via The Art of Navigating Complexity – The Garfield Foundation – Medium
The Art of Navigating Complexity
Designing change in our complex world
Sep 17, 2019 · 8 min read
The Art of Navigating Complexity – The Garfield Foundation – Medium
Author Archives: antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor
“An Approach for the Development of Complex Systems Archetypes” by Walter Lee Akers (2015)
via “An Approach for the Development of Complex Systems Archetypes” by Walter Lee Akers
Date of Award
Fall 2015
Document Type
Dissertation
Degree Name
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Department
Engineering Management
Committee Director
Charles B. Keating
Committee Member
Adrian Gheorghe
Committee Member
Andres Sousa-Poza
Committee Member
Andrew Hutton
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to explore the principles and concepts of systems theory in pursuit of a collection of complex systems archetypes that can be used for system exploration and diagnostics. The study begins with an examination of the archetypes and classification systems that already exist in the domain of systems theory. This review includes a critique of their purpose, structure, and general applicability. The research then develops and employs a new approach to grounded theory, using a visual coding model to explore the origins, relationships, and meanings of the principles of systems theory. The goal of the visual grounded theory approach is to identity underlying, recurrent imagery in the systems literature that will form the basis for the archetypes.
Using coding models derived from the literature, the study then examines the interrelationships between system principles. These relationships are used to clearly define the environment where the archetypes are found in terms of energy, entropy and time. A collection of complex system archetypes is then derived which are firmly rooted in the literature, as well as being demonstrably manifested in the real world. The definitions of the emerging complex systems archetypes are consistent with the environmental definition and are governed by the system’s behavior related to energy collection, entropy displacement, and the pursuit of viability.
Once the archetypes have been identified, this study examines the similarities and differences that distinguish them. The individual system principles that either define or differentiate each of the archetypes are described, and real-world manifestations of the archetypes are discussed. The collection of archetypes is then examined as a continuum, where they are related to one another in terms of energy use, entropy accumulation, self-modification and external-modification.
To illustrate the applicability of these archetypes, a case study is undertaken which examines a medium-sized organization with multiple departments in an industrial setting. The individual departments are discussed in detail, and their archetypical forms are identified and described. Finally, the study examines future applications for the archetypes and other research that might enhance their utility for complex systems governance.
A Techno-Philosophical Perspective on How Acceleration Becomes Autopoietic Simplification as a Function of Technology, Liu (2019)
h/t Ivo Velitchkov
via – Philosophy Documentation Center
Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology
ONLINE FIRST
published on September 7, 2019
Yu-cheng Liu
DOI: 10.5840/techne201993102
A Techno-Philosophical Perspective on How Acceleration Becomes Autopoietic
Simplification as a Function of Technology
This study examines mainly two subjects: “Why do we accelerate?” and “How does acceleration become autopoietic?” The answers to these questions may be derived from technical, social, or psychological approaches. However, they provide only an incomplete picture if a perspective from the philosophy of technology is not considered alongside. In addition to offering different viewpoints on the essence of technology, technics, or technē, this study will focus on the notion of distance as a key to answering the above questions. Conventionally, people usually understand that technology distances humans from nature. However, what does that mean? First of all, the idea of “nature” considered in this research refers to a distinction of non-nature/nature. A distinction implies a distance between both sides. Technology belongs to the side of non-nature, and creates a distance with the other side. The distance is getting enlarged when humans depend heavily on technology to reconnect humans to nature. In shortening or overcoming the distance, acceleration becomes autopoietic and leads to a paradox that can be unfolded only through accelerating more. In this study, technology is considered as a system functioning as simplification to create and to overcome alternately a distance with its environment, including nature. Through which technology not only acquires a tendency of acceleration, but also self-produces it. The development of writing tools from knots to tactile technology is investigated to provide a better understanding of the phenomenon of acceleration and its impact on humans and the world. In the end, it may be possible to think of a general theory of how acceleration becomes autopoietic.
Radical uncertainty – John Kay
I’m at the #undaunted conference today – https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/how-successful-leaders-face-wicked-challenges-avoid-predictable-surprises-tickets-89753510165 / https://159927be-a39d-4fcd-8591-21ed0d80d52b.filesusr.com/ugd/62df63_e8d641e8d07249e7a9a3b0d0c94a33e2.pdf (I’m attending because of some speakers I wanted to see, and the potential of there being a challenge to assumptions about ‘VUCA’ness and responses thereto).
John Kay is popping in to do a talk at lunch, which led me to this nice story (perhaps a myth) below – and the responses linked under. ‘Radical uncertainty’ is a new and clearer, interesting framing to me. I bet there’s a lot about it on lesswrong.com. It seems to me to be valuable at the level of thinking – perhaps leading directly to metarationality – and dangerous if it leads you to empty scepticism…
(Plus, I have an intuitive dislike of the idea of Ramsey being fundamentally wrong)
via Embrace radical uncertainty – John Kay
Embrace radical uncertainty
Between 1920 and 1950, a debate took place which defined the future of economics in the second half of the 20th century. On one side were John Maynard Keynes and Frank Knight; on the other, Frank Ramsey and Jimmie Savage.
Knight and Keynes believed in the ubiquity of “radical uncertainty”. Not only did we not know what was going to happen, we had a very limited ability to even describe the things that might happen. They distinguished risk, which could be described with the aid of probabilities, from real uncertainty—which could not. In Knight’s world, such uncertainties gave rise to the profit opportunities which were the dynamic of a capitalist economy. Keynes saw these uncertainties as at the root of the inevitable instability in such economies.
Their opponents insisted instead that all uncertainties could be described probabilistically. And their opponents won, not least because their probabilistic world was convenient: it could be described axiomatically and mathematically.
It is difficult to exaggerate the practical consequence of the outcome of that technical argument. To acknowledge the role of radical uncertainty is to knock away the foundations of finance theory and much modern macroeconomics. But the reigning consensus is beset with glaring weaknesses. Keynes and Knight were right, and their opponents wrong. And recognition of that is a necessary preliminary to the rebuilding of a more relevant economic theory.
John Kay and Mervyn King are writing a book on “radical uncertainty” to be published in 2019. Find out what another 12 leading economists think are the greatest challenges facing the discipline here.
via Embrace radical uncertainty – John Kay
Another John Kay piece:
https://www.ft.com/content/f7660898-e538-11e1-8ac0-00144feab49a
However, this piece does problematise the base position – “Keynes Presented No Concept of ‘radical Uncertainty’ in the General Theory or in Any Other Published Work in His Lifetime”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326027297_Keynes_Presented_No_Concept_of_’radical_Uncertainty’_in_the_General_Theory_or_in_Any_Other_Published_Work_in_His_Lifetime_”even_though_It_Be_on_Precarious_Evidencee’_Does_not_Translate_as_No_Evidence
W00t! OK, there is a lot on lesswrong (nothing on ribbonfarm) – and what is more, it’s from my hero David Chapman:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MpyDtSPyhfkNHS25u/probability-and-radical-uncertainty
I’ll just say two things about this:
- the skill and practice of metarationality is holding radical uncertainty true while deciding how to act
- we have to apply radical uncertainty to itself
Systems thinking – UK central government (Cabinet Office) thing/team
Exciting stuff – there is now a team in the UK Cabinet Office / an aspiration for there to be a movement across UK public services which is roughly called ‘systems thinking’ (I understand that naming discussions are ongoing).
They have a circular logo which reads ‘the system is the solution’ or alternatively ‘the solution is the system’.
Blog homepage here: Systems thinking (you can subscribe by email)
[My interest – apart from my obsession with systems thinking and public service transformation per se – is that I run the Public Service Transformation Academy – www.publicservicetransformation.org– which delivers amongst other things the Cabinet Office Commissioning Academy on behalf of the UK government, and is dedicated to helping people find more effective ways of thinking and working where things are inherently transdisciplinary]
Folks in the team/movement reading this – please remember that nitpicking is really grooming which is an act of social contribution for we primates 😉
Content so far:
The team – https://systemsthinking.blog.gov.uk/author/the-team/ (which conspicuously doesn’t list the team)
Join the movement – https://systemsthinking.blog.gov.uk/2020/03/05/join-the-movement/ (which asks for people to get in touch and comment via the comments)
10 tips for systems leaders – https://systemsthinking.blog.gov.uk/2020/03/05/10-tips-for-systems-leaders/
My thoughts and comments, inspired by this tweet from Mikael Seppälä:
Homepage
We want to help people across the public sector apply systems thinking to complex problems. So if you want to find out more about how this approach can improve people’s lives, subscribe to our blog. (And a different logo, subtitled ‘exploring the power of systems to solve complex problems).
I think this sets a framing quite nicely. There’s a hint in the subtitle of ‘systems in the world’ being considered rather than ‘systems in the mind’ (thinking about ‘the system’), and a focus on ‘complex’ problems, and cross-public sector working.
And this is ‘helping people across the public sector’ and ‘improv[ing] people’s lives’. Interesting!
Join the movement
Government has a responsibility to help people with complex problems. Supporting people who’ve lost their ability to work due to poor health or disability, for example, is not easy.
So there is a focus here on Poor Sick Miserable People (PSMP) (individuals), and their complex problems – and the difficulty of helping them.
For someone who is struggling to make ends meet, the last thing they care about is how government is organised – they just want services to work and respond to their needs. But the way government has evolved over the years, into separate, sometimes competing departments makes using a joined-up approach to solve citizens’ problems really hard.
We need to fix this and we think now is the right time to start.
The Systems Unit helps people across the public sector apply systems thinking to complex problems.
So here is complexity on the government ‘side’, mismatching the complexity of government’s silos. Now may be the time to mention that this does appear to be a perspective that you would be likely to have if you were in departmentalised central government; government as a thing (maybe even as a system). These problems are also inherent in local policy and delivery; I just think that they would be expressed differently.
This is a bit of a needs/deficit orientation perhaps, and very much a ‘service provision’ view of government here.
A different way of thinking about complex problems
In early 2019, we started working on a different approach for delivering services that work better for citizens, called the Strategic Framework. It is an approach that puts citizens first and delivers results by creating joined-up solutions. We want to bring people together across government. We want to involve everyone, the whole system when we design solutions, with all the benefits that a diverse community of ideas can bring.
We believe systems thinking has the potential to help solve the most complex problems of our time, from healthcare to climate change. Goals like sustainability, security, prosperity and wellbeing cut across departmental boundaries and touch on the lives of every citizen. They demand a system-wide approach.
Intriguing that there is an underlying ‘approach’ being worked on here – and this nicely brings the ‘citizens first’ and joining up together. Bringing people together across government is different from ‘involving everyone’, of course, and again might tend to separate community out from ‘government’. This is consistent with government-set goals which ‘cut across departmental boundaries and touch on the lives of every citizen’.
And, again, a ‘system-wide approach’ is very systems-in-the-world, even perhaps implicitly seeing government as a system (and a whole system).
And a nod to the nice nuance of the shift in government diversity language to valuing diverse ideas.
Getting the right people in the room
For those who are leaders, through the National Leadership Centre (NLC) and the Public Sector Leadership Group (PSLG), we are developing new ways to grow cross-government collaboration at the strategic level, bringing together the diverse talents and experience of people like Perm Secs, Director Generals, Chief Constables and heads of NHS trusts.
And we’re also supporting a programme of demonstrator projects to show how solutions that cut across departmental boundaries could work. One of these looks at the experience of prison leavers and the social problems they face, such as reoffending. By getting the right people in the room, leaders, policy officials, charities, and frontline staff to hear directly from prison leavers about their experiences, we can foster a sense of shared ownership of the problem, and start to plan solutions that cut across the divisions within government.
So there is a focus on the people at the top of the hierarchy, again connecting to people with complex needs (prison leavers – though characterising reoffending as a ‘social problem faced by prison leavers’ is intriguing). A ‘whole system in the room’ perspective – but again it is those with power ‘hearing directly’ from those with the problem, in order to share the problem, and work across government to solve. Problem-solution thinking, the ownership of the problem is really with the PSMB but the powerful are able to take this problem on and solve it for them.
Help us build a movement
Systems leadership is not just for leaders. It’s about us all reimagining the way we think about government.
Help us do it. Leave a comment, share your ideas and get in touch below.
It’s interesting – this is the first time ‘systems leadership’ has been mentioned – and I must say that none of the above sounds particularly like reimagining the way we think about government. Having a movement as well as a team and a framework is really interesting and exciting – it will be interesting to see how the shared power requirements of a movement can square with the intuitive and actual centralising pull of the Cabinet Office!
10 tips for systems leaders
This is where we get to some of the exciting centre of how they see this making a difference! It’s another example of nitpicking (or perhaps nuance) which I’m inevitably indulging in here to pick up the fact that ‘systems leaders’ is the heading, not ‘systems leadership’ (or ‘leading’); I’m a bit worried that there’s a pull to senior leaders in the hierarchy…
A system is a group of individuals or an organisation working together or interacting as part of a network. We believe that everyone in the public sector should be a systems leader.
That means being a leader in a system, rather than a leader of a system. Here are ten tips to help you embrace your inner systems leader.
BUT ‘everyone should be a systems leader’ is exciting. OK – perhaps interesting that this is everyone ‘in the public sector’ – perhaps another hint that this very concrete conception of a system is ‘the public sector’. AND ‘leader in a system’ (thinking of yourself as a leader in a system) couldn’t really be better, in my opinion.
To allow my nitpicking full sway, though, the concept of ‘inner systems leader’ makes me worry about a focus on individual behaviours and capacities rather than systems impact.
1. Put the citizen at the centre
From the moment you scope out a problem to the moment you start designing a solution, you should put the citizen at the centre. It’s also important to establish collective understanding of situation, identify mutual areas of interest, and the shared vision of the outcome you want.
OK – so the problem-solving focus from problem scoping to solution design is why I said in the tweets that this looks like ‘service design writ large’ – with implications of seeing ‘the service system’ as distinct from the citizen, the citizen as a disempowered individual (not a problem-solver, not part of a community with its own strengths), of an ‘intervention’ (problem to solution, albeit with complications), not an ongoing living system with feedback loops. What citizen at the centre actually means is really critical.
Collective understanding, mutual areas of interest, and shared vision is much more of a whole-system perspective; probably reflective of ‘system in a room’ large group facilitation processes such as FutureSearch.
Mikael picked up the idea of a systems approach tending to promote ‘polycentric value’ – starting from ‘citizen value’ is, of course, the best single starting point (how it is then defined is important), but it’s interesting that when this is singled out and becomes the focus, we see the perspectives of stakeholders (2) and those with power (3-10) come in as complications to be navigated through to achieve the results determined by (1).
2. Mobilise people
Identify partners across the system and work to understand their perspectives. Challenge your assumptions on who is relevant and who isn’t. If everyone is familiar to you, then perhaps you haven’t mapped widely enough. You should encourage people in your teams to build networks too. Recognise all perspectives are valid. Look to build relationships around areas of mutual interest.
Lots of good challenges to preconceptions here! ‘All perspectives are valid’ probably requires some explanation (this is obviously a lot of work and a highly condensed list), but the polycentric value is coming in strongly here. But I can imagine (sorry!) this being though about as focused entirely on a central government set of people and stakeholders…
I’m intrigued by the implied focus on systems mapping. And the ‘encourage people in your teams to build networks too’ – this feels like adding in good thinking perhaps from a different perspective and text.
3. Keep learning
Take the time to learn about the situation. Be realistic about the time it will take to undertake the work. This may involve managing expectations of others.
Very good, of course – again from a project-based problem-solving perspective. I’d like to see the implication that this kind of approach is counter-cultural (embedded in ‘managing expectations of others’) explored more fully – in a sense, it is in all the below, but slipping into the framing of projects and business cases will always put this kind of work on the back foot; an entirely different way of thinking needs to be generated.
4. Promote collective leadership
Try to prioritise building trust and a good working relationship with people across the system. This takes time but go for informal coffees and actively listen.
Great stuff. The descent into the particular is always hard to communicate and revealing of preconceptions. People in Westminster (and around the country) go for informal coffees – people making a difference in communities might perhaps use different language.
5. Work through tension
Tension and conflict are to be expected, so try to focus on the areas of mutual interest. Identify incentives. You shouldn’t seek to change or block others plans unless they seriously undermine the collective endeavour.
I’d love to hear about the thinking behind this; this is a hugely important area, of course. The text feels like pulling away from ‘working through’ tension, into the risk of avoiding tension. Again, this seems to map well to people trying to achieve change without disruption within the civil service.
6. Navigate the politics
Do your best to navigate through the internal and national politics. It’s a worthwhile thing to do given the long term nature of systems change. Understand power structures, including where informal power lies, organisational structures, reporting lines, decision rights, accountabilities as well as culture and history.
Now the concept (and movement/methodologies) of ‘systems change’ are invoked. Brilliant to see power structures addressed (certainly from an institutional perspective), and an acknowledgement that big change in systems may take a long time. And very brave and helpful to have national (‘big P’) politics acknowledged as well. This is focused on addressing power structures as they have emerged (and perhaps concretised and fixed) from underlying systems, but the very fact that these power structures have emerged rather than being a given is important, I think.
Culture and history nicely included.
7. Be flexible. Co-create solutions
Be flexible in co-creating solutions by encouraging iteration, adaptation and evolution. Don’t start with a fixed idea of what the right answer looks like.
Absolutely splendid points to make.
8. Secure resource commitments
Secure commitments from the system. Invest in a small central secretariat function ideally staffed from different stakeholders. Get the right people in the room regardless of grade. The person with the highest grade may not be the right person.
Not to labour the point; these are civil service words. If this is the focus of ‘secure commitments from the system’, the system is too narrowly conceived.
9. Establish accountability
Work out who is accountable for what. People should have a clear mandate to operate. Agree how to monitor progress, setting appropriate targets for the stage of project.
Yes – accountability is central. People need to know their discretion of work; what is their work to do; what are the boundaries.
And no – projects and targets have implications, which are likely to undermine all this good thinking. People will say that the learning about how to work in complexity would suggest that projects with fixed plans and targets are a bad way to achieve this; I’d point out that this applies to the complicated also.
The risk is we are talking about ‘long-term underlying change with the citizen at the centre, delivered in a way which respects current paradigms and doesn’t ruffle feathers or change the current assumptions of the system’. That’s like trying to tie your shoes with one hand tied behind your back…
10. Work out the risk appetite
Work out the level of risk different stakeholders are prepared to accept. Agree a shared approach to risk across the system.
Risk awareness is obviously valuable and critical; it’s notable that risk, but not benefits, is identified here… but this is like tying the other hand behind your back if you’re not careful 😉
These top tips were developed by the Cross-government Systems Leadership and Accountability Group sponsored by Nick Dyer and Paul Kett. This group is made up of volunteers from the Department for Education (DfE), Department for International Development (DfID) and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Thank you to everyone who helped shape and develop these tips. Particular thanks go to Karen Clark from the Organisation Development, Design and Learning Expert Service.
So I think this is a good pragmatic starting guide to ‘how to use some systems thinking tools in implementing larger-scale service design for central government to join up to provide better services for people in need’. A worthy goal indeed, and if this thinking is reflected on itself, there are perhaps some paradigm shifts well beyond this goal which could be conceived of and even achieved.
Meta-Rationality in Cognitive Science – Stanovich (2015)
via now publishers – Meta-Rationality in Cognitive Science
Meta-Rationality in Cognitive Science
Keith E. Stanovich, University of Toronto, Canada, keith.stanovich@utoronto.ca
Suggested Citation
Keith E. Stanovich (2015), “Meta-Rationality in Cognitive Science”, Journal of Marketing Behavior: Vol. 1: No. 2, pp 147-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/107.00000009
Published: 21 Oct 2015
© 2015 K. E. Stanovich
Login to download a free copy
In this article:
1. Metarepresentational Issues in the Literature Under Discussion
2. Meta-Rationality and Norms
References
Abstract
The great rationality debate in cognitive science (Tetlock and Mellers 2002) has largely been conducted with a narrow view of human rationality in mind. A minority voice in the debate has been theorists who take a broader view of rationality — one that does not accept current desires and goals is given and that takes a longer view of decisions throughout a person’s life. Schwartz’s target article is clearly in the tradition of those advocating a broader view of how we conceive rationality. It has many affinities with the meta-rationality that I have previously advocated for decision science.
DOI:10.1561/107.00000009
Via the Santa Fe Institute Complexity Explorers Facebook group – Nagarjuna as a philosopher of complexity theory
via Complexity Explorers (by SFI)
David Monreal Becerra shared a link.
Do you know of any philosopher who has applied complexity theory to ontology, epistemology or phenomenology? I kind of know of one.
In buddhist thought, one of the most fundamental notions is that of pratītyasamutpāda, or “dependent co-origination”. I cannot help seeing a close similarity to Complex Systems’ philosophy.
I find particularly fascinating the works of an early buddhist scholar: Nāgārjuna (around 150–250 AD). He tried to work out the implications of this notion of “dependent origination” in relation to basic convictions such as personal identity (our sense of “self”), or the conventional way we conceive and perceive entities in general, as being more autonomous and separated than they actually are.
A very related notion is that of śūnyatā or emptiness. If all entities depend on other entities and/or sub-entities to exist (just like in a complex system), no entity can be considered to have an “essential nature” beyond this inter-connected network of causes and effects. According to him, ultimately our persistency to ascribe individuality and separatedness to objects is the result of a perceptual bias and nothing more (or an “illusion” as buddhist like to say).
Here are two nice links which go in depth into Nagarjuna’s philosophy.
What is cybernetics?
Someone asked me this.
Cybernetics is…
The official definition from Wiener is ‘the scientific study of control and communication in the animal and the machine.” (This gets us into a lot of trouble with people for whom ‘control’ is a bogeyman).
Or
…the study of purposeful (or goal directed) behaviour
(Sometimes adding ‘in complex situations’ though in fact it’s in any situation)
…’the art of steering’ or ‘steersmanship’ from the Greek root in kubernetes (it’s still the best metaphor, I think)
…this links to various definitions around ‘governance’ or governing etc
…the study of circular causality (also sometimes self-directed control)
..the study of recursion
…the study of what might have happened, but didn’t
…or versions using regulation or self-regulation as the key…
Self-correction is also central, as is explorative creation and maintenance of meaning.
Wikipedia has Umpleby’s list of definitions which is good:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics
Pangaro’s is good too: https://www.pangaro.com/definition-cybernetics.html
Britannica cites unusual ‘key people’ but is good https://www.britannica.com/science/cybernetics
Principia Cybernetica offers a good one: ‘organization independent of the substrate in which it is embodied.’
(Principia Cybernetica describes itself as philosophy, seeking to answer the big questions of life; I think thereby it might fall foul of not seeing the circular, embodied and self-referential nature of language – which usually means these are not meaningful ‘questions’ – this is why I think Wittgenstein was a cybernetician and why I get such a big kick out of https://meaningness.com/metablog/bongard-meta-rationality which I think is on the same tracks)
And Clemson’s ‘What is management cybernetics’ (www.barryclemson.net/what-is-management-cybernetics/) cites Beer: “the science of effective organization”. Effective, of course, relates to viability, to ‘independent of the substrate’, to steering, governing, and to *intentional* behaviour (which I’d prefer to goal-directed or ‘purposeful’).
For ‘what is science’, I get “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”
So science can only be achieved through cybernetic means, of course, being purposeful, but I’d say that cybernetics is a particular type of science focused on effective behaviour (using the above), and here effective includes the second-order cybernetic concept of seeing the observer as an intervener in the system, and the potential of self-reflection.
What I Learned from Ranulph: A Grateful Tribute to Ranulph Glanville – Lissack, 2015
via What I Learned from Ranulph: A Grateful Tribute to Ranulph Glanville
What I Learned from Ranulph: A Grateful Tribute to Ranulph Glanville
Michael LissackThe first thing Ranulph Glanville taught me about cybernetics would prove in the end to be the most prophetic: namely that Winston Churchill was the first practicing cyberneticians. I suspect that most if not all of the readers of this article are already shaking their heads. What could Lissack be talking about? Ranulph told me this when describing a speech Churchill gave in the House of Lords chamber when the British Commons was discussing whether or not to rebuild the Palace of Westminster. ” On the night of May 10, 1941, with one of the last bombs of the last serious raid, our House of Commons was destroyed by the violence of the enemy, and we have now to consider whether we should build it up again, and how, and when…. We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us. Having dwelt and served for more than forty years in the late Chamber, and having derived very great pleasure and advantage therefrom, I, naturally, should like to see it restored in all essentials to its old form, convenience and dignity.” (Winston Churchill, 1943) ” We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us. ” In that one sentence were a host of pearls of cybernetic wisdom – the role of context, the role of affordances, the importance of action, ideas shaping action, actions shaping ideas, circularity, and the role of the observer. And, Churchill said it five years before Weiner’s first book. Thus, Churchill was the first practicing cybernetician (under modern usage – ignoring Ampere’s 1834 definition). Ranulph cautioned, however, that Churchill himself would have been opposed to the label. Which was Ranulph’s second lesson to me: many of those who are most successful in incorporating cybernetics into their world view and their affordances for action are highly resistant to the label cyberneticians and often to the very topic of cybernetics. These people live cybernetics. It is a part of who they are and of what they do. They do not study the subject. They do no not write great tracts about critical ideas and alternative formulations. They do not spend time trying to sort out the vagaries of difference between systems science, complex systems, and cybernetics. They never heard of Science 1 and Science 2. And, they do not care. They live their lives. Cybernetically. It was only fitting then that Ranulph’s final ASC conference would be entitled ” Living in Cyberentics. ” To the Ranulph I knew cybernetics was about acting, thinking, and then acting again. It was about life. Paul Pangoro captured this idea in a video which I played at that 2014 conference: I believe that cybernetics is an exceptionally great way of characterizing how the world works. Where by world we mean the world that humans inhabit.
pdf available from source: What I Learned from Ranulph: A Grateful Tribute to Ranulph Glanville
Also Larry Richards piece from the same volume: https://www.academia.edu/31026902/What_I_Learned_from_Ranulph_Glanville
Comparing OODA & other models as Operational View C2 Architecture – Grant and Kooter (2005)
10TH INTERNATIONAL COMMAND AND CONTROL RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGY SYMPOSIUM
THE FUTURE OF C2
Comparing OODA & other models as Operational View C2 Architecture
Topic: C4ISR/C2 Architecture
Tim Grant * and Bas Kooter **
Point of contact: Tim Grant
- Royal Netherlands Military Academy
P.O. Box 90.002, 4800 PA Breda, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 76 527 3261 / Fax: +31 76 527 3259
TJ.Grant@mindef.nl
** MultiNeeds b.v.
Mokkabruin 12, 2718 NE Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 79 361 9099 / Fax: +31 79 361 8873
MultiNeeds@planet.nl
Abstract
Boyd’s Observe-Orient-Decide-Act (OODA) loop is a model of decision-making created
from observing jet fighter pilots in combat. Over the course of time, OODA has been adopted
by other military services, has influenced the development of grand concepts such as
manoeuvre warfare, “shock and awe”, and network-centric warfare (NCW), and is widely
taught in officer training. In essence, OODA has become an accepted business process model
for military Command & Control (C2). This makes it a leading candidate for the operational
view of C2 systems architecture.
Boyd was interested in strategy, not C2 systems architecture. Before OODA can be adopted
as a guiding paradigm for C2 systems architecture, it is prudent to critically review its
suitability. The purpose of this paper is to compare OODA with other candidate C2 business
process models and with the needs of NCW, identifying how OODA should be re-engineered.
College Publications – Systems book series
via College Publications – Systems
 Systems Founding Editor: Harold “Bud” Lawson Editors: Jon P. Wade The Systems series publishes books related to Systems Science, Systems Thinking, Systems Engineering and Software Engineering. Systems Science having its contemporary roots in the first half of the 20th century is today made up of a diversity of approaches that have entered different fields of investigation. Systems Science explores how common features manifest in natural and social systems of varying complexity in order to provide scientific foundations for describing, understanding and designing systems. Systems Thinking has grown during the latter part of the 20th century into highly useful discipline independent methods, languages and practices. Systems Thinking focuses upon applying concepts, principles, and paradigms in the analysis of the holistic structural and behavioral properties of complex systems – in particular the patterns of relationships that arise in the interactions of multiple systems. Systems and Software Engineering Systems Engineering has gained momentum during the latter part of the 20th century and has led to engineering related practices and standards that can be used in the life cycle management of complex systems. Software Engineering has continued to grow in importance as the software content of most complex systems has steadily increased and in many cases have become the dominant elements. Both Systems and Software Engineering focus upon transforming the need for a system into products and services that meet the need in an effective, reliable and cost effective manner. While there are similarities between Systems and Software Engineering, the unique properties of software often requires special expertise and approaches to life cycle management. Systems Science, Systems Thinking, as well as Systems and Software Engineering can, and need to, be considered complementary in establishing the capability to individually and collectively “think” and “act” in terms of systems in order to face the complex challenges of modern systems. Systems Series Editorial Board Gabriele Bammer (Australia)* Members marked with as asterisk (*) are also members of the Exploring Unity Through Diversity Editorial Board. This series is a cooperative enterprise between College Publications, the School of Systems and Enterprises at Stevens Institute of Technology and the Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science (BCSSS). For further information concerning the Systems Series see http://www.collegepublications.co.uk/systems/
|
Statistical Consequences of Fat Tails: Real World Preasymptotics, Epistemology, and Applications, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
The book investigates the misapplication of conventional statistical techniques to fat tailed distributions and looks for remedies, when possible.
Switching from thin tailed to fat tailed distributions requires more than “changing the color of the dress”. Traditional asymptotics deal mainly with either n=1 or n=∞, and the real world is in between, under of the “laws of the medium numbers” –which vary widely across specific distributions. Both the law of large numbers and the generalized central limit mechanisms operate in highly idiosyncratic ways outside the standard Gaussian or Levy-Stable basins of convergence.
A few examples:
+ The sample mean is rarely in line with the population mean, with effect on “naive empiricism”, but can be sometimes be estimated via parametric methods.
+ The “empirical distribution” is rarely empirical.
+ Parameter uncertainty has compounding effects on statistical metrics.
+ Dimension reduction (principal components) fails.
+ Inequality estimators (GINI or quantile contributions)…
View original post 59 more words
New website for IFSR – the International Federation for Systems Research
[corrected post – I had inadvertently posted the ISSS page *on* the IFSR website]
via IFSR
new website and new info
(currently lacking member body www.systemspractice.org – but that is being remedied!)
The Absent-Minded Father of Cybernetics, Norbert Wiener
via The Absent-Minded Father of Cybernetics, Norbert Wiener
The Absent-Minded Father of Cybernetics, Norbert Wiener
Jørgen Veisdal
Following
Mar 7 · 30 min read
“When we met, was I walking to the faculty club or away from it? I’m wondering, because in the latter case I’ve already had my lunch”
American mathematician Norbert Wiener (1894–1964) was by all accounts, a very peculiar man. After graduating from high school at 11 years old, he entered Tufts College and within three years was awarded an A.B. in mathematics. Before the age of 18, Harvard had awarded him a Ph.D. for his dissertation in mathematical logic. Described by author Sylvia Nasar as
“An American John von Neumann, a polymath of great originality who made stunning contributions in pure mathematics and then embarked on a second and equally astounding career in applied mathematics”
Wiener would be the man to give modern meaning to the word ‘feedback’ through his invention of cybernetics (the study of regulatory systems) which has since birthed revolutionary subfields such as artificial intelligence, computer vision, robotics, neuroscience, and many more.
Collective Impact Forum | Evaluating Systems Change Efforts: Where to Start
via Collective Impact Forum | Resources
Evaluating Systems Change Efforts: Where to Start
Evaluating the impact of long-term systems change work is always complex- there is no one-stop primer or resource that will truly encompass the questions that need to be asked and the data collection methods to use. Evaluating complex initiatives or evaluating programs in complex environments requires the application of a systems lens and a set of principles of practice, as well as attending to the particular contextual characteristics of each case.
Where does one start then when looking at your own systems change work and how to learn from its design and implementation? What do you need to think about when gauging your progress and the initiative’s intended effects, influence, and impact?
Join FSG and the Collective Impact Forum for this discussion with Hallie Preskill and Joelle Cook who lead FSG’s Strategic Learning and Evaluation practice, as we delve into how evaluating system change is different from evaluating programs, and talk about some of the core evaluation principles needed when advancing systems change work.
Webinar Presentation: Access a copy of the webinar presentation at the link on the left of this page. (Logging into your Forum account will be necessary to download.)
Webcast Guests:
• Joelle Cook, Director, FSG
• Hallie Preskill, Managing Director, FSG
Related Resources
- Blog: How Do You Evaluate Systems Change? A Place to Start.
- Article: The Water of Systems Change
- Report: Evaluating Complexity
- Article: Sets of Principles for Evaluating Systems Change
- Toolkit: Systems Thinking Toolkit
- Webinar: The Six Conditions of Systems Change
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.