value cocreation, by developing an alternative to traditional logics of exchange. Hence, S-D logic has been continually extended and elaborated. Among the most important extensions have been (1) the development of the service ecosystems perspective that allows a more holistic, dynamic, and systemic perspective of value creation and (2) the emphasis of institutions and institutional arrangements as coordination mechanisms in such systems (Vargo and Lusch, 2016).

Continues in source: Service-dominant logic – Wikipedia

 

Pathways to New Community Paradigms

Lots of rich content here and great engagement from Brian Dowling at www.twitter.com/BrianDRPM

Source: Pathways to New Community Paradigms

This blog is part of an online learning platform which includes the Pathways to New Community Paradigms Wiki and a number of other Internet based resources to explore what is termed here ‘new community paradigms‘ which are a transformational change brought about by members of a community.It is intended to offer resources and explore ideas with the potential of purposefully directing the momentum needed for communities to create their own new community paradigms.

It seeks to help those interested in becoming active participants in the governance of their local communities rather than merely passive consumers of government service output. This blog seeks to assist individuals wanting to redefine their role in producing a more direct democratic form of governance by participating both in defining the political body and establishing the policies that will have an impact their community so that new paradigms for their community can be chosen rather than imposed.

Friday, September 6, 2019

We are, each of us, a system. We are, each of us, systems in multitudes

We are, each of us, a system. We are, each of us, systems in multitudes. We are both at the same time. We are ourselves, as systems, of the same nature as those systems manifested within the world to both our senses and mind continuing the discussion from the previous post and Still Learning to Understand Systems. Separated, from all that we are not without, and from what we are within, as well as between other systems by boundaries that are placed there by us.
The most determinative means, it seems to me, but with the least amount of information of assigning a boundary to a system is to give it a label. Buckminster Fuller’s definition of a system as “the first subdivision of universe into a conceivable entity” provides an important initial context without particularities. 
Russell Ackoff, whose focus on systems was in addressing practical, real-world messes, the kind raised by uncertainty and complexity, said that any particular or specific system could be characterized by three essential conditions which I could also see as being able to assist in establishing the boundary of a system as defined by Fuller.
First, each simple element in a system has an effect on the behavior of the whole system. If it doesn’t have such an effect then it’s not part of the system and belongs outside the boundary. Second, that within a system each element is affected by at least one other element in that system, and that none of the elements has an independent effect on the whole. Every element then effects some other element or elements in the system and only has effect on the whole in conjunction with some other element or elements.  Third, it is not possible to develop totally independent subsystems from a subgrouping of a system’s elements. Any subsystems within a system that can be made totally independent belong on the outside of the system. It will likely take some experimenting to determine which elements fulfill all three categories. This still leaves a potentially large portion of elements that can be placed on either side of a boundary depending upon how it or they are defined but it is then a matter of consensus or coercion, both of which, again in my view, can be detrimental to understanding a system.
Fuller’s definition, however, is not merely an esoteric abstraction but can provide an immediate, visual illustration of the boundaries of a three-tier hierarchy anchored in geometry.
 
The simplest possible three-dimensional configuration or minimum set of relations representing a stable structure (which can also be fractalized) within the “real world” is a tetrahedron, a four-sided, triangular-faced pyramid having four vertices, four faces and six edges subdividing the world into all that is outside the system’s structure (environment), the structure of the system itself (system), and the system’s interior (bounded elements and connections) having profound, practical implications for all system designers.
Fuller’s definition of a system bears a particularly significant illustration of the aspect of verticality or nestability, the means of forming a hierarchy, series, or sequence wherein each member, element, or set is contained in and contains the next. From a systems thinking view of the world, this concept of hierarchy finds expression, in the natural world, as a stratified organization of increasing levels of complexity, which can be expressed as a sequence corresponding to levels of emergence distinguishing one level from the next by novel qualitative properties.
Starting with elementary particles, to atoms and molecules to become various forms of matter, to leap from inorganic to simple organic life-forms,  to evolve into complex organisms, and in aggregate evolve into whole ecosystems, leaping again to consciousness to include humans and subsequently human society. Each level represents a cluster of interacting sub-components, consisting of elements of the previous level.
Each level can be distinguished by the relative strength of the respective interactions by which it is constrained. Each level being stronger within and weaker between other levels. It is the constrained internal bonds that allow for the individual integrity of a level to stand out against the background of its environment and provide for a definition of boundary conditions.
This is very different from a strictly reductionist based top-down complicated systems of command and control hierarchy, discussed in the last post, that feature little in the way of nested verticality. It again means that from a systems thinking perspective one needs to optimize on at least on three levels, the system under consideration, its environment, and its internal components, as a coherent, harmonious integration of relevant aspects for any constructive, systemic intervention.  The familiar and conventional organizational or governance structures of our typical commerce, political, or social affairs organizations is simply inadequate, in not being internally rich enough, to address the demands of an increasingly complex world.
Many examples of business and governance management perpetuate a model that imposes structures with grossly insufficient variety such as conventional concepts of leadership that violate the law of requisite variety by popularly entrusting power in a single person. Consider the complex interactions that increasingly characterize today’s society, in relation to the typical, still-prevailing, hierarchical, command-and-control structure, and I would add afflicted by ”complicatedness”. Such low-variety models ultimately only impoverish the system that is supposedly “under control.”
Another cybernetic term due to Ross Ashby is ”Ultrastability”, the cybernetic concept of regulation relating to the ability of a system to restore homeostatic equilibrium after unexpected perturbations even when a trajectory for doing so has not been specially pre-specified or built-in. A more complex, dynamic form of adaptation manifested in the typical homeostatic mechanism by which a fixed decision rule is applied to trigger an appropriate corrective action whenever equilibrium is disturbed.
In more interesting cases, read as more complex cases, such as brain-like systems, societies, or ecosystem, a sufficient amount of variety can be “built” into a system so that its internal reconfiguration can be made to match unpredictable changes in its environment even if a specific decision rule is not already embedded in its structure. The general rule then becomes “keep changing internal configurations,” or basically rewire the internal variety of the system in the search for a subset that matches new demands in real-time. The internal variety of a system, even if very high and ultrastable is, however, still finite as an entirely new environmental context-condition may require new options that the system cannot generate. 
This gives rise to Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety which states that “Only variety can absorb variety.” Effective regulation then can only be achieved when the regulating system contains at a minimum, the same amount of variety as the system being regulated. The requirement for requisite variety is applicable regardless of the type of system whether automated devices, technology processes, ecosystems, or social systems.
One means of enhancing requisite variety is redundancy. The term redundancy, commonly understood as unnecessary, in information theory refers to protecting information integrity from deterioration due to effects of background noise by increasing information content or channel capacity.
At a state of maximum disorder or entropy, when no distinctions can be made or no information is discernible and activity ceases redundancy will be at zero. Redundancy then allows for more potential “possibilities.” If the rate of change of a system’s redundancy remains positive then it is self-organizing according to Heinz Von Foerster. This would logically seem to extend further to ”Redundancy of Potential Command”.
Internal complexity brought about by requisite variety allows for the emergence and re-emergence of different configurations in response to changing events. The important implication being that “’ living,’ self-organizing systems, including social systems of all types, depending on their internal complexity and inherent redundancy for resilience and long-term viability”.
Distributing and determining by function and relevant knowledge rather than by authority assigned by rank and seniority the processes of decision-making across a network-like organizational structure is termed ”Heterarchy” The potential for so-called “command” is thus distributed, or made redundant, over a large number of components and its location shifts constantly within the network. It is not permanently localized and no fixed vertical hierarchy of authority is discernible.
Fuller’s definition of a system can be said to transverse across the chasm between the solely conceptual and the countless entities with distinct and independent existence within our universe, laying between that which is conceivable but which is not an entity within our universe and that which may perhaps be an entity, but that is not conceivable. In total, what we call our reality. It brings systems, conceptually defined, to a state of reality within which Norbert Wiener’s Cybernetics can be and by necessity needs to be applied. 
The seemingly, abstract, remote and perhaps even, esoteric concepts of variety, ultrastability, redundancy of potential command, synergy and self-organization are all related or are constrained together describing and arguably determining the characteristics of regulating mechanisms that underlie external behavior of complex systems. The practical implication of which are far-reaching and significant not only in that they shape the conduct of human affairs but they could be crucial in resolving the many sustainability-related challenges we are facing. The challenge of all interventions in any socio-ecosystemic domain would be then to keep an open, dynamic stance, working in tandem with the self-organizing properties of the system, rather than inadvertently destroying them.

 

Source: Pathways to New Community Paradigms

The Recurring Case of ‘Recursion’: a pattern for making sense of the world | CBC Radio

I love Ideas from CBC – who else would have a whole one-hour show on recursion?

 

Some call it “self-similarity.” Others define it vaguely as “wheels within wheels” or refer to the image of nesting Russian dolls. For such a fundamental concept, recursion is strangely less famous and more often overlooked than it deserves to be. With help from a cognitive scientist, a language expert, and a physicist, Paul Kennedy tries to remedy this state of affairs, without getting himself tied up in knots within knots within knots…

Source: The Recurring Case of ‘Recursion’: a pattern for making sense of the world | CBC Radio

 

 

 

The Stacey matrix

Source: The Stacey matrix