|
Author
|
Topic: Discovering Uses for Irreducible Complexity in New Disciplines
|
Brent Carter
Member
Member # 1098
|
posted 19. February 2004 14:35
Greetings to all,
Over the past few months, I have been researching approaches for using irreducible complexity in other disciplines. For example, in organizational theory we can look at adaptive organizations and sub-organizations as intelligently designed structures that carry out various functions. While the search for intelligent design in this obvious context is not highly beneficial (and is actually assumed), I have found that systemic thinking can utilize IC to find and relate core components of a functional system. More interestingly, we can see dependencies, dysfunctional dependencies, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities.
Revealing these characteristics of the core components, especially in organizational design, can assist in the development of less vulnerable functional systems within companies, the military, and even computer networks. If we say that a specific organization relies on 3 components (or subsystems) to fulfill its primary function, then we can assess and simulate how failure of one component disables the entire entity. This approach leads us to find ways to protect components, make them less vulnerable, and seek redundant ways to maintain dependencies. I find this very interesting.
I am working on several essays on the impact of IC in different types of organizational functional systems. Additionally, this research will provide a foundation for action research studies that will contribute to my dissertation. In the meantime, I would appreciate feedback to any known researchers investigating similar topics.
While I do not need resources within the management or org theory disciplines, I am very interested in anyone researching the impact of IC in other fields of study. I am specifically interested in the methodologies that are currently being researched for deductive approaches of applying IC. By deductive, I mean: assuming intelligent design of a system -> locating core components -> revealing relationships and dependencies of core components -> explicating possible vulnerabilities for failure to the system.
Seeing how this is a brainstorm, I would be interested in any feedback on the truncated explanation I have provided thus far. I truly desire to see how IC can benefit other horizons of academic and intellectual pursuits. I look forward to any responses, critiques, or opinions on this topic.
Thank you very much. I hope to provide initial abstracts to my fellow ISCID colleagues soon.
Best Regards,
Brent Carter
Doctoral Candidate
Colorado Technical University
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 19. February 2004 23:18
Feedback. Well, O.K., here's a question. In the chain of logic quote:
assuming intelligent design of a system -> locating core components -> revealing relationships and dependencies of core components -> explicating possible vulnerabilities
what would be different in the remaining terms of that chain if you chopped off the left-hand term, "assuming intelligent design of a system"? Would anything at all change in the remainder of the chain - in the analysis of relationships and dependencies among core components or in the analysis of potential vulnerabilities?
I ask because there's a whole lot of failure analysis literature that doesn't have that left hand term, but which looks at system failure, component interdependence, failure modes, cascading failures, and so on, without mentioning the assumption of intelligent design. It does not inform or affect the analyses. For example there's a fairly recent study of Failure Tree Analysis for NASA here.
RBH
[ 19. February 2004, 23:23: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Brent Carter
Member
Member # 1098
|
posted 20. February 2004 17:49
RBH, Thank you for the response.
This is a very helpful question, especially in the context of failure analysis. I have been interested in cyclical approaches to problem solving in the past. The feedback loops that help to bring us from risk assessment to failure analysis and back to risk assessment again are highly useful in system adaptation. This is a fascinating area of study.
One of my working essays investigates the potential ties of using IC to observe a functional system, isolate components and relationships, and then test the possibility and probability for failure. This could be a subset of risk analysis of course. While we see increasing amounts literature on risk analysis with complex and chaotic systems, like terrorist cells, there is little literature about the potential uses of IC to predict areas of vulnerability for systems like organizations, or network security for that matter.
Some may say that integrating IC in this manner might be a stretch for a positivistic study. However, from a theoretical approach, I am hoping to find the plausibility of such a paradigm.
Thank you again for your comments. I will be reading the NASA study over the weekend.
[ 20. February 2004, 17:51: Message edited by: Brent Carter ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic