Search This Blog

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Generalizing complexity-simplicity for everyone

The topic of "complexity-simplicity" looks infinite, but I’ll try to make a generalization from what I think about it, including my experience.

If this topic is important for thought leaders, it must be understandable for everyone. It’s because I know ordinary persons who deal with lack of understanding every day, trying to understand others and act with various results. You, perhaps, know such persons too. Technology gives an opportunity to be connected, but are we ready to get the results we need?

Here is my generalization of complexity-simplicity:

Objects (of any nature, perhaps) interact (converse).

Conversation deploys a structure of interacting objects - connections (organization).

The directions of connections’ deployment (organizational changes) look unpredictable while possible variants of understanding of actions are unknown.

Where is business?

Maybe here: If you have a method to see the variants of understanding, you can manage/direct/deploy etc. a structure of interacting objects or at least decrease its uncertainty for various purposes (you should participate in this structure for that).

Complexity is in big quantity of variants and can be simplified by their decreasing (cleaning or normalization of language).

Simplicity is in the method to see the variants of understanding. Every object must have access to the method in order to participate in sustainable and dynamic organization.

Too scientific?

Consider so-called "cultural problem" - a newcomer hears what you say but understands it and therefore acts differently/unpredictable/against the technological order/destructive, etc. Don’t mix it up with innovation and making positive difference.

Is there a solution for that, if you don’t have a dictionary for your "culture/subject of activity" or don’t support its constant revision? You also need the method as I have said.

Possible educational subjects: language, method, dictionaries of cultures, modeling, practicing interaction and real actions.

Modeling: I call it "textual experiment", within which you can experiment with variants of understanding (innovate) and then make positive difference.

Risks: Statistically patterns can be, but this kind of fictive values (every natural or artificial object is real not average) may hide a variant of big influence from you, if this variant will be accepted in organization.

If to mention the framework for collaborative self-consulting (which was a starting point for this topic), it can be used to identify the content of interaction, documents, etc. as the reasons for proper or improper results in your organization (including financial ones).

When you will identify these reasons you can:

- deal with them yourself;
- ask consultants (where are you, dear consultants?) to check and normalize the content of interactions, documents, etc. according to their field of expertise;
- ask me to get some variants of understanding, to normalize the documents and other things I possibly can do for you, if usual means doesn’t work.

Your questions please.

1 comment:

Dave Snowden said...

As promised some free publicity http://www.cognitive-edge.com/2006/09/hippocrates_has_more_than_an_o.php
If (or more hopefully when) you read a basic text book on complexity I promise to withdraw the above
I like the idea of a network of consultants - we are building an open source approach to management consultancy. But for such a network to compete with the big consultancies you need to have coherent methods and to be up todate with some basic theory.