RE: [SysSciWG] RE: Stages of Complexness

[Hybertson, Duane W.]

Derek – I think your examples illustrate an important part of the answer to Jack’s question about a recipe for interventions in complex situations: Simple rules, models,  and patterns (whether or not we conceptualize them as mathematical) can contribute significantly to understanding and dealing with complexness and complexity. Of course, it is not always simple to discover applicable simple rules. I am attaching an article related to this issue.

 

Regards,

Duane

 

--Duane Hybertson   Email: dhyb...@mitre.org

--Phone: Cell=703-282-2698

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Lloyd
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 8:45 AM
To: 'profhitchins'; syss...@googlegroups.com
Cc: 'Hitchins Derek'; 'Richard Martin'; 'Kent Palmer'; 'Tony Pizzarello'; 'Oris Friesen'; 'Byron Davies'; 'Thomas Tenorio'; 'Elliot Axelband'; 'Don Greenlee'
Subject: [SysSciWG] RE: stAGES of Complexness

 

Re: “ … it may be possible to diagnose the nature of a complex problem without recourse to mathematics.”

 

I suppose it depends upon your conceptualization of what constitutes mathematics.  If, by mathematics, one merely thinks in terms of the manipulation of numbers (arithmetic) or numeric substitution symbols (traditional algebra), that is a very limited conceptualization.

 

We probably all understand that complexity can occur from interaction through simply described relationships.  Some of us ask, (in some sense) mathematically, how objects, and categories of structures of objects, may be ‘composed’ and morphed.  There are subtle assumptions at play in our traditional conceptualization of mathematics that often confound our understandings.  The primary assumption is that mathematics takes place (in its comparisons) at equilibrium.  What if that were not the case?  This gets to one of the founding issues in category theory – what do we mean by equal? Equivalent classes?  http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/phil/BJPSMacLane.pdf

 

Ken Lloyd

From: profhitchins [mailto:profhi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 3:30 AM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Hitchins Derek; Ken Lloyd; Richard Martin; Kent Palmer; Tony Pizzarello; Oris Friesen; Byron Davies; Thomas Tenorio; Elliot Axelband; Don Greenlee
Subject: Re: stAGES of Complexness

 

Jack & Joe,

 

I wonder if we are, perhaps, approaching the subject of "unravelling complexity," if indeed it may be described that way, from an inappropriate end of the horse—the one of a different colour, that is. Consider for a moment how complexity is generated in the first place. 

 

Mathematicians propose that the Mandelbrot set is the most complex mathematical entity, yet it is generated by the simplest of equations: z=z^2 + C. Examining the Set shows it to be full of variety, different forms of interconnectedness, and above all fractal convolutions, so that one may delve deeper and deeper into the set without ever reaching the 'floor.' Imagine if you did not know how the Set was generated—how would you go about trying to 'solve the problem,' unravel the knot, or whatever. And the key is probably in recognizing the repeating fractal patterns.

 

And then, of course, there is the problem of understanding, diagnosing and hopefully curing problems within the human body—a la House. Doctors are faced with probably the most complex system on the planet, yet they diagnose—occasionally correctly—without a sign of mathematics, or concerns over degrees of complexity. They do, however, have a major interest in symptoms, contexts, histories, emergent properties and behaviours, etc.

 

Similarly, detectives seem—sometimes almost miraculously—to be able to solve a complex crime when there are few clues, many suspects and no apparent motive. To some, it seems that detectives approach to solving of crime in a way not unlike the doctor diagnosing some (societal) bodily dysfunction...

 

All of which suggests that it may be possible to diagnose the nature of a complex problem without recourse to mathematics, or to levels of complexity, and it may be possible similarly to synthesize and manage complex solutions to complex problems.

 

 Just a thought...

 

Derek H

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 4:47:00 AM UTC+1, Jring7 wrote:

Consider, for examples, these perspectives on complexness

·        About age 8 we learned about simple, compound and complex sentences and the underlying rules of grammar. We laughed at “throw the horse over the fence some hay.” Why is a specific arrangement of words considered complex?

·        About age 12 we learned about simultaneous equations so that we could deal with situations involving N mutually interacting variables. We learned that we needed N different equations.  We learned the mechanics of isolating a variable in one of the equations then substituting the term equivalent to that variable for that variable in the other equations. And we learned something more important --- how to select the equation and variable that made the substitution most effective in reducing the complexity of the whole set of equations. Unfortunately, we did not learn how to characterize the degree of complexity of any given set of equations.

·        About age 13 our encounter with algebra (complex sentences) taught us about transforms. Viewing a problem set from a different perspective often made the discovery of a solution much easier --- if you could do the inverse transform at the end. Beyond algebra we now are able to exchange knowledge using the “if I were you, I would have…” transform, c.f., Conceptual Blending,

·        For those who were ready in the 1960’s we learned about System Dynamics which highlighted a) the notions of influences or causalities between variable and patterns of such relationships and b) the effect of time delays on the relationships.

·        A few in college may have experienced implicit differential equations and second order implicitness that helps deal with the rate of change of stimuli, resources and system gradients and structure.

·        In the 1970's a co-worker, Bob Wengert, figured out how to use Maximum Likelihood to apportion uncertainties throughout a system of non-stationary components. It was immediately classified.

·        Along came Bayesian Belief Networks 

·        Then genetic algorithms as agents.

·        Probably very few have studied or experienced category theory in the field of mathematics. Likewise the calculus of sets. The successful design of effective complex systems is greatly helped by knowledge in these areas.

What clues do these give for a recipe for design and engineering of interventions to complex problematic situations?

--
--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/ .
 
Notifications on web activities can be sent from https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/isss-incose.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Scott]

I am surprised  that Lord Kelvin has not been quoted yet. Here is his exact quote from one of his lectures:

 

"In physical science a first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and methods for practicably measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

[profhitchins]

Spot on, Scott.

However, we are not necessarily talking about physical science in the sense that Kelvin meant. Instead we might be talking about social organisations, socio-technical systems, and the like. Some folks employ soft systems scientific methods and a priori knowledge to address issues and problems in such complex systems. And, it demonstrably works. 

Perhaps the most interesting things about people and people systems are those you cannot measure with simple numbers: integrity, courage, drive, empathy, insight, creativity, belief, etc. Let's face it, we don't even know the dimensions of such human characteristics, but we recognize them when we come across them... Of course, we could be using mathematics subconsciously, but somehow I doubt it. Don't you?

Cheers

Derek H

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 3:38:33 PM UTC+1, Scott Jackson wrote:

I am surprised  that Lord Kelvin has not been quoted yet. Here is his exact quote from one of his lectures:

 

"In physical science a first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and methods for practicably measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

 

 

From: Hybertson, Duane W.

Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:45 AM

To: syss...@googlegroups.com ; 'profhitchins'

Cc: 'Hitchins Derek' ; 'Richard Martin' ; 'Kent Palmer' ; 'Tony Pizzarello' ; 'Oris Friesen' ; 'Byron Davies' ; 'Thomas Tenorio' ; 'Elliot Axelband' ; 'Don Greenlee'

Subject: RE: [SysSciWG] RE: Stages of Complexness

 

Derek – I think your examples illustrate an important part of the answer to Jack’s question about a recipe for interventions in complex situations: Simple rules, models,  and patterns (whether or not we conceptualize them as mathematical) can contribute significantly to understanding and dealing with complexness and complexity. Of course, it is not always simple to discover applicable simple rules. I am attaching an article related to this issue.

 

Regards,

Duane

 

--Duane Hybertson   Email: dhyb...@mitre.org

--Phone: Cell=703-282-2698

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Lloyd
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 8:45 AM
To: 'profhitchins'; syss...@googlegroups.com
Cc: 'Hitchins Derek'; 'Richard Martin'; 'Kent Palmer'; 'Tony Pizzarello'; 'Oris Friesen'; 'Byron Davies'; 'Thomas Tenorio'; 'Elliot Axelband'; 'Don Greenlee'
Subject: [SysSciWG] RE: stAGES of Complexness

 

Re: “ … it may be possible to diagnose the nature of a complex problem without recourse to mathematics.”

 

I suppose it depends upon your conceptualization of what constitutes mathematics.  If, by mathematics, one merely thinks in terms of the manipulation of numbers (arithmetic) or numeric substitution symbols (traditional algebra), that is a very limited conceptualization.

 

We probably all understand that complexity can occur from interaction through simply described relationships.  Some of us ask, (in some sense) mathematically, how objects, and categories of structures of objects, may be ‘composed’ and morphed.  There are subtle assumptions at play in our traditional conceptualization of mathematics that often confound our understandings.  The primary assumption is that mathematics takes place (in its comparisons) at equilibrium.  What if that were not the case?  This gets to one of the founding issues in category theory – what do we mean by equal? Equivalent classes?  http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/phil/BJPSMacLane.pdf

 

Ken Lloyd

[Axelband, Elliot]

A fascinating collection of thoughts. I would add to this the arbitrariness of English grammar - unsurprising given its origins - and the over 20 dialects spoken today which have not yet diverged so far to become separate languages and can with a little coaching be understood by the speaker of any one of them. I view this as a triumph of processing (some) complexity without symbolic intermediaries.

A translator translates literally; an interpreter translates nuance.

More important/importantly, as I wrote to Jack when he kicked this off, you/you all/ all you all, have a great article, lecture, or book in this. How about a special issue in the Incose Insight? Anyone volunteer for editor?

__________________________________________________________________________

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[Georg...@aol.com]

In a message dated 17/08/2013 17:32:56 GMT Daylight Time, axel...@rand.org writes:

I would add to this the arbitrariness of English grammar - unsurprising given its origins - and the over 20 dialects spoken today which have not yet diverged so far to become separate languages and can with a little coaching be understood by the speaker of any one of them. I view this as a triumph of processing (some) complexity without symbolic intermediaries.

Utter  rubbish.  The  English  language,  applied  and  used   correctly  is  accurate  and   definitive. 

 

Been  there,   done  it  for  40   years.

 

George  Caple.  

 

 Englishman

 

  

 

[Jack Ring]

Derek,

Every race car driver has integrity, courage, drive, empathy, insight, creativity, belief, etc.

And we can still discern who wins. Some of them know why. Others just blame the vehicle.

Sooooo, reversing the relation, we can discern which are short of integrity, courage, drive, empathy, insight, creativity, belief, etc.

Jack

[Jack Ring]

Could you please explain "utter rubbish"?

[profhitchins]

Jack,

Unfortunately, you appear to have overlooked the context, which was concerned with numerical scoring of some kind, as Kelvin might supposedly have championed. 

Every race car driver might have integrity, courage, drive, empathy, insight, creativity, belief, etc., but it might be unwise to put numerical scores or weights on such "soft" indicators. The issue becomes more involved when we consider the beliefs, say, of a group—as Jung observed, the moral attitudes of a group of people might allow them—as a group—to behave in a way that no one individual on his own would countenance. OTOH Barry Richmond found sensible ways of addressing such soft aspects of human behaviour using his Systems Dynamics—not on an absolute basis, but on a relative or comparative basis.

It seems to me that we have yet to come to grips with even an approach to solving problems in complex social/socio-techncical systems unless we address subjects such as group psychology and anthropology, But what the heck—perhaps category theory has all the answers. Why don't we find out?

Cheers

Derek H

[Georg...@aol.com]

SELF  EXPLANATORY   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

In a message dated 17/08/2013 18:43:15 GMT Daylight Time, jri...@gmail.com writes:

Could you please explain "utter rubbish"?

On Aug 17, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Georg...@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 17/08/2013 17:32:56 GMT Daylight Time, axel...@rand.org writes:

I would add to this the arbitrariness of English grammar - unsurprising given its origins - and the over 20 dialects spoken today which have not yet diverged so far to become separate languages and can with a little coaching be understood by the speaker of any one of them. I view this as a triumph of processing (some) complexity without symbolic intermediaries.

Utter  rubbish.  The  English  language,  applied  and  used   correctly  is  accurate  and   definitive. 

 

Been  there,   done  it  for  40   years.

 

George  Caple.  

 

 Englishman

 

  

 

--
--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/ .
 
Notifications on web activities can be sent from https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/isss-incose.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Hillary Sillitto]

George

Clearly you have never worked in Government! "Yes Minister" is an interesting object lesson in the power and value of ambiguity in the English language.

Hillary
(A Scotsman!)

--

[Georg...@aol.com]

In a message dated 17/08/2013 22:39:31 GMT Daylight Time, hsil...@googlemail.com writes:

Clearly you have never worked in Government! "Yes Minister" is an interesting object lesson in the power and value of ambiguity in the English language.

Hillary,

 

Such  deliberate  ambiguity  has  never  had   a   place  in  systems   design.

 

George

[Axelband, Elliot]

Wot! Sorry old sot, but less than diamond. I enjoyed the years I spent in Jolly Old and enjoyed the variety and richness of proper English, common English, Cockney, Hackney, the Middlesex, Yorkshire, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh dialects, and Gaelick Scottish and Irish. I recommend your reading of The Story of English, authored by 2 chaps from the BBC and one Yank media figure, a well researched tome whose views coincide with mine, not yours.
Ta Ta.

__________________________________________________________________________

[Jack Ring]

Derek,

You might want to find out how Team Penske, Team Lotus, Team McClaren, etc. select among driver candidates and, in fact, among all pit crew candidates. I understand that quantitative assessment is quite common. Also, I think you will find that Tom Landry did it as coach of the Dallas Cowboys way back in the 1970's.

Yes, relative scores are used rather than absolute ones. After all, your choices are limited to those available. 

Yes, factoring in both the interpersonal and the personal best motivations and behaviors of all personnel is absolutely necessary for high achievement systemist workgroups. The Fellows Action Item 09-03 report, Guide for Selecting a Systems Engineering Competency Assessment Instrument, 9/24/2012, included this aspect. It was distributed to the Fellows for comment back then. Unfortunately, no SE Competency models I have seen to date include these considerations regarding human group dynamics.

This aspect of system design and engineering is included in the currently proposed project, Synergizing Systemists, in the System Science WG. I hope you are interested in participating? Any one else?

Jack Ring

[Jack Ring]

Example duly noted.

[Steve Krane]

Re; It seems to me that we have yet to come to grips with even an approach to solving problems in complex social/socio-techncical systems unless we address subjects such as group psychology and anthropology

It's as if John Warfield had never lived. It's happening now, in some, not enough, arenas.  Be an advocate or make something better

Sent from my iPhone

[Georg...@aol.com]

 

 

In a message dated 18/08/2013 02:07:28 GMT Daylight Time, axel...@rand.org writes:

proper English, common English, Cockney, Hackney, the Middlesex, Yorkshire, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh dialects, and Gaelick Scottish and Irish

 

No  mention  of  correct   grammatical  English.    ???

 

George

[derek hitchins]

On 18 Aug 2013, at 07:28, Steve Krane <sk5...@gmail.com> wrote:

Be an advocate or make something better

That appears to be an admonishment. I am uncertain. Are you indicating that John Warfield's work is replete with social psychology and group anthropology—and presumably Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Jung and (a little of) Freud too, not to mention the Negative Confession? 

And, are you further suggesting that John's body of work affords a comprehensive approach to solving problems in complex social/socio-technical systems? 

Or, are you suggesting that others should make something better and that, by implication, they have yet to do so?

Derek H.

[Axelband, Elliot]

That was meant to be conveyed by formal English, that weakly conjucated and non-declined hodgepodge you insist on defending. Why in grammatical English is it improper to end a sentence in a proposition? Because some poorly educated 17th century cleric thought that right. Where was his knowledge of Latin?

Read the Story of English, and we can talk after that.

__________________________________________________________________________

[JohnK]

George, I feel sorry that you've missed out on all the improvements we've made in the English language since independence.

John

(An American)

[Georg...@aol.com]

In a message dated 18/08/2013 14:24:53 GMT Daylight Time, john.kineman%colora...@gtempaccount.com writes:

George, I feel sorry that you've missed out on all the improvements we've made in the English language since independence.

John

(An American)

Oh  dear,  oh  dear  !

 

George

 

An  Englishman  educated  in   French,  German  and  English  grammar

[D K Hitchins]

John American,

I say, steady on, let's stay within the bounds of reason. American English has introduced some useful words into the mother tongue—personalize for instance—and some British English (e.g. Geordie, Glaswegian, etc.) may be incomprehensible even to the English, but "by and large" (English sailing expression), for sure (ungrammatical Americanism), you don't get anything for free (ungrammatical Americanism), and the penalty for English teachers in each noble civilization arises when trying to teach children that all the (I was going to write "utter rubbish"—maybe not) slang from both parties is neither American English nor English English

OK, so I just "shot my argument in the foot"—and, no, I don't know where that expression came from—but I know a man who won't be able to resist telling me!

Cheers

Derek H

[Georg...@aol.com]

Ah   Derek,  me  old   mucker  --   well   writ.

 

George

 

[Dave Newbern]

Gee, this just goes to show the complexity of language, let alone the list of problems we need to solve to untangle complexity for systems . . . I hope we are trying to provide something for the average System Engineer to understand – maybe we need to look at what the level of training our average SE has received – then can we match up descriptions of complexity that can be useful to the current practicing SE.  Or do we need to update the list of skills the SE needs to master? Much of what has been suggested as methods to control and understand complexity will require advanced math concepts.  This is very similar to the complexity of understanding the various dialects of English.  I have enough trouble understanding different groups within the US . . .  I have had fun trying to understanding  Brits, Scots, and Aussies peaking their version of English on their home turf.   I remember one memorable event in Yorkshire trying to understand the word “flyover” regarding directions to my hotel.  Regards, Dave

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of JohnK
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:25 AM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com
Cc: axel...@rand.org; profhi...@gmail.com; profhi...@mac.com; kent.d...@gmail.com; bda...@starshineacademy.org; teno...@gmail.com; Don.Gr...@AmericanSystems.com; azad....@usc.edu; georgej...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] RE: Stages of Complexness

 

George, I feel sorry that you've missed out on all the improvements we've made in the English language since independence.

--

[Dave Newbern]

Not sure what “peaking” means!  Should have been “practicing.” The use of a keyboard adds to complexity also. Dave

[Georg...@aol.com]

How   about  a  few  examples  of  complex   systems  ?

 

George

[Scott]

When  I was living in the UK (just south of Manchester) a few years ago, I was wondering what my landlady meant when she offered to knock me up in the morning.  I was just filtering at the flyover when I noticed a sign that said “refuse tipping”.  I assume that mean “decline gratuities” Now that's a novel idea I thought. 

 

 

 

From: Dave Newbern

Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 7:30 AM

To: syss...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: [SysSciWG] RE: Stages of Complexness

 

Gee, this just goes to show the complexity of language, let alone the list of problems we need to solve to untangle complexity for systems . . . I hope we are trying to provide something for the average System Engineer to understand – maybe we need to look at what the level of training our average SE has received – then can we match up descriptions of complexity that can be useful to the current practicing SE.  Or do we need to update the list of skills the SE needs to master? Much of what has been suggested as methods to control and understand complexity will require advanced math concepts.  This is very similar to the complexity of understanding the various dialects of English.  I have enough trouble understanding different groups within the US . . .  I have had fun trying to understanding  Brits, Scots, and Aussies peaking their version of English on their home turf.   I remember one memorable event in Yorkshire trying to understand the word “flyover” regarding directions to my hotel.  Regards, Dave

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of JohnK
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:25 AM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com
Cc: axel...@rand.org; profhi...@gmail.com; profhi...@mac.com; kent.d...@gmail.com; bda...@starshineacademy.org; teno...@gmail.com; Don.Gr...@AmericanSystems.com; azad....@usc.edu; georgej...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] RE: Stages of Complexness

 

George, I feel sorry that you've missed out on all the improvements we've made in the English language since independence.

--

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/ .
 
Notifications on web activities can be sent from https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/isss-incose.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Georg...@aol.com]

With  English  as  the  common,  world-wide  airlines   language,,   how   come   air  traffic  control  etc    works   so  well  ?

 

Explain  yourselves.

 

George

[Dave Newbern]

Because all communications follow a standard format and nomenclature.  Unless you are a pilot, you probably don’t speak “air tower” English.

[Scott]

You will find that there have been a number of accidents in which lack of fluency in English was a contributing factor.  This is not to say that English is difficult; it only means that pilots from various non-

English speaking countries were not well trained in English.  English for example has fewer verb forms than some other languages. 

[Mary Edson]

These questions bring Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid to mind. Coincidentally, in the 1990s Texas Instruments had three DEC VAXs named after the book's title, which served their platform for SCADA systems.

Mary

Mary C. Edson, Ph.D.
mared...@gmail.com
(561)632-5436 (US Eastern)

--

[Steve Krane]

"even an approach" were your words. IM is an effective means in great part because it is designed to work with human beings. I don't know about "replete". Necessary and sufficient, yes

--

[Axelband, Elliot]

I would like to go back to my last paragraph below. We need a leader and could produce a great product.

 

From: Axelband, Elliot
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 09:32 AM
To: 'profhi...@gmail.com' <profhi...@gmail.com>; 'syss...@googlegroups.com' <syss...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 'profhi...@mac.com' <profhi...@mac.com>; 'rich...@tinwisle.com' <rich...@tinwisle.com>; 'kent.d...@gmail.com' <kent.d...@gmail.com>; 'apizz...@aol.com' <apizz...@aol.com>; 'or...@cox.net' <or...@cox.net>; 'bda...@starshineacademy.org' <bda...@starshineacademy.org>; 'teno...@gmail.com' <teno...@gmail.com>; 'Don.Gr...@AmericanSystems.com' <Don.Gr...@AmericanSystems.com>; Axelband, Elliot; 'azad....@usc.edu' <azad....@usc.edu>; 'georgej...@yahoo.com' <georgej...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] RE: Stages of Complexness
 

A fascinating collection of thoughts. I would add to this the arbitrariness of English grammar - unsurprising given its origins - and the over 20 dialects spoken today which have not yet diverged so far to become separate languages and can with a little coaching be understood by the speaker of any one of them. I view this as a triumph of processing (some) complexity without symbolic intermediaries.

A translator translates literally; an interpreter translates nuance.

More important/importantly, as I wrote to Jack when he kicked this off, you/you all/ all you all, have a great article, lecture, or book in this. How about a special issue in the Incose Insight? Anyone volunteer for editor?

 

From: profhitchins [mailto:profhi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 08:10 AM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 'profhitchins' <profhi...@gmail.com>; 'Hitchins Derek' <profhi...@mac.com>; 'Richard Martin' <rich...@tinwisle.com>; 'Kent Palmer' <kent.d...@gmail.com>; 'Tony Pizzarello' <apizz...@aol.com>; 'Oris Friesen' <or...@cox.net>; 'Byron Davies' <bda...@starshineacademy.org>; 'Thomas Tenorio' <teno...@gmail.com>; Axelband, Elliot; 'Don Greenlee' <Don.Gr...@AmericanSystems.com>
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] RE: Stages of Complexness
 

Spot on, Scott.

However, we are not necessarily talking about physical science in the sense that Kelvin meant. Instead we might be talking about social organisations, socio-technical systems, and the like. Some folks employ soft systems scientific methods and a priori knowledge to address issues and problems in such complex systems. And, it demonstrably works. 

Perhaps the most interesting things about people and people systems are those you cannot measure with simple numbers: integrity, courage, drive, empathy, insight, creativity, belief, etc. Let's face it, we don't even know the dimensions of such human characteristics, but we recognize them when we come across them... Of course, we could be using mathematics subconsciously, but somehow I doubt it. Don't you?

Cheers

Derek H

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 3:38:33 PM UTC+1, Scott Jackson wrote:

I am surprised  that Lord Kelvin has not been quoted yet. Here is his exact quote from one of his lectures:

 

"In physical science a first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and methods for practicably measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

 

From: Hybertson, Duane W.

Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:45 AM

To: syss...@googlegroups.com ; 'profhitchins'

Cc: 'Hitchins Derek' ; 'Richard Martin' ; 'Kent Palmer' ; 'Tony Pizzarello' ; 'Oris Friesen' ; 'Byron Davies' ; 'Thomas Tenorio' ; 'Elliot Axelband' ; 'Don Greenlee'

Subject: RE: [SysSciWG] RE: Stages of Complexness

 

Derek – I think your examples illustrate an important part of the answer to Jack’s question about a recipe for interventions in complex situations: Simple rules, models,  and patterns (whether or not we conceptualize them as mathematical) can contribute significantly to understanding and dealing with complexness and complexity. Of course, it is not always simple to discover applicable simple rules. I am attaching an article related to this issue.

--

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/ .
 
Notifications on web activities can be sent from https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/isss-incose.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/ .
 
Notifications on web activities can be sent from https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/isss-incose.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

__________________________________________________________________________

[Steve Krane]

Replete?  No.  Necessary and sufficient, Yes.  Not all problems have to be solved.  Many may be avoided.  There is little opportunity for mischief in an IM session.  Warfield says the methodology bypasses the forming, norming, storming phases.  My experience is that is true.  IM does depend on a skilled facilitator.  If a skilled facilitator thought he needed to use Freud's work, OK, but that would be odd and possibly counterproductive in my view.  Maslow's hierarchy of needs is respected by any skilled facilitator.  A SF will also be sensitive to personality types, if that was your prompt for mentioning Jung.  "The Skilled Facilitator", Schwarz, is a good reference if you are interested.

Systems Science is a neutral science applicable to any domain; social, technical, sociotechnical, etc.

Warfield's Work program of complexity is beyond "even an approach".  Try it out.  That's a suggestion, not an admonishment.

On Aug 18, 2013, at 3:21 AM, derek hitchins <profhi...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[skr...@parker.com]

Sorry for the multiple responses...flaky email w Time Warner + travel + vodka :)

---

"PLEASE NOTE: The preceding information may be confidential or privileged. It only should be used or disseminated for the purpose of conducting business with Parker. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete the information from your system. Thank you for your cooperation."

[D K Hitchins]

Steve,

I admire your dedication to Warfield's IM, towards which I am also something of a devotee. (See: Putting Systems to Work, Wiley 1992, Structural Development for the viability of a city centre light railway scheme,  and  Systems Engineering: A 21st Century Systems Engineering Methodology, Case B: The Practice Intervention pp209 et seq, Wiley, 2007 for a detailed write up of a 'live' intervention using ISM plus Nominal Group Technique.)

You are right about mischief—in the example quoted, one of the participants attempted to figuratively "scuttle the ship," only to come unstuck himself.  Does IM bypass forming, norming and storming? Often, but not always. In practice an IM session may start with factors being discussed between participants, each using the same terms to describe a phenomenon, but only recognizing after some time that each used the same words, but had a different understanding of the phenomenon. So, the whole group gradually came to a coherent understanding about the phenomena they were discussing—which was excellent—yet, the first part of the IM session contained responses based on their earlier misunderstanding. In some ideal world, one should perhaps go back to the beginning and start again, but here we come to the second issue—an IM session may take a very long time. I estimate roughly that the time for a session rises with the square of the number of factors/participants. My colleague at City University took on the task of organizing the IEE's 90+ objectives (sic!) into a coherent Intent Structure, which took several days using IM. He did the job.

So, yes I have been advocating and using IM and ISM for over 20 years now—excellent tool. But is it sufficient? It certainly helps with the discovery phase, as Joe would call it, and it also helps to form coherent views and potential structures amongst those participating in a session, who then may become advocates, in their turn, of their new understanding to the rest of, say, a systems engineering team. However, its contribution to the design phase is less obvious. 

Consider. The individuals in some ad hoc social system may be drawn from different cultures, they may have different belief systems (so, beliefs, roles, stereotypes, categories, ethics, morals, ideologies, training, etc.), they may have different natures ( aggression, libido, character, emotion) and they may be differently motivated (to conform, to achieve)—all of which can make for an interesting mix when, for example, your task as a systems designer is to form an intelligence or decision-support team, drawn from this social group, for a manager, director or commander. 

Happily there is plenty of experience to show that intensive training may enable and encourage individuals to suppress/overcome their instinctive  behaviours and to conform to the norms desired by the group. Or, alternatively, if joint training is not on, there is the prospect of creating an environment within which such motley crews may self-organize into coherent, effective and well-organized teams. Trickier.

IMHO, it seems we still have much to learn about designing (is that even the right term?) social and socio-technical systems. Humans may be predictable in the short term, but are certainly less so in the longer term...OTOH, humans are potentially highly creative and innovative—which you may wish to foster in your system design, rather than inhibit by regimentation and an imposed shared vision...

Derek H

[joseph simpson]

Derek:

Interactive Management (IM), supported by interpretive structural models that are based on basic structural models, excels in the discovery phase or "structuring an unstructured situation."  A. Roxanna Cardenas indicated as much in her PhD dissertation. However, she also noted that IM had some issues in the system design phase.

From what I understand of your "pairing" of Automated N-Squared Charts (ANSC) and IM, your objective in paring these methods was the enhancement of information communication between the discovery phase and the design phase.  While the details of your approach differed from the specifics published by Warfield, I believe you both had the same objective, effective complexity engagement. N-Squared Charts are  a very well known conceptual design tool.

From my review of the ISM, IM and system science work based on Warfield's work, it appeared that the first step to addressing these issues was the establishment of a clear distinction among basic structural modeling techniques, interpretive structural modeling techniques and interactive management.  These foundation components have been addressed in a preliminary fashion in the current Basic Structural Modeling Project (BSMP) but much more work is needed.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

 

Joe Simpson

Sent From My DROID!!

[Jack Ring]

Once ISM helps discover the 'order of battle' then the Action planning phase, also called the design phase, begins. 

I suggest that the IM process should be conducted on each Action project to reveal the best action scheme (as a project ISM). 

Then the set of actions can be deconflicted regarding resources availability (see CSER 2008 Paper #180) into a portfolio of projects, also called a program.

Jack

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

Can you provide a copy of the mentioned paper?

The specific sequence used to apply IM process components is a local decision made by individuals leading the activity.

However, the group learning stimulated by applying the IM process may indicate a need to apply the process steps in a concurrent manner or a process sequence that allows returning to previous decisions and value sets.

The initial learning phase can be quite resource intensive.

One objective of the BSMP is the creation of tools that will reduce the resources needed to conduct an IM type of activity.

In any case there is a wide range of issues that need to be evaluated and addressed.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Jack Ring]

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

Thanks for the charts...

There is some indication that IM sessions should not be thought of as discrete events...

The IM infrastructure should be established and continuously  maintained to address constant change..

Reducing the resources required to create a continuous IM activity would help ..

Have fun,

Joe

 

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/ .

Notifications on web activities can be sent from https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/isss-incose.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Jack Ring]

The presumption that infrastructure should be established and continuously maintained is foreign to the notion of Lean (as the inventor of Lego's tried to get us to understand) and tends to concretize institutions instead of fostering agile enterprises.

An IM session has Beginning, Middle and End. 

There may be subsequent ones that are or are not informed by the previous one(s).

Be careful of the "go with the flow" ideas.

Jack

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

My main reference was to a published interview with a IM practitioner.

This person had a contract with a large organization that lasted 10 years, where they provided services...

This person is strongly opposed to viewing IM in terms of workshops or discrete disconnected events ..

The suggestion is to view a set of IM engagement activities as a project or a series of projects....

This appears to provide a sustained resource base for action in large organizations and the resource is constantly available to address problematic situations...  While the focus of the activity may be different, the organizational response is the same....

If there are no problems then the resource is not used....

You can also think of IM as having an intelligence phase, a design phase and a choice phase...

[Steven Krane]

Derek,

 

Thank you for your perspective.  I'm not dedicated to Warfield's IM, its just the best way I have found so far to do that work.  Yes, in IM work there is much dialog to clarify ideas.   I don't think that is part of the forming, storming, norming process groups go through.  "Norming" is about agreeing standards of behavior.  In IM work the facilitator gives the participants the standard of behavior.  They don't have to figure it out.

 

Regarding time; The most common set of observations I hear are:  In the Planning Phase " But it takes so much time" and in the wrap-up phase "I can't believe how much we got done in such a short time".

 

Regarding Discovery vs Design Phase; I agree that applying IM to the Discovery phase is more clear than in the Design phase.  I still advocate applying IM in the Design Phase if only to get the Design team beginning in the right direction, with a common(er) language and an enduring reference as to what it is they are trying to achieve and why.

 

IM excels at integrating and harmonizing the views of a diverse group.  The set of participants should be selected to maximize diversity of perspective, along with other considerations.

 

In IM work there should be no "self-organizing" (unless the facilitator requests it) and there is also no conforming to norms desired by the group.  As I said, the (behavioral) norms are provided by the facilitator.

 

IM forces some very obvious and needed (but often undone) things to happen that can be surprisingly difficult.  Things like "Who is the Client?" and "What does the Client want?

 

Anyway, I am sorry to have assumed you were not as familiar with IM as you obviously are.  The main problem with IM is that it is little used IMHO.  IM can be tested and improved by people like yourself.  Warfield intended it to have an evolutionary (not improvisational) path.  There are 25 pages in the Handbook regarding evaluation criteria for IM workshops.

 

I am going to conduct a series of IM workshops this year with the pattern;

Given the context and the objective;

What attributes of the situation are influential?

What are the apparent problems in the situation?

What are the intended effects on the problematic situation?

What could we do to achieve the intended effects?

What will we do?

 

cheers...

Steve

[Mary Edson]

Hi All,

First, apologies for the truncated posting - funky email, no vodka. I suppose no excuses then!

In theory, and in practice as this stream demonstrates, there are distinctions between shared meaning, shared mental models, and mutual (or common) understanding of a concept or a word. You've seen this dynamic in contract negotiations in which the parties believe they understand each other but end up with unmet expectations and lots of change orders (which we hope to prevent through the discipline of systems engineering). We also see this in politics when both sides can't get past their own methods of addressing an issue despite holding common values (e.g. Education is important but do we use more or less standard testing?).

Cybernetics contribute factors to Jack's questions, hence the reference to Hofstadter. The Golden Braid addressed some of the interconnections of mathematics with subjectivity in complex systems.

However, I have just returned from the Academy of Management Conference where I attended an excellent session on "The Role of Cross-understanding in Teamwork: New Empirical Evidence" by a group from the University of Texas at Austin headed by Kyle Lewis and George Huber. Crossing-understanding is not to be confused with "Cross-cultural Communication," although it operates within that context as well as others. Here are some resources you may find useful:

Huber, G. & Lewis, K. (2011).  Cross understanding and shared social theories. Academy of Management Review (Dialogue), 36(2), 422-424.

Huber, G. & Lewis, K. (2010).  Cross understanding: Implications for group cognition and performance. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 6-26. ** Lead Article, Finalist for Best Paper.

The message below (in purple text) is from Kyle who shared some metrics with those who attended the session:

Attached are two documents, each of which describes a measure for CU:

1. Team-Referent Version: this version of the measure is focused on the TEAM as the referent (rather than dyads within a team). This version also includes four behavioral items to help triangulate CU's effects. We would prefer that you use the full measure (14 items), especially while the measure is being validated with empirical research. However, if you can only use a few items, I suggest that you use items 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, and 3a. Intra-team agreement on this measure is relevant and should be assessed before summating or averaging items to form team scores.
2. Network Version: this version of the measure is focused on the respondent's perceptions about each other team member. This version might be useful if you wish to examine the distribution of CU among group members. Note that intra-team agreement is not relevant for this measure, as the items assess each member's perceptions of CU, which may differ from other members' perceptions.

Your choice of measure will depend on your research questions (I.e., about distributional effects/influences, or about team-level effects/influences)

If you use these measures, our research team would be very interested in what you find with respect to the psychometric properties of the items and scales. If you could share that information with us, we would be most grateful!

Contact info for Kyle:

Kyle Lewis, PhD

Associate Professor

CBA Foundation Advisory Council Centennial Fellow

University of Texas - Austin 
Department of Management 
1 University Station B6300 
Austin, TX  78712-0210

phone:  (512) 232-5862 
fax:    (512) 471-3937 
email:  kyle.lewis@mccombs.utexas.edu

web: http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/faculty/kyle.lewis

I hope you find this digression from your sparring to be at least intriguing. Carry on!

Mary

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:45:00 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:

--

[joseph simpson]

Ken:

Interesting insight...

"I suppose it depends upon your conceptualization of what constitutes mathematics.  If, by mathematics, one merely thinks in terms of the manipulation of numbers (arithmetic) or numeric substitution symbols (traditional algebra), that is a very limited conceptualization."

I have encountered a wide variety of mathematical applications in the study of systems.

Currently, I am working on a set of ideas that relate to types of numbers, not necessarily types of mathematics.

The main driver of this study was the manner in which Warfield used the symbols 0 and 1 as both Boolean constants and natural numbers, in the same context.  This motivated me to read "An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities", George Boole 1854 (published by Dover 1958).  The use of the constants 0 and 1.

The class represented by 0y is nothing.  The class represented by 1y is the universe.  A little different than the current ideas of 0 = false and 1 = true.  A number system with only two (2) points is established.  These point number represent nothing and everything (universe).  In a system of logic you can have a class C, such that 0 is a subset of C and C is a subset of 1.  Implies some type of range that is not represented by the given symbols, 0 and 1.

Looking at the ideas of logic, the main features of fuzzy logic and fuzzy numbers were reviewed.  A fuzzy number may be viewed as a set with two (2) dimensions.  These fuzzy number dimensions can be represented by a range of number types.  The range implied by Boolean algebra is an explicit component of a fuzzy number.   Fuzzy numbers represent a relation.  Therefore fuzzy numbers have relational properties and attributes associated with one or both dimensions.

I am currently working on a paper that clearly introduces the concept of a "system number."  A system number is similar to a fuzzy number except it is represented as a two dimensional matrix with selectable and assignable dimension meanings and number systems as well as a third dimension that supports value assignment.  These "system numbers" are then evaluated using the Abstract Relation Type approach that has been published in a number of papers.  The goal of this type of mathematical form is the creation of a mathematical approach that supports the evaluation and analysis of systems using system numbers.

A draft working paper is available at:

  http://www.systemsconcept.org/html/Content/Cluster_wp.pdf

Another paper is available at:

  http://www.systemsconcept.org/static_files/2008/CSER08.pdf

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

 

 

[joseph simpson]

Mary:

Very interesting set of aspects.

In my mind, group interaction is focused on some type of learning, learning about the individuals in the group, learning about the group and/or learning about a common item of interest.

Groups can experience rapid change in all three areas.

Techniques that apply in one area might not apply in other areas.

The basis of social styles analysis, is grounded in the methods required to effectively identify the key individual attributes in all three areas.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe 

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Mary Edson <mared...@gmail.com> wrote: