"Boundaries exist in time as well as space."

Metaphors make for weak models but this will do for now. Computers function on two systems levels. An operating system that we don't see but is the starting point for usage and the applications that we actually use. Without both systems the computer is useless.

In systems thinking many discussions revolve around the local or applications level. Education, business, cognitive, communication, cooperative, competitive systems are simply local applications of systems thinking. They, like computer applications are a very limited subset of principles, ideas and constraints. Like a spreadsheet these systems address and are useful within a limited field.

On the global or operational level something much larger is happening. Without the global operating systems running unseen in the background the local applications cannot function. So what are these global operating systems? I see a trinity.

Dissipative Structures or system per Pregogine. Stuff exists and things happen. Initial starting point is the big bang or the uncaused cause, take your pick. The end point is the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

Autopoietic systems that recreate themselves out of this mess and define their own boundaries. These systems tend to use energy and matter to maintain the status-quo. They are incapable of goal-driven evolution but subject to internal errors, i.e. genetic mutation. To stay at this level invites eventual decay and death.

Allopoietic systems that are goal-seeking. These systems use matter and energy to create something other then themselves. Novelty, adaptability and change are their reason for being. These systems provide the motive for the active 'hunt for negative entropy.'

I have adapted this model from Fritjof Capra's Web of Life. The last system is my take on his idea of consciousness.

Why this trinity of operating systems? Because stuff exists and interacts. That stuff and the interactions are suspended between the decay towards entropy and the drive towards emerging complexity. That suspension creates tension and bifurcation points between the status-quo and change.

Applications are governed by these operating systems. It is unseen and unavoidable. Since the applications that humans are really with contain organic systems, esp. other people they must deal with the notion of Clausewitzian friction, reason, emotion and chance. Any discussion of local systems must take into account the global constraints and friction. Without these elements the problem cannot be framed nor can a solution be found.

Two short papers that I'm inferring a lot of this from;

Principles of Systems and Cybernetics: an evolutionary perspective, http://pcp.lanl.gov/papers/PrinciplesCybSys.pdf

and Destruction and Creation, http://goalsys.com/books/documents/DESTRUCTION_AND_CREATION.pdf.

“Everything you know about is not a problem.”

Any decision/action/learning model has to deal with problems. It needs to work on both sides, to solve them for your own team and to create them for the opponents. So it appears that any discussion on these should begin with framing what problems are. Here is a breakdown on Problem Types from the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. I've changed the military examples in the original to football.

"Effective problem solving often hinges on recognising the type of problem that
is being faced. In general terms, there are four main problem types: simplistic,
deterministic, random and indeterminate (or ‘Wicked’):

1. Simplistic problems: where there is one and only one answer. For example, what teams are playing or what is the score?

2. Deterministic problems: where the answer is arrived at by the application of a formula, algorithm or protocol. For example, was he offside or what is the velocity of the ball?

3. Random problems: where there is only one answer, but there are a number of possible correct answers. For example, where will the corner kick be played, short, long, near or far post?

4. Indeterminate problems: where the answer itself is complex, hard to identify or
changes in time. For example, what is the best tempo for a team to play at or when do you introduce a substitute? Answering such a question means taking into account a huge range of factors including how others see the issue, how the issue has changed and how your earlier decisions and actions have themselves affected the issue. To use Rittel and Webber’s terminology, these are ‘wicked problems’."

All four types manifest themselves in the game and require decisions/actions which can lead to learning. Indeed, the type of problems that players face are in continual flux and change. Consider how quickly the problem type morphes everytime the ball is put into the air in an indeterminate fashion. So the decision-making process is not one size fits all but must be adaptable to meet the evolving scene.

 

The first two types are fairly simple, the third involves a rising degree of judgement and expertise while the forth is a total mental furball. That’s just what you want to avoid for yourself and create for the opponent and this is where the Boyd cycle comes into play.

Link to original article, http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/RMAS_An_Officer_and_a_Problem_Solver.pdf.

Tempo, manipulating relationships.

Time for a quick recap: we have raw physical energy being turned into information that we use to make decisions. Most of these decisions involve other people so we engage still more people in the solution or exploitation of them. But just as soon as we have dealt with one decision we find another so we need to attend to and engage with a new mix of people. This cycle goes on with everyone on the field, there’s no blueprint or schedule for who deals with who or when.  

Rao’s concept of tempo gives us some valuable insight into how we move through this process. “Tempo has three elements: rhythm, emotion and energy” and manipulating tempo is largely a matter of timing. Here he uses driving in traffic as a metaphor to explain this idea. “Driving graphically illustrates the four main skilled behaviors that constitute the overall skill of timing: merging, going with the flow, pacesetting and disrupting.”

Merging is entering a new transitory relationship. You slide into traffic so as not to disturb the pace of others. But it does change everyone’s relationship. This creates the three or more systems problem and has to be resolved. But before you can enter a new relationship you have to leave the one you’re currently in, “every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end.” This also means that, at least for a brief moment, you’ll be caught between two worlds. Finally merging may or may not require a change of tempo from the player who is looking to ‘move into the new relationship.’ This is common when players move from one so called level to another.

Going with the flow is being in a harmonized state with the surrounding elements of the system. It’s the “orderly (and pleasant) state” that Boyd refers to in D&C. But in every group this state won’t last long. (Long is a relative term.) The tempo cannot be ‘perfect’ for every member and as they look around they begin to notice. At some point it will become too fast or too slow and they will have to decide if they should stay put or look for another group. In essence the ‘group’ will begin to dissolve as a cohesive unit. 

Pacesetting is the “art of harmoniously driving the natural tempo of your environment away from its current state towards your preferred state – slower or faster – in non-disruptive ways.” It’s a mutually agreed on change in tempo. Another way to say this is a local entity alters the global tempo to a new state. You can see this when a key player picks up the pace of ball circulation and other players pick up this cue.

Dissonance “is what will turn a potentially dangerous and stupid sort of behavior into a productive one.” This has “the potential to create irreversible structural changes.” The birth of “Total Football” is an example of dissonance that morphed into pacesetting. Ajax was playing against an East European team and couldn’t get the ball off of their midfield. Velibor Vasovic, the Ajax sweeper became frustrated and pushed deep into midfield. The chaos he created for the opponents was enough to get Ajax two goals, the win and show Michels what was needed for Total Football. What was a moment of improvisation and risk became the framework for the playmaking style of soccer.

The art of creating transitory, dynamic and complex systems that can actually do something is the aim of Teambuilding. “During a ninety-minute match every player constantly has to anticipate the ever-changing situations and make split second decisions about what option to take. They are created by the actions of teammates and opponents. The true top-notch players all possess the quality to continuously and quickly oversee all the possible options… The solutions will express directly or indirectly the aim of the match: to win or at least not to lose. The complexity and unpredictability of the ever-changing situations prevent the perfect match from ever being played.” Rinus Michels.

Certainly one of the qualities that all top-notch players possess is the ability to get the most out of other players. Not only can they adjust their own tempo but they can also influence those around them. Knowing when and who to merge with, when to go with the flow, when and how to change others gears and finally when to throw caution to the wind are the tools these players use in order to dictate the pace, i.e. tempo of the game. 

“You win battles by knowing the enemy's timing”

Now I’ll reintroduce the element of timescales. As Smith & Thelen pointed out, “we must be concerned with how different timescales interact.” The difference in timescales has two components, duration and relationship. A difference in duration is simple to grasp. A thinks, grows, acts faster, i.e. has a shorter timescale in a specific domain than B. It’s safe to assume that you will find a difference between even so-called identical systems, i.e. players on the same team.

The relationship between systems is something else. Venkatesh Rao, echoing Marianne Paget’s “acts of deciding” explains;

“popular decision-making models rely on what you might call point logic: the idea that a decision is a point, a fork in a temporal road… Fortunately, a better scheme, which organizes understanding of time around intervals rather than points, was worked out by planning researcher James Allen in the early 1980’s. This scheme, called interval logic, is a way of thinking about time… The idea of interval logic is simple… given two intervals of time… how many qualitatively distinct relations can there be between them? The answer is thirteen (six pairs of symmetrical relationships, and one special case).” The relationships are pictured above.

In a real world setting two systems will operate in one of the twelve symmetrical relationships. (Number 7, being equal is highly unlikely in soccer so we’ll discount it.) A starts before B: A starts after B; A starts B: A is started by B and so on. As long as you view the relationship retroactively, or, proactively with only two systems in a static environment you can use this model. (This is how the ‘freeze method’ of coaching works. It either recreates a situation for linear explanation or creates a scripted situation where the coach walks players through a series of relationships. It’s pure either/or – cause/effect reasoning in a static environment. Consider the language in Rao’s chart as a coaches instructive ‘ideas’ and you’ll get the picture.)

Retroactively life’s a done deal, a closed system and these relationships simply explain what happened. The principles of Taylor’s scientific management work very well. Two systems in a static environment also work for the same reason. So here’s the rub, it’s scientific managements inability to predict, let alone control the future where the trouble starts. Two cases illustrate this point, the three or more and uncooperative systems problems.

Looking back at the chart, imagine a relationship, 1-6 and then insert another system, “C” into it. You can’t tack it onto the beginning or end, it’s included in the moment of interaction between A&B. C reintroduces the six ‘W’ questions for A&B. In soccer systems are a relationship between individuals, groups or an individual and a group. Example, you can have a relationship to the left back or the two central defenders as an individual or as a part of another group, i.e. twin strikers. Now, insert another player or group into your relationship. This will be an anomaly that enters your attention. Once that happens the original relationship will altered in time if not meaning. You will be too early, too late in the original plan or in a whole new environment altogether. (In soccer the number of possible groups is staggering. The transitory nature of complex systems keeps the every player in a state of flux as to which system they are in and which one to attend.)

The later problem addresses the models weakness in a competitive situation. It assumes cooperation between the systems. (A necessary condition for the freeze coaching method.) In the case of an active and alert opponent this isn’t likely. It’s the old “they know that I know that they know that I know” game and one they don’t want to play, at least on your terms. You may want to ‘meet’ a system, say the ball so you aim to start ahead of them. They are determined not to let that happen so they start ahead of you instead. This situation is captured by Miyamoto Musashi’s line, “You win battles by knowing the enemy's timing, and using a timing which the enemy does not expect” and timing is all about timescales.