No, I am not saying that using metaphor is problematic for design of
complex systems. I am pointing towards some examples of how metaphor
has been used for design in complex sysems. Considering that many of
them are quite famous, and are reflected by design approaches that are
used today in complex systems, they are hopefully not complete
failures. That does relate to whether people can understand complex
systems at all, metaphor or no metaphor. It is been debated for some
time between the two camps of High Reliability Systems on the one
hand, and Normal Accident Theory on the other hand. Usually, more
aspects of complexity than feedback loops are discussed. So it appears
to be too early to say that metaphor doesn't work for design in
complex systems. Maybe it's not so different after all, regarding
metaphor.
Best regards
Jonas
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Jonas (or Hans),
> Thank you for your message.
> As I understand it, what yourself and others in safety science are pointing
> to is the *problem* of using metaphors in complex systems such as accident
> prevention? I can see people often use metaphors in complex situations but
> when they do, it doesn't seem to lead to successful outcomes..
> The problem seems to be that people cannot biologically understand or
> predict the behaviour of systems with more than 2 feedback loops and because
> they are not aware of this limitation and have the illusion they can
> understand these situations if only they tried hard enough, they attempt
> various useless strategies such as thinking harder, attempting to use
> feelings, simplification, intuition, group discussions, etc... or
> attempting to describe multifeedback loop complex systems in terms of
> metaphors.
> When any of these happens it seems to be an indication that the
> interventions will fail or (if they are designers) that the 'wicked problem'
> clause is likely to be invoked.
> Best wishes,
> Terence (or Terry)
|