Quantitative Complexity Management: A simple 5 step process


There are plenty of self-anointed subject matter experts happy to pontificate upon complexity. Sources, causes and their own approach to solutions but what they all (except Ontonix) lack is the means to establish a sound (verifiable) quantitative basis from which to commence the process of ‘complexity management’, monitoring and maintenance.

Check it out, for FREE, on-line!:

cid_part6_04050208_01010701ontonix.gifThe following five-step process forms the backbone of all our service engagements. It reflects our extensive experience in Quantitative Complexity Management in a multitude of applications spanning a wide variety of industrial sectors. It also illustrates the typical structure and workflow in a business simplification and ‘robustification’ project.

via Ontonix – Complex Systems Management, Business Risk Management.

Innovation:: managing complexity & reducing risk [Design News]


I was first aware of the author courtesy of this quote…that alarmingly few business ‘leaders’ appear to, either, believe or understand…

“In a complex system, learning how all the pieces—constant and variable—interact gives a depth of understanding that averts catastrophe. That is what we mean by human-centred design—understanding the interfaces among technology, people, communities, governments, and nature. This is what makes complexity manageable”.

If you are in the business of making money based upon the ability of another party to avoid financial loss, then your own ability to identify the properties that distinguish ‘good risk from bad’ is, SURELY, fundamental!? So the message that there is a means to gain “…understanding that averts catastrophe“, through “understanding the interfaces among technology, people, communities, governments, and nature” must surely be greeted with wide-eyed enthusiasm. Read more of this post

Business Insurance:: ISO 31000 should we believe the hype?


image

Apparently,

“…risk managers should use standards such as ISO 31000, “because standards, no matter what kind or which ones, support key tools and processes.”“Standards allow you to proactively address risks with some discipline,” he said. “Standards also relate well to the whole idea of focusing on outcomes.”

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20130602/NEWS06/306029979?template=smartphoneart

Surely the focus should be upon being proactive and ‘managing’ emergent risks, NOT outcomes!?

Where, I suspect, NASA have a distinct (informational) advantage is that the multi-scalar interactions among components, processes, networks of sub-systems and systems are each rigorously tested at every point in assembly and operation…

Read more of this post

[Ontonix] Coping With Turbulence: More Theories and Math?


…math is often used to model things that cannot be modeled (in the sense that the results such models produce are mathematically correct but totally irrelevant). Risk, and especially the consequences of risk, are something that math is unable to embrace. This is because risk lacks a definition, a metric (standard deviation is NOT a measure of risk) and, most importantly, because it is a reflection of subjective human sentiments as to the potential level of regret after some hazardous circumstance has actually materialized. Now how do you measure that?

See on Scoop.itComplexity & Resilience
Author : Ontonix
See on www.interfima.org

Both Aleatory and Epistemic Uncertainty Create Risk


Nice work Glen! I have asked the question before but “at what point does the decision NOT to obtain accessible knowledge about ‘reducible exposures’ [epistemic uncertainty] – such as excessive complexity – become a Corporate Governance issue?”

Epistemic risk is modeled by defining the probability that the risk will occur, the time frame in which that probability is active, and the probability of an impact or consequence from the risk when it does occur…

…For these types of risks we can have an explicit or an implicit risk handling plan. I use the word handling with special purpose. We handle risks in a variety of ways. Mitigation is one of those ways. But the risk handling work is actual work. It is in the schedule. We are doing work to mitigate the risk. We are buying down the risk, or we are retiring the risk. In all cases, we are spending money, and consuming time to reduce the probability that the risk will occur. Or we could be spending money and consuming time to reduce the impact of the risk when it does occur. In both cases we are taking action to address the risk.

via Herding Cats: Both Aleatory and Epistemic Uncertainty Create Risk.