Well, I dunno what to say here. There's about a century's worth of work on organizational research and social research methodology that's relevant here, and what I think you're describing as part and parcel of your approach--i.e. multiple data streams, moving pictures, ethical issues, externalities, and the like--have been part and parcel of complexity approaches to the organization for a good while.
Mike Agar www.ethknoworks.com On Jan 23, 2007, at 5:12 AM, Phil Henshaw wrote: > Since, using some of my tools, this is a realistic way of probing the > behavioral structures of real fully formed complex systems, I think > like > John that having more data streams than less is where to start. The > idea is the eliminate the use of diverse statistics to make separate > snapshots of complex relationships, and to make moving pictures > instead, > that you can then find emerging behavioral structures in. We've long > had the computer power and the statisticians haven't thought of the > idea > yet. There are lots and lots of meaty issues to deal with, including > privacy and security of information when exposing what are rather > intimate behavioral patterns sometimes. > > Usually the problem with time series study with this intent is that > there is only one well defined measure available over a reasonable > period and there's a lot of labor involved in exploring what it's > shapes > correspond to. But those are basically limitations on effort. > > Of course both 'internalities' and 'externalities' are relevant, and > some math can help you see which shapes in the data are echoes of > others > and which reflect the original local emergence of new behavioral > structure. Yes all this would take an effort, and lots of times > you'd > run out of funding and have to cut the effort short of advancing the > pure science of complexity... Never the less, one can also shoot for > that, and maybe get the funding sometimes. > > > Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Agar >> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 7:08 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Real Time Organizational Modeling >> >> >> Yep, that's pretty much what Steve Guerin and I did for the >> California courts a year or so ago, though the variables >> aren't so "hidden" after some fieldwork and therefore you >> don't have to attend to "all the variables you can >> conceivably acquire" but rather the ones the organization has >> taught you are significant. >> >> Mike Agar >> www.ethknoworks.com >> >> >>>>> "Phil Henshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/22/07 4:04 PM >>> >> Sometimes progress in solving intractable modeling problems only puts >> off reckoning with the more fundamental aspects. The following is a >> draft post for my environmental design forum that seems directly >> relevant. >> >> To be realistic, there is a technique that can get you half way there >> easily, but you won't like it. It's to use the organization itself >> as it's own model, complete with all it's hidden variables and >> inventiveness, that no substitute model maker could ever imagine >> putting in. Then once the system itself is running (like... as >> always) you start monitoring all the variables you can conceivably >> acquire, and then watch them to learn what the 'model' is doing. >> >> The key is to have your monitoring system software flag the dynamic >> indicators of emergent whole system behavior. Then when you find >> something happening you go see what's doing it. Lots of >> things would >> be as expected, but lots of them would also be a complete >> revelation! I don't think anyone before has monitored the dynamics >> of living systems and flagged the major inflection points to >> see where >> the internal feedbacks are switching. >> >> Phil >> >>> I think John's on the right trail with his opening and closing >>> comments about "communication, which could start with notions of >>> "tagging" and agent communication languages but then would have to >>> dive into the literature on discourse in the workplace. In >> the many >>> projects I've been involved with over the last year or so, the >>> problem he describes is the normal situation and difficult to >> figure >>> out how to resolve. >>> >>> Maybe thinking of the problem in terms of the whole organization is >>> in the way here. >>> >>> The problem with “the whole organization” is that there are a >> variety >>> of mental models distributed within and linked to it, to some >> extent >>> constrained by shared task demands, to some extent still variable >>> within task depending on the variety of biographies brought in by >>> individual participants. Then another problem--the tasks >> themselves >>> change in response to changes in the organizational environment, >> and >>> the changes impact differentially on various organizational units >>> with different rhythms. A third problem--Making the model is an >>> example of Arthur’s self referential “logical hole” for economics-- >>> Making the model changes the organization that it is a model of. >>> >>> The more the organization resembles the “Complex Organization” >>> celebrated in the literature, the more difficult these problems >> will >>> be. Maybe the notion of a model of THE organization harks back to >> the >>> old hierarchical command and control steady state etc model that so >>> many try to change, except of course in government and the >> university >>> (: So models yes, but of issues that can be reduced and clarified, >>> probably not of an actual entire organization. >>> >>> All of this leaves John's original problem unsolved. It will >> involve >>> communication, but also issues of interests, power, distrust, >>> prejudice, and others that also need to be addressed. >>> >>> Like he said, a WedTech discussion wouldn't be such a bad idea. >>> >>> >>> Mike Agar >>> www.ethknoworks.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 8:41 PM, John Hellier wrote: >>> >>>> I am interested in this because of a clear >>>> problem my group has in communicating. >>>> This is manifested in an incredible lack of >>>> understanding of what everyone else is doing, >>>> even within a small sub-group. >>>> >>>> I work in an office of ~100 scientists and >>>> engineers. The composition of the group is >>>> broad in functionality and would make an >>>> interesting test case for trying to capture >>>> the dynamics of a larger group of scientists >>>> and engineers. >>>> >>>> The project is informal and not quite funded. >>>> So it is more a pursuit on the side for me. >>>> But I have been thinking about it for some >>>> time while working at a variety of organizations, >>>> all having the same problem. >>>> >>>> It may be naive of me but I was thinking of >>>> approaching this from the top-down with very high >>>> level actors that evolve over time as the >>>> model grows. The butterfly effect you speak of >>>> may not come into play since my initial >>>> parameters are very general. Initially, the model >>>> would describe communication channels between actors >> without getting >>>> to specific about how to handle what is being communicated. Over >>>> time the types of actions would be fleshed out for each line of >>>> communication and allowed to change over time. Not sure if >>>> this makes sense or not. >>>> >>>> Going forward I like to be able to create tools >>>> that capture every action that people do. For >>>> example, email should not be a stand alone >>>> application. As a person is creating an email, >>>> the content of the email should be linking to >>>> a central repository of organizational knowledge. >>>> Perhaps email as a tool is wrong for communicating >>>> in an organization. It just happens to be what >>>> we have and relatively expedient. A number of >>>> the applications I have written there replace >>>> communication channels that used to use email. >>>> For example, weekly status reports or work orders. >>>> Both of which were email activities but are >>>> now formal apps with database backends. These >>>> kinds of apps could be the start of tracking >>>> activities. >>>> >>>> By capturing all the actions of an organization, >>>> you could start to encode it. But you would need >>>> a host of new tools for how people communicate. >>>> >>>> A WedTech meeting would be cool. >>>> >>>> John Hellier >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Jan 20, 2007, at 5:58 PM, John Hellier wrote: >>>>>> Is anyone working on Real Time Organizational >>>>> Modeling where the >>>>>> model continually evolves based on changes in the >>>>> organization. All >>>>>> members of the organization contribute to the >>>>> changes even down to >>>>>> the creation of an email, how the email contents >>>>> affect the >>>>>> organization and how the recipients respond to the >>>>> email. >>>>> >>>>> Well, this sounds almost like TranSims in its >>>>> completeness and >>>>> depth! Doug might have a suggestion how to approach something >>>>> quite this detailed and ambitious. Sounds like LOTS of >>>>> fun too! >>>>> >>>>> One problem in this approach is that it is >>>>> susceptive to the >>>>> Butterfly effect .. extreme dependency on initial conditions. >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect >>>>> This is not a huge problem, but does mean that >>>>> parameter scans, >>>>> design of experiments, and the like are needed to >>>>> make sure your >>>>> predictions are stable enough for your purpose. >>>>> Possibly computing a >>>>> Lyapunov exponent would be a useful tool, but I >>>>> confess to never >>>>> doing so with my models, blush! >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_exponent >>>>> >>>>>> What I am looking for is the encoding of an >>>>> organization such that >>>>>> as someone creates an email, an observer can watch >>>>> this happening >>>>>> in the model and see the effect. Maybe the email >>>>> has little or no >>>>>> impact or maybe it has a growing ripple effect. >>>>> >>>>> I like the word "encoding" here. We've generally >>>>> built behavior via >>>>> algorithms, with a certain amount of stochasticity, >>>>> but have not, in >>>>> my mind, been quite formal enough. >>>>> >>>>> Carl: do you think policy modeling, and category >>>>> theory in general, >>>>> could handle encoding an organization? >>>>> >>>>>> This model should have a view of the entire >>>>> organization including >>>>>> tracking all actions performed. I realize that >>>>> trying to capture >>>>>> everything is a bit daunting but if possible it >>>>> could yield >>>>>> incredible insight into how organizations work. >>>>> >>>>> I'm curious: what is prompting this? Is it a >>>>> possible project you >>>>> may be working on? I ask because that might let you >>>>> do *some* >>>>> narrowing. >>>>> >>>>>> I generally feel that most decisions made in >>>>> organizations are made >>>>>> with such limited information that it is amazing >>>>> that most >>>>>> organizations don't fail. Or is that they are a >>>>> lot less brittle >>>>>> than one might imagine. >>>>> >>>>> No doubt about that! >>>>> >>>>> That said, one successful narrowing I know of is >>>>> Steve's >>>>> visualization of the pharmaceutical industry. >>>>> Rather than look at >>>>> the entire organization, the model looked at >>>>> projects and their life >>>>> cycle. Its a very interesting viz and maybe you >>>>> could drop by the >>>>> office for a show & tell. >>>>> >>>>> A second stunt Steve pulled off was actually a >> multi-organizational >>>>> simulation of the entire British criminal justice >>>>> system, including >>>>> the police, courts and more. Not sure if this would >>>>> apply in your case. >>>>> >>>>>> I know that there is quite a bit of work done in >>>>> more bit size >>>>>> pieces. I'm mainly interested in the much larger >>>>> task of taking a >>>>>> company of 40K and tracking every action and >>>>> interaction. And then >>>>>> by extension, actions connected outside of the >>>>> organization. I >>>>>> know, huge, maybe impossible. Is there a way to >>>>> adapt social >>>>>> networking concepts to an organization to help >>>>> model it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Any ideas? >>>>> >>>>> I'd propose a WedTech meeting .. the lunch chats we >>>>> have at Redfish >>>>> on Wednesdays. They often are pretty unformed and >>>>> brown baggy. It'd >>>>> give you a way to talk through the modeling effort, >>>>> and get good >>>>> feedback from at least those that have tried such a >>>>> thing. >>>>> >>>>> I'd sure love to think about this a bit more. For example, one >>>>> approach might be to accept the bit sized pieces, >>>>> but then have them >>>>> interact. That would make the problem more >>>>> approachable by >>>>> decomposition. >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> John Hellier >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- Owen >>>>> >>>>> Owen Densmore http://backspaces.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, >>>>> archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> ~ >> tel: 212-795-4844 >> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> explorations: www.synapse9.com >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
