It appers that metaphor is in play also in the design of complex
systems. I've seen both explicit and implicit use of metaphor
regarding the design of complex systems. One example is the analytical
design approach taken in accident investigation and design of remedial
actions, including domains such as aviation or nuclear power plants.
In the litterature, events in complex systems are compared to things
like "domino bricks", "swiss cheeze", or the more abstract pehonomenon
of "resonance" . People, as causes, are sometimes seen  "rotten
apples" (although that doesn't appear to include any deeper use of the
"people as fruit" metaphor).  Metaphors such as the "swiss cheeze" are
reflected implcitly by methods for analysis and design that are used
in various domains (the metaphors can also be explicit, but the
methods may nevertheless implicitly relfect some other metaphor).

There are also other examples. For instance, the deisgn of automation
in complex system, as "team players".  Or, for instance, talking about
or describing humans in complex systems as if they were a technical
component.

The notion of "design perspecitives" is also related to that of
metaphors. A design perspective can be taken explicitly or implicitly
by a deisgner, viewing a system for instance more or less as if it was
a "tool", a "place" e.g. architecture, or "media". Although these are
just examples, implicitly, someone adopting a "tool" perspecitve
(consciously or unconsciosly) will highlight some aspects of an
object, and hide others. In the litterature it's been examplified how
this can affect the design of interactive systems, but this is most
likely also affecting the design of complex systems (maybe it's also
been examplified regarding complex systems).

If you want to read more, you can start out with some of the following
articles of mine, that gives more in-detph explanations of my points,
and that refer to other works on the subject:

Lundberg et al. What-You-Look-For-Is-What-You-Find - The consequences
of underlying accident models in eight accident investigation manuals.
Safety Science (2009) vol. 47 (10) pp. 1297-1311

Hult et al. Design perspectives. Human-Computer Interaction (2006)
vol. 21 (1) pp. 5-48

Best regards
Jonas Lundberg


> Date:    Sun, 4 Apr 2010 09:54:50 +0800
> From:    Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: On Metaphor
>
> Dear Jerry, Phil and all,
> These analyses work for simple systems/object or situations whose behaviour remains much the same over time.
> Until recently, Designers who used metaphor only designed simple systems/object/situations.
> There is a current claim that the fields of designers who use metaphor are competent to design complex systems (e.g. create design or business strategy).
> The defining characteristic of complex systems is multiple feedback loops that they change their behaviour.
> The character of their thingness changes dynamically. In many cases, their thingness changes without being under the control and outside the predictive capacity of humans without significant technical support.
> It seems obvious the current discussions about theories of metaphor don't broadly apply to complex design situations in the same way that they apply to the usual simple design situations that designers design.
> I'm interested in your thoughts on how theories about metaphor might apply in  these new complex design arenas? Does it require a new view on metaphor? Is it that metaphor only works in a limited way in only some aspects of complex design?
>
> These are important questions. If metaphor is a central basis for design tools of those who claim their design skills apply in the new complex design fields, and metaphor theory doesn't apply, then it suggests that most of the other design skills don’t work in complex design and the claim is false.