Subjects are not object feb2012 seminar v2

BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U

BCS-FACS and Central London Branch

Subjects are not Objects

Bernie Cohen, CEng, FBCS, MIEE

Hon Visiting Professor, City University [email protected]

www.asymmetricdesign.com

www.soi.city.ac.uk/~bernie


Introduction

The Modelling Relation

from Science and Engineering

via the Frame Problem,

Pragmatics,

Anticipatory and

Sociotechnical Systems to

Projective Analysis (PAN)

elicitating clients' models of their ecosystems,

analysing the sustainability of their strategy and

illustrating the risks to which they are exposed.


3

The Modelling Relation: Scientific Knowledge

interpret

interpret

commute

Natural System

stimulus

entailment

response

Formal System

precondition

entailment

post-condition

Ontological Commitment: To be is to be the value of a variable [W. V. O. Quine]

Material

cause

Formal

cause


4

The Modelling Relation: Engineering

component

component

component

composition by

physical connections

component

model

component

model

component

model

stimulus

response

executeobserved behaviour

parameter

result

calculatetransfer function

commute

interpret

interpretcomposition by

symbolic bindings

Engineered System Formal Specification

Design engineers

identify as

components

just those closed

systems whose models

provide

computationally

effective composition

calculi.

Engineering disciplines

are characterised both by

their component models

and by their collections of

compositional operators.

Design


5

Closed Systems

and the Frame Problem* The Frame Problem:

in an OPEN SYSTEM, one cannot identify the set of all state components

that are NOT altered by the occurrence of an event.

Science and engineering make the simplifying assumption that the natural systems they observe are closed,

that is, immune to disturbance from all stimuli that the operative model does not account for.

This distinction between what is and what is not accounted for by the observer’s knowledge is the observer’s

Cartesian cut: What you see is not what you get

*first identified in McCarthy and Hayes, Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence, 1969


6

Sociotechnical Systems

* see “Architecting Principles for Systems of Systems”, by Mark W. Maier, University of Alabama.

http://www.infoed.com/Open/PAPERS/systems.htm

Healthcare, military, government and, in fact,

every enterprise currently of interest,

are all sociotechnical systems.

Every sociotechnical system is a System of Systems* (SoS)

whose component systems are autonomous

and collaborate with each other more or less voluntarily.

Each component system must therefore be modelled

as an open system in continuous interaction

with its enclosing ecosystem.


7

The Orchestrating User

Hence, “emergent behaviour”:

the actual composite behaviour of a SoS

differs from the observer’s composition of its parts

because its composition is not fully understood (e.g. feature interaction in telecoms etc.)

This difference between those system behaviours

that can be predicted by users independent of their use of it,

and those that cannot, is the user’s

Heisenberg cut:

What you get depends on how you use it


8

Anticipatory System

The clients for

composed services

(the composite functionality

delivered by an SoS)

are actors.

entailment

prerequisite

circumstance

situation

Final cause:

in the system’s context-of-use,

the situation entails the circumstance,

because the user’s model of demand

contains the counterfactual assertion:

if the prerequisite circumstance

were not to pertain,

then the situation would not occur.

Actors are anticipatory systems*

who derive their

demands for services

from their formulation of

themselves as context-of-use

(e.g. as an enterprise)

for those services.

Anticipative systems are complex

adaptive systems

* see Life Itself by Robert Rosen


9

The Modelling Relation: Pragmatics

anticipation

anticipation

modelling the organisation of demand

Model of being driven prerequisite

circumstance

entailment

demand

situation

Experience

experience of

partial satisfaction

Experienced

circumstance

Experienced

situation

Final

cause


10

The Frame Problem Revisited Understanding the client to be an anticipatory system,

and given that anticipatory systems are open systems,

then modelling the needs of the client

also suffers from the Frame Problem. But the client’s modelling of her need

in the form of an organisation of demand

constitutes a pragmatics of use, which can be modelled.

Although the client cannot know her needs directly,

she can know them indirectly through her experience of their effects.

This difference between what can and cannot be known

directly by the client about her needs is the client’s

‘endo-exo’ cut

What I want is never exactly what I ask for.


11

The Modelling Relation: SoS Design

Engineered System Formal Specification

stimulus

precondition interpret

interpret

entailment

entailment

response

post-condition

demand-side

ontology

supply-side

ontology

satisfy?

Experienced

circumstance

Client’s Experience

experience

of

partial

satisfaction

entailment

prerequisite

circumstance

demand situation

Model of being driven

Experienced

situation

anticipate

anticipate

sem

anti

c do

mai

n

as r

eper

toir

e o

f co

mp

osi

tio

nal

app

roac

hes

Compose Direct

orchestration

(user's choice)

There is no universal ontology


12

Modeling Sociotechnical Systems

In order to model a client enterprise as a socio-technical system,

it is necessary to situate the observer’s perspective:

The Domain of relevance: What are relevant interactions? i.e. in terms of what kinds of behavior is it defined?

The What: What does the enterprise do? i.e. what is the material nature of the work it does?

The Who for Whom: Who is it being for its customers? i.e. who is your client enterprise serving (and what are the economics of this)

The How: What are the critical identity-defining characteristics of how your client enterprise works? i.e. what are those aspects of how they are organized that are identity defining?

The Why: what makes those identity-defining characteristics of the client enterprise of value within the larger ecosystem of which it is part, particularly in relation to its customers?

i.e. what are the drivers in the larger ecosystem that makes what your client enterprise does of value.


13

Defining how the client stratifies their

relationship to demand

supply demand

identity realization

WHAT WHO FOR WHOM

HOW WHY Cartesian

Cut

Heisenberg Cut

Endo-Exo Cut

formal cause

material cause efficient cause

final cause

domain of relevance


14

Stratification and Asymmetries

WHAT

WHO FOR WHOM

HOW

WHY

1st asymmetry: the technology does not

define the product.

Economies of Scale

2nd asymmetry: the business model does not

define the customer's solution.

Economies of Scope

3rd asymmetry: the customer’s demand does not

define the experience that the customer wants

Economies of Alignment


15

PAN (Projective ANalysis)

Tools for Sociotechnical Systems Engineering

Visual PAN: elicits graphical, relational representation of client’s

enterprise model.

Stratifier: transforms into stratified Boolean matrix

Analyser: computes projections of stratified matrix

Cohesion: traces paths through stratified matrix

Landscaper: generates 3D histograms of Boolean matrices

considered as simplicial complexes

Feeds results back to client:

classification, location and magnitude of risks

quantifying value and competitive advantage of flexibility, agility, etc.


16

Projective Analysis (PAN) Workshops

Black Team:

What are the contexts-of-use and

customer situations that are generating

the demands that you are targeting, and

how will you synchronize the composite

capabilities needed to satisfy them?

Blue Team:

What are the critical technologies that

you have to be able to master and/or

source in creating your products

(constituent performances)?

White Team:

What are the

key constituent performances

that you need in order to construct the

output performances

that go into your market channels?

Red Team:

How are you going to have to customise

and orchestrate outputs

to generate the composite capabilities

you need to synchronize with the

customer situations you are targeting?


17

Visual PAN a Visio-based graphical editor

for recording the results of PAN workshops

Layer: Structure- Trace Hierarchy Synchronisation Demand

function

Meta-

ontology

and

its

Stencil

know-

how

capability

process

event

outcome

design

digital

system

digital

process

trace

unit order

digital

order

problem

demand

situation

customer

situation

driver

Clients' models are elicited as binary relations, of restricted signature,

between instances of these types identified by the clients.


18

Example: A Diabetics Clinic*

*B. Cohen and P. Boxer, Why Critical Systems Need Help to Evolve, IEEE Computer May 2010


19

Detail of Diabetics

Clinic


20

6-layer stratification

critical technologies

Technology

output performances

Construction Key constituent

performances

Engineering

Customised

outputs

Composite

Capabilities

Customisation

Orchestration

Customer

situations

Contexts-of-use

Synchronization

Visual PAN outputs a text file containing

every pair of typed objects in the graph.

The Stratifier transforms this file into a stratified Boolean matrix.


21

Strategic Analysis

An r-type proposition A c-type proposition

The Analyser examines this relational structure and reports the occurrence of

patterns symptomatic of the types of proposition that the supplier makes to its clients

in response to their expressions of demand.


22

A K-type proposition

A P-type proposition


23

Stakeholder and the Value Deficit

The supplier defines the

customer situation in a way

that serves its interests,

and has the control to

subordinate the demands

of the customer situation

to that definition of

demand (in this case for a

K-type proposition)

The supplier as stakeholder

in the way they have defined

their market, and in the way

they expect to satisfy it

The customer as stakeholder

in the way they have expressed

their demand, and in the way

they expect it to be satisfied

The value deficit

is the gap between the

customer’s expectations

and what is actually

supplied.

The more variability and

change there is in the

nature of demands, the

greater the scope for

value deficits to appear


24

The Stratified Matrix for the Diabetics Clinic

0

1

2 3

6

5

7

4

0,1 WHAT

2,3 HOW

4,5 FOR WHOM

6,7 WHY

alignment

stakeholders

Value deficit

Alignment

complexity


25

Landscapes Each sub-matrix may be considered as a Simplicial Complex* and represented as

a 3-dimensional histogram that graphically illustrates the risks to which the system-of-system is

exposed by inadequate communication among its components.

Y: The number

of data

elements

synchronized

by the platform

X: The separate data platforms within the healthcare system

Z: The number of

other platforms with

this level of

synchronization

Orthotic

Clinic data

Patient

Administration

data

GP

data

These 'holes' threaten

the K-type proposition

'othotist-with-patient'.

*R H Atkin, Q-Analysis, A Hard Language for

the Soft Sciences, Futures, Vol 10, Issue 6, 1978


26

-10123456789

1011121314151617181920

q

1

12

23

unitord

er\

consultant

unitord

er\

patie

nt

unitord

er\

gp_bookin

g

tracevent\

waitin

g_ro

om

unitord

er\

prim

ary

_care

_gro

up

unitord

er\

directo

rate

unitord

er\

ort

hotics_dept

tracevent\

gp_dia

gnosis

tracevent\

c_dia

gnosis

tracevent\

c_w

aitin

g_lis

t

tracevent\

ort

hotics_w

aitin

g_lis

t

tracevent\

needs_adju

stin

g

tracevent\

o_re

ferr

al

tracevent\

readym

ade_fo

otw

ear

tracevent\

bespoke_fo

otw

ear

unitord

er\

acute

_tr

ust

tracevent\

repair_and_adapta

tio

n

tracevent\

surg

ical_

outc

om

e

tracevent\

podia

try_outc

om

e

tracevent\

physio

_outc

om

e

tracevent\

physio

_w

aitin

g_lis

t

tracevent\

podia

try_w

aitin

g_lis

t

tracevent\

request_

for_

sta

bili

satio

n

unitord

er\

com

ponents

_biz

tracevent\

com

ponents

unitord

er\

uk_agent

tracevent\

i_sto

ck

tracevent\

m_

sto

ck

unitord

er\

sto

ck_pro

duct_

supplie

r

unitord

er\

bespoke_m

fr

tracevent\

b_sto

ck

tracevent\

o_goods_in

tracevent\

b_goods_in

tracevent\

import

s

tracevent\

adju

ste

d_sto

ck

unitord

er\

podia

try_dept

unitord

er\

physio

thera

py_dept

tracevent\

direct_

sale

n

simplexes

slice2-3_transProcess Alignment Complexity

X: The component outputs of the healthcare system

Y: The

number of

processes

that must be

aligned to

generate

each output

Z: The

number of

other

outputs

sharing this

level of

alignment

The orthopaedic consultant, the

patient and the general practitioner

Diagnostic

processes

Orthotic

treatment

process Orthosis

manufacture


27

Further Work Software Engineering: Transform current prototype software

from VB (!) to Open Source under e.g. Eclipse.

Graph Theory: Formalise and implement the graph-theoretic

operators involved in the composition of graphs from different

subjects, given the ontological mappings on which they agree.

Algebra: Select an algebraic structure that adequately represents

the composition and transformation of 'triply articulated'* models.

* P. Boxer and B. Cohen, Modelling the Enterprise and its Actors as Triply-Articulated Anticipatory Systems, ICCS

2004

Subjects are not object feb2012 seminar v2

Data & Analytics

Transcript of Subjects are not object feb2012 seminar v2