« The Web and the Long, "Soft" War | Main | The Life Cycle of a Business »

April 16, 2007

Comments

Darren

It seem as though we are saying: complex systems have unintended (and unimaginable) properties that define their very nature ... let's deduce those properties and structure them in a more understandable (i.e. simpler) way.

If the act of trying to second-guess complexity produces novel, emergent and sometimes catastrophic effects ... how can the solution be to further second-guess complexity?

Another way to put it - if you could describe a complex phenomenon in a simpler way, you're probably not dealing with a complex phenomenon (or you haven't fully understood it yet).

Sandy

I found your thoughts on complexity to be motivating and interesting. I have been following this topic from a business standpoint for a very long time. In addition, in 2005 I mapped Defense operations against the concepts to include a quadrant on what Prof Doyle named RYF systems. As business enterprise groups and other organizations continue to both expand and contract the theory of RYF really places pressure on leaders to manage disruptions, and as we all know prediction isn't always possible. Wonderfully, the next generation Internet may provide hope for companies, social groups, and countries to "rehearse" future possibilities providing the "experience" and better understanding of complexity before the actual event and potential negative issues. Great thinking!

Gary

A 17th century biologist whose name escapes me said "the more an organism is adapted to its current environment, the less adaptable it is to some other environment". Substitute system for organism. Is RYF any more or less than this?

The comments to this entry are closed.