My mind was activated by a head wind and rain walking between the domestic and international terminals at Auckland en route to Vancouver. Remembering back to the good old 3Ps of marketing I realised I have been in effect developing something similar around complexity so here goes.
- Constraint is key to understanding complexity, it governs the transition between the three ontologies. Increase constraint and you create an ordered system; over constrain you create the conditions for catastrophic failure; remove constraint and the system is chaotic. Managing constrains is one of the things you can train managers to do, and possible measure (working on that one at the moment).
- Coherence is the measure and concept by which you judge the validity of an action in a complex domain. A lightly constrained system modifies as agents interact with it, but it does constrain. The constant change means that is it difficult to provide absolute proof of an idea or approach (by the time you did the situation would have changed), but it is possible to create tests (including mathematical tests) of the degree of coherence that an idea has.
- Connectivity is key to a complex system, where agent proximity has a massive impact on agent action. Of course the nature of connections is also key (just connecting things is not enough. If I increase connectivity I can increase variety and thence novelty by the right selection of links. But I can also increase connectivity of like with like if I want to exploit existing knowledge. I may generate a higher or lower degree of coherence, or at least test my ability to do so.
Not completely there yet (and there may be some more to add) but its a start
Comments (3)
Dave - I think you missed a 'P' there - it always used to be: get the right Product, at the right Price, in the right Place, with the right Promotion.
And to balance things up - maybe you could have an additional 'C'. Perhaps Context - which seems to crop up a lot - although maybe it doesn't fit into the context of your other 3 'C''s (and trying to explain it is way beyond me....)
Posted by David Cronshaw | July 20, 2008 9:21 AM
Posted on July 20, 2008 09:21
A question around connectivity. You state that if you increase connectivity, you can increase variety. I understand and agree with this. Do run the risk also of decreasing variety if a group is densely connected?
If they are highly connected are the risks of group think and strengthening of similarities also higher?
Just a thought.
Cory
Posted by Corza![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 20, 2008 10:09 AM
Posted on July 20, 2008 10:09
Corza: your question reminds me of the concept of "Panarchy" and the "Adaptive Cycle" (see ref. below). PLEASE NOTE that this is a completely different concept than what comes up in wikipedia for "panarchy".
Coming up on a year ago, Dave promised to share his thoughts on the concept with a blog posting. Dave?
/Keith F.
http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/2007/10/more_on_extremities.php
(comment #1)
I think the concept of "Panarchy" might be a useful linking framework, to explore communities, networks & innovation. In this concept, new (or regenerating) communities enable innovation in the *early* stages of the "Adaptive Cycle", as participants benefit from new network linkages. Eventually, however, the linkages become a dense thicket that now tend more to inhibit innovation. This eventually leads to collapse but, ultimately, also to renewal and a restart of the cycle.
Posted by Keith Fortowsky | July 21, 2008 5:04 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 17:04