Group items tagged

daviding says: I was struck by a quotation by Khistry in the first pargraph of this article. In fact, Churchman (1968) reveals toward the end of one of his most popular books: "Indeed, if I were to think of one theme that has been in the back of my mind as I wrote these chapters, it is the shame of deception" (p. 228). Churchman concludes: "The ultimate meaning of the systems approach, therefore, lies in the creation of a theory of deception and a fuller understanding of the ways in which the human being can be deceived about his world and in an interaction between these different viewpoints" (pp. 229-230).

This paper critically examines some important topics of systemic thinking to understand how our perception of problems can be enhanced and how the chances of deception can be mitigated while dealing with real-world problems. To achieve this objective, an attempt is first made to scrutinize some of the key issues of systemic thinking by looking through the lens of Churchman's aphorisms at: (1) the illusion of completeness and closure, (2) the meaning of holism, and (3) the concept of `Interbeing'. A preliminary `agenda for action' is then laid out suggesting ways for increasing our perception and for minimizing the chances of being deceived in dealing with systems problems in practice.

daviding says: Categorizing problems as P-type, N-type and NP-type (i.e. NP-hard) provides a way for appreciating why managers avoid taking on some challenges. It's better to succeed on an easy problem, than fail on a hard one. (There's a easier-reading version of this article in Rotman Magazine Winter 2009 that seems to have been evolved for publication into Harvard Business Review in January 2009).

[from the introduction] We develop a model of cognitive choices managers implicitly make among and within problem complexity classes and argue that strategic managers use problem statements from one complexity class with greater regularity than those from other complexity classes to make sense of their predicaments (i.e. to transform 'situations' or 'raw feels' into 'problems' or 'puzzles'). We examine the marginal value to strategic managers of greater 'logical complexity' - parametrized by the marginal value of greater precision of an answer and the computational sophistication of competitors schema - to come up with a computationally precise formulation of 'ecological rationality'.

The research presented in this volume, developed in the EC-funded Project ISCOM (Information Society as a Complex System), takes off from two fundamental premises: -- to guide innovation policies, taking account of the social, economic and geographic dimensions of innovation processes are at least as critical as the science and technology; and -- complex systems science is essential for understanding these dimensions. Online version (possibly available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-1-4020-9662-4 -- Table of contents -- 18 Chapters Front Matter I-IX Part 1 Introduction David Lane, Robert Maxfield, Dwight Read and Sander van der Leeuw 1-7 Part I From Biology to Society Front Matter 9-9 From Population to Organization Thinking David Lane, Robert Maxfield, Dwight Read and Sander van der Leeuw 11-42 The Innovation Innovation Dwight Read, David Lane and Sander van der Leeuw 43-84 The Long-Term Evolution of Social Organization Sander van der Leeuw, David Lane and Dwight Read 85-116 Biological Metaphors in Economics: Natural Selection and Competition Andrea Ginzburg 117-152 Innovation in the Context of Networks, Hierarchies, and Cohesion Douglas R. White 153-194 Part II Innovation and Urban Systems Front Matter 195-195 The Organization of Urban Systems Anne Bretagnolle, Denise Pumain and Cline Vacchiani-Marcuzzo 197-220 The Self Similarity of Human Social Organization and Dynamics in Cities Luis M.A. Bettencourt, Jose Lobo and Geoffrey B. West 221-236 Innovation Cycles and Urban Dynamics Denise Pumain, Fabien Paulus and Cline Vacchiani-Marcuzzo 237-260 Part III Innovation and Market Systems Front Matter 261-261 Building a New Market System: Effective Action, Redirection and Generative Relationships David Lane and Robert Maxfield 263-288 Incorporating a New Technology into Agent-Artifact Space: The Case of Control Syst

daviding says: Wisdom and knowledge are sticky to experts. However, the advent of "open content" on academic materials challenges the traditional way in which universities interact with students.

"The Internet disrupts any industry whose core product can be reduced to ones and zeros," says Jose Ferreira, founder and CEO of education startup Knewton. Education, he says, "is the biggest virgin forest out there." Ferreira is among a loose-knit band of education 2.0 architects sharpening their saws for that forest. Their first foray was at MIT in 2001, when the school agreed to put coursework online for free. Today, you can find the full syllabi, lecture notes, class exercises, tests, and some video and audio for every course MIT offers, from physics to art history. This trove has been accessed by 56 million current and prospective students, alumni, professors, and armchair enthusiasts around the world. "The advent of the Web brings the ability to disseminate high-quality materials at almost no cost, leveling the playing field," says Cathy Casserly, a senior partner at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, who in her former role at the Hewlett Foundation provided seed funding for MIT's project. "We're changing the culture of how we think about knowledge and how it should be shared and who are the owners of knowledge." But higher education remains, on the whole, a string quartet. MIT's courseware may be free, yet an MIT degree still costs upward of $189,000. College tuition has gone up more than any other good or service since 1990, and our nation's students and graduates hold a staggering $714 billion in outstanding student-loan debt. Once the world's most educated country, the United States today ranks 10th globally in the percentage of young people with postsecondary degrees. "Colleges have become outrageously expensive, yet there remains a general refusal to acknowledge the implications of new technologies," says Jim Groom, an "instructional technologist" at Virginia's University of Mary Washington and a prominent voice in the blogosphere for blowing up college as we know it. Groom, a chain-smoker with an ever-present five days' growth of

daviding says: This is the first of three articles in the June 2007 issue of SPAR. As an alternative to coming from a western perspective -- not to say that there aren't differences from the Anglo-American approach in Europe! -- these three chapters would provide significant fodder for discussion on core concepts in systems theory.

This paper compares some key concepts from Buddhism with ideas from different traditions of systems thinking. There appear to be many similarities, suggesting that there is significant potential for dialogue and mutual learning. The similarities also indicate that it may be possible to develop a Buddhist systems methodology to help guide exploration and change within Buddhist organisations.

daviding says: I was sitting in a demonstration of IBM Rhapsody, where the simulation called out to some algorithms coded in Maxima.

OStatic: What products are your closest competitors? Viktor Toth: Maxima is in the same league as Mathematica or Maple. Perhaps a little less polished but in some ways, more powerful (I think for instance that the tensor algebra packages in Maxima can do things that cannot be done, at least not trivially, in other computer algebra systems.) Of course, it's also a LOT cheaper!

In an age in which consumers, businesses and governments are increasingly focused on socially responsible actions, much of our planet's natural and financial resources are being squandered simply by conducting business as usual: Much of the world's food supply never makes it to consumers. A considerable portion of the water used each year is frivoled away by poor agricultural water management. And road congestion, poor routing and other traffic issues around the globe contribute to substantial crude oil waste. Much - if not most - of this inefficiency can be attributed to the fact that we have optimized the way the world works within silos, with little regard for how the processes and systems that drive our planet interrelate. We've tuned these processes to generate specific outcomes for individual communities, nations, enterprises and value chains. To root out inefficiencies and reclaim a substantial portion of that which is lost, businesses, industries, governments and cities will need to think in terms of systems, or more accurately, a system of systems. We'll also need to collaborate at unprecedented levels. Certainly, no single organization owns the world's food system, and no single entity can fix the world's healthcare system. Success will depend upon understanding the full set of cause-and-effect relationships that link systems and using this knowledge to create greater synergy. The chief obstacle that remains is mindset - moving from short-sighted to long-term perspectives, from siloed to system-of-systems decision making. Download the IBM Institute for Business Value executive report, "The world's trillion-dollar challenge: Using a system-of-systems approach to build a smarter planet," to discover a framework for helping solve real-world problems using a system-of-systems approach.

daviding says: The use of the phrase "systems of systems" in a report from IBM Global Business Services (i.e. the management consulting arm) is interesting.

Inspired by complexity theory and open source thinking, the Constellation Model provides a framework to help organizations collaborate. The organizing model emphasizes the role of small, self-selecting action teams that operate interdependently, supported by a Stewardship Group. Leadership rotates fluidly among partners, where each partner has the freedom to lead a constellation that matches its profile and skills. The result is a shift from strained partnerships to open and effective collaborations. This organizing model is a true social innovation. Initially created and refined with the Canadian Partnership for Children's Health and Environment, the Constellation Model has been replicated and adapted to support the work of a dozen groups. Join Tonya Surman, creator of the model, as she explains how the model works and takes on your collaboration challenge! This is an ideal workshop for groups that are exploring what kind of a collaboration might work for their project or for learners exploring new models of organizing. Suggested readings: http://www.lcsi.smu.edu.sg/downloads/MarkSurmanFinalAug-2.pdf http://www.osbr.ca/ojs/index.php/osbr/article/view/698/666

daviding says: I received a Facebook invitation for this upcoming talk by Tonya Surman, director of the Centre for Social Innovation in Toronto. There's links to the same article (in two forms) at the bottom of the page. The foundations cite Ralph Stacey via Brenda Zimmerman. There's a video profile of Tonya Surman from TV Ontario at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfA8-vOZV9s .

daviding says: If software engineering is engineering, then we should also think about service engineering as engineering. This article also helps to draw some lines between engineering as applied science, and more theoretical forms of science, both in the domain of services systems and human systems.

Gerald Weinberg once wrote, "If software engineering truly is engineering, then it ought to be able to learn from the evolution of other engineering disciplines." Robert Glass and his colleagues provocatively evaluated how often software engineering literature does this.4 They concluded that the literature relies heavily on software anecdotes and draws very lightly from other engineering fields. Walter Tichy found that fewer than 50% of the published software engineering papers tested their hypotheses, compared to 90% in most other fields. So software engineering may suffer from our habit of paying too little attention to how other engineers do engineering. In a recent extensive study of practices engineers expect explicitly or tacitly, Riehle found six we do not do well. Predictable outcomes (principle of least surprise). [....] Design metrics, including design to tolerances. [....] Failure tolerance. [....] Separation of design from implementation. [....] Reconciliation of conflicting forces and constraints. [....] Adapting to changing environments. [....]

daviding says: The argumentation schema is a template addition to the Compendium software, which is now open source. At the bottom of the web page is pointers to books and other software tools.

Argumentation Schemes are "patterns" for constructing and analysing arguments, and as these get familiar, you'll start hearing and reading differently as you listen to a debate on the radio, watch a documentary, or engage with a learning resource. A mental palette of argument schemes will help you spot when someone is making a certain kind of 'move' in a debate: you're better equipped to critique it. It'll also help when you have to put together your own case. Argument mapping tools can help analyse and construct arguments by rendering these moves as a visual palette of schemes.

11. How is ontology different from object-oriented modeling? An ontology is different from object-oriented modeling (represented in UML) in several ways. First, the most profound difference is that the ontology technology is theoretically found on logic. While ontology allows automated reasoning or infer ence, object-oriented modeling does not. Another difference is the treatment of properties; while the ontology technology treats properties as the first-class citizen, the object-oriented modeling does not. That is, while the ontology technology allows inheritance of properties, the object-oriented modeling does not. While the ontology technology allows arbitrary user-defined relationships among classes (a type property), the object-oriented modeling limits the relationship types to the subclass-superclass hierarchical relationship. While the ontology technology allows adding properties to relationships such as symmetry, transitivity, and inversion so that they are used in reasoning, the object-oriented modeling does not. While the ontology technology allows multiple inheritances among classes and also among properties, the object-oriented modeling allows only single inheritances. Despite theses differences, object-oriented modeling and UML are accepted as a practical ontology specification, mostly because of their wide-spread use in industry and the multitude of existing models in UML. There is an on-going effort to add logic capability to object-oriented modeling, represented by OCL (Object Constraint Language).

daviding says: To improve our understanding of the science of service systems, I think that we need to get to the level of ontology vocabulary ... and probably no higher. SysML has features that UML doesn't ... which doesn't mean good or bad, just different.

daviding says: I was thinking about (output) coproduction and (value) cocreation, and came across these proceedings, which includes a short article by Rafael Ramirez and Ulf Mannervick on "Designing value-creating systems".

Essay Archive Edited by Lucy Kimbell and Victor P. Seidel, collected in this innovative and highly illustrated volume are findings from the designing for services project. Particular focus is on the practices of an emerging discipline of service design grounded in the arts and humanities. Three case studies in which service design companies worked with science and technology-based enterprises are discussed, from a range of academic perspectives.

The basic idea: A method to select the appropriate management actions in a complex adaptive system based on the degree of certainty and level of agreement on the issue in question.

daviding says: I came to this 2001 page by Brenda Zimmerman, interpreting Ralph Stacey's work, via the presentation on the Constellation Model by Tonya Surman (at the Centre for Social Innovation, Toronto).