Coevolving Innovations

In appreciating the systems sciences, it can be important to appreciate distinctions around the producer-product relation and coproducers.  A system — which is conceptually bounded by observer(s) defining a boundary — does not exist independently of its environment.  A system may draw on inputs or resources in its environment.  Changes in the environment may be associated with reactions, responses or proactive reformation (i.e. changes in structure(s)) or transformation (i.e. changes in structure(s) and function(s)).

The most rigourous description of these distinctions is in Ackoff and Emery (1972), but this is a derivation of Ackoff’s original dissertation, and relatively difficult to read.  I happened across a more readable, and helpful summary in Ackoff (1981).

The Machine Age’s commitment to cause and effect was the source of many dilemmas, including the one involving free will. At the turn of the century the American philosopher E. A. Singer, Jr., showed that science had, in effect, been cheating.  It was using two different relationships but calling both cause and effect.  He pointed out, for example, that acorns do not cause oaks because they are not sufficient, even though they are necessary, for oaks.  An acorn thrown into the ocean, or planted in the desert or an Arctic ice cap does not yield an oak.  To call the relationship between an acorn and an oak ‘probabilistic’ or ‘non deterministic causality,’ as many scientists did, was cheating because it is not possible to have a probability other than 1.0 associated with a cause; a cause completely determines its effect.  Therefore, Singer chose to call this relationship ‘producer-product’ and to differentiate it from cause-effect. [pp. 224-225]

I’ve received news about an Aalto University course on  ”Socio-Technical Systems Paradigm: History and Further Developments” [see pdf], led by Frans M. van Eijnatten (Eindhoven University of Technology) and Mari Kira (Academy Research Fellow at sustain.tkk.fi), scheduled  for September 27-28 in Espoo, Finland.

The course is associated with the Sustain Research Program that “focuses on creating sustainable work in contemporary working life”.  I also noticed a book on Creating sustainable work systems:  developing social sustainability, edited by Peter Docherty, Mari Kira and Abraham B. Shani (Taylor & Francis 2008) [preview at Google Books].

We would seem to be at the leading edge of research with this topic.  Since I’m active in the systems community, I was intrigued by a reference to an article in 2008 article in Systems Research and Behavioral Science by Mari Kira, and Frans M. van Eijnatten, “Socially sustainable work organizations: A chaordic systems approach”.

Earlier this year during the Russell Ackoff memorial, I reconnected with some members of the systems community in Philadelphia.  This event was taken as an opportunity to reinvigorate the systems community, in honour of Russ.  With his colleagues and former students scattered around the world, an Internet-based presence seemed appropriate.

We’ve now formally launched SysCOI.com — the Systems Community of Inquiry.  It is intended as open, worldwide network of individuals interested in systems thinking, the systems sciences and/or systems practice.

Inquiry is “an activity which produces knowledge” (Churchman, 1971).  The shared foundations and perspective in systems suggests more than a community of interest, but less than a community of practice (Wenger, 1999).  The interactions as a community aim to (i) foster interactions contributing knowledge and wisdom to the online world, and (ii) cultivate social relationships between systemicists.

The web interface follows an activity stream style of interaction, as has become popular with Facebook.  In the interest of completely open communications,  content posted on SysCOI.com is visible anywhere the Internet is accessible, and actively crawled by search engines.  There is no ambiguity about privacy with this online community: all communications are public.  The feature of choosing your “friends” on this web site enables following a smaller set of contributors, as the size of the social network increases.  Discussions with longer-running threads can be organized with groups and forums provided on the site.

An article on NPR about the Quest to Learn program in New York City led by Katie Salen cites systems thinking as one of the foundations for 21st century literacy. I found this article on a lead from Erika von Hoyer on the Systems Community of Inquiry via her Twitter feed.

The learning model at Quest to Learn says: “Games and other forms of digital media serve another useful purpose at Quest: they serve to model the complexity and promise of ‘systems.’ Understanding and accounting for this complexity is a fundamental literacy of the 21st century”.   Reading the CV of Katie Salen, I notice that she was working on the Spaceship Earth Game at the Buckminister Fuller Institute in 2005.

This led to finding an interview about the three-year study on “Grinding New Lenses: A Design Project to Support a Systems View of the World” conducted by Kylie Pepper and Melissa Gresalfi at Indiana University.  The funding by the MacArthur Foundation seems to be part of the research on assessing learning with new media as part of the 21st century assessment project.

In a panel at the Digital Media & Learning conference, Valerie Shute says “What attributes of the students are important for success in the 21st century? Systems thinking, collaborating, resource-management skills”.  This is related to worked examples and evidence-centered design.

This direction on systems thinking in middle school is compatible with the proposed design for K-12 education on Smarter Planet Service Systems proposed by Jim Spohrer.  The content is similar; the game based media could be more fun than education from an industrial era mindset.

In the Toronto area, we have had a legacy of many systems scientists as residents.  Although many Meetup attendees were familiar with Anatol Rapoport in association with the prisoner’s dilemma, they did not know that had had been a professor at the University of Toronto since 1970, and resided in the city until his passing in 2007.

One systems scientist who knew him well is Helmut (Ken) Burkhardt, professor emeritus of physics at Ryerson University.  We were delighted when Ken agreed to speak on “Anatol Rapoport, Abridged“.  As a bonus, Ken coordinated the meeting so that Anatol’s wife Gwen and son Tony could join in the discussion.

For those who were unable to attend the February 18 meetup, Ken agreed to allow me to post the notes from his talk on this blog.

<< begin paste >>

Anatol Rapoport as I Remember Him

Helmut (Ken) Burkhardt

Anatol’s biography as given in the Wikipedia is pretty good, therefore, I will report on what cannot be read in the Wikipedia, my personal impressions of Anatol as

• Concert Pianist,
• Systems Science pioneer,
• Peace Researcher, and
• Ethicist.

Anatol the Pianist

I heard Anatol play the piano very forcefully in a public concert at the Hart House of the University of Toronto.  It reminded me of a story told about Beethoven, who played so forcefully that pianos would break.  I was afraid for the piano at the Hart House would not survive Anatol’s concert.  It did.

At one of the Canadian Section of ISSS conferences, Anatol declined to play piano for the group because the instrument we had on site did not meet his standards of quality.

I attended the Memorial Service for Russell Ackoff at the University of Pennsylvania in February.  Since I was already in Philadelphia, I was invited to hang out for an extra day to present at the Organizational Dynamics Lecture Series, as part of the master’s program in the School of Arts and Sciences.  I gave a talk on “The Emerging Science of Service Systems”, based on the research that I’ve been doing since I first saw Jim Spohrer speak at the ISSS 2005 meeting in Cancun.

I had previously posted the slides for the talk on the Coevolving Innovation Commons Publications archive.  An outline for the talk is as follows:

• A. Introduction
• B. The “new service economy” and SSMED
• C. The systems in service systems
• D. Artifacts / feeds to follow

The presentation is now available as a web video on the University of Pennsylvania media site for the School of Arts and Sciences.

I’m one, but not the only, researcher looking into Service Science, Engineering, Management and Design from the foundations of a systems approach.  A group from the ISSS has been having conversations on the emerging science. Following the question-and-answer period after the formal talk, some students stayed on to ask questions about systems in more depth.  The University of Pennsylvania, with a long tradition of systems thinking, continues to attract students with that interest!

The Organizational Dynamics program is now the home of the Russell Lincoln Ackoff Systems Thinking Library.  Coincidentally, the ISSS Cancun 2005 meeting with Russ Ackoff as the keynote speaker was the last formal presentation that I saw of him.  I never had the opportunity to discuss service systems with Russ, and hope that he might have appreciated the direction that I’m taking with the services sciences agenda.