Complexity or simplicity?

[Nikolay]

Greetings,

Let me suggest you my article: "Complexity or simplicity?"
http://knowledgeperson.blogspot.com/2006/09/complexity-or-simplicity.html

Nikolay

Nikolay Kryachkov
Founder, owner and author of
KnowledgePerson.com
http://www.knowledgeperson.com

[Snowden Dave]

I think you may be confusing "complex" with "complicated"

A complex system can be managed simply, but not in respect of its outcomes, only its starting conditions

A complicated system can be engineered in terms of its outcomes if you know the various system elements

Some networks are complex, some complicated

The research call you reference is the science (and yes it is a physical science) of complex adaptive systems, and yes it has application to social systems

I don't see any relevance to the education issues you raise - can you explain?

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone

[Rosanna Tarsiero]

Dave,

 

You wrote:

“I think you may be confusing "complex" with "complicated"”

I wish I could understand why the two concepts get so often misunderstood and taken for one another….

Anybody having any idea?

Rosanna Tarsiero

PS: Dave I’m reading one of your work right now re archetypes

[John Maloney (jheuristic)]

Hi Rosanna --

 

This infuriates me too. I can't explain the reasons why, but do often need to describe the difference. When you say a 747 jumbo jet is complicated, and a person is complex, people seem to get it... (Over simple, but seems to to the trick.)

 

For the more advanced, here is a fun test. Try and decide which networks at Visual Complexity are complex and which are complicated.

 

See: http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/

 

Everyone, if you are up for the challenge, please put you nominations here, then we can allow the group to comment, decide, discuss. (Maybe start with an easy pair, one complex, one complicated.)

 

Cheers,

 

John

 

---

From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rosanna Tarsiero
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 6:33 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Complexity or simplicity?

[Snowden Dave]

Well I think there are two reasons (at least)

1 - in common use the two words are used interchangeably and the number of people who know about complex adaptive systems their is limited in number

2 - because we all grow up in a dualist intellectual tradition that assumes systems are either causal causal or unknowable (Kant's distinction between empirically verifiable or that which belongs to God, the modern show me the proof or gut feel etc etc) there is a tendency to assume that if we have a causal system that is very complicated/complex so we will have to a lot of investigation and mapping (most SNA/VNA tools do this) to stay within our causal assumptions.  The other option is to give up on causality altogether and fall into a sort of new age fluffy bunny post-modernist perspective in which there is no such thing as reality.

Most people can understand complex systems (I use a metaphor to get it across http://www.cognitive-edge.com/articledetails.php?articleid=40) but understanding the implications is a LOT harder - people lapse to outcome based measures.

I think we just keep plugging away at it!  I jump on anyone in any list serve if they confuse the two and face some unpopularity as a result in particular from the really fluffy ones (http://www.cognitive-edge.com/2006/08/the_yang_doesnt_get_the_yinyan.php)

Hope you like the stuff on archetypes ....

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone

[Nikolay Kryachkov]

I consulted a dictionary:

Complicated - adj. difficult to understand or deal with.

Complex - adj. 1. made up of interconnected parts;
2. intricate or complicated;
3. (Maths) of or involving complex numbers;
n 4. a whole made up of related parts; Example: a leisure complex
including a gymnasium, squash courts, and a 20-metre swimming pool;
5. (Psychoanal) a group of unconscious feelings that influences a
person's behaviour;
6. (Informal) an obsession or phobia; Example: I have never had a
complex about my height.

As you can see the 2nd meaning of the word "complex" is equivalent to
"complicated", though some people can have additional meanings.

The same occurs in education, I think. Each discipline has own language
(scientific legacy), but some "different" terms are about the same.
That's why I think education can be simplified both for input and
output in order to be accessible for more people, to be not expensive,
to take not much time, to be feasible at least, etc.

I'm not from dualistic tradition. But who (what institution) is
responsible for cleaning the terminology?

Let me suggest you an example of Russian way of thinking:

"Tropos Logikos: Gustav Spet's Philosophy of History"

By Peter Steiner

http://archiv.vulgo.net/index.php?option=news&task=viewarticle&sid=659#

[David Meggitt]

Snowden Dave wrote:
> I think you may be confusing "complex" with "complicated"
> A complex system can be managed simply, but not in respect of its
> outcomes, only its starting conditions
> A complicated system can be engineered in terms of its outcomes if
> you know the various system elements
> Some networks are complex, some complicated

Dave,

Would you like to qualify your use of the term "managed" in the above?
Conventionally, "managing" means having some control over outcomes.

I can see that in CAS, given a starting point (conditions et al) some
simple rules can explain the resulting *development* pathways, and that
"control" is an entirely different matter.

David

[Snowden Dave]

Your dictionary needs to update itself with some science .....

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone

[Snowden Dave]

Well a complex system is influenced by attractor and other mechanisms

We have a mnemonic for this ABIDE which stands for the things you can manage in a complex system

Attractors - things that suck in agent activity

Barriers - things that limit or repell agent activity

Identities - coalescencess what are auto-poetic in some way

Dissent/diversity - this impacts on agent interaction

Environment - things such as proximity, etc (several things in here)

The simple rules things applies to what I would call mathematical complexity.  So birds flocking, terminite nest building etc.  Agents follow simple rules from which complex patterns emerge.  The problem in human systems is that we have multiple identities, and make pattern based not rule based decisions which means you do not have a distinct agent or a set of rules.

Its one the reasons why a lot of markets cannot handle true emergence ....

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone

[David Meggitt]

Thanks for clarifying the mathematical complexity thing.

I'll reflect on the multiple roles (identities?) offered within a value
network which, if viewed as a human system could be *managed* through
ABIDE.

More challenging is getting to grips with making decisions on basis of
"patterns" not "rules".

Looks like my personal inclination to be a fluffy causalist (with a God
of surprises / God unknown approach) may pay off in the end in the
marketplace!

David

> --Apple-Mail-30--555252688
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 7081
>
> <HTML><BODY style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml=
> -line-break: after-white-space; ">Well a complex system is influenced by at=
> tractor and other mechanisms<DIV>We have a=A0mnemonic for this ABIDE which =
> stands for the things you can manage in a complex system</DIV><DIV>Attracto=
> rs - things that suck in agent activity</DIV><DIV>Barriers - things that li=
> mit or repell agent activity</DIV><DIV>Identities -=A0coalescencess what ar=
> e=A0auto-poetic in some way</DIV><DIV>Dissent/diversity - this impacts on a=
> gent interaction</DIV><DIV>Environment - things such as proximity, etc (sev=
> eral things in here)</DIV><DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>=
> <DIV>The simple rules things applies to what I would call mathematical comp=
> lexity.=A0 So birds flocking, terminite nest building etc.=A0 Agents follow=
> simple rules from which complex patterns emerge.=A0 The problem in human s=
> ystems is that we have multiple identities, and make pattern based not rule=
> based decisions which means you do not have a distinct agent or a set of r=
> ules.</DIV><DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Its one th=
> e reasons why a lot of markets cannot handle true emergence ....<BR><DIV> <=
> SPAN class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; border-=
> spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-siz=
> e: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; let=
> ter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-dec=
> orations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; =
> text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spac=
> ing: 0px; "><BR class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><SPAN class=3D"Apple-st=
> yle-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; colo=
> r: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 12px; font-style: n=
> ormal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; l=
> ine-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: no=
> ne; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; =
> orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><SPAN clas=
> s=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: =
> 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 12px; =
> font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spaci=
> ng: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-=
> in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-tran=
> sform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;=
> "><SPAN class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; bor=
> der-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Comic Sans MS; font=
> -size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;=
> letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text=
> -decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: au=
> to; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-=
> spacing: 0px; "><DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Dave =
> Snowden</DIV><DIV style=3D"">Founder &amp; Chief Scientific Officer</DIV><D=
> IV style=3D"">Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd</DIV><DIV style=3D""><BR class=3D"khtm=
> l-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>www.cognitive-edge.com</DIV><DIV><BR class=
> =3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October =
> please use email to contact me not the mobile phone<BR class=3D"Apple-inter=
> change-newline"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On 13 Sep =
> 2006, at 10:13, David Meggitt wrote:</DIV><BR class=3D"Apple-interchange-ne=
> wline"><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-righ=
> t: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV=
> ><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; marg=
> in-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; =
> margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Snowden Dave wro=
> te:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-r=
> ight: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I think you may be confu=
> sing "complex" with "complicated"</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margi=
> n-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">A complex system can =
> be managed simply, but not in respect of its</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top:=
> 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">outcomes, =
> only its starting conditions</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-rig=
> ht: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">A complicated system can b=
> e engineered in terms of its outcomes if</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px=
> ; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">you know the v=
> arious system elements</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0p=
> x; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Some networks are complex, some =
> complicated</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right:=
> 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><=
> DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin=
> -left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; ma=
> rgin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Dave,</DIV><DIV st=
> yle=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left:=
> 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-r=
> ight: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Would you like to qualif=
> y your use of the term "managed" in the above?</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-to=
> p: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Conventi=
> onally, "managing" means having some control over outcomes.</DIV><DIV style=
> =3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0p=
> x; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-righ=
> t: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I can see that in CAS, give=
> n a starting point (conditions et al) some</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0=
> px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">simple rules=
> can explain the resulting *development* pathways, and that</DIV><DIV style=
> =3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0p=
> x; ">"control" is an entirely different matter.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-t=
> op: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-heigh=
> t: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; marg=
> in-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">David</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0p=
> x; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14p=
> x; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bot=
> tom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"mar=
> gin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">

[Nikolay Kryachkov]

>Your dictionary needs to update itself with some science .....

>Dave Snowden

>Founder & Chief Scientific Officer
>Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

>www.cognitive-edge.com

It is Collins dictionary, published in 2000.

Who can assist me/us in updating Collins dictionary regarding the
meanings of the words "complex" and "complicated" according to
"... some science ..." (as Dave Snowden has suggested)? Or is it
secret science?

[Nikolay Kryachkov]

Correction:

Dave suggested: "... to update itself with some science ...". But I
can't understand - what science was mentioned?

[Snowden Dave]

Complex Adaptive Systems (Chemistry, Biology etc)

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone

[Nikolay Kryachkov]

Thanks Dave. Let me ask you what meanings of the words "complex",
"complicated" should be added or substituted in the dictionary?

[Snowden Dave]

Nikolay - I and many others have written on this distinction 

I have posted references to those articles on this web site

For an understanding of complexity science (from a computational) perspective I would read Axelrod and Cohen :HarnessingComplexity

Once you have that then look at people like Stacy for  difference variatiant (participative), myself (contextual) and others

Once there is understanding you can move on to definitions

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone

[Joe Wharton]

Perhaps C.S Lewis' comment: "the Simplicity on the other side of Complexity"
helps, in that complexity is often the confusion encountered on the way to
understanding. Grist for a good discussion.

Joe

[Nikolay Kryachkov]

Thanks Dave for suggesting the reading. But I was asking the additional
or other meanings in order to see need I additional stuff or not. If a
definition looks applicable it's worth to read a how-to and try to
apply.

Joe, can you give a link to C.S Lewis' comment?

Nikolay

[Snowden Dave]

You need additional stuff mate - definitions will not do it for you.

The C.S. Lewis quote is an ordinary English Language use and pre-dates complexity as a sience

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone

[Nikolay Kryachkov]

>You need additional stuff mate - definitions will not do it for you.

I can agree, Dave. But what is a right sequence: definitions >
additional stuff or additional stuff (to what?) > definitions?

I've posted the questions for Knowledge Persons about the ways to
learn and apply knowledge:
http://groups.google.com/group/KnowledgePersons/msg/32f972857a06346b

I think it would be useful to get answers there and here.

Nikolay

[Nikolay Kryachkov]

Hi,

let me invite you to read, comment and discuss this:

http://knowledgeperson.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-complexity-knotty-question.html

Nikolay

[jheuristic]

Hi --

At the first session, on the first morning of the first KM Cluster
meeting in 1998 in San Francisco, we opened with a complexity theme.
This quote from KM Magazine was on the very first slide --

"We need to use a knowledge ecology paradigm to synergistically
decouple the informatic elements in the emerging strange attractors in
your company's marketplace by deconstructing the knowledge worker and
empowering them to become an adaptive learner in a virtual workplace
within a chaotic and non-deterministic universe of data-derived
economic value." -- KM Magazine, April 1999

Not that there is anything wrong here, but we concluded this sort of
silly language and mumbo-jumbo is unwelcome.

KM Mag, BTW, funded by vendor ads, dried up and blew away a few years
later.

Anyway, it is very encouraging to see a renewed interest in complexity
and really higher-order network thinking in KM. Harkens back the
glory-days of the late eighties, early nineties, where much KM
innovation came forward by very serious and thoughtful enterprise
people. The discipline cratered badly there in the last decade, but
seems to be on the comeback trail. Complexity, networks, markets, media
and conversation are among the mega-themes. They have mercifully
replaced technology, repository stocks, portals, and information
management as the key KM discussion threads.

Cheers,

-j

[Pete Bond]

Hi John, I welcome your attempt to broaden the scope of this particular
thread. I agree, complexity (science), networks (webs of socio-technical
relations), markets ( for new solutions, new forms of explanation), and
conversation, are, as you put, it the 'mega-themes'. In other words, they
are the probable components of an explanation of organisation behaviour on
which a new paradigm of management and organisation theory could potentially
be built. Of these I put most emphasis on conversation, because it is
through conversation that relations and thereby socio-technical networks
(systems), and thus markets, emerge. (Conversation being defined as the
braided flow of languaging and emotioning, as defined by the biologist and
cybernetician Humberto Maturana.)

However, I would add 'technology' to this mix, and bring it right back into
the conversation, and not replace it as you suggested. At least I would add
the proper meaning of the word technology as the 'knowledge of the
(plethora) of techniques through which our organisations and enterprises
achieve their goals'. This is not a reconceptualisation of the 'technology
phenomenon' but actually the meaning as it was first coined in the early
stages of the industrial revolution.

By exploring this particular meaning of technology, as it is evolved over
three centuries, I have managed to connect KM with technology management and
innovation, and the non-linear dynamics of conversation with the creation of
cultural spaces (networks, webs of socio-technical relations or ecologies of
ideas-in-practice, but not knowledge ecologies).

An article of mine entitled "Understanding Technology as Knowledge and
Culture', making these connections, can be downloaded from the knowledge
board's complexity SIG's space at:
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/open_groups/cso/

Article also contains reference to another kind of 'network' theory, namely,
Actor-Network Theory. a theory of socio-technical dynamics.

Pete Bond
Learning Futures

[Pete Bond]

I thought this was a good, and unbiased, approach to defining the meaning of
the term complexity as it has come to be used in relation to the complexity
sciences. http://www.cosin.org/lectures/complexity.htm

peter
Learning Futures

[Snowden Dave]

Its a very partial definition - takes a particular line.  Good in its way, some confusion of chaos theory with complexity though.  I think you may have meant to say "this appears unbiased and coherent from my perspective.  Kauffmann for example sees chaos as a subset of complexity,  Axelrod sees them as distinct.  Its like KM, you are not going to get a universal defintion in a developing field

Its interesting that few of the text books attempt a simple definition - they mainly list aspects or describe the nature of what happens in a system

So to help the process lets look at three of them.  The first we could call modernist and focuses on what I call computation complexity, the second is very similar but comes from Cilliers book "Complexity and Post Modernism" which gives you its approach.  We then get Kauffmann from biology who avoids the issue!

As I have previously stated Stacy (participative complexity) and myself (contextual complexity) argue from different perspectives that human systems are radically different from those described by the two authorities quoted below.  Stacy on the basis of communication, myself on the basis of multi-agency and pattern based decision making.  

1 - Axelrod & Cohen 

Agents of a variety of types, use their strategies, in patterned interaction, with each other and with artefacts.  Performance measures on teh resulting events drive the selection of agents and/or strategies though processes of error-prone copying and recombination, thus  changing the frequencies of the types within the system

They proceed to ask what you can do to influece a CAS and list the following:

VARIATION

- balance of exploration & exploitation

- Link processes that generate extreme variation to processes that select with few mistakes in the attribution of credit

INTERACTION

- build networks or reciprocal interaction that foster trust and co-operation

- assess strategies in light of how their consequences can spread

- promote effective neighbourhoods

- do not sow large failures when reaping small efficiencies

SELECTION

- use social activity to support the growth and spread of valued criteria

- Look for shorter term finer grained measure of success that can usefully stand in for longer run broader goals.

2 - Cilliers

Says that there are two key distinctions:

- simple and complex

- complicated and complex

He then lists characteristics of a complex system

- they consist of a large number of elements

- a large number of elements are necessary but not sufficient and interactions can be information not necessarily physical

- the interactions are non-linear and small causes can have large results

- the interactions usually have a fairly short range

- there are loops in the interactions

- they are usually open systems

- they operate under conditions far from equilibrium

- they have a history and their past is co-responsible for their present behaviour

- each element in the system is ignorant of the behaviour of the system as a whole, to responds only to information that is available to it locally

3 - Kauffman (from http://chronicle.com/colloquylive/2001/05/complexity/)    

"Unfortunately, there's no single definition of complexity. Seth Lloyd, now at MIT, when he was at the Santa Fe Institute, once listed 32 different definitions of complexity, Nevertheless, colloquially, and for myself, complexity involves systems with a large number of interacting parts, where the way the parts effect each other differs from part to part. The genetic regulatory networks in cells would be an example. "

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone

[John Maloney]

Hi Pete --

Good comments. My point was about information technology, you know, the
back-office, transactional, ERP sort of data processing with those odd
looking people that work in three shifts in that giant glass-room and
that are really nice but hard to understand...

My notion is more akin to the "...new wave of business communication
tools including blogs, wikis and group messaging software...(Enterprise
2.0)."

IMO, these are really social media and not technology, per se. (We all
know technology is simply the application of science to industrial or
commercial objectives.) The sooner we ease back on the deterministic
Western technology obsession, and pursue a more balanced approach, as
you described, the better, a lot better.

Here is a sugar-coated 'open-question' from the Enterprise 2.0 paper
-- "...These tools may well reduce management's ability to exert
unilateral control... Whether a company's leaders will be able to
resist the temptation to silence dissent is an open question..." Oopps.
That needs to necessarily be among the specific, first-order outcomes.
(On a related microcosm note, it is easy to -still- find power-mad
group discussion moderators that can hardly 'resist the temptation to
silence dissent.' Odd.)

Here is a good resource page for all budding (and seasoned) complexity
scientists...

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/about/complexity.html

BTW, there is a new complexity group for any and all to join...

http://groups.google.com/group/complexity-science

-j

[Valdis Krebs]

Peter,

I agree with your emphasis on conversation, but disagree with your
importance of technology [this coming from a gadget freak and computer
geek!]. Conversation IS key, technology just adds means/media/methods
to help conversations happen/flow. Conversation is key for everything
beyond basic survival -- sense-making, transactions, learning,
discovery, innovation, implementation, ... reality!

Of course media/tech "affects" the conversation -- typing email filters
out much of what real-time F2F allows through -- but we have to choose
the right media for the right situation.

I have always said "It's the Conversations, Stupid!" and stick by that.

Valdis

[George Por]

> At the first session, on the first morning of the first KM Cluster
> meeting in 1998 in San Francisco, we opened with a complexity theme.
> This quote from KM Magazine was on the very first slide --
>

> "We need to use a knowledge ecology paradigm..."

Wow, I didn't know about that... I guess I was too busy with bringing the KE paradigm to life. That year, I co-designed and co-hosted the online Knowledge Ecology Fair 98 http://www.co-i-l.com/kefair/ that carried the tagline "Beyond Knowledge Management."  One of our online workshop leaders happened to be Verna.

> The discipline cratered badly there in the last decade, but
> seems to be on the comeback trail. Complexity, networks, markets, media
> and conversation are among the mega-themes. They have mercifully
> replaced technology, repository stocks, portals, and information
> management as the key KM discussion threads.

The last two sentences point to the very difference between KE and KM. I still believe that without knowledge ecology there will  be no knowledge management, the same way as the particle postulates the wave and vice versa. I published a piece about this in Systems Thinker, a couple of years ago. (If you’re interested to get it, send an email to me, not the whole list.)

george

[Charles Ehin]

Dave,

 

I definitely agree with Kauffman that an excellent example of complexity are the "genetic regulatory networks in cells."

 

Charlie

 

Charles (Kalev) Ehin, Ph.D.
Professor of Management, Emeritus
The Gore School of Business
Westminster College of Salt Lake City
801-292-7540 (home)
kal...@msn.com
www.UnManagement.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: Snowden Dave

To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 4:26 AM

Subject: Re: Complexity or simplicity?

[Charles Ehin]

John,

 

I agree with your assessment and like to add another important point. Occasional face-to-face contact is necessary to get the full benefits of interactions with people no matter how sophisticated the technology is or becomes. The reason for that is straight forward. When you go face-to-face with people certain neurotransmitters and hormones are activated. Those biological affects are largely missing when individuals and teams communicate electronically unless they have had an opportunity to meet in person beforehand.

 

Cheers,

 

Charlie

 

Charles (Kalev) Ehin, Ph.D.
Professor of Management, Emeritus
The Gore School of Business
Westminster College of Salt Lake City
801-292-7540 (home)
kal...@msn.com
www.UnManagement.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: John Maloney

To: Value Networks

Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:03 AM

Subject: Re: Complexity or simplicity?

[Rosanna Tarsiero]

Valdis,

You wrote:
"I agree with your emphasis on conversation, but disagree with your
importance of technology [this coming from a gadget freak and computer
geek!]. Conversation IS key, technology just adds means/media/methods
to help conversations happen/flow."

Have you ever thought that what one considers to be the key is the opposite
of where s/he comes from?

I mean, if you are a geek, chances are you know enough about technology not
to be a problem for you, therefore you tend to think it's not the key factor
because you already possess it.

If I come from conversation (in my case, from multiple routes, but all
around conversation), chances are I know enough about conversation not to be
a problem for me, therefore I tend to think it's not the key factor because
I already possess it.

For example, in my case, I see a lot of medical students able and willing to
converse which don't use IT because they have no clue on how to do mediated
conversation.

This is not to say the truth is relative, but for sure it's composite... the
side of the coin we get to see drastically depends on the angle we are
coming from ;)

Rosanna

[David Meggitt]

Presumably practitioners need to (after Verna) combine heuristic tools
for sensing *simplexities* (patterns and principles for understanding
complexity).

(I mentally note this as applying a combination of rigorous "fluffy"
thinking and a causative approach: needing a good dose of intuition -
using all my senses in combination with my prior knowledge across the
full spectrum (1 to 7) of the knowledge archetype - and mindful of the
innovative interaction of business, knowledge, technology and social
domains - after Por http://www.community-intelligence.com/how/cda.htm)

David

[Nikolay Kryachkov]

Hi,

Here is my new post: "Generalizing complexity-simplicity for
everyone"
http://knowledgeperson.blogspot.com/2006/09/generalizing-complexity-simplicity-for.html

Your viewpoint can differ. Any feedback, please.

My feeds to subscribe:

http://knowledgeperson.blogspot.com/atom.xml

http://feeds.feedburner.com/KnowledgepersoncomBlog

Nikolay

[Snowden Dave]

I for one will not be paying $150 US for a method based on asking ten questions (What,Why,Who, By what, From what, How, When Where) although a side of me admires your cheek in trying it on.  I suggest you acknowledge some of your sources, especially in section 9.  

I am very tempted to give this some publicity on my blog (and if so I suggest you remember the old phrase that any publicity is good publicity).  We open source our methods, and give them away for free but that is just one point.  Overall I think you confuse simplicity with being simplistic.

I recently commented on some people who are giving credence to the idea that the green feathered serpent God of the Maya will return to bring about a harmonic world civilisation in 2012.  http://www.cognitive-edge.com/2006/09/the_surreal_and_the_real.php

That is off the scale in the direction of the immaterial, this type of consultancy approach is off the scale in the other direction

Now this may break the rules of politeness on a list serve - but given the blatant promotion I think its justified

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone

[Nikolay Kryachkov]

>I for one will not be paying $150 US for a method based on asking ten
>questions (What,Why,Who, By what, From what, How, When Where)
>although a side of me admires your cheek in trying it on. I suggest
>you acknowledge some of your sources, especially in section 9.

8 questions, Dave.

According to what you are stating that I have "cheek"? I can say
that after consideration a few persons who manage organizations already
interested to buy and use the framework. I gave a discount to one of
them (because of early interest). If you want, Dave, I can give you the
discount. No problem.

Thanks for reminding me about the framework, section 9. You know my
expenses for KnowledgePerson.com are low. I'm one-man consultancy, I
don't hire personnel, etc.

>I am very tempted to give this some publicity on my blog (and if so I
>suggest you remember the old phrase that any publicity is good
>publicity).

You decide.

>We open source our methods, and give them away for free
>but that is just one point. Overall I think you confuse simplicity
>with being simplistic.

My source is open too. In my future plans to pay persons for being
self-consulted, but I'm not yet ready to say more.

"simplistic"? And what from that?

If you want, you can read, for example, this:
http://tvl.ton.net.ru/oko.jpg http://tvl.ton.net.ru/gavrilova_eng.jpg
, but it was mostly about applications of text virus concept I did not
mention here.

>recently commented on some people who are giving credence to the
>idea that the green feathered serpent God of the Maya will return to
>bring about a harmonic world civilisation in 2012. http://www.cognitive-edge.com/2006/09/the_surreal_and_the_real.php

In my understanding such vague thing like "happiness" (you linked
to the Map of World Happiness) can be changeable even during the day.
Mother can be happy, champion can be happy, drug addict can be happy,
etc. But why did you mention it?

>That is off the scale in the direction of the immaterial, this type
>of consultancy approach is off the scale in the other direction

I'm in the beginning in chosen direction and would appreciate any
basis that I'm in the wrong. The statements: "cheek",
"immaterial", "being simplistic", "blatant" haven't any
basis.

>Now this may break the rules of politeness on a list serve - but
>given the blatant promotion I think its justified

I'm not a judge. At least it's open discussion where people can see
who is who. I'm explaining what I suggest openly. People keep on
coming at http://groups.google.com/group/KnowledgePersons where
everyone is welcomed to promote his/her consulting/professional
services and ask the questions, get professional answers to be
competitive, self-sufficient, etc., to be Knowledge Person.

Nikolay

[Rosanna Tarsiero]

Dave,

 

You wrote:

“That is off the scale in the direction of the immaterial, this type of consultancy approach is off the scale in the other direction”

 

Some people like intangibles because they think they don’t have to be rigorous in arguing/documenting/backing up their approaches, me thinks.

 

Similar stuff happen whenever qualitative methods are involved… it’s starting to sound like “intangibles and qualitative methods are fun, cuz I don’t have to prove my point, just state it ya know”. Annoying.

 

It’s particularly bothersome when one sincerely tries to provoke a switch in paradigms, building hypotheses, theories and arguments on the pros and cons of the whole endeavor. Sometimes just the “knowledge manager” label is enough to get you weird looks lol

 

However, as I used to say when in high school: “I don’t have energy to be p*ssed at others. I squander most of my energy being p*ssed at myself” ;P

 

Rosanna Tarsiero

PS toying with the idea of a meeting/conference/reunion/whatever

"If a child refuses to accept its father or mother, that child is not a liberal, that child is a brat." --- Cardinal Francis Arinze

[Pete Bond]

John/Valdis, I agree John, We tend to use the term 'technology' to refer to
the instruments, the devices, the engineered machines, we use in everyday
life and this is an error. If we see technology only as the instrument and
not as the knowledge of the means by which we overcome our individual and
collective problems, then we are missing something that is fundamental to
explaining human behaviour. To see technology purely as the instrument is a
mistake most engineer/designers make. Instruments for instruments sake.
Computers instead of people, in whom real intelligence can only lie.
Technical relations are as important as social relations in explaining
organisational behaviour, as the Actor-Network Theorists such as Bruno
Latour and John Law have beeen trying to tell us for years. Again, if anyone
is interested in exploring the meaning of 'technology' then please download
the article form knowledge board complexity SIG.

cheers for now
peter

[Pete Bond]

Looks like this argument/discussion could run and run. Below the extract
from Principia Cybernetica are some 'conversational' reasons why it might
continue to do so.

Other Great People have tried to meet this particular defining challenge,
notable amongst them is the cyberneticist and systems thinker Francis
Heylighen. Here's an extract from his Principia Cybernetica, the number one
web source on systems and cybernetics. Note this extract is dated 1996.

"Complexity has turned out to be very difficult to define. The dozens of
definitions that have been offered all fall short in one respect or
another,[.....] Moreover, these definitions are either only applicable to a
very restricted domain, such as computer algorithms or genomes, or so vague
as to be almost meaningless. Edmonds (1996) gives a good review of the
different definitions and their shortcomings, concluding that complexity
necessarily depends on the language that is used to model the system." Now
read on. http://pcp.vub.ac.be/COMPLEXI.html

If one is really switched on to 'complexity thinking' then it will be easy
enough to make allowance for different meanings of a word-concept to exist
at any one time. After all, these different meanings will have emerged from,
and subsequently would have evolved within, different networks of
conversation, which, by the way, maintain distinct cultural spaces. Until
such time as these conversational networks merge (simultaneously merging
cultural spaces), different interpretations of the concept will exist. But
they tend not to. Instead they tend to disintegrate and then reform, again
and again and we end up with multiple meanings of word-concepts and even
more nuances.

The worst scenario is when this process becomes 'chaotic' and the
word-concept becomes so ambiguous it loses all value. The responses to this
state of affairs varies. An existing word-concept might be simply renamed
and repackaged (value-networks?), or a genuinely new word-concept might
emerge from a small network of conversations on the periphery of the
paradigm or cultural space (e.g . Maturana and Varela's Biology of
Cognition, or autopoietic theory). If this is sufficiently attractive then a
larger conversational network will be precipitated. (This same process is
evident in the pop music industry. How often does something genuinely new
come along?).

For scientific paradigms, the consequence of losing definition of core
word-concepts can be catastrophic, a complete loss of direction, structure,
and eventually identity. This is precisely what has happened in the field
known as MOTI, the management of technology and innovation and can also be
observed in knowledge management. In fact one might argue that its the
debate about the nature of knowledge that has kept the conversation about KM
going for so long. The same phenomenon can be observed in respect of
communities of practice (what is a community of practice?).

When a once coherent scientific paradigm begins to break down (ordinarily
maintained by a network of conversations, about its practices and the
results of those practices, aimed at its preservation), such a process will
be characterised by the emergence of new and distinguishable networks of
conversations, perhaps with their own 'language' as Heylighen puts it, with
new and distinguishable meanings of a single (usually a set) core concept.
Indeed, such new interpretations could be the very thing that undermined the
old paradigm. Whatever new comes out, its meaning will emerge from a
relatively small conversational network, which will thrash it out with other
small conversational networks for domination of the new paradigm. Debate
about meaning will be fuelled by the emotional investments each small group
makes. Strong emotions are coming through in this thread.

This thread is an isolated conversation that will probabley make little
difference on its own to the eventual outcome. However, it could be the
equivalent to the flapping wing of that famous butterfly. We'll see.
--
pete bond
Learning Futures

[John Maloney (jheuristic)]

Pete -

Thanks for your extract on Principia Cybernetica. Thanks to others for this
complexity thread.

This is such a critically important theme it deserves its own group. A new
Google Groups on Complexity Science has been created.

http://groups.google.com/group/complexity-science

A number of the people making excellent commentary on complexity have been
added. You are the list managers and owners. In keeping with value networks
you execute your own roles and relationships. The group is the moderator and
owner.

Others, to continue the complexity discussion, you may enroll here --

http://groups.google.com/group/complexity-science

Pete, you msg is among the inaugural posts.

See you in the Complexity Science Group!

Cordially,

-j

P.S. Thanks to Dave and Charles for suggesting a complexity collaboration
around the time of KM World here in Northern California. We'll start working
on that toute de suite.

[Snowden Dave]

As I say Nikolay, I admire your cheek in selling it - and if you can get someone to buy it even discounted then I think you are well qualified to sell fridges to eskimo's next if you can sell this

On section 9 - acknowledge of sources costs you nothing its about professional integrity

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone

[Snowden Dave]

Agreed Rosanna - its the problem with post-modernism in general, it allows people to avoid rigour

Hopefully a get together is going to be possible around KM World

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone

[Nikolay Kryachkov]

Dave, I'm from Russia, formerly Soviet Union, where business and
living environment is very risky. You will not astonish me by your
rudeness and your constant attempts to substitute the topic trying to
generate a conflict. It doesn't make any sense.

If you can't suggest additional meanings of the words "complex",
"complicated" I asked (the meanings (not articles)), because you
said that Collins dictionary "... needs to update ..." (13.09.06) -
just say "I can't". It would be honest at least and what a use to
be worried about my sales, happiness, some fridges (?!)

My education and earlier work was state planning. And all the similar
questions about getting an adequate representation of the reality
(systems of indicators for the Soviet enterprises with millions
employees in one enterprise and for the economic system in the whole)
wasn't solved. You see the results. We studied cybernetics in the
institute, but some of our professors said that, for example, the
problem when a few programs with different objectives require the same
resources was impossible to solve and governance went to the deadlock.

Today seems a second round of the attempt to apply fruitless systems.
Nature isn't system. It's one of human assumptions with dangerous
results. Good explanation of "systems" was given by Karl Marx in
his concept of so-called "transformed form" ("verwandelte Form"
- in German). They (systems) are usually constructed by so-called
elite to place systems between people and reality and over time
generate the problem when people don't want change their illusive
systems. Why problem? When system is collapsing it may ruin everyone.

Here is the article "Give globalization a Hand" by Ernesto Zedillo,
director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, and former
president of Mexico:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1002/027.html?partner=magazine_newsletter

Nikolay

[Snowden Dave]

I gave you the respect of treating you like I would treat anyone else - business can be risky in many other places as well and I work in many of them (caraccas for example) with people who face physical threat as well as other pressures. I also spent a fair amount of my time in the 70's and 80's not only studying Marx but in working "across the wall".  So I am afraid that I get very angry when people try and take highly controlled approaches to an emergent economy or impose structures on those economy that attempt to reduce or not recognise its complexity

The last thing that the Russian economy needs - in my opinion - is some primitive and simplistic formula for industrial change and it badly needs an understanding of the way that that complex systems work.  The economy is a complex system as is nature and as is a firm and its environment.  It is not a system in the sense of cybernetics.  I might understand your ignorance better given that educational background (and sympathise) if it had not been for your assertion of an approach which was primitive it its failure to recognise the complexity of any business, small or large.  I get very worried when economies, emergent from an unhealthy period of over planning then pick up simplistic formula that do not work in the economies that they are looking to an an exemplar.  Its a form of self-appointment as a carpet bagger if you get the reference.

You might remember that you dropped into this threat with an argument that there was no real difference between complicated and complex based on the use of two dictionary definitions.  I pointed out that understanding preceded definition so pointed you to several texts (and more recently saved you some effort by typing in two sets of descriptions of a complex system from those) which would have given you some insight into a complex system.  You responded by ignoring that and instead reverted to a reliance on the Collins dictionary and a promotion of your method, with I hazzard was your original intent.

Putting people into boxes, saying that all problems can be solved by the sort of process your method implies is to my mind not only doomed to failure but is also de-humanising in failing to recognise the whole of the system in which people operate.  If course if you want to sit back and base your view of the world on the Collins Dictionary then such richness of thought will be beyond you.

However as you like definitions:

simplistic

  • adjective treating complex issues and problems as simpler than they really are.

  — DERIVATIVES simplistically adverb.

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone

[Snowden Dave]

apologies, for "threat" below, read "thread"

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone

[David Meggitt]

Nicolay wrote:-

"We studied cybernetics in the institute, but some of our professors
said that, for example, the problem when a few programs with different
objectives require the same resources was impossible to solve and
governance went to the deadlock".

I am sure that VNA can help provide insights on a) scoping and b)
assessment of the contribution that resources make to "value creation"
to this problem - but would have to work it up. To support that, I am
curious to know whether "complexity" could provide support also within
the Cynefin complexity framework which has proved most helpful in
categorising different situations.

>From personal experience of the programme portfolio challenge where
programmes can have very different objectives, in the late '90's I was
unable to identify an analytical approach that could be deployed. The
context was an EU Phare allocation with respect to Rumania and a UK
engineering consultancy was preparing a bid.The task was to, within a
year(!!!) and working through the National and Regional Planning
authorities reduce down a mix of 24 projects (ranging from highway,
delta reclammation, sports resort and others) to some 12 that would
fall within the allocated budget (as well as developing the selected
schemes for tender by contractors. As project manager, I confirmed that
this was quite clearly impossible as a linear process, but some fast
track methods could be deployed, including cost modelling with
associated option appraisals within an investment planning framework.

At the time, I had concluded that, although it was "easy" to appraise
the merits of different highway schemes and select from options, the
only way to select between different types of scheme was to continue
the "political" (non analytical) process (power, influence by project
champions etc) of broking to a consensus of what they could "live"
with. This, and it has just occurred to me, is the world of intangibles
and multistakeholder interest. This also suggests that a) the pursuit
of "rigour" in the selection between programmes / projects with
different objectives would indeed be misplaced and b) governance (see
opening note) deadlock could be broken by exposing the nature and value
effects of the deliverables that the stakeholders transact.

As a contribution to thinking on Russian development programmes, a next
stage in a VNA view would be to subject the participants to the
challenging task of adopting different roles: that may well reduce
conflict. I would also suggest that Nicolay has a look at the Paper on
projects on the vna resources site
http://www.value-networks.com/articles.htm and invite his comments.

He may also be pleased to note that in Algeria, the National Planning
Ministry was greatly taken by Soviet national planning methodologies
(1980-86), but were open to contributions in investment planning from
the UK, and the use of less prescriptive approaches to getting things
done! - a reason why we (as Planning Research Corporation) were there
over that period, despite the probability of a "revolution" in either
1990 or 2000.

David

[Nikolay Kryachkov]

Please go at
http://groups.google.com/group/complexity-science/msg/b8a578df458729d6

to continue.

Nikolay

[Snowden Dave]

incorrigible

  • adjective not able to be corrected or reformed.

  — DERIVATIVES incorrigibility noun incorrigibly adverb.

  — ORIGIN Latin incorrigibilis, from in- ‘not’ + corrigibilis ‘correctable’.

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone