Dear Terry
regressive/expansive logics are fun but the issue remains, for me, that
complexity is a feature of systems and not a feature of human
consciousness. Human consciousness has its parallel in the affective
structure of perplexity which can be resolved, unlike complexity which
persists.
cheers
keith
>>> Terence <[log in to unmask]> 08/27/07 9:31 PM >>>
Hi Wolfgang and Ken,
Another picture of complexity, and one that both subsumes Mikulecky's
definition and offers a way past it, is to regard complexity in terms of
variety.
Systemically, viewing theory as applied to 'reality' comprises a 'system
and
control system'. Both exist essentially in terms of communication
variety
and hence Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety applies.
Mikulecky in effect uses the definition quoted by Wolfgang as a
description of a state in which the theory system has less variety than
the
system being 'controlled' by it.
The solution is straightforward - increase variety on the control system
side (theory representaiton of system) to match or exceed variety on the
system generation side (real world complex situation).
In terms of 'wickedness' and 'complexity sceince' this simply requires a
theory model that operates at a meta-level to Mikulecky's formalisms. In
which case, Mikulecky's statement can remain true and the system that
was
complex is complex no more.
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Wolfgang
Jonas
Sent: Monday, 27 August 2007 5:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: long post: still defining design
Dear Ken,
a short comment:
You write:
"The core issue in a wicked problem is not complexity, but
disagreement."
There is certainly something right in this statement, but:
what about considering the possibility that the world is not separable
into
nicely cut pieces that can be identified by means of nice, seemingly
clear
definitions and put together into a complete whole without any remaining
gap
or overlap?
Rather than separating the 2 concepts by means of exclusive definitions
I
find it much more productive to relate them and reflect upon the
consequences...
.. every new relation changes and shifts the meaning of the terms under
consideration. Regarding complexity (in relation to
disagreement) you may try this definition (thanks to Keith Russell for
the
hint!):
"Complexity is the property of a real world system that is manifest in
the
inability of any one formalism being adequate to capture all its
properties.
It requires that we find distinctly different ways of interacting with
systems. Distinctly different in the sense that when we make successful
models, the formal systems needed to describe each distinct aspect are
NOT
derivable from each other."
Best wishes,
Jonas
Mikulecky, D.C. (2003) "Definition of complexity",
http://www.vcu.edu/complex/ON%20COMPLEXITY.html
__________
At 15:58 Uhr +0200 24.08.2007, Ken Friedman wrote:
>Dear Parag,
>
>While I understand the point of your note, I want to say that here
>-- as elsewhere -- you are not quoting Simon but changing his words
>and concepts for your own.
>
>He does not define the nature of _professional_ design. I agree with
>you that a designer, that is, a professional employed to design,
>designs as a service to someone else. Thus, for the professional
>designer, the definition of preference rests with the client.
>
>Simon defines the act of process of design. And he explicitly says
>that everyone designs who engages in the process.
>
>"Everyone designs," he writes, "who devises courses of action aimed
>at changing existing situations into preferred ones"
>
>I agree with you in your understanding of what distinguishes
>professional designers from anyone who designs, but Simon does not
>define professional designers. In fact, he does not here define
>"designer." He describes the design process, no matter who does it.
>
>I must respectfully disagree with you on what it is that makes a
>problem wicked. The core issue in a wicked problem is not
>complexity, but disagreement. Rittel (1972) and Rittel and Webber
>(1973) specifically state the criteria that distinguish wicked
>problems from other problems. The core features of wicked problems
>are aspects of the situation and the world -- the problem is not or
>cannot be easily defined; stakeholders do not agree on what the
>problem is; even when stakeholders agree on the problem, they may
>not agree on how to solve it; there is no clear stopping rule that
>tells us when a problem is solved; wicked problems generally have
>better or worse solutions rather than right or wrong solutions;
>wicked problems have no objective measures of success, even though
>definitions may provide objective targets; in wicked problems, every
>trial counts; wicked problems generally have important dimensions
>involving ethics, morals, politics, or even taste.
>
>Despite this, a wicked problem may be quite simple. A good example
>of a simple wicked problem is the questions, "Where shall we take
>Parag for dinner when he visits us?" One of us says that we should
>serve Indian food to honor the fact that you are Indian; another
>says that the Indian restaurant here isn't very good, but the steak
>house is the best restaurant in town and we should take you to the
>best restaurant we have; a third says you might be a vegetarian so
>that would be a mistake -- and so on. Now, of course, a sensible
>fellow like myself would probably just ask what you'd like to eat --
>but you see the problem.
>
>Once you've been here for three weeks, you'll be part of the next
>wicked problem when we argue about what DVD to watch when Ben
>Matthews and Chris Rust come by for the evening. Selecting and
>playing a DVD is easy. Choosing among strongly-held preferences is
>difficult. Unless, of course, everyone agrees with me that we should
>watch that noir nouveau classic Usual Suspects -- except for my wife
>who is writing part of her doctoral thesis on Clint Eastwood's
>Unforgiven and needs to watch it again when we have only one DVD
>player.
>
>The week after, we'll get to complex wicked problems like the
>appropriate policy on student support funds in relation to the
>long-term contribution of education to GDP.
>
>Yours,
>
>Ken
>
>--
>
>References
>
>Rittel, H. 1972. On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the
>"first and second generations." Bedrifts Okonomen, 8, 390-396.
>
>Rittel, Horst .W. J. and Webber, Melvin M. "Dilemmas in a General
>Theory of Planning," Policy Sciences, 1973, 4:155-169.
>
>--
>
>Parag Deshpande wrote:
>
>I believe the problem with Simon's definition of design as changing
>existing situations to preferable ones, is that it does not
>explicitly mention who's situation it refers to. We all change our
>existing situations for ourselves - some do it better than others,
>agreed (so, everyone is a designer if we interpret Simon's
>definition this way). But designers are trained to change other's
>existing situation to their preferred ones. This is what design
>education teaches designers and this is what designers do in their
>profession.
>
>On Rittle and 'wicked' problems - While Rittle is much cited about
>'wicked' problem, there are many others who have commented about
>complexity of problem . Van Platter (in his conversation with Jeff
>Conklin and Min Basadur, NextD Journal issue 10.1) has mentioned a
>long list of authors who have pointed towards it. To me, Rittle's
>main contribution is that he indicates towards increasing role of a
>designer in understanding complex design situations. Afterall, it
>is, the designer who identifies a problem and characterizes it as
>'wicked' or 'tame'.
|
