"The concept of teleological mechanisms however it be expressed in many terms, may be viewed as an attempt to escape from these older mechanistic formulations that now appear inadequate, and to provide new and more fruitful conceptions and more effective methodologies for studying self-regulating processes, self-orienting systems and organisms, and self-directing personalities. Thus, the terms feedback, servomechanisms, circular systems, and circular processes may be viewed as different but equivalent expressions of much the same basic conception." (Lawrence K Frank, 1948)
"[...] the concept of 'feedback', so simple and natural in certain elementary cases, becomes artificial and of little use when the interconnexions between the parts become more complex. When there are only two parts joined so that each affects the other, the properties of the feedback give important and useful information about the properties of the whole. But when the parts rise to even as few as four, if every one affects the other three, then twenty circuits can be traced through them; and knowing the properties of all the twenty circuits does not give complete information about the system. Such complex systems cannot be treated as an interlaced set of more or less independent feedback circuits, but only as a whole. For understanding the general principles of dynamic systems, therefore, the concept of feedback is inadequate in itself. What is important is that complex systems, richly cross-connected internally, have complex behaviours, and that these behaviours can be goal-seeking in complex patterns." (W Ross Ashby, "An Introduction to Cybernetics", 1956)
"To say a system is 'self-organizing' leaves open two quite different meanings. There is a first meaning that is simple and unobjectionable. This refers to the system that starts with its parts separate" (so that the behavior of each is independent of the others' states) and whose parts then act so that they change towards forming connections of some type. Such a system is 'self-organizing' in the sense that it changes from 'parts separated' to 'parts joined'. […] In general such systems can be more simply characterized as 'self-connecting', for the change from independence between the parts to conditionality can always be seen as some form of 'connection', even if it is as purely functional […] 'Organizing' […] may also mean 'changing from a bad organization to a good one' […] The system would be 'self-organizing' if a change were automatically made to the feedback, changing it from positive to negative; then the whole would have changed from a bad organization to a good." (W Ross Ashby, "Principles of the self-organizing system", 1962)
"The purpose and real value of systems engineering is [...] to keep going around the loop; find inadequacies and make improvements." (Robert E Machol, "Mathematicians are useful", 1971)
"Systems with unknown behavioral properties require the implementation of iterations which are intrinsic to the design process but which are normally hidden from view. Certainly when a solution to a well-understood problem is synthesized, weak designs are mentally rejected by a competent designer in a matter of moments. On larger or more complicated efforts, alternative designs must be explicitly and iteratively implemented. The designers perhaps out of vanity, often are at pains to hide the many versions which were abandoned and if absolute failure occurs, of course one hears nothing. Thus the topic of design iteration is rarely discussed. Perhaps we should not be surprised to see this phenomenon with software, for it is a rare author indeed who publicizes the amount of editing or the number of drafts he took to produce a manuscript." (Fernando J Corbató, "A Managerial View of the Multics System Development", 1977)
"How can a cognitive system process environmental input and stored knowledge so as to benefit from experience? More specific versions of this question include the following: How can a system organize its experience so that it has some basis for action even in unfamiliar situations? How can a system determine that rules in its knowledge base are inadequate? How can it generate plausible new rules to replace the inadequate ones? How can it refine rules that are useful but non-optimal? How can it use metaphor and analogy to transfer information and procedures from one domain to another?" (John H Holland et al, "Induction: Processes Of Inference, Learning, And Discovery", 1986)
"[…] the complexity of a given system is always determined relative to another system with which the given system interacts. Only in extremely special cases, where one of these reciprocal interactions is so much weaker than the other that it can be ignored, can we justify the traditional attitude regarding complexity as an intrinsic property of the system itself." (John L Casti, "Reality Rules: Picturing the world in mathematics", 1992)
"Complex adaptive systems have the property that if you run them - by just letting the mathematical variable of 'time' go forward - they'll naturally progress from chaotic, disorganized, undifferentiated, independent states to organized, highly differentiated, and highly interdependent states. Organized structures emerge spontaneously. [...]A weak system gives rise only to simpler forms of self-organization; a strong one gives rise to more complex forms, like life." (J Doyne Farmer, The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution", 1995)
"No plea about inadequacy of our understanding of the decision-making processes can excuse us from estimating decision making criteria. To omit a decision point is to deny its presence - a mistake of far greater magnitude than any errors in our best estimate of the process." (Jay W Forrester, "Perspectives on the modelling process", 2000)
"Remember a networked learning machine’s most basic rule: strengthen the connections to those who succeed, weaken them to those who fail." (Howard Bloom, "Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century", 2000)
"A fundamental reason for the difficulties with modern engineering projects is their inherent complexity. The systems that these projects are working with or building have many interdependent parts, so that changes in one part often have effects on other parts of the system. These indirect effects are frequently unanticipated, as are collective behaviors that arise from the mutual interactions of multiple components. Both indirect and collective effects readily cause intolerable failures of the system. Moreover, when the task of the system is intrinsically complex, anticipating the many possible demands that can be placed upon the system, and designing a system that can respond in all of the necessary ways, is not feasible. This problem appears in the form of inadequate specifications, but the fundamental issue is whether it is even possible to generate adequate specifications for a complex system." (Yaneer Bar-Yam, "Making Things Work: Solving Complex Problems in a Complex World", 2004)
"It is no longer sufficient for engineers merely to design boxes such as computers with the expectation that they would become components of larger, more complex systems. That is wasteful because frequently the box component is a bad fit in the system and has to be redesigned or worse, can lead to system failure. We must learn how to design large-scale, complex systems from the top down so that the specification for each component is derivable from the requirements for the overall system. We must also take a much larger view of systems. We must design the man-machine interfaces and even the system-society interfaces. Systems engineers must be trained for the design of large-scale, complex, man-machine-social systems." (A Wayne Wymore, "Systems Movement: Autobiographical Retrospectives", 2004)
"Synergy is the combined action that occurs when people work together to create new alternatives and solutions. In addition, the greatest opportunity for synergy occurs when people have different viewpoints, because the differences present new opportunities. The essence of synergy is to value and respect differences and take advantage of them to build on strengths and compensate for weaknesses." (Richard L Daft, "The Leadership Experience" 4th Ed., 2008)
"Because the perfect system cannot be designed, there will always be weak spots that human ingenuity and resourcefulness can exploit." (Paul Gibbons, "The Science of Successful Organizational Change", 2015)
See also: Failure, Good, Bad, Ugly, Perfection
No comments:
Post a Comment