In yesterday’s post I reminded readers of three key aspects of a complex adaptive system: (i) it is necessary, but not sufficient, for there to be many elements; (ii) rich, short-range interactions between those elements are necessary and probably sufficient; (iii) the elements are not aware of the whole, necessary but not sufficient. That isn’t an especially novel definition you will find it in various forms in most textbooks on the subject. I’ve used the specific language of Cilliers in Complexity and Post-modernism but I could have used more or less any reputable source.
In that post and elsewhere I have also emphasised that human systems have added layers of complexity to that seen in a termites nest. It is that added layer that resulted in my developing and naming the field of anthro-complexity to contrast with computational complexity. In 2020, my Christmas blog series on Naturalising Sense-making contained three posts on this subject and the first includes Cilliers’s full set of characteristics along with key terms from Axelrod & Cohen. In yesterday’s post I argued that understanding complexity in human systems required a complex integration of multiple academic disciplines and that integration; contributing to that task has been a large part of my life for the last two decades. I also referenced my recent social media post where I suggested that complex theory should be able to give rise to simple practice and this second post is elaborate on that.
I also summarised three heuristics for managing complexity and in this post, I am going to be expanding on the first of those, namely, Optimise the granularity. At some stage in the not-too-distant future, I will expand on the others and/or rework them in a new form. I am still thinking about that but I haven’t fully made up my mind yet so for the moment I’m sharing where I am in this post in part to get some intelligent feedback (other types of feedback will also be read). The three things I want to look at are granularity, abstraction and coherence and you will see evidence of my applying those principles in both Estuarine and Knowledge mapping.
To be clear this is less a recipe and more a mixture of ingredients and principles that a reasonably skilled chef could use. As with all my methods they are open source, but this is one set for which I would recommend mentoring.
Over recent years I have frequently made the point that the only way to scale a complex system is by decomposition to the lowest level of coherent granularity (LCCG) and then allowing recombination; not repetition or aggregation. In effect what I am seeking to do here is (i) increase the sheer number of elements in play and (ii) break down stable connections that are preventing new patterns from emerging. Remember that if the properties of the whole cannot be deduced from the properties of the parts then aggregation and repetition will simply produce more of the same and that will become increasingly unproductive as the context shifts. Smaller things combining and recombining through multiple rich interactions should produce a more effective and resilient solution to shifting contexts, especially if we put more attention into understanding what the elements are, and defining the interactions.
That should remind people of object-orientated design and that underpins our Hexi approach which decomposes methods and tools to their lowest coherent elements and then allows for novel patterns to form as they reconnect. I should repeat an earlier apology here, the runaway success of the early launch and the interest from third parties rather exceeded our capacity to deliver and we have been gearing up our supply chains so the new packs should be released for sale in a few weeks’ time.
That is a design approach to granularity, in workshops the approach tends to be as follows:
Now we are working more on the design approach and also on automation of this but overall you start any programme with things that can combine in novel ways rather than with objectives or existing structures or assumptions
I’ve written much on this over the years including the role of artistry and imagination in my most recent Christmas blog series, abstraction and codification in the context of knowledge management and on multiple occasions in the context of exaptation and innovation of which this is one example. To be clear I do not mean Hayakawa’s ladder of abstraction which is a little too linear and categorisation focuses for my liking, but it can be included. In those various posts over time *and there are a lot of them) there are three main themes:
All of these in various ways reduce the distance between elements and/or allow rapid absorption of a complex mass of what would otherwise be unintelligible information. Notably the most effective is not really encompassed in words, other than in poetry. By shifting up a level of abstraction we allow things to combine in novel and different ways, which is key to active sense-making.
When we capture the data in SenseMaker® we can build abstraction into the signification and then use data analytics to present it to decision-makers in novel and interesting ways. In a workshop one can use metaphor-based typologies as well as the use of graphic recording, singing history and so on can all serve well. It is however important to realise that these uses of art are tools, not the objective of the event itself. Something often missed by practitioners. Our various forms of aporia also achieve this. All of these work indirectly, to break entraining patterns of thinking and representation so that novelty can emerge.
So I can dial down the granularity and dial up the abstraction and the novelty of combination and recombination will increase. I could have stopped there, but then I would have missed out on two things. Firstly the need to make sure that what emerges is coherent and secondly, the simple fact that for a system to be complex the elements must not be aware of the whole. In humans that is critical and it’s why I wouldn’t recommend the idea that you need to think holistically. For a start you can’t, there is simply too much information. But more importantly, if we think about the whole we start to make decisions on what we think should be the case, or rather what we think we should think should be the case and all that is just a recipe for creating the platitudes that are the normal outcome of workshops with that as a starting point. Rather than thinking about where we might like to be,, we should focus on changing things at a micro level so that the evolutionary pathways or affordances in the system shift and what is a sustainable and coherent solution becomes evident to previously conflicting parties.
I need to write a lot more on this last point, but I will leave it there for now.
Cognitive Edge Ltd. & Cognitive Edge Pte. trading as The Cynefin Company and The Cynefin Centre.
© COPYRIGHT 2023