 |
 |
Hi Terry, This is interesting. I detect a fundamental shift in your thinking. Am I correct? David -- blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog web: http://www.communication.org.au Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA CEO • Communication Research Institute • • helping people communicate with people • Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795 Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640 Skype: davidsless 60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068 On 20/04/2010, at 12:56 AM, Terence Love wrote: > Hi Birger, > > Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the practical. That's where > it's easiest to see things. > > For me it’s watching practical life that shows how badly we humans manage > any situation with feedback loops (complexity). I understand this is the > opposite to what you are suggesting. I'd like to suggest some reasons why. > > It seems obvious that we humans are good at situations where the causes are > close in time and space We respond to situations where causes are single, > direct, obvious and do not involve feedback loops. Watching people in > practical situations shows we are really bad at single feedback loop > situations and useless at multiple feedback loops situations. > > Watch two people bump into each other in a shopping mall and both go one way > and then the other in a comic routine. That's a single feedback loop with a > bit of a delay. People get in mess and for a short while you can see they > don't know what to do. The impasse is broken when one person converts it to > a zero feedback situation by making a decisive move that is different. > Another example in business, watch how two people behave who meet for the > first time and don't know who is the senior. There is a politeness game > that happens - again another single feedback loop with delay. Watch new > couple's behave before they've managed to get enough information on each > other to convert their behaviour to simple stimulus and response routines - > they trip over each other trying to avoid making mistakes. Another single > feedback loop situation. All of us know the relatively simple feedback loops > of addiction - caught in the feedback between rational thought and > underlying emotional desires. > > We humans are so bad at even single loop feedback situations that we insist > on structuring life to avoid any feedback. We use management structures, > codes of behaviour, legal codes, monetary codes traffic rules..... anything > to try to convert feedback loop situations to situations without feedback > loops. We intuitively know that we can manage complicatedness but not > complexity. > > I can see that it appears at first that standing back we can view the human > situation as complex and that we humans seem to manage. That doesn't seem to > be any proof as to whether or not humans are competent at predicting the > behaviour of multi-feedback loop situations (i.e. complex situations). > > There are at least two epistemological fallacies with the argument. > > First, the relevant complexity is how each individual sees it - not the > complexity as seen from a rationalist all-seeing helicopter view. It is us > as individual humans that are the unit of analysis and it is the situation > as seen from out individual viewpoint rather than the overall world view. > The alternative you are suggesting is a bit like saying 'cars are highly > complex mechanical, chemical and electronic technologies' and we drive cars > therefore 'all humans are successful at designing anything that involves > mechanical, chemical and electronic technologies'. It is the relative > complexity of the reality that each of us sees as individuals that matters > in this context. > > The reality from observation is that we as individuals try as much as > possible to ignore anything with multiple feedback loops (complexity) and if > that is not possible, we instead try to treat situations as if there are no > feedback loops. If that is not possible, we complain or claim that the > situation is esoterically odd (e.g. 'it's a wicked problem', or ' not my > problem' or we make a guess and try to bluff it out). From observation, we > humans handle complicatedness relatively well, and those with an enthusiasm > for relationships can understand situations with single feedback loops. > Again by observation, as soon as situations with relationships have two or > more feedback loops, people quickly come up with phrases such as 'it could > go either way' or 'it's in the lap of the gods' or something similar that > indicates that they can no longer predict the outcome. So the first fallacy > is that to suggest that everything is complex is epistemologically the > wrong context for the subject of study. > > The second problem with claiming humans are successful at complexity is > also epistemological. The problem is the viewpoint on 'successful' in the > claim 'humans are successful at dealing with complexity because the world > looked at objectively is complex'. The underlying key to the fallacy is in > defining 'success' as 'what people define as success'. This is claiming an > objective definition on the basis of a subjective judgment. It is like > saying success is simply people doing what they do. Intrinsically, there is > no means of inferring from it whether we are good or bad at complexity. To > recap, from observation of practical situations, we humans ignore complexity > and deal with it as complicatedness or as simple situations. It is with this > behaviour and these limitations that we define what is success in dealing > with life. That doesn't give any information about whether or not we are > naturally able to understand and predict the behaviour of a situation > determined by multiple feedback loops. The definition of success is > independent of competence in a specific task unless there is much more > carefully defined links with competence. > > I'm suggesting that simply by sitting at a café or observing people at work, > when we look at how humans behave in both everyday and highly skilled > situations, we find we as humans avoid multiple feedback situations. When we > do deal with them we deal with them as if they are to single feedback loop > 'complicated' situations or even as if they are 'simple' situations. Also > by observation, when the situations are important and the feedback loops > dominate the outcomes then we get problems . Observing how people deal with > these confirms the same findings. Commonly, those reviewing a failure > situation try to interpret it without feedback loops. Often this problem > situation can continue indefinitely. A classic case was the several decades > of failures in IT and Information systems. The combination of feedback loops > and delays was a key component of the outcome being the wrong solution for > the wrong users. Recent design methods such as Agile and Scrum address and > partially resolve some of the single feedback loop feedback issues. Again it > needs a method/code etc. > > Again, I'll suggest that the issues stand and that visualisation only helps > with complicated situations. > > Please send me any example of a visually-based method that enables humans to > predict the dynamic behaviour of a multi-feedback complex situation. > I haven't found one yet. > > Best wishes, > Terry > ____________________ > > Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM > School of Design and Art > Director Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group > Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute > Associate, Planning and Transport Research Centre > Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845 > Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask] > Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council > UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal > Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development > Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK > ____________________ > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Birger Sevaldson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2010 1:33 AM > To: Terence Love > Subject: SV: Are visual approaches to design outdated? > > Dear Terry > Thanks for challenging the ideas of visualisation being helpful in dealing > with complexity. Its clearly justified to do so. > To my experience it is very difficult to impose the old systems model with > well defined boundaries, hierarchies of sub systems, well defined inn and > output and well defined feed back loops. Even quite simple real life systems > are to my mind hard to squeeze into this model. e.g. a car is today built > according to integrale principles where an increasing number of parts are > designed to performe according to multiple criteria and functions. This > makes it very challenging to subdivide an automobile into its subsystems, > because the multiple performance blurres the boundaries. Maybe this > difference in systems approaches is at the heart of the different possitions > in this discussion? > As an example: you say that "'Complex' situations are different. Human > cognitive and emotional biology is > not well suited to understanding or predicting the outcomes of > 'complex'situations." > I totally disagree with this: > To my mind are humans very well equiped cognitively and biologically to > understand and to a certain degree predict the outcomes of very complex > situations. We do this every day from morning to the evening. If we were not > we would not survive for very long. So humans are amazingly well equiped to > navigate through multiple hyper complex systems e.g. walking down a crowded > street while having a conversation with another person, navigating in > different layers of different overlapping and interacting systems being > traffic flows, social spaces, visual symbols, micro climates. How more > complex can it get? We use skills and perseption , visual thinking, > interpretation of patterns, filters, to a large degree tacitly. I think > these skills are what is activated when we work visually with complexity in > design. > > I refere to soft systems methodology (Checkland was quoted in this > discussion earlier) and e.g. Systems Architecting as described by Mayer and > Rechtin. I think this soft end of systems thinking is more relevant and > closer related to design thinking, than some of the more traditional systems > approaches. > > Maybe we come from different world views and the discussion needs to clarify > this first? > > Here a selection of references i found interresting, (please feel free to > suggest additional sources): > > Checkland, P. (2000). Soft Systems Methodology: a 30-year retrospective. > Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. P. Checkland. Chichester, John Wiley & > Sons LTD. > Checkland, P. and J. Poulter (2006). Learning for Action: A Short Definitive > Account of Soft Systems Methodology and its use for Practitioners, Teachers > and Students. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. > Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a Systems Perspecive for the > Study of Creativity. Creativity Handbook. R. J. Sternberg. Cambridge, > Cambridge University Press. > Glanville Ranulph, A Ship without a Rudder CybernEthics Research, Southsea, > UK 1994 > Gordon Dyer, Y3K: Beyond Systems Design as we know it, in: Res-Systemica, > Vol. 2, 2002. Refering to Béla H. Banathy > Frostell, B., Å. Danielsson, et al., Eds. (2008). Sciene for Sustainable > Development: The Social Challenge with Emphasis on the Conditions for > Change. Uppsala, VHU. > Frostell, B. (2009). Industrial Ecology and Environmental Systems Analysis- > Systems Approaches for Increased Complexity. Stockholm, KTH Royal Institute > of Technology. > Gharajedaghi, J. (2006). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A > Platform for Designing Business Architecture. London, Elsevier. > Gigch, J. P. and J. McIntyre-Mills, Eds. (2006). Wisdom. Knowledge and > Management: A Critique and Analyses of Churchman's Systems Approach. New > York, Springer. > Gruber, H. E. (1988). "The evolving systems approach to creative work." > Creativity Research Journal 1. > Gruber, H. E. and D. B. Wallace (1999). The Case Study Method and Evolving > Systems Approach for Understanding Unique Creative People at Work. Handbook > of creativity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. > Gunderson, L. H. and C. S. Holling, Eds. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding > Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington DC, Island Press. > Gunderson, L. H. and L. P. Jr., Eds. (2002). Resilience and Behavior of > Large-Scale Systems. Washington, Island Press. > Jonas, W. (1996). Systems Thinking in Industrial Design. Systems Dynamics, > Cambridge Massachusets, MIT. > Jonas, W. (2005). Designing in the real world is complex anyway-so what? > Systemic and evolutionary process models in design. European Conference on > Complex Systems Satellite Workshop: Embracing Complexity in Design, Paris. > Maier, M. W. and E. Rechtin (2000). The Art of Systems Architecture. Boca > Raton, CRC Press. > Mariussen, Å. and Å. Uhlin, Eds. (2006). Trans-national Practices, Systems > Thinking in Policy Making. Stockholm, Nordregio. > Meadows, D. (1999). "Leverage Points: Places to intervene in a System." The > Sustainable Institute, Hartland. > Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems. White River Junction, Chelsea > Green Publishing. > Midgley, G. (2000). Systems Intervention: Rhilosophy, Methodology, and > Practice. New York, Kluver Academic / Plenum Publishers. > Miller, J. H. and S. E. Page (2007). Complex Adaptiv Systems: An > Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton, Princeton > University Press. > Olsson, M.-O. and G. Sjöstedt, Eds. (2004). Systems Approaches and Their > Applicaitons: Examples from Sweden. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academisc Publishers. > Rechtin, E. (1999). Systems Architecting of Organisations: Why Eagles Can't > Swim. Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press LLC. > Sage, A. P. and J. E. J. Armstrong (2000). Introduction to Systems > Engineering. New York, John Wiley & Son. > Senge, P. M., B. Smith, et al. (2008). The Necessary Revolution: How > individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable > world. New York, Doubleday. > Svedin, U. (2006). Introduction to Systems Approaches and Their Aplications. > Systems Approaches and Their Aplications: Examples from Sweden. M.-O. Olsson > and G. Sjöstedt. Dortrecht, Kluwer. > Ulrich, W. (2000). "Reflective Practice in the Civil Society: the > contribution of critical systemic thinking." Reflective Practice 1(2): > 247-268. > Walker, B. and D. Salt (2006). Resilience Thinking. Washington, Island Press > > > Best regards > Birger