Comparison of approaches to complexity

Computer-aided Visualization of Psycho-social Structures (Part #5)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

1. Interest in the entity -- organization, concept, or problem -- is not such as to generate a methodology which would encourage systematic data collection. Samples are collected in terms of predefined categories but there is no effort to determine how many of each entity there are. Basically confusion still reigns as to the nature of an organization, a concept and a problem.

2. The consequence of (1) is that there are no statistics on the entities in each case. It is not known how many organizations are currently in existence, although different agencies may have some such information to facilitate program activity in their own spheres. Similarly the number of concepts current in different sectors of society is unknown, as is the number of problems. The lack of statistics follows naturally from a lack of any systematic lists of each type of entity -- for example, there is no list of "world problems".

3. The consequence of (1) and (2) is that there is little understanding of the variety of entities within each type of complexity. Each sector of society perceives a limited range of relevant entities and rejects others as of little interest or significance.

4. As a result of (3), the typologies developed reflect the special interests of the sector of society within which they are generated and tend to be very crude, ignoring grey areas and hybrid entities.

5. In each case concern is primarily with the "relevant" entity conceived in isolation from its context. The interest in inter- organizational relationships has only recently started building up, relationships between concepts is confined to those within each particular discipline -- inter-disciplinary and general systems approaches are suspect. Recognition of significant relationships between problems is governed by agency or departmental short-term program priorities. It is therefore not possible to determine systematically whether a particular type of entity or relationship is not present in a given setting.

6. The absence of typologies and a picture of interrelationships means that it is not possible to build a picture of the ecological system in each case. It is not possible to look at the ecological system constituted by a particular community of organizations of different types.? Nor is it possible to look at the ecology of a particular conceptual milieu.8 Again, the ecology of problems is fragmented into convenient administrative chunks by unintegrated mission-oriented agencies.

7. In each case the deliberate structuring of the approach to the different types of complexity results in various forms of "exclusive relevance" or "apartheid". One can speak of: an organizational apartheid which ignores the developmental requirements of particular types of organizations [9] a conceptual apartheid which ignores the significance of particular types of concept, and of a problem apartheid which ignores the significance of particular types of problems -- for each organization the only significant problems are the ones with which it is concerned.[10] There is no framework within which to consider all problems.

8. The exclusiveness noted in (7) occures at a time when the hierarchical structures reinforcing it are recognized to be crumbling or at least suspect. Stable institutions, conceptual systems and problem environments are threatened with dissolution.2 Nonhierarchical organizational structures are sought. Hierarchical classification of knowledge and rigid systems of categories are challenged, and simplistic groupings of problems are rejected. [4]

9. Despite the trend noted in (8), there is still, in each case, no "rational" method of locating the most significant entity in response to a given set of circumstances. The fundamental is embedded in detail, the general in the particular. A practitioner of one discipline cannot know and is unlikely to admit that the practitioners of another are better equipped to respond to a particular problem.[11] The key problem area, and the organizations to be responsible, must therefore be selected by a process of political barter.

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]