Subjects are not object feb2012 seminar v2

1. 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 b.cohen@city.ac.uk www.asymmetricdesign.com www.soi.city.ac.uk/~bernie

2. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 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. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 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. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 4 The Modelling Relation: Engineering component component component compositionby physicalconnections component model component model component model stimulus response execute observedbehaviour parameter result calculate transferfunction commute interpret interpret compositionby symbolicbindings EngineeredSystem FormalSpecification 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. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 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. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 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. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 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. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 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. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 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. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 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. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 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 semanticdomain asrepertoireofcompositional approaches ComposeDirect orchestration (user's choice) There is no universal ontology

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

20. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 20 6-layer stratification critical technologies Technology output performances ConstructionKey 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. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 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.

23. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 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. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 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. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 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. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 26 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 q 1 12 23 unitorderconsultant unitorderpatient unitordergp_booking traceventwaiting_room unitorderprimary_care_group unitorderdirectorate unitorderorthotics_dept traceventgp_diagnosis traceventc_diagnosis traceventc_waiting_list traceventorthotics_waiting_list traceventneeds_adjusting tracevento_referral traceventreadymade_footwear traceventbespoke_footwear unitorderacute_trust traceventrepair_and_adaptation traceventsurgical_outcome traceventpodiatry_outcome traceventphysio_outcome traceventphysio_waiting_list traceventpodiatry_waiting_list traceventrequest_for_stabilisation unitordercomponents_biz traceventcomponents unitorderuk_agent traceventi_stock traceventm_stock unitorderstock_product_supplier unitorderbespoke_mfr traceventb_stock tracevento_goods_in traceventb_goods_in traceventimports traceventadjusted_stock unitorderpodiatry_dept unitorderphysiotherapy_dept traceventdirect_sale n simplexes slice2-3_trans Process 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. BCS FACS and Central London Branch Feb 16 ©2012 Prof. B. Cohen, City U 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

Boxer Research Ltd

Subjects are not object feb2012 seminar v2