Words mean things. One of the more obnoxious statements of the obvious, and yet I find myself saying it more often these days. The more I delve into understanding complexity theory, network science, and struggle to understand cognition and neuroscience, the more frustrated I get when people use terms in ways appear at odds with the literature.
As I was preparing this blog to address the use of ‘complex’ versus ‘complicated,’ I found that I am certainly not alone in trying to retain some clarity of language. Paul Jansen, in particular, has a great blog post on exactly this topic. Nevertheless, I owe the nice people who followed this exchange on Twitter this week a brief explanation of my frumiosity.
This week, caught up in the holiday mood – I found myself engaging this week in an exchange with a gentleman, Roger Sessions, who has developed a method for IT architecture designed to ‘reduce complexity.’ His paper features references to “attacking complexity” and includes a method for measuring it. He introduces the “standard complexity unit,” based on something he refers to as “Glass’s Law,” which posits that for every 25% increase of complexity in a problem space, there is a 100% increase in the complexity of the solution space. This reflects work from a 1979 paper by Scott Woodfield, who first posed this idea. The idea is that increasing the complexity of problems tackled by software engineers does not increase the complexity of the solution in a linear sense, but on an exponential scale. It is this problem that Sessions seeks to take on with his approach.
Now the notion of reduced complexity is attractive, if you understand complexity as a system that has developed so many connections as to become unmanageable. This is a common usage for ‘complex,’ which seems to translate to “something too hard to understand or manage or control or cost.” The notion of ‘wicked problems‘ applies here as well. The greater the connections you find among things, the greater are your odds of decision paralysis and “failure.” Solution? Easy, make things simple. The danger, for me, comes in simplifying management behaviors in ways that deny the nature of the systems we are attempting to manage. If you believe complex is nothing more than the ‘opposite of simple,’ you are missing some of the most promising areas of applied research in a half century.
When I engaged the gentleman on his use of the term complexity, I received what I believed was an odd response. For someone who uses the word in titling his books and lectures, he did not appear terribly connected to the word itself. He even invited me to suggest a different term for what he was trying to achieve. The closest I could come to his definition for complexity (admittedly, without buying his book) is an ‘exponential growth in system states with regards to information technology systems.’ To me, he is trying to help people with an architectural approach that makes overly-complicated IT systems more manageable.
For his part, Roger was comfortable with my discomfort, because in his world “complex” merely means the opposite of “simple.” Several of us during this Twitter-fuffle suggested the use of “complicated,” which suggests a system that has known but prolific connections. Cause and effect in complicated systems are related and knowable, but analysis by an expert will likely be needed to connect them when something goes wrong. My example here is the ‘check engine light’ on my car – while I am at a loss to understand the cause, an expert with tools can ascertain it quickly. Modern car engines are extremely complicated.
They are not, however, complex. My car engine is unlikely to evolve new features anytime soon. There is a reason medical doctors have different training regimes than auto mechanics. The latter deal with complicated systems, the former with complex ones.
Complexity is a specific term. Complexity, as described in the literature, is a science that seeks to explain how emergent order (often called ‘hidden order’ or ’self-organization’) is observed in systems or (most) networks. For what it’s worth, I believe those seeking to develop IT architectures could benefit from a deep understanding of complexity, as their users are sloppy humans in messy and evolving sub- and extra-organizational work networks. Methods for complex systems management show some promise in ‘attacking’ the unmanageable IT systems that Mr. Sessions is tackling here. It may be that observing and nourishing self-organization among human-based networks, rather than embedding and enforcing an existing or desired organization within them, will help architects develop more manageable and relevant IT systems.
As a blog post, however, this has gone on long enough. I just wanted to explain my bristling at a usage of the term ‘complex’ in a way that conflicts with the literature. At one point, Roger reminded me that he is trying to tackle an extremely serious problem. I respect that, of course, and was doing the same. Given the great work that is ongoing around complexity and complex adaptive systems, we owe some respect to giants upon whose shoulders we seek to stand.
Still, I had a job interview almost every week. And I landed contracts. With one exception, each of these came directly from social media and colleagues/friends I had never “met” in real life. In the end, I avoided bankruptcy, or any real disruption to my family. I crafted an unpleasant Plan B, plotted the date that it would kick in, and threw myself into this experiment. By the time that date arrived, I was well on my way out of my personal recession.
The cross of St. Patrick sat on the alleged spot where this baptism took place, and some believe the stone used as a support for the cross is the rock at which the pagan Kings at Cashel were crowned. It is possible that this rock was repurposed to hold a Christian cross, honoring the evangelist Patrick. (It barely resembles a cross due to erosion and weather.) The onset of the Christian era did not, however, repeal inter-clan rivalry among the Irish kings.
Raise a glass, when you get a chance, to T.B. Naylor, who, one day in 1891, found himself or herself inside the center chamber of the passage tomb at Newgrange. This was during a time after the restoration begun by Robert Campbell in 1699, and before the government took ownership of the historic site. So Naylor, having no other compass to direct his/her actions, carved their name on one of the ancient stones. The guides there now make a passing reference to “Victorian graffiti” and ask you to ignore it.
When you visit Knowth, you stand amidst “passage tombs,” most likely built over 6,000 years ago. Surrounded by massive kerbstones featuring neolithic carvings, these magnificent structures have survived civilizations and North Atlantic weather. Passage tombs are burial mounds that some believe were meant to be transition points for ancient souls, so called because they feature a single passage to the center of the mound.
The message, the meaning of these structures, however, goes beyond grave sites, and has been forever lost – but clues remain for many researchers to ponder. The use as a lunar calculator may be one of the more useful – and that researcher emphasizes his point by detailing how Knowth can be used to predict when Easter will fall for the coming year; making more than one point in his conclusion.
She regales me with her memories: set the choke, engage the spark, and other terms lost to history. The automatic transmission, the electric starter, power windows and cup holders had not yet been invented. Today, buying a car with a manual transmission is within the interest of the hobbyist, but for most of us who are buying transportation rather than a car – the latter is the domain of a fading breed. The need to accommodate the human to early technology has passed, we can now tailor the experience to our comfort and convenience.
