- Email: [email protected]
III. New perspectives on complex system behavior
TECHNOLOGICAL
FORECASTING
AND SOCIAL CHANGE
36, 68 (1989)
III. New Perspectives on Complex System Behavior Mitroff amplifies the theme of an earlier paper on paradoxes in complex systems. Having previously used nuclear weapons to illustrate the behavior, he now turns to the global economy. Striking paradoxes appear, which force a change in the way we view these systems. Michael sees incoherence in complex systems as an epistemological, social, and psychodynamic characteristic.’ The governance lacks the concepts to deal with these incoherences. Consequently, planning must become the pedagogy for social learning. Sheridan takes up the design of large-scale technological systems and focuses on the fact that such design is necessarily of, by, and for people. The design of technology is ultimately design ofpeople’s relationships to each other, is influenced by many people, and can only be justified as being done for people. Four fundamental dilemmas of the role of people in the system design process are discussed: 1) free will vs determinism, 2) new technology vs user alienation, 3) objectivity vs advocacy, and 4) reliability vs creativity. An appropriate position for the system designer is proposed for each dilemma. Dror also recognizes the weaknesses in current methodologies to deal with complex systems and develops a set of 22 policy reasoning proposals to raise forecasting and planning to a new level. An example is “thinking-in-history” as a principal mode in considering long-range processes. Another is the need for fuzzy gambling in the face of pervasive uncertainty. In common with Mitroff and Michael, Dror stresses the need to confront contradictions inherent in complexity.
‘This discussion is related to the development of the multiple perspective approach facets of the governance problems considered by Linstone and Wenk in Section IV.
(Section I) and some
0 1989 by Elsevier Science Publishing
0040-1625/89/$3.50
Co., Inc.
FORECASTING
AND SOCIAL CHANGE
36, 68 (1989)
III. New Perspectives on Complex System Behavior Mitroff amplifies the theme of an earlier paper on paradoxes in complex systems. Having previously used nuclear weapons to illustrate the behavior, he now turns to the global economy. Striking paradoxes appear, which force a change in the way we view these systems. Michael sees incoherence in complex systems as an epistemological, social, and psychodynamic characteristic.’ The governance lacks the concepts to deal with these incoherences. Consequently, planning must become the pedagogy for social learning. Sheridan takes up the design of large-scale technological systems and focuses on the fact that such design is necessarily of, by, and for people. The design of technology is ultimately design ofpeople’s relationships to each other, is influenced by many people, and can only be justified as being done for people. Four fundamental dilemmas of the role of people in the system design process are discussed: 1) free will vs determinism, 2) new technology vs user alienation, 3) objectivity vs advocacy, and 4) reliability vs creativity. An appropriate position for the system designer is proposed for each dilemma. Dror also recognizes the weaknesses in current methodologies to deal with complex systems and develops a set of 22 policy reasoning proposals to raise forecasting and planning to a new level. An example is “thinking-in-history” as a principal mode in considering long-range processes. Another is the need for fuzzy gambling in the face of pervasive uncertainty. In common with Mitroff and Michael, Dror stresses the need to confront contradictions inherent in complexity.
‘This discussion is related to the development of the multiple perspective approach facets of the governance problems considered by Linstone and Wenk in Section IV.
(Section I) and some
0 1989 by Elsevier Science Publishing
0040-1625/89/$3.50
Co., Inc.