CONTENTS

Pattern 1: Chronology: Seven Milestones in the History of Thought

The most intense form of scholarship lies in philosophy. The word "philosophy" is derived as a conjunction of two Greek words meaning first "love" and second "wisdom", so that the term translates into "love of wisdom". Only a small percentage of the world's philosophers exemplify that term to the fullest.

What is seen here is the evolution through time of thought about thought. What is portrayed in this evolution is a slow drift toward formalism in expression. Formalism refers to the use of well-defined language as a means of expression. The seven milestones shown here, when carefully examined, reveal a linked pattern of support and enhancement of this slow drift, beginning well over 2,000 years ago, and reaching a state of pragmatic utility in the last decade of the 20^th century. In this seventh state, computer support is provided to enable aggregated and integrated human belief to be developed, revealing interpretive patterns to help human beings resolve complexity.

Extensive research supports the pattern shown here, not only in terms of relevant fundamental literature from appropriate disciplines, but also in terms of empirical evidence, found in a wide variety of applications, where today's interpretation of this pattern has been tested and found to be highly effective in serving the needs found in applications.

Pattern 2: Milestones in the Study of Behavioral Pathologies

While thought about thought has been transpiring for over two millennia, fundamental thought about human behavior--from a scientific perspective--is only a little over a century old. The pattern shown here reflects milestones in the scientific study of behavior, and incorporates only those outcomes that are directly applicable to the enhancement of human thought.

Pattern 3: Chronology: The Work Program of Complexity

Through the integration of Patterns 1 and 2, one arrives at Pattern 3, which shows the chronology of work required to resolve complexity. Pattern 3 can and should replace existing sequences that are embedded in human work, which do not benefit from an understanding of Patterns 1 and 2. This replacement can take place in many fields of study and many application areas. Where it is overlooked or ignored, failures of leadership can be expected.

Pattern 4: Five Indexes of Complexity

Pattern 4 identifies five computable indexes of complexity. These stand in a role similar to that of the physical standards that lend integrity to the physical sciences. With the ready possibility of computing and comparing values of these indexes, and referring them back to the seven milestones in the history of thought, and also to the milestones in the study of human behavior, a type of closure is obtained. This type of closure should be viewed as compelling in terms of framebreaking and remodeling of human enterprises; and in the reconstruction of human knowledge, as recommended in the works of Michel Foucault.

To ignore these patterns ultimately invites documentable criticism, which may extend into areas of legal action in domains where human beings are subjected to intellectual abuse, or other forms of mistreatment.

Pattern 5: The Curriculum of Complexity

This pattern involves attempts to aggregate earlier work, then organize it more carefully, to try to make it more easily understood; while emphasizing complexity as the principal theme. (The biggest difficulty in doing this is trying to achieve what Chris Argyris has called "framebreaking". If that can be done, then "remodeling" is a lesser task.) Because of the urgency in making this work understood, this pattern, called "The Curriculum of Complexity" has been prepared to serve as an overview for learning this material. The Curriculum has four "Courses":

• The Infrastructure of Science
• A Science of Complexity
• The Work Program of Complexity
• Implementation: Organizations and Complexity

The graphic gives brief descriptions of these four areas.

The Infrastructure of Science is a necessary first Course, because without an understanding of the conditions under which science can be developed, it is almost impossible to explain the Science of Complexity. Without going back to foundations, such a science cannot be seen in perspective. Also without that understanding, one cannot really comprehend why the Work Program is laid out the way it is, and why organizations have to recognize the demands of complexity in order to provide an adequate work environment for working with complexity.

The Science of Complexity falls into place if The Infrastructure of Science is understood. The Work Program of Complexity is readily illustrated (not in the glossary, but in other documents) by many applications. If the first three Courses are well-understood, the organization will hopefully take the steps needed to make it possible to apply this material on a large scale to many issues.

The following supplemental publications are developed, or are being developed, to support this Curriculum, along with the many other publications produced over the years:

• Essays on Complexity­21 essays that describe various aspects of complexity
• The Wandwaver Solution ­ showing how to redesign the university, so it can become a place to learn about complexity and, hopefully, enable the Curriculum; now on the WorldWideWeb at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/t-iasis
• PATTERNS AND BEHAVIOR ­ A 149-page monograph prepared as a first draft of the Curriculum of Complexity
• The Glossary of Complexity

It is probably true that for many people it will be appropriate to study Courses 3 and 4 before

studying Courses 1 and 2. It is possible for practitioners to learn what is in Courses 3 and 4 without taking any interest in Courses 1 and 2. Probably the greatest benefit for practitioners from studying Courses 1 and 2 would be that they gain the understanding to explain why the Interactive Management system is unique; and why other methods that have been and continue to be used cannot substitute for the powerful structuring process called ISM. This should help them explain to upper management why IM is needed in the organization. This is believed to be quite difficult, because upper management historically has been called on to manage the complexity, without having the requisite process support. On the one hand, they feel that it is their domain while, on the other hand they do not know (a) that such support is possible and

(b) how to reconceive their role when the support becomes readily available.

John N. Warfield
September, 1997
Revision 1, March, 1998