Handbook of Systems and Complexity in Health
Posted: January 16, 2013 Filed under: complexity, innovation, public health, systems science, systems thinking | Tags: book, Carmel Martin, complexity, health, Joachim Sturmberg, public health, systems thinking, wicked problems 3 Comments »
Handbook of Systems and Complexity in Health
A brilliant and comprehensive new book has been launched that brings together the best scholars working in the area of systems thinking and complexity and applying it to health.
The book description can be found here along with a link to the abstract for a chapter I co-authored with Andrea Yip looking at the overlap between design thinking and systems science and complexity. This chapter takes a design lens on previous work developing the CoNEKTR model for engagement in complexity and health.
It’s a big book, but well worth a look if you’re wrestling with complexity and systems thinking in health and social innovation.
Rethinking the Relationship Between Simplicity, Complexity and Knowledge
Posted: May 23, 2010 Filed under: complexity, systems thinking | Tags: book, complexity, design, design thinking, John Maeda, simplicity, systems thinking 5 Comments »Today I continue to look at the concept of simplicity and its relationship to complexity by focusing on the work of John Maeda, designer, artist and president of the Rhode Island School of Design. Maeda has devoted much of his career to understanding the role of simplicity in art, design, business, technology and everyday living and his book, The Laws of Simplicity, may be the most cogent analysis of simplicity in a manner that adheres to the very laws it espouses. As a designer, academic, and innovator, Maeda’s interest in simplicity reaches to the core of his craft and because of this, his work on the subject is worth paying attention to.
The Laws of Simplicity outline 10 laws, of which most I agree with. However, there are three that I see as problematic and, in some cases, actually inspire greater complexity rather than reveal or produce simplicity. I begin with Law #4: “knowledge makes everything simpler”.
In the fourth law, Maeda argues that simple things often require knowledge to fully unlock their potential. One of the examples he gives is the screwdriver and the screw. Two simple things, but it requires knowledge of how they fit together and which way to use them through such mnemonic devices like “righty tighty, lefty loosy” to make the simplicity work (p.33).
Using the examples of learners tackling new and difficult problems, Maeda discusses how the development and application of knowledge creates opportunities to create simple solutions by understanding the basics relative to the more complex parts — something systems thinkers might consider relating the entire system to the components within it. Using the screwdriver example, this law becomes quite evident and could easily be supported. However, to use tools like screwdrivers as the metaphor, there are problems that require many tools working at the same time to solving them. It is here that a little information helps to a point, but then as starts to fall back on itself because the volume of knowledge required to fully understand things gets too much. In complexity terms, this is where interactions and feedback enter and the previously independent points of knowledge converge, requiring someone to attend to multiple things at the same time. As the metaphor goes, the vise, the saw, the planer, the drill and the screwdriver all need to be thought of at the same time in order to solve the problem. New mnemonics or “simple rules” need to be found.
Indeed, there is a point where more information helps, but my experience as an educator and health researcher suggests that there is a threshold in which knowledge sews confusion rather than yields insight. Below is a schematic drawn from my experience paired with insights from cognitive and information science that illustrates what happens when there is too much information. However, before reading this consider the following assumptions in which this model was based:
If we surmise that complex information is more difficult to fully comprehend than something simple, then the likelihood of a message being understood goes up if it has greater simplicity than complexity.
If we consider knowledge as being the understanding of information, then we can conclude that more information equals more knowledge.
Limits to Knowledge in Complex Systems
In the diagram, there is a steady increase in the amount of clarity that knowledge provides up to a point where it levels off and then, as information increases, the complexity rises and the confusion grows. At some point, the information and knowledge load becomes too large for the problem and the simplicity starts becoming complex. This I describe as a law unto itself, because I have yet to find an issue where this doesn’t apply.
Edmunds and Morris (2000) looked at this phenomenon in a review of the literature published in the International Journal of Information Management, concluding that information overload is a serious problem for organizations and the individuals within them.
To illustrate this problem of knowledge and simplicity, consider a socially conscious trip to your average North American grocery store. I love food and want to eat in a manner that is healthy, ethical and environmentally and economically sustainable. As a result, I devote a lot of time to researching food to find out what options are available to me. This knowledge has transformed something simple like buying groceries into an event of uncommon complexity (or joy into angst on some days). My knowledge of healthy eating means that foods with trans-fats, excess sodium and sugar, and high levels of carbohydrates, fats and calories are out. Add to that what I know about socially responsible farming and the environment, and I’ll try to choose products with less packaging, organically (and sustainably) grown, local (when appropriate), and those that use little harmful chemicals that unnecessarily damage the environment and the creatures within it. I also want my food to be of good quality (fresh) and good value (which often means low cost). Each one of these issues — healthy vs. not, organic vs. not, expensive vs. cheap — are issues where some more information can lead to making the decision simpler. Multiplied together, and this becomes complex.
As author Neil Johnson puts it:
Two’s company, three’s complexity.
Perhaps it should be:
Two’s simple, three’s complex.
So with regards to the Law, I agree that it is correct for certain problems, but not all. Rather, I suggest amending Maeda’s 4th Law to read:
Some Knowledge Makes Some Things Simpler, While Lots of Knowledge Makes a Lot of Things More Complex
Is Simplicity the Antidote to Complexity?
Posted: May 22, 2010 Filed under: design thinking, systems thinking | Tags: book, complexity, design, simplicity, systems thinking 2 Comments »
Taken by by TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³ and posted to Flickr. Used under Creative Commons Licence
One of the questions on my mind lately has been “can we reduce complexity?”.
I’m not alone.
Indeed, almost anyone working in information sciences, media, healthcare, public policy, or any information-driven sector (which is more and more of us these days) wrestles with complexity in their work. Complexity’s problem is simple: it’s very nature requires intense concentration, knowledge, and consideration, which requires mutliple faculties and scales.
In the recent issue of Explore magazine, journalist J.B. MacKinnon (who, with Alisa Smith, wrote the 100 Mile Diet) commented on the practical challenges facing someone trying to live sustainably. One hypothetical example he uses is the hiker, who plans a low-impact, ecologically responsible trip (which heightens his passion for conservation) only to be told that his brand of boots contribute to the death of sea turtles in Mexico. Despite the best efforts, there are too many things to attend to to make a decision that satisfies every demand: it’s too complex.
John Maeda, President of the Rhode Island School of Design and visual artist, has tried to address this issue over his career. In 2006 he compiled his meditations over many years into a book called “The Laws of Simplicity“ In a (simple?) slender volume, Maeda outlines the following ten laws:
1. Reduce: The simplest way to achieve simplicity is through thoughtful reduction.
2. Organize: Organization makes a system of many appear fewer.
3. Time: Savings in time feel like simplicity.
4. Learn: Knowledge makes everything simpler.
5. Differences: Simplicity and complexity need each other.
6. Context: What lies in the periphery of simplicity is definitely not peripheral.
7. Emotion: More emotions are better than less.
8. Trust: In simplicity we trust.
9. Failure: Some things can never be made simple.
10. The One: Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious, and adding the meaningful.
Rarely has a book been so highly anticipated a read (it’s been on my bookshelf for two years waiting for the right moment) and left me so perplexed. Why? The ideas are certainly simple, the text and argument are simple (but not simplistic), and some are right on the mark, yet others are not.
For me, 4 (Learn), 5 (Differences), and 7 (Emotion) are all problematic, although ironically, I think they are critical to complexity and simplicity, but for reasons that differ from Maeda’s argument.
Humans are complex and each of these three laws deals with phenomena that add information over time and thus, increase complexity, not introduce simplicity. In my next few posts, I’ll be exploring each of these in detail.
Jaron Lanier and Dominant Design
Posted: March 11, 2010 Filed under: complexity, design thinking, education & learning, social media, social systems | Tags: book, complexity theory, critical theory, discovery, innovation, review, social innovation, social media, technology 4 Comments »
What happens when the system of innovation that serves us so well provides the very means of hindering creativity and limiting our potential? That is a process that Jaron Lanier calls”Lock in” and it is something that doesn’t get enough attention as we contemplate the systems we’re in. The term “lock-in” refers to what we might associate with path dependence in complexity science. It is the well-worn path that guides us in certain ways, often without us knowing it, and consequently limits the range of possibilities that we have before us.
Designer or technologists might also call this phenomenon ‘dominant design‘ . Regardless of what you call it, the phenomenon is worth looking at intently, which is just what Lanier does in his new new book. Jaron Lanier is a unique figure in the technology world, filling the role of both pioneer, advocate and intense critic. His work on virtual reality has paved the way for a host of later innovations in ways of marrying the person and their perception with technology that can amplify or mediate this experience in virtual environments. Second Life, Flight Simulator and the very real use of VR to explore case scenarios (such as the one that Loyalist College in Ontario has used to train border guards via Second Life) for practical purposes owe a lot to his him.
It is for this reason that Lanier’s opinion holds some weight. His recent book is a critical look at how we’ve unwittingly created paths that are leading us to stifle innovation, creativity and expression through tools that invoke a type of non-reflective “hive mind” that rewards the mediocre, the middle, and shaves off the edges, where much creative work really happens. Wikipedia, while useful and generating content that might not otherwise be available, also rewards the view of the majority or those types most likely to edit, re-edit and commit to a topic. In a drive towards providing a version of the truth, albeit an edited one, tools like Wikipedia aim for the middle or the points of agreement as the focus of the articles. This might be fine if there were many Wikipedias out there, but there really isn’t. It has become the dominant form of ‘encyclopedia’ out there.
Think of search and you get: Google. The reason is likely because it provides a great search, but also becomes something you’re accustomed to. Have you considered what other relevant things you are NOT seeing because they don’t fit Google’s search algorithm?
Ever organize your files into something other than a folder or dragging it to your desktop? Probably not very often. The reason is that there is a dominant design out there that pushes us to create spaces with similar features across conditions so we have Macs and PCs use folders, have desktops, employ icons and organize information using hierarchies.
Jaron Lanier is worried that we’re creating a social web where creative opportunities that favour individual expression and innovation are getting squashed at the expense of tools and resources that appeal broadly, but have little depth or breadth for innovation. He’s not an anti-technology luddite here, rather providing a series of arguments for why we need to spend more energy contemplating the systems we create and critically examining their impact. Otherwise, we create knowledge generating tools that do little to help people learn, music programs that limit sound quality, and problem-solving tools that actually create more problems than they solve. It’s an interesting read and, while I don’t agree with all of his arguments, there is much to consider as social media becomes bigger, more connected and an ever-greater part of our life. More on this to come.
The Genius of Seth Godin
Posted: January 29, 2010 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: behaviour change, book, complexity, innovation, inspiration, motivation, psychology, Seth Godin, social innovation 6 Comments »
In his new book, Linchpin, businessman, marketer, blogger, auteur Seth Godin asks the question: Are you indispensible?
Seth, if you don’t know, is a genius. On the first page of Lynchpin he describes what a genius is:
“If a genius is someone with exceptional abilities and the insightto find the not so obvious solution to a problem, you don’t need to win a Nobel Prize to be one. A genius looks at something that others are stuck on and gets the world unstuck”
By that account, Seth is a certifiable genius.
This blog is about making sense of a complex world and Seth is one of those people that does that, paradoxically, by making things simple. Paradox is a hallmark feature of complexity and one of the reasons why the world is so often puzzling to us. Efforts to quell terrorism lead to more terrorism, exercises in control lead to greater instability (for more examples see another great book by Joshua Cooper Ramo) — that sort of stuff.
Seth is a straight-talker without being arrogant or simplistic. He his assertive without being aggressive. He challenges, while supports and understands. He is a rare being and one that I think deserves a blog post and some promotion.
Some examples? In his book “The Dip” he makes the case for quitting. We often hear that quitters never win and winners never quit, yet Seth shows how that’s not the case. It’s thoughtful and strategic quitting that counts.
In his recent interview on CBC’s Spark, Seth courageous says: “If you can’t get over your fear of the stuff that’s working, then I think you need to give up and do something else” . Few people are willing to say this stuff, but its true. We often fear success, because we’re not supported in doing something that doesn’t fit the system of production created for us in work, school and society from the 20th century onward.
Another great interview from Seth (also on Spark) is available here .
Lastly, I want to say that Seth is one who not only speaks but he acts. He invited a couple thousand of his blog readers to get a free copy of Linchpin in exchange for a donation to the Accumen Fund, which aims to transform the lives of people in poverty worldwide, particularly in Africa. I took up this offer. Seth believes that the world works best when we’re able to tap into our natural motive for generosity and to further back that up, he sent me a SECOND book for free to give to someone else. I’ve done one, well five, better in return. I chose to purchase a five copies of the book for each of the members of my research team; a talented group who form a wonderful linchpin for the future of health promotion and social innovation.
I’ve endorsed a product like this because I think it has a message that is necessary in a complex world of rapid change, where making sense is hard and often confusing. But in an age of uncertainty, stress and the collapse of many of our institutions due to rapid change, Seth provides inspiration, guidance and clear-headed thinking in a way that few others have. If I can offer one thing to Seth in small payback for his inspiration in me, the least I can do is write about him and encourage you to follow his lead and, in doing so, follow you own.
The book can be bought online below or from your local independent bookseller:
Amazon (Canada)
Amazon (United States)
Chapters/Indigo (Canada)
Barnes&Noble (United States)
Borders (United States)
eHealth and the Trust Factor
Posted: October 7, 2009 Filed under: eHealth, public health, social media, systems thinking | Tags: book, eHealth, innovation, social networks, transparency, trust 1 Comment »
In eHealth we trust?
Today it was reported that the Ontario Minister of Health has resigned, presumably on the wake of the eHealth scandal (which I discuss in an earlier post) that engulfed the current Liberal government since it was revealed that there were considerable questionable expenses made by eHealth Ontario. It’s all a mess, most notably because at its root eHealth is all about trust and that seems to be the element that is most absent in this political spectacle. The elected officials do not trust the bureaucrats at eHealth Ontario, while the public loses its trust in the elected officials. Mingled in with this is a problem with trust of the government to develop a reasonable eHealth information system on its own and the simultaneous distrust of the private sector to do it for a reasonable fee and deliver an effective and efficient service. So far, all these fears are well-grounded as played out in this scandal (and when you spend $1B on a system that can be delivered for a small fraction of that and wind up with little to show for it, it is a true scandal).
The irony in all of this is that eHealth is founded on trust. We trust that our records will be stored in a manner that is secure, but also accessible. We trust that the most appropriate use of health information gleaned from information we provide to health professionals or online will follow from having these systems in place. There are the tools and resources to do this and they are not that hard to develop. That isn’t to say that this is something one person can slap together in an afternoon on a PC, but it doesn’t take a billion dollars to do it either. In the United States, The Veteran’s Administration has its own eHealth University to train people on how to use the eHealth system they developed (and it is going to be open-source I might add, meaning that the world can take it and adapt it). They have put the resources into building trust among health care professionals by offering training, developing a transparent model, and in doing so, fostering trust in their patients.
eHealth in the public sphere is equally about trust. Social networks — the foundation of nearly all of the leading websites and tools from Google to Facebook to Twitter — are all based on trust. Karen Stephenson, a pioneer in the early research on social networks in organizations, says that trust and its ability to broker relationships serves as a kind of backbone of innovation, by leveraging social capital across organizational boundaries. From a systems science perspective, trust is the mechanism by which diversity can be better engaged in the system — whether that is diversity of ideas, opinions, cultural expression (example) , sexuality, and identity.
Marketers Chris Brogan and Julien Smith recently published a book that argues that marketing — the spreading of ideas about a topic or product — is essentially about creating and engaging trust agents. From a public eHealth perspective, this means providing ways to get people connected in a safe, secure manner that enables them to share their ideas, innovate and learn in a way that supports — even enhances — trust.
The challenge in Ontario is building that trust back up. eHealth has become a ‘four letter word’ and its name — fairly or unfairly — has been sullied by the events of the past few months. Let’s find some ways to build it back up and do it in a way that makes us all better for it. Ideas are welcome.
The Book is Dead, Long Live the Book! Learning and Social Media
Posted: September 10, 2009 Filed under: complexity, education & learning, eHealth, emergence, social systems, systems thinking | Tags: book, complexity, education, eHealth, eLearning, emergence, Facebook, knowledge management, storytelling, Twitter 2 Comments »The Book is Dead, Long Live the Book!
Is this a library or a graveyard? P.S. Where's the power outlet?
I found myself in a strange situation the other day: I was listening to a podcast of a panel of Web 2.0 marketers talk about their new books and the power of old media in a new media age. No matter how digital a person is, there is still something to hold on to (literally) with a book.
The panel was hosted by Mitch Joel on his podcast Six Pixels of Separation (which is also the title of his new book), and included folk like marketer Chris Brogan and his co-author Julien Smith and others discussing social media and the perils of sticking with the old ways of marketing, yet highlighting the importance (and honour) of being a New York Times Bestseller (i.e., being recognized by a print newspaper as a top seller of paper books). There’s lots involved in this, but most notably I think it actually reflects what Robert Fulford once called “the triumph of narrative” . This is the appeal of storytelling, depth and coherence in communication — things that most new media does quite badly. Twitter, on a tweet-by-tweet basis is largely incoherent. I might have areas I tweet on and may seek people who tweet about other things, but because not everyone stays ‘on message’ and that people tend to have diverse interests (including Twitter follows), that leaves a mass of information that is left up to the user to make sense of.
Facebook, because it is more closely tied to relationships or ‘friends’ we are familiar with, has at least some over-arching thematic consistency to it, but it still isn’t largely a place to tell or learn from stories.
That’s where books come in. Amazon has released the Kindle, while others are trying to digitize text into books. My colleagues at the Strategic Innovation Lab at the Ontario College of Art & Design are looking at the future of the book, trying to understand how to add the searchable features of a regular webpage and the linking features of hypertext within the codex form of book — electronic or otherwise. Seems like a lot of energy is going into a ‘dead’ technology.
Formal education can be a lot like a book. While anyone can pull together the content within a course — textbooks, slides, recordings – few people will learn in the same way at a distance, in chunks, than being part of a coherent narrative provided through a good course (** i.e., one that teaches people to learn, not shovels content at them). That is no reason not to accumulate chunks. Twitter is great — at what it does. So are books.
So much of our discussions of eHealth, eLearning, and education is that we take an either/or approach. Is distance learning better than face-to-face? Books are dead, all the information is on the Web. These arguments are not helpful. I don’t suspect the book — the paper and cloth codex of today — will last, but I do think the book as a long-form manuscript (digital or otherwise) will survive. Our storytelling — at a distance anyway — depends on it.
Another issue is related to complexity. Complex problems require solutions that can reflect this complexity. Those complex responses are much less likely to emerge through a 140 character tweet. They may emerge over 1000′s of tweets, but without any obvious ways to derive coherence from these without mining the data for it. The book, because of its focus on organizing a lot of information into a narrative is one of the best ways to do this. So while we celebrate the rise of new tools and technologies, let’s also give a cheer to the ones we already have.
Lastly, when I came up with the title for this post, I suspected that I wasn’t the only one who’d uttered such a phrase. So in the name of acknowledging the efforts of others, you can see the many different posts using this title here, here, here, here and here (and many other places).
