Wonderful distinction. I'm not sure what ISM is, but
it does seem to me that Compendium/IBIS is oriented more
towards achieving understanding (a worthwhile goal), while
I am more interested in a goal-oriented system that will
produce, for example, a design document that incorporates
a feature checklist, cross-linked to implementation
possibilities, with code snippets, references to papers,
and "lab results" that provide proof-of-principle support. (01)
The Strategic Advantage site doesn't seem to be responding
to me, at the moment. I'll try to visit their page again
on Monday. (02)
Jack Park wrote:
> Below, I am copying in the complete prose of an email sent to the
> conceptual graphs community. Oddly enough, it came without the usual
> cglist blather at the end. Not sure why that is, but it did come with
> all the right mailtos and replytos. Never the less, it introduces (not
> new to some of us) "interpretive structural modeling" (ISM). Roaming
> about in that field, it occured to me that there are two kinds (and
> maybe more) of modeling going on in human activities: goal-oriented,
> and understanding-oriented (before you barf, I am fully aware of the
> notion that "understanding" is, indeed, a "goal"--I like the
> distinction, however). In goal-oriented modeling, you are headed for
> solutions to, say, wicked problems, where as in
> understanding-oriented, you just seek the bliss (Joseph Campbel)
> associated with sorting something out, discovering something new, that
> sort of rot. And, yes, I see a comparison between IBIS and ISM
> waiting in the wings. Nevertheless, below is the message.
>
> Jack
>
> * * * * * * * * *
> Subject: Of cabbages and kings
>
>
> "The time has come," the Walrus said,
> "To talk of many things:
> Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
> Of cabbages--and kings--
> And why the sea is boiling hot--
> And whether pigs have wings."
> +++
>
> This has reference to a number of the topics recently raised at CG and
> the posts thereon in various threads . The intention is to point out
> one major contradiction along with a possible way out of the
> contradiction. First, I note below a few of the topic-heads to which
> this message, very broadly, relates:
>
> -- Principles of collective organization
> -- The world may fundamentally be inexplicable
> -- Summary of pi calculus and situation calculus
> -- Principles of collective organization
> -- US firm invents 'first true AI' (including the v! eritable
> "blizzard" of messages received in response to 'off-topic' remarks of
> Professor John Sowa on GW Bush - leading finally to the sad event of
> Benjamin Udell quitting the list in wrath or disgust...)
> -- Convictions and addictions
> -- Epistemology of social situations
> -- Ontologies and their applications (this is not a specific topic
> head, but it is a general idea)
> (and doubtless there are many other topics, which I've not yet had the
> opportunity to explore adequately as yet).
>
> I claim that it is really no great hassle to handle any or all of the
> above issues without great difficulty (and much more effectively than
> is now being done) by actually using in practice the foundational
> ideas of this list (i.e. 'Conceptual Graphics'). Before I get killed!
> by angry list-members and/or thrown off the list for perceived
> frivolity or lese-majeste (or whatever), let me hasten to point out
> the major "contradiction" I've been observing on this list:
>
> How on earth is it possible at all to discuss Conceptual Graphics
> effectively - with regard to complex societal, human-behavioural and
> technical issues - in the 'pure prose' mode, as this list is trying
> vainly to do? How come you are not using your own powerful idea of
> Conceptual Graphics to clarify the issues you are discussing?
>
> It is extremely difficult if not entirely impossible to trace any
> complex issue using the pure prose mode through the lengthy,
> multilinear logical linkages that subsist between the factors within
> the issue. What happens is that person LMN invariably (and very
> naturally) focusses on ! the linkages that are meaningful and most
> urgent to him (or her), while person PQR would naturally focus on the
> linkages that are, respectively, relevant, meaningful and most urgent
> to him or her. This kind of discussion leads almost invariably to
> non-understanding, misunderstanding and even wrath, fury and even wars
> between nations sometimes (if neither is willing to stand down).
> [There are a sizable number of examples of such non-understanding and
> misunderstanding in the correspondence I've looked at on this list].
>
> I want to suggest there is a simple, better way possible. I want to
> suggest that what's required in order to make a reality out of the
> excellent idea of 'Conceptual Graphics' is a very minor extension to
> our conventional 'prose language', namely something that I call 'prose
> + structural graphics', which is&nb! sp;a development arising out of
> the seminal contributions of Professor John N. Warfield to General
> Systems Science. Warfield is Emeritus Professor, retired a couple of
> years ago from George Mason University, Fairfax, VA - outline
> information about the foundations of Warfield's contributions to
> systems science may be found at: http://www.jnwarfield.com;
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/t-iasis/warfield/warfield.htm
> http://www.gmu.edu/library/specialcollections/warfield.htm
> http://policy.gmu.edu/currents/volume3/issue02/warfield.htm
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/t-iasis/wandwaver/wandw.htm
>
> In due course, I shall hope to be putting up at my own website
> information about the specific significance of Warfield's works to
> individual, organisational and societal problem-solving and decision
> making in the specific context of the kind of issues that are being
> discussed at the various topic heads mentioned above. This website
> would delve into these issues specifically using the 'prose +
> structural graphics' mode of thought and discussion that is
> recommended to help us arrive at an adequate understanding of any
> complex issue that we need to think about or act upon. The
> 'structural graphics' part of 'prose + structural graphics' develops,
> as may be guessed from 'graph theory' as ! do, I believe, 'Conceptual
> Graphics'. Because of Warfield's profound insights into the nature of
> relationships within systems, the 'prose + structural graphics'
> process is a very thoroughly worked out 'system' to enable effective
> exploration of all complex systems, including itself.
>
> Let me try, very briefly, to explain (alas, in the pure prose mode,
> which is all that is accepted on this list currently):
>
> Warfield's work is founded solidly on the
> philosophical-logical-scientific contributions of Charles Sanders
> Piece (amongst many other 'Thought Leaders'). I understand that
> Pierce's work strongly influences the ideas of many of this list's
> members. In particular, Warfield has made it possible through his
> 'Interactive Management'' (IM), for people to discuss, meaningfully!
> (and 'actionably'), the relationships between factors in any complex
> system. I observe that it is precisely misunderstanding of each
> other's perceptions about such relationships that leads to a whole lot
> of the world's conflicts (between individuals; organisations; and even
> nations); and also to the disagreement that saw the unfortunate exit
> of Benjamin Udell from this list.
>
> In brief, IM enables people involved in complex issues to:
> -- generate and clarify ideas relating to those issues by way of
> response to well-designed 'trigger' or 'focusing' questions;
> -- 'structure' (i.e. organise) those ideas, based on the relationships
> between ideas, as perceived by the people generating the ideas.
>
> The importance of enabling people involved in any issues or problems
> to generate ideas is pretty well recognised by the 'manageme! nt
> sciences'; and this is accomplished, to an extent, by way of various
> 'brain-storming' and 'idea-generating' techniques. Warifled has put
> all of this onto a very rigorous scientific foundation based on his
> triad of '.
>
> The necessity of 'structuring' (organising) ideas generated to reveal
> the patterns that inhere in systems is barely understood in
> 'management science' - and this deficiency is present even in most of
> the conventional systems science, despite the accepted basic
> definition of a 'system' as follows: "A system is a collection of
> inter-related parts, working together for a purpose". Most
> conventional discussions of systems go into great length about the
> definition of the 'elements of the system' - but scarcely any
> attention is paid to the inter-relationships between those elements!
> By the invention of two powerful modeling tools, described below
> (used in conjunction with effective means of generating and clarifying
> relevant ideas), Warfield has made it possible for us to rectify
> precisely this deficiency in systems science (as conventionally
> practiced):
>
> -- Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM), which enables people to
> effective, usable models from lists (of 'elements', i.e. people's
> ideas), based on appropriate 'transitive' relationships inhering in
> the systems in which those elements are perceived.
>
> -- Field Representation (FR) Method [Field Profiling method as a part
> of FR], which enables eimple 'categorisation' of elements, based on
> the 'similarities' perceived by the people in the system between those
> elements - NOT on! any pre-conceived categories in their minds. The
> 'field profiling' enables the people in the issue to explore through
> discovery any or all the relationships (not only the transitive ones)
> between elements in the system under consideration.
>
> The models that are created in this process are 'graphical
> representations' of our ideas (or mental models) of the systems under
> consideration. It is found that there is huge leverage that can
> develop of systems viewed through this process, in terms of in the
> understanding gained by people about the systems they explore.
>
> What precisely does all of the above mean, in regard to our
> understanding of 'systems'? I shall provide only a brief discussion
> of an example (non-illustrative! , alas, as 'Conceptual Graphics' is
> not possible at this discussion group!), along with some discussion of
> of the 'technology' that renders the process practical and useful. I
> need to observe that this 'prose mode' discussion is entirely
> inadequate - and it does not (because it cannot) provide illustration
> of the power of the process.
>
> To begin with, different people in the system would have different
> ideas about the system. Say, person 'GSC' has one idea about
> accomplishing something with a system - e.g. 'To create a
> comprehensive unified system'. Person JFS responds: "It is impossible
> to create a comprehensive, unified system. We could alternatively
> think in terms of a 'start-up objective like: "To create an adequate,
> usable system". If 'GSC' and 'JFS' are willing to work with each o!
> ther on the following model
>
> "To create an adequate, usable system
> MAY CONTRIBUTE
> To create a comprehensive unified system" - then it could be possible
> for some progress instead of war on this account. (This simple
> sentence is THE secret, when one looks at it in the right
> perspective).
>
> If 'GSC' and 'JFS' are willing to acknowledge that the current state
> is far from being even an 'adequate and usable system' AND that such
> an 'adequate' system MUST come as a preliminary way station of sorts
> to creating 'a comprehensive, unified system' (and even to discovering
> whether such a unified system is possible at all) - then they may be
> able to work together to discover what are the 'elements' of creating
> an adequate, usable system. What would happen in such a case is that
> they get to work on something that should be possible (without huge
> waste of time, effort, or other resources on simply arguing about
> something that may or may not even be possible).
>
> One major part of the small technology that is required for effective
> discussion to begin with (along with effective work towards whatever
> may be practically possible) is contained in the fact that the
> relationship "contributes to" is transitive - i.e., if element 'A'
> "contributes to" element 'B', AND element 'B' contributes to element
> 'C' - THEN element 'A' MUST contribute to element 'C'.
>
> The models that develop may comprise scores or even more of linkages
> between the factors of the systems under consideration - they comprise
> what I call 'deep logic', w! hich simply cannot be explained or
> understood in the 'prose mode'.
>
> A basic willingness to accept that others in the system may well have
> fruitful contributions to make to the issue(s) under discussion is a
> fundamental requirement. There must also be a proper understanding of
> the 'action meaning' of the relationship contributes to. These two
> simple desiderata could (and do) usually result in people working
> together for mutual benefit and progress towards commonly agreed
> objectives or goals - in ways that are inconceivable when they are
> limited by conventional prose. In any case, even in the conventional
> prose mode, people do manage to work together. What the process I'm
> recommending accomplishes is to minimise (if not entirely remove) the
> fruitless argumentation (going veritably 'round and 'round the
> mulberry bush) that too often leads to 'breakdown' in most! thought
> and discourse on complex issues that is undertaken in the pure prose
> mode.
> The other significant contribution to modeling that Warfield has made
> is the Field Representation Method - which, in brief, enables us to
> create representations of the systems that we are considering in such
> a way that we can be sure that the whole system, when iteratively
> developed in this way, would satisfy "Ashby's Law of Requisite
> Variety". My 'Simple Simon' statement of Ashby's profound law in
> systems: 'The dimensions of any proposed resolution to a problem must
> match the dimensions of the problem'. (Because, if the dimensions are
> too few, the solution will not work; if the dimensions are too many,
> the solution will be too expensive or too complicated).
>
> [! At first glance, Ashby's Law appears to be just too obvious and
> simple to even need stating. But just look around! In all the
> individual, organisational and societal systems we have created over
> centuries, how many actually satisfy Ashby's Law? You will find that
> very few, of any organisational and societal systems do; a fair number
> (by by no means all) of the individual systems do satisfy Ashby's Law.
> A great many (if not all) of the sub-optimal performance of our
> systems (and their too-frequent catastrophic failures) derive from the
> simple fact that our systems do not satisfy Ashby's Law. This lack of
> satisfaction of Ashby's Law can be seen in the system the list uses to
> discuss its issues - the 'prose mode'].
>
> One notable contribution to Warfield's developments derives from the
> following ideas: We create models illustrating perceived relationships
> ! between the factors in the system under consideration because we
> perceive some benefits in doing so. Well, if there are benefits in
> making models out of elements within systems, then there should be
> MANIFOLD benefits in creating models out of the models already created
> from elements. And so it proves, as will be described. One benefit
> of the model of models idea is that Warfield's sophisticated ideas
> about systems and an appropriate language to discuss systems can now
> be used by practically anyone, at any level. (Only normal
> intelligence and basic literacy at say high-school level are required,
> to enable people to apply these ideas to issues of importance to them.
> I claim that this is as much of a leap forward as was represented by
> the concept of zero + place-holder arithmetic over the idea of 'Roman
> Numeral arithmetic).
>
> We proceed by choosing any 'Mission' - where 'Mission' is for any
> ambitious, comples, challenging objective (for individual or for
> organisation), involving requiring sizable efforts and resources to be
> expended in achieving it. For any Mission, there are, basically, six
> 'Dimensions' of interest:
>
> -- THINGS TO DO to accomplish the Mission;
> -- BARRIERS, DIFFICULTIES, THREATS that may hinder/prevent
> accomplishment of Mission;
> -- STRENGTHS (available and required) to help accomplish Mission;
> -- OPPORTUNITIES (and preparation required to avail opportunities)
> that may help accomplish Mission;
> -- WEAKNESSES that may hinder/prevent accomplishment of Mission;
> -- EVENTS/MILESTONES that may occur as people involved progress towards
>Mission.
>
> Trigger questions are asked of the people involved - and they generate
> whatever ideas are available. They ! then put these ideas together,
> by way of various models showing the inter-relationships of ideas.
> Because of the transitivity discussed earlier, it is quite efficient
> to create these models. Each model created enhances clarity of
> understanding of the issues in the systems under consideration. Now
> comes the power of the idea of the 'model of models': users are able
> to create a truly powerful, 'global' understanding of the complex
> issues they are considering (relative to the Mission) by linking up
> the models created in various dimensions. E.g. How do the BARRIERS
> or the WEAKNESSES hinder or prevent the THINGS TO DO to accomplish the
> Mission? And so on.
>
> There is much more of significance in the above ideas. But it is not
> really worth explaining all this in the 'pure prose mode'. If some
> arrangement is possible at this list to enable members to view
> graphical! models, I can make available a sizable number of
> 'conceptual graphics' that will ensure easy understanding of the ideas
> discussed (using these conceptual graphics, these ideas are very easy
> to understand). For those who may be interested/intrigued by my
> claims of the real power of 'conceptual graphics', I can make
> available some software that enables easy creation of the models
> discussed on any Mission of current interest - the models would be
> based on the good ideas of the users. This would enable users to
> check out my claims about the utility of 'conceptual graphics' when
> practically used.
>
> In closing this overlong message, I'd like to quote John Sowa as
> providing an excellent summary (though it is still in the pure prose
> mode):
> +++
> Forget the elusive search for an ultimate unified
> ontolo! gy because (a) it might not exist, (b) even if it
> did exist, it's not likely to be found for at least another
> century or so, and (c) even if it were found today, the most
> important things we need in our ontology are descriptions
> of the phenomena as we and our fellow earthlings (of all
> species) perceive them. And those phenomena are as varied
> and variable as there are earthlings, species of earthlings,
> and instruments (such as telescopes, microscopes, MRI
> scanners, etc.) for perceiving and recording them.
> +++
>
> GSC
>
>
> +++++++
> G.S. Chandy
> CEO-Designate, Mpower Interactive
> c/o eXensys Software Solutions Ltd
> Kanaka Durga Mandir Lane,
> Road No. 12, Banjara Hills,
> Hyderabad - 500 034, INDIA
> Telephone at Hyderabad: +91-40-2339 2440/41 (office hours only)
> Camp - Mumbai
> ! c/o Sahi Oretrans Pvt Ltd
> 30 Western India House
> Sir P.M. Road, Fort
> Mumbai - 400 001
> INDIA
> Tel.: +91-22-2281 0033 (7 lines)
>
> --
> This message is archived at:
>
>
>http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?ayak&iQ79aafa0601210923x3e2bf116qdd25298ca7d96ce1@mail.gmail.com
> (03)
--
This message is archived at: (04)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=43D2D766.2070300@sun.com (05)
|