Adaptation , Learning , and the Art of War : a Cybernetic Perspective – Sung Kato (Semantic Scholar)

Adaptation , Learning , and the Art of War : a Cybernetic Perspective

  • Sung K. Kato
  • Published 2014
ADAPTATION, LEARNING, AND THE ART OF WAR: A CYBERNETIC PERSPECTIVE, by LTC Sung K. Kato, 55 pages. The purpose of this study is to research and examine the processes of living complex adaptive systems in the context of an uncertain and ever-changing environment. Drawing from the works of William Ross Ashby and contemporary cybernetic thought, the study modeled the adaptive systems as control loops and the processes of adaptive systems as a Markov process. Using this model, the study concluded that systems would return to the same relative equilibrium point, expressed in terms of requisite variety, with their environment unless they changed the rate of relative adaptation into their favor by creating asymmetry in their control loops. This means, the system had to affect the environment more than the environment could affect it. The study found that a system’s representation of their external situation determines their ability to learn. Learning then determines the ability of the system to adapt and adjust their structures to achieve asymmetry in their control loops and a position of relative advantage at equilibrium. The study also found a system can achieve regulation by adapting its goals and changing the variables considered essential, thereby achieving asymmetry by assuming a state that potentially resets the selection criteria for fitness

Source: Adaptation , Learning , and the Art of War : a Cybernetic Perspective – Semantic Scholar

A Grammar of Systems (series, 2015-2017) – YouTube

via Peter Jones

playlist (deliberately broken link otherwise it posts the video):

https://www.youtube.com/

playlist?list=PLT-vY3f9uw3DeVTbNWmRuovh00appA-la

channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMFRHxffBlmapWkdvI2RpEg

Home – EJOR Special Issue on Community Operational Research – Research Guides at University of Massachusetts Boston

EJOR Special Issue on Community Operational Research: Home

Special Issue of the European Journal of Operational Research
image #1

Community Operational Research (COR) is based on meaningful engagement with communities to bring about transformational research and practice along with community empowerment and social change. We work directly with communities to identify, formulate, model and solve problems in which decisions and choices are the core focus. Our training and practice cross disciplinary, application and methodological boundaries: we are planners, engineers, management scholars, policy analysts and many others. The purpose of this website is to introduce you to a special issue of European Journal of Operational Research titled “Community Operational Research: Innovations, Internationalization and Agenda-Setting Applications” which has appeared in August 2018. The 31 papers in this special issue address issues in rural development, theory and methodology, working with youth, urban planning and many other areas. They represent applications of decision modeling that are more familiar to persons with traditional training in operations research and the management sciences, as well as those that reflect progressive notions of how qualitative analysis and a systems view can support positive community change.

Sometimes the perspective of authors in this special issue is on what decisions to make to achieve particular outcomes: How can we design design an energy generation strategy for a small town that balances environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and local energy autonomy? What are new ways to ensure access to nutritious and affordable food in lower-income, primarily immigrant communities that combines behavior changes by residents with new services by stores and government agencies? How can we develop a peace education program in an area rife with political and other violence in which young people learn of alternatives to violence to solve conflicts?

Other times the authors in this special issue seek to examine events that have already occurred to learn how a community-engaged decision modeling perspective can explain what we have observed: If co-production of health care through community engagement and shared responsibility for health care fail in one place after succeeding in another place, could a better understanding of doctors’ professional identities combined with putting key stakeholders at the center of system redesign result in improved outcomes in the future? In the wake of a destructive tsunami and subsequent rebuilding, how can an arts-based methodology help us understand how a community in crisis draws on social networks, cultural practices and collective interventions to build from within?

The goal of this website is to provide convenient information on the articles and the authors so that visitors can make connections between diverse topics, methodologies, analytic methods and application domains and become an active participant in the COR community of practice. We do so by enabling visitors to learn about the subjects, topic themes, keywords, authors and key resources related to community operational research as it is currently theorized and practiced. The website has the following sections:

  • Biographical information for the editorial team and manuscript lead authors;
  • Information on manuscripts based on title, theme as described in editorial, country of focus of study, primary methodology/analytics classification and keywords, including links to manuscripts in the special issue;
  • COR resources, with links to important books, research articles and key publication outlets related to community operational research and related fields.

We hope that this special issue inspires new practitioners to take up the banner of Community OR and make their own contributions, right across the world. If you personally are inspired, do not hesitate to get involved with the community concerns that matter to you most. Importantly, please write up your experiences for publication, and not just for scholarly outlets such as this one. Let us make sure the dialogue on Community OR continues to thrive!

We invite you to learn more about this Special Issue by reading the editorial. The Elsevier website for the Special Issue is here.

Sincerely,

The Editorial Team

Source: Home – EJOR Special Issue on Community Operational Research – Research Guides at University of Massachusetts Boston

Embracing Emergence: Problem Solving on Complex Projects | UTS ePRESS

Embracing Emergence: Problem Solving on Complex Projects

International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP) 2017, 11-14 June 2017
Published by UTS ePRESS | http://pmrp.epress.lib.uts.edu.au


CONFERENCE PAPER

Gina Bowman1*, Lynn Crawford2

1 Director, Australia, Gedeth Network. gina.bowman@gedeth.com

2 Director, Project Management Program, University of Sydney, Adjunct Professor, Bond University; Visiting Professor, Cranfield University School of Management; Professor of Systemic Management, ISCE. lynn.crawford@sydney.edu.au

*Corresponding author: Gina Bowman. Gedeth Network. gina.bowman@gedeth.com

Name: International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP) 2017

Location: Boston University, United States

Dates: 11-14 June 2017

Host Organisation: Metropolitan College at Boston University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5130/pmrp.irnop2017.5698

Published: 07/06/2018

Citation: Bowman, G. and Crawford, L. 2017. Embracing emergence: problem solving on complex projects. International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP) 2017, UTS ePRESS, Sydney: NSW, pp. 1-27. https://doi.org/10.5130/pmrp.irnop2017.5698

© 2018 by the author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.


Synopsis

Managing within the unpredictable and complex environments of today’s projects calls for new competencies to help interpret and respond to problems. Quantum storytelling can play a powerful role in reinterpreting project concepts such as risks, and their resulting problems, by harnessing the properties of emergence. The reframing of problems is explored through a complexity lens and underpinned by stories from the international development sector.

Research design

Actuality research, with its focus on the lived experience, provided the foundation for a research study exploring how project managers currently interpret problems on complex projects. Application of the storytelling diamond model supported methodology choice, and in-depth interviews were undertaken with six project managers from two organizations managing complex projects.

Relevance for practice

We believe that developing an understanding of quantum storytelling and its potential application to managing projects has the capacity to assist project teams to make sense of the emergent nature of complex projects and to consider alternative approaches to solving problems.

Main Findings

The findings provide insight into how the project managers interviewed currently interpret problems and the resulting approaches to solving them. Their stories outline the themes that populate both the organizational and sectorial narrative of their projects.

We argue that traditional project methods apply control frames and behaviours through which to interpret concepts like problems, but in the real world, adaptable and flexible behaviours are required to tackle them as they evolve in the field. We determine that the traditional “plan and manage” contingency approach is not delivering to these project managers the competencies required to manage their projects.

Research implications

Our paper illustrates how a storytelling methodology can be used to explore problems and identifies the potential to further develop storytelling competency through adopting a complexity mindset with its inherent understanding of the property of emergence.

Keywords

Complex Projects, Problems, Storytelling, Complexity, Emergence

Source: Embracing Emergence: Problem Solving on Complex Projects | UTS ePRESS

Principles of Chaos Engineering

PRINCIPLES OF CHAOS ENGINEERING

Last Update: 2018 May

Chaos Engineering is the discipline of experimenting on a distributed system
in order to build confidence in the system’s capability
to withstand turbulent conditions in production.

Advances in large-scale, distributed software systems are changing the game for software engineering.  As an industry, we are quick to adopt practices that increase flexibility of development and velocity of deployment.  An urgent question follows on the heels of these benefits: How much confidence we can have in the complex systems that we put into production?

Even when all of the individual services in a distributed system are functioning properly, the interactions between those services can cause unpredictable outcomes.  Unpredictable outcomes, compounded by rare but disruptive real-world events that affect production environments, make these distributed systems inherently chaotic.

We need to identify weaknesses before they manifest in system-wide, aberrant behaviors.  Systemic weaknesses could take the form of: improper fallback settings when a service is unavailable; retry storms from improperly tuned timeouts; outages when a downstream dependency receives too much traffic; cascading failures when a single point of failure crashes; etc.  We must address the most significant weaknesses proactively, before they affect our customers in production.  We need a way to manage the chaos inherent in these systems, take advantage of increasing flexibility and velocity, and have confidence in our production deployments despite the complexity that they represent.

An empirical, systems-based approach addresses the chaos in distributed systems at scale and builds confidence in the ability of those systems to withstand realistic conditions.  We learn about the behavior of a distributed system by observing it during a controlled experiment.  We call this Chaos Engineering.

CHAOS IN PRACTICE

To specifically address the uncertainty of distributed systems at scale, Chaos Engineering can be thought of as the facilitation of experiments to uncover systemic weaknesses.  These experiments follow four steps:

  1. Start by defining ‘steady state’ as some measurable output of a system that indicates normal behavior.
  2. Hypothesize that this steady state will continue in both the control group and the experimental group.
  3. Introduce variables that reflect real world events like servers that crash, hard drives that malfunction, network connections that are severed, etc.
  4. Try to disprove the hypothesis by looking for a difference in steady state between the control group and the experimental group.

The harder it is to disrupt the steady state, the more confidence we have in the behavior of the system.  If a weakness is uncovered, we now have a target for improvement before that behavior manifests in the system at large.

ADVANCED PRINCIPLES

The following principles describe an ideal application of Chaos Engineering, applied to the processes of experimentation described above.  The degree to which these principles are pursued strongly correlates to the confidence we can have in a distributed system at scale.

Build a Hypothesis around Steady State Behavior

Focus on the measurable output of a system, rather than internal attributes of the system.  Measurements of that output over a short period of time constitute a proxy for the system’s steady state.  The overall system’s throughput, error rates, latency percentiles, etc. could all be metrics of interest representing steady state behavior.  By focusing on systemic behavior patterns during experiments, Chaos verifies that the system does work, rather than trying to validate how it works.

Vary Real-world Events

Chaos variables reflect real-world events.  Prioritize events either by potential impact or estimated frequency.  Consider events that correspond to hardware failures like servers dying,software failures like malformed responses, and non-failure events like a spike in traffic or a scaling event.  Any event capable of disrupting steady state is a potential variable in a Chaos experiment.

Run Experiments in Production

Systems behave differently depending on environment and traffic patterns.  Since the behavior of utilization can change at any time, sampling real traffic is the only way to reliably capture the request path.  To guarantee both authenticity of the way in which the system is exercised and relevance to the current deployed system, Chaos strongly prefers to experiment directly on production traffic.

Automate Experiments to Run Continuously

Running experiments manually is labor-intensive and ultimately unsustainable.  Automate experiments and run them continuously.  Chaos Engineering builds automation into the system to drive both orchestration and analysis.

Minimize Blast Radius

Experimenting in production has the potential to cause unnecessary customer pain. While there must be an allowance for some short-term negative impact, it is the responsibility and obligation of the Chaos Engineer to ensure the fallout from experiments are minimized and contained.

Chaos Engineering is a powerful practice that is already changing how software is designed and engineered at some of the largest-scale operations in the world.  Where other practices address velocity and flexibility, Chaos specifically tackles systemic uncertainty in these distributed systems.  The Principles of Chaos provide confidence to innovate quickly at massive scales and give customers the high quality experiences they deserve.

Join the ongoing discussion of the Principles of Chaos and their application in the Chaos Community Google Group.

Translations: FR | RU | 中文 (简体) | 한국어 | Spanish | TR | PT-BR | العَرَبِيَّة‎ | 日本語
If you want to add your translation, please submit a pull request against the Github repository.

Source: Principles of Chaos Engineering

 

Cheat sheet: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/chaos-engineering-a-cheat-sheet/

 

The rise of: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/04/the-rise-of-chaos-engineering/

 

History, practices, principles: https://www.gremlin.com/community/tutorials/chaos-engineering-the-history-principles-and-practice/

2003/07 Governance and the Practice of Management in Long-Term Inter-Organizational Relations | Coevolving Innovations

2003/07 Governance and the Practice of Management in Long-Term Inter-Organizational Relations

Authors

David Ing, David Hawk, Ian Simmonds, and Marianne Kosits

Abstract

Outsourcing, strategic alliances and joint ventures are dominant forms of extending organizational reach. The scope and direction of these associations is set through management and governance of the inter-organizational relation. Yet, an understanding of the distinctions between management and government are often missing, both for those who initiate and for those who operate within a joint initiative.

This article reviews the concepts of management and governance in an inter-organizational context from the foundations of general systems and social theory. The motivations of efficiency and synergy are compared. Choices made about long-term alliances are highlighted in distinctions between designs that are complicated and designs that are complex, and between interactions that are loosely coupled and interactions that are tightly coupled. The influences of management and governance are considered in the cybernetic frame that distinguishes between external control and self-control.

Recommendations for business include considering of multiple lines of authority, as heterarchy; and the adoption of a social practice perspective that can include aspects of solidarity and style, uncovered in the disclosing of new worlds.

Citation

David Ing, David Hawk, Ian Simmonds, and Marianne Kosits, “Governance and the Practice of Management in Long-Term Inter-Organizational Relations”, Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the System Sciences, at Hersonissos, Crete, July 7-11, 2003.

Content

Source: 2003/07 Governance and the Practice of Management in Long-Term Inter-Organizational Relations | Coevolving Innovations

Social interactions shape individual and collective personality in social spiders

cxdig's avatarComplexity Digest

The behavioural composition of a group and the dynamics of social interactions can both influence how social animals work collectively. For example, individuals exhibiting certain behavioural tendencies may have a disproportionately large impact on the group, and so are referred to as keystone individuals, while interactions between individuals can facilitate information transmission about resources. Despite the potential impact of both behavioural composition and interactions on collective behaviour, the relationship between consistent behaviours (also known as personalities) and social interactions remains poorly understood. Here, we use stochastic actor-oriented models to uncover the interdependencies between boldness and social interactions in the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola. We find that boldness has no effect on the likelihood of forming social interactions, but interactions do affect boldness, and lead to an increase in the boldness of the shyer individual. Furthermore, spiders tend to interact with the same individuals as their neighbours. In general, boldness decreases…

View original post 117 more words

Entropy | Special Issue : Information Theory in Complex Systems

cxdig's avatarComplexity Digest

Complex systems are ubiquitous in the natural and engineered worlds. Examples are self-assembling materials, the Earth’s climate, single- and multi-cellular organisms, the brain, and coupled socio-economic and socio-technical systems, to mention a few canonical examples. The use of Shannon information theory to study the behavior of such systems, and to explain and predict their dynamics, has gained significant attention, both from a theoretical and from an experimental viewpoint. There have been many advances in applying Shannon theory to complex systems, including correlation analyses for spatial and temporal data and construction and clustering techniques for complex networks. Progress has often been driven by the application areas, such as genetics, neurosciences, and the Earth sciences.

The application of Shannon theory to data of real-world complex systems are often hindered by the frequent lack of stationarity and sufficient statistics. Further progress on this front call for new statistical techniques based on Shannon information…

View original post 87 more words

The Anastomotic Reticulum (Stafford Beer) – an incomplete note in search of further elucidation

This is an incomplete note about an important and interesting concept, in the hope that it will create an attractor for more explanation!

Image from this weird notes page (incomplete): Norm-Critical Innovation | Knowledge Management Research Group

 

I came across this in https://medium.com/@aidan.ward.antelope/of-bullshit-anastomosis-767bc0fc4e57

The detection of bullshit is a crucial feature of our lives: we are, after all, drowning in it. If you think anastomosis probably IS bullshit, go to the bottom of the class. Anastomosis seems to be little known about but is a crucial structure for bullshit filtering. Nassim Taleb, in his latest popular book, Skin in the Game, says his whole series of books including the Black Swan and Antifragile amount to a life project of bullshit detection. Spoiler alert: he finds no shortage of BS, especially in government functions.

Anastomosis? I have three pillars. Stafford Beer, whose Viable Systems Model I have used extensively, describes the cybernetic function of our brains as an anastomotic reticulum. Alan Rayner, in The Origin of Life Patterns, has anastomotic flow forms as how reality happens. And in a recent article which we will explore a little, Wired into Pain, Tom Jesson explains how our nervous system uses anastomotic patterns to separate the pain we need to pay attention to from all the other signals that are not as significant in preserving our life. Yes, our pain has bullshit filtering built in.

In James Scott’s wonderful new book Against the Grain, it seems that the cradle of civilisation itself was the system of marshes and braided distributory channels in lower Mesopotamia (Greek — between the rivers). Our very being is anastomotic whether we know it or not. The complex ecologies that surged back and forth, our ability to partake of multiple food webs, the social structures that were played with and developed. How far we have fallen.

 

 

This article gives part of an explanation (pdf):

Click to access 10.1007%2F978-3-642-15509-3_14.pdf

 

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastomosis:

An anastomosis (plural anastomoses) is a connection or opening between two things (especially cavities or passages) that are normally diverging or branching, such as between blood vesselsleaf veins, or streams. Such a connection may be normal (such as the foramen ovale in a fetus’s heart) or abnormal (such as the patent foramen ovale in an adult’s heart); it may be acquired (such as an arteriovenous fistula) or innate (such as the arteriovenous shunt of a metarteriole); and it may be natural (such as the aforementioned examples) or artificial (such as a surgical anastomosis).

Inquiring Organizations – Courtney, Croadsell, Paradice

INQUIRING ORGANIZATIONS
September 14, 1998  James F. Courtney, Texas A&M University
David T. Croasdell, Texas A&M University
David B. Paradice, Texas A&M University
 ABSTRACT
Churchman (1971) developed five archetypal models of inquiring systems in an effort to expand the field of management information systems along a philosophical path. Contemporary businesses can use the ideas developed by Churchman to become productive and efficient inquiring organizations. This paper explores the relationship between inquiry and learning in organizations and how information technology can be used to support the process of knowledgecreation in the context of inquiring systems.
CONTENTS
  1. INTRODUCTION
  2. A REVIEW OF INQUIRING SYSTEMS
  3. CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
  4. INQUIRING ORGANIZATIONS
  5. IT SUPPORT OF INQUIRING ORGANIZATIONS
  6. SUMMARY
  7. REFERENCES

This paper has been published in Australian Journal of Information Systems, Volume 6 Number 1, September 1998. For details of this journal please refer to the Australian Journal of Information Systems web site http://www.uow.edu.au/ajis/ajis.html.

 

source at: https://www.bauer.uh.edu/parks/fis/inqorg.htm

Systemic Business Community — “System Cracks are Where the Light Gets In: Models and Measures of Services in the Benefit of Context” – Hawk and Parhankangas

“System Cracks are Where the Light Gets In: Models and Measures of Services in the Benefit of Context”

Authors

David Hawk and Annaleena Parhankangas

Abstract

A paradox is emerging for those concerned about management theory and practice. The paradox lies with the activities and products of organizations becoming more fluid while organizational structure and management models remained fixed. Managerial emphasis favor the more “solid” aspects of organizations while their leading edges become more “fluid.” Management lore and principles continue to be taught, and practiced, as if what was remains timeless. Management continues to base its decision-making on information from statistical and reductionistic analysis. The result is a noteworthy mismatch between the rate of change in the environmental and the human desire for constancy. The mismatch is showing up on the surface of situations in what we herein called “cracks.” Cracks can also be seen in the surfaces of organizations, products and customer bases.

The theory behind the paper comes from the early 1940s. Cracks point to system forces that were not been reconciled within the limits of the system. “Crackage” may also be a sign of systems reaching their limits. Herein the systems of interest are social organizations and their management. The main interest thus becomes management theory, where cracks appear where a principle appears inadequate, even humorous, in the face of an organizational challenge. Such cracks are more obvious with time. Using command and control strategies to manage internet information access and use is one example. Such cracks can be seen as early indicators of larger problems looming for organizations. This point was at the center of a discussion held in the business systems interest group session of last year’s ISSS Conference. It was argued that radically different forms and norms of management were needed. One metaphor proposed from that discussion was to find more “fluid” methods of management for dealing with increasingly fluid entities and environments. This idea is used herein to describe one of the major events now taking place in economic and business systems, the transformation from goods to services. The shift from solid to fluid processes and products is clearly seen in the emergence of the importance of services. An alternative software operating system, called Linux, is presented as a leading example of why this change is different and fundamental. Linux provides a doorway into an alternative model of business management. Linux illustrating an interesting progression from problems in solids that are manageable, but tend to crack, to fluids that don’t crack but tend to be beyond understanding and management.

[click here for the Acrobat document]

Citation

David Hawk and Annaleena Parhankangas, “System Cracks are Where the Light Gets In: Models and Measures of Services in the Benefit of Context”, Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the System Sciences, Jennifer Wilby and Janet K. Allen, editors, at Asilomar, California, July 8-13, 2001.

[click here for the ISSS 2001 conference]

Source: Systemic Business Community — “System Cracks are Where the Light Gets In: Models and Measures of Services in the Benefit of Context”

CSH | W. Ulrich | Ulrich’s Home Page: A Mini-Primer of Boundary Critique

A very short introduction o boundary critique, the methodological core idea of critical systems heuristics (CSH)

Source: CSH | W. Ulrich | Ulrich’s Home Page: A Mini-Primer of Boundary Critique

 

 

  Boundary Critique is the methodological core idea of critical systems heuristics (CSH, Ulrich 1983). Increasingly, it is also recognized as a central concept of critical systems thinking and of critical professional practice in general. In the terms of CSH, the idea is that both the meaning and the validity of professional propositions always depend on boundary judgments as to what ‘facts’ (observations) and ‘norms’ (valuation standards) are to be considered relevant and what others are to be left out or considered less important. Such boundary judgments are constitutive of the reference systems to which refer all our claims to knowledge or rationality, in professional practice as well as in everyday life. Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2017
Last updated on 12 Jun 2017
  The quest for systemic thinking cannot alter the fact that all our claims remain “partial” (Ulrich 1983), in the double sense of being selective with respect to relevant facts and norms and of benefiting some parties more than others. This is what boundary critique (Ulrich 1996, 2000, 2017) is all about; it aims at disclosing this inevitable partiality.

systematic process of boundary critique is to achieve three basic requirements:

  1. It needs to identify the sources of selectivity that condition a claim, by surfacing its underpinning boundary judgments.
  2. It needs to question these boundary judgments with respect to their practical and ethical implications and to surface options, through discussions with all concerned stakeholders (note that their selection in turn represents a boundary judgment in need of critique).
  3. Based on these two critical efforts it may then become necessary to challenge unqualified claims to knowledge or rationality by compelling argumentation, through the emancipatory use of boundary critique.

CSH offers a conceptual framework for all three tasks. Basic to the entire process of boundary critique is grasping the ways in which a specific claim is conditioned by boundary judgments. CSH explains this by means of the “eternal triangle” of reference system, facts, and values: Whenever we propose a problem definition or solution, we cannot help but assert the relevance of some facts and norms as distinguished from others. Which facts and norms we should consider depends on how we bound the reference system, and vice-versa; as soon as we modify our boundary judgments, relevant facts and norms are likely to change, too (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The ‘eternal triangle’ of
boundary judgments, observations, and evaluations
(Source: Ulrich 2000, p. 252; also in 2003, p. 334)

Thinking through the triangle means to consider each of its corners in the light of the other two. For example, What new facts become relevant if we expand the boundaries of the reference system or modify our value judgments? How do our valuations look if we consider new facts that refer to a modified reference system? In what way may our reference system fail to do justice to the perspective of different stakeholder groups? Any claim that does not reflect on the underpinning “triangle” of boundary judgments, judgments of facts, and value judgments, risks have us claim too much, by not disclosing its built-in selectivity. The result is an iterative process of reflection or dicscourse that I call “systemic triangulation” (see Ulrich, 2000, p. 18f, and 2003, p. 334, and for a somewhat more extensive introduction Ulrich, 2017).

Once the selectivity of the reference system in question has thus been grasped in terms of underpinning boundary judgments, systematic boundary critique then means exploring its implications for all the parties concerned, regardless of whether or not their concerns have been included in the underpinning reference system. CSH conceives of this larger context as the “context of application” of a professional proposition, as opposed to the primary system of concern. The context of application considers all the effects that a professional claim may impose on third parties, including stakeholders whose concerns are not represented by the primary system of concern. Both the primary system of concern and the context of application can be examined systematically by means of CSH’s boundary questions, see critical systems heuristics.

 

For more information see:

References:

  • Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy. Bern: Haupt. Paperback reprint edition: Chichester: Wiley 1994.
  • Ulrich, W. (1996). A Primer to Critical Systems Heuristics for Action Researchers.Hull: Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull.Online version of 10 Aug 2014: Werner Ulrich’s Home Page, http://wulrich.com/downhttp://loads/ulrich_1996a.pdf
  • Ulrich, W. (2000). Reflective practice in the civil society. Reflective Practice 1(2), 247-268.
  • Ulrich, W. (2003). Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. Journal of the Operational Research Society 54(4), 325-342.

Source: Adopted from W. Ulrich, “Boundary Critique,” in: The Informed Student Guide to Management Science, ed. by H.G. Daellenbach and R.L. Flood, London: Thomson Learning, 2002, p. 41f.

Suggested citation: Ulrich, W. (2005). A mini-primer of boundary critique. Rev. version of “Boundary critique,” in H.G. Daellenbach and R.L. Flood (eds.), The Informed Student Guide to Management Science, London: Thomson Learning, 2002, p. 41f. Werner Ulrich’s Home Page, http://wulrich.com/boundary_critique.html, first published 17 October 2005.

Copyright: © 2001 W. Ulrich and © 2002 Thomson Ltd (original version), © 2005 (present version). All rights reserved. Noncommercial distribution and citation permitted on the condition that proper reference is given..

Bibliographic information: A version of this page is currently also available at the ECOSENSUS project web site of the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom, at:
http://projects.kmi.open.ac.uk/ecosensus/publications/boundary_critique.html

An Interactive Introduction to Attractor Landscapes – Nicky Case

[oh, this is splendid! from the bloke who does Loopy, the wisdom and/or madness of clouds, etc – https://ncase.me/ ]

why things change, or don’t

 

an interactive introduction to

ATTRACTOR LANDSCAPES
playing time: ~5 minutes  ·  by nicky case, may 2018

A peaceful movement fights against violence and oppression for years, and nothing much changes. Then, everything changes.

Why do many complex systems – cultures, environments, economies – seem stuck (or if good, “stable”) despite lots of effort to change them? And why, when change does come, it seems to cascade (or if bad, “collapse”) all at once?

There’s a tool that can help us understand this: attractor landscapes. 

Or, in less fancy words: “a ball rolling down some hills”. This tool was first created in the field of physics, but has since been used to help us understand genetics, neuroscience, political alliances, and more!

I’ll explain attractors using an environmental example. Let’s say you’re fishing on a small, sucky pond. You can exhaust your natural resources of fish pretty easily…

More, including interactive shizzle, in source: An Interactive Introduction to Attractor Landscapes

Resilience of Complex Systems: State of the Art and Directions for Future Research

Complexity

Volume 2018, Article ID 3421529, 44 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3421529
Review Article

Resilience of Complex Systems: State of the Art and Directions for Future Research

1Department of Industrial Engineering and Business Information Systems, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
2Department of Mechanics, Mathematics, and Management, Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy

Correspondence should be addressed to Ilaria Giannoccaroilaria.giannoccaro@poliba.it

Received 26 October 2017; Revised 21 April 2018; Accepted 24 May 2018; Published 12 August 2018

Academic Editor: Manlio De Domenico

Copyright © 2018 Luca Fraccascia et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This paper reviews the state of the art on the resilience of complex systems by embracing different research areas and using bibliometric tools. The aim is to identify the main intellectual communities and leading scholars and to synthesize key knowledge of each research area. We also carry out a comparison across the research areas, aimed at analyzing how resilience is approached in any field, how the topic evolved starting from the ecological field of study, and the level of cross-fertilization among domains. Our analysis shows that resilience of complex systems is a multidisciplinary concept, which is particularly important in the fields of environmental science, ecology, and engineering. Areas of recent and increasing interest are also operation research, management science, business, and computer science. Except for environmental science and ecology, research is fragmented and carried out by isolated research groups. Integration is not only limited inside each field but also between research areas. In particular, we trace the citation links between different research areas and find a very limited number, revealing a scarce cross-fertilization among domains. We conclude by providing some directions for future research.

Source: Resilience of Complex Systems: State of the Art and Directions for Future Research

CFP | Kybernetes | Futures of Media: Shifting spheres

Dr. Steffen Roth's avatarDr Steffen Roth

Shifting Spheres

Call for Papers to a special issue of Kybernetes [Clarivate Impact Factor: .980]

Guest Editors:

Markus Heidingsfelder, Habib University Karachi, Pakistan*
Holger Briel, Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University, PR of China
Steffen Roth, La Rochelle Business School, France, and Yerevan State University, Armenia
*Corresponding guest editor. Email: heidingsfelder@googlemail.com. 

Focus:

The concept of publicity as a sphere was first introduced to scientific discourse by Jürgen Habermas in the 1970’s and has had a remarkable career ever since. In this special issue of Kybernetes, we want to turn our attention to three thematic spheres surrounding the concept of the sphere:

  1. The concept This may include its origins, its history, and its potential, as well as its limitations. At this meta-theoretical level, comparisons between the ostensibly antagonistic theoretical perspectives of systems theory and the theory of communicative action of the two become possible. As a consequence, the concept of…

View original post 235 more words