Dear Microsoft: After a 4-year separation with Windows 7, the constructive divorce that you’ve set for Windows 10 on July 29, 2016 will come into force. I’ve just spent 30 hours trying to make things work. I know that Lenovo says that the Windows 10 upgrade should work, but we’re spending so little time together that I don’t have energy to keep fighting.
We never really got married. There was a time that I was spending up to 12 hours per day with you. Our relationship has a long history:
Over the past few days, the messages you’ve been giving me have been more than frustrating.
On the Thinkpad X200, you told me “We couldn’t install Windows 10”, and “0xC1900101 – 0x20017 The installation failed in the SAFE_OS phase with an error during BOOT operation” five times over 24 hours.
The BIOS is up to date and antivirus was removed. I tried with both the automated installation and Media Creation Tool on USB, both with and without the online updates. There were also long “Checking for update” delays, where I had to intervene.
Trying on the Thinkpad X230 Tablet, you told me “Something happened”. “Sorry, we have having trouble determining if your PC can run Windows 10”. This computer is on the “Lenovo supported systems list for Windows 10 Upgrade“, so is the trouble my fault or your fault?
You led me to the Windows Update Troubleshooter, which found that the “Service Registration is missing or corrupt”. The automated install didn’t fix everything, so I spent 15 minutes copying-and-pasting commands manually into a terminal window. Thanks, that fixed the Service Registration problem. However the “Something happened” message is unchanged.
I’m not new to intense relationships. I have to admit to not being fully committed to Microsoft for some decades.
daviding June 26th, 2016
Posted In: technologies
Video and audio recordings of my lecture for the Urban Systems course at Aalto University in February have now been produced. While I was in Finland teaching in another department, I was asked to lecture on Smarter Cities.
Here’s the abstract that was sent in advance:
The popularization of the Smarter Cities movement coincided with IBM’s campaign originating from 2009. The Smarter Cities ideas was an outgrowth from the Smarter Planet initiatives, which had emerged from the IBM Global Innovation Outlooks beginning in 2004.
This speaker was a consultant at IBM involved in Smarter Cities engagements, while simultanously conducing research into Service Systems Science.
The evolution of ideas both outside and inside IBM are reviewed, through a history of (i) systems sciences; (ii) service science, management, engineering and design (SSMED), (iii) service systems science; and (iv) smarter planet and smarter cities. Looking forward, the prospects for the (v) cognitive era and a (vi) service systems thinking is outlined.
(volume boosted 3db, 79MB, 1h22m24s)
|H.264 MP4||[1280×720 417Kbps m4v]
|[1280×720 3779Kbps m4v]
|WebM||[1280×720 316Kbps webm]
|[1280×720 3604Kbps m4v]
As a quicker reference, the slides may be useful if fast-forwarding to a specific section is desired.
daviding May 29th, 2016
Concluding 3 intensive weeks of content immersion, eight student groups created infographics of the ideas that resonated with them from the “Systems Thinking 2” class in the Creative Sustainability program at Aalto University. Each group had been given 3 weeks in advance to prepare content to lead a learning discussion, staking a position on a list of references. As students participated in the intensive sessions, the broader contexts reshaped those positions into a broader appreciation of the breadth of systems thinking. The initial positions and concluding syntheses were:
The ending infographics represent a synthesis of the content from the course, each group having traced a different path. To rebalance team sizes, a few individuals migrated to a different group. Some anchored more on the content they had led, while others chose to strengthen linkages to other ideas.
1. Appreciative systems, futures → Into the Future with Systems Thinking
Group 1 read through a cluster of references on appreciative systems and futures and a map of the basic ideas to produce a presentation slide set.
The concluding infographic by Fahimeh Foutouhi, Petra Tammisto, Riikka Ikonen, Marta Jaakkola and Anna Muukkonen additionally swept in dialogues, learning, social ecological systems, complex systems and anticipatory systems.
2. Boundary, inquiry, perspectives → Systems thinking — synthesis
Group 2 worked through a cluster of references on boundary, inquiry and perspectives and a map of the basic ideas to produce a presentation slide set.
The concluding infographic by Miguel Fonseca, Annina Lattu and Jennifer Pitkänen put a higher emphasis on learning (a cluster of references led by Group 3), wrapping in ideas of resilience, turbulence, anticipatory systems on top the content for which they were primarily responsible.
3. Learning categories, postnormal science, ignorance → Systems Thinking from learning and knowledge making perspective
Group 3 focused on a cluster of references on learning categories, postnormal science and ignorance and a map of the basic ideas to produce a presentation slide set.
The concluding infographic by Emma Berg, Melanie Wolowiec and Lilli Mäkelä added in participation, judgement and anticipation, with larger contexts of cultural systems and biotic systems. Additionally, they charted a reference timeline of the articles from the course depicting the importance of the content longitudinally.
daviding March 9th, 2016
Posted In: systems
The average Canadian worker has (at least) some college or university education. This fact is counter to presumptions in a question on the first day at the World Economic Forum by Fareed Zacharia, in an interview with Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Zacharia asked:
What do you say to the average worker in Canada, who may not have a fancy college degree — and I’m thinking about the average worker in America or in Europe, as well — who looks out at this world and says “I don’t see what globalization is doing for me. The jobs are going to South Korea and China and Vietnam and India. Technology is great, but I can’t afford the new iPad Pro, and more importantly, this technology means that it increasinly makes me less valuable. Why shouldn’t I be angry and involved the politics of progress?”
The response by Trudeau spoke to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the theme of the Davos conference. He didn’t actually respond to the presumption on education.
In a national picture of educational attainment:
In 2012, about 53.6% of Canadians aged 15 and over had trade certificates, college diplomas and university degrees. This was an increase of 20.9 percentage points since 1990.
… says “The Indicators of Well-Being in Canada (2016)“, by Employment and Social Development Canada.
In the Economic Indicators for Canada,
Between 1999 and 2009, the proportion of adults aged 25 to 64 with tertiary education in Canada increased from 39% to 50%. In 2009, Canada had the highest proportion of the adult population with tertiary education among all reporting member countries of the OECD. By comparison, the 2009 OECD average was 30%.
… says Statistics Canada in “Educational Attainment and Employment: Canada in an International Context (February 2012)“.
If there’s going to be another industrial revolution, an educated population should be better positioned for it. What’s the fourth industrial revolution? The World Economic Forum describes “The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond“:
daviding January 20th, 2016
As part of the Master’s Program in Creative Sustainability at Aalto University, I’ll be in Finland for 3 weeks in February, as an instructor. I’m doing this as a favour for Katri Pulkkinen, who has been teaching the course since 2010, and felt that she needed some extra time to work on her Ph.D. dissertation.
Systems Thinking 2 follows in a series of compulsory courses, each with specified learning outcomes:
The official content of the course is delivered in intensive sessions:
On January 12, my colleagues Susu Nousala and Glen Forde launched the course in a 2-hour session with orientation materials. The course content is available on the open Internet at http://coevolving.com/aalto/201602-st2-muo-e8004/, and has been evolving over the past week.
The 25 students have been organized into 8 groups. Each group is preparing to stake a position on a research reference cluster, to lead an hour discussion for the class. The systems concepts have been specified as:
daviding January 18th, 2016
Synergy is a term that is sometimes used by laymen that could use some more clarification. The Oxford English Dictionary defines synergy as:
The interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects: ‘the synergy between artist and record company’
Origin: Mid 19th century: from Greek sunergos ‘working together’, from sun- ‘together’ + ergon ‘work’.
A common understanding is that synergy means that “a whole that is more than the sum of its parts”. Since I’ve said that “Systems thinking is a perspective on parts, wholes, and their relations”, a richer appreciation may come through working through a selective history on parts and wholes. Let’s step through:
A challenge in appreciating a whole is: what is meant by more than? In addition, is there a possibility for a whole to be less than the sum of its parts? The formalization of systems theory (in the modern sense) didn’t really rise until the 1950s, so rather than going back to ancient Greek philosophers, let’s start in the 20th century.
Holism was coined as a term in the 1920s. Jan Smuts was an amateur botanist, better known as a statesman, soldier and prime minister (1919-1924, 1939-1948) of South Africa. The Encyclopedia Britannica writes:
Until he went to school at the age of 12, Smuts lived the life of a South African farm boy, taking his share in the work of the farm, learning from nature, and developing a life-long love of the land. Many years later, when asked by an American botanist why he, a general, should be an authority on grasses, Smuts replied, “But my dear lady, I am only a general in my spare time.”
Smuts’ career in politics and passion for botany shows up in appreciating a whole as more than mechanism. In the 1926 book Holism and Evolution, he wrote:
The whole is not a mere mechanical system. It consists indeed of parts, but it is more than the sum of its parts, which a purely mechanical system necessarily is. The essence of a mechanical system is the absence of all inwardness, of all inner tendencies and relations and activities of the system or its parts. [….]
A whole, which is more than the sum of its parts, has something internal, some inwardness of structure and function, some specific inner relations, some internality of character or nature, which constitutes that more. And it is for us in this inquiry to try to elucidate what that more is. The point to grasp at this stage is that, while the mechanical theory assumes only external action as alone capable of mathematical treatment, and banishes all inner action, relation or function, the theory of the whole, on the contrary, is based on the assumption that in addition to external action between bodies, there is also an additional interior element or action of bodies which are wholes, and that this element or action is of a specific ascertainable character. [Smuts 1926, pp. 103-104, editorial paragraphing and emphasis added]
Wholes are therefore composites which have an internal structure, function or character which clearly differentiates them from mere mechanical additions or constructions, such as science assumes on the mechanical hypothesis. And this internal element which transforms a mere mechanical addition or sum into a whole shows a progressive development in Nature. Wholes are dynamic, organic, evolutionary, creative. The mere idea of creativeness should be enough to negative the purely mechanical conception of the universe.
It is very important to recognise that the whole is not something additional to the parts: it is the parts in a definite structural arrangement and with mutual activities that constitute the whole. The structure and the activities differ in character according to the stage of development of the whole; but the whole is just this specific structure of parts with their appropriate activities and functions. Thus water as a chemical compound is, as we have seen, a whole in a limited sense, an incipient whole, differing qualitatively from its uncompounded elements Hydrogen and Oxygen in a mere state of mixture; it is a new specific structure with new physical and chemical properties. The whole as a biological organism is an immensely more complex structure with vastly more complex activities and functions than a mere chemical compound. But it must not be conceived as something over and above its parts in their structural synthesis, including the unique activities, and functions which accompany this synthesis. It is the very essence of the concept of the whole that the parts are together in a unique specific combination, in a specific internal relatedness, in a creative synthesis which differentiates it from all other forms of combination or togetherness. The combination of the elements into this structure is in a sense creative, that is to say, creative of new structure and new properties and functions. These properties and functions have themselves a creative or holistic character, as we shall see in the sequel. At the start the fact of structure is all-important in wholes, but as we ascend the scale of wholes, we see structure becoming secondary to function, we see function becoming the dominant feature of the whole, we see it as a correlation of all the activities of the structure and effecting new syntheses which are more and more of a creative character. [Smuts 1926, pp 104-105, emphasis added]
Smuts’ larger work on holism brings up ideas of creative activity, progress and development of wholes, so evolution and time are also involved. Let’s skip forward a decade into another field.
Gestalt, says wiktionary, is a German word that doesn’t have quite the same sense in English. Gestalt psychology focuses on innate mental laws leading to principles of perception. A core idea, attributed to Kurt Koffka, was that a whole could be perceived as a shape or form, with parts as secondary. One of Koffka’s associate, Grace Heider, commented on the much misquoted phrase from her memory at a meeting circa 1932.
I also remember [Kurt Koffa] making a fine distinction when a questioner asked him whether Gestalt psychology wasn’t mostly a matter of saying that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: “No, what we mean is that the whole is different from the sum of its parts.” [Heider 1977, editorial emphasis added]
daviding January 3rd, 2016
Posted In: systems