Problem Solving Systems

The world is complex.  But sometimes humans can come together and agree enough to create something useful in meeting some important aim and satisfying some agreed upon set of goals and objectives.

Irreducible complexity (a.k.a. essential complexity) is a term used to describe a characteristic of complex systems whereby the complex system needs all of its individual component systems in order to effectively function. 

In other words, it is impossible to reduce the complexity of a system (or to further simplify a system) by removing any of its component parts and still maintain its functionality objective because all those component parts are essential to the proper functioning of the system. So for example, consider a simple mechanism such as a mousetrap.

That mousetrap is composed of several different parts each of which is essential to the proper functioning of the mousetrap per the use case of the mouse trap to catch mice: 

  • a flat wooden base, 
  • a spring, 
  • a horizontal bar, 
  • a catch bar, 
  • the catch, 
  • the bait,
  • and staples that hold the parts to the wooden base.
If you have all the parts and the parts are assembled together properly, the mousetrap works as it was designed to work.  You can say, and show via testing, that the mouse trap functions effectively.

But say you remove one of the parts of the mousetrap.  The mousetrap will no longer function as it was designed to function, it simply will not work.  That is irreducible complexity: the complexity of the design requires that it can't be reduced any farther without losing required functionality.

The same thing is true for a problem solving system.  Whether the functionality is provided using computer based functionality or manual effort; all the pieces need to exist in some form in order for the problem solving system to function effectively.  You could have specific levels of functionality.  For example, in financial reporting there is a difference between a "compilation" and a "review" and an "audit" of a financial report.

There is a difference between a "complex system" and a "simple system that is complicated".  Most software applications tend to be simple systems that may be complicated.  Fred Brooks No Silver Bullet points out that complexity comes in two forms: essential complexity and accidental complexity.  Essential complexity is what is irreducible.  Irreducible complexity = essential complexity.

A kludge is an engineering/computer science term that defines what is best described as a workaround or quick-and-dirty solution that is typically clumsy, inelegant, inefficient, difficult to extend and hard to maintain; but it gets the job done. By contrast, elegance is beauty that shows unusual effectiveness and simplicity. The nautical term for this is jury rig.

The alternative is elegant simplicity.

It is easy to create a problem solving system that is complex.  It is hard work to create a problem solving system that is simple.  People commonly confuse the terms "simple" and "simplistic". Simplistic is dumbing down a problem in order to make the problem easier to solve. Simple is something that is not complicated, that is easy to understand or do. Simple means without complications. When something is simple it looks elegant.

The challenge when constructing a problem solving system is making sure you avoid or eliminate the accidental complexity. Accidental complexity refers to challenges someone unintentionally make for themselves as a result of trying to solve a problem.

The Law of Conservation of Complexity states that, "Every software application has an inherent amount of irreducible or essential complexity. The question is who will have to deal with that complexity: the application developer, the platform developer that the software runs on, or the software user."

These, the graphic below, seem to be the pieces of a problem solving system which are essential.  What I have tried to do is use the same framework that was used for articulating the Semantic Web Stack or "layer cake" and generalized the pieces necessary for a problem solving system. This is what I came up with: (for more information see Smart (Cognitive) Business Applications and Services)

So, each of those pieces must exist in order to get an effective result.  If the piece is not provided within software applications, then the task or process must be performed manually.  You cannot simply just leave something out.  All this is driven by the aim of the problem solving system; what do you want the problem solving system to do. The stakeholders of the system specify goals and objectives that the system needs to be able to perform (i.e. the aim of the system).

Now, you can implement such a problem solving system using the semantic web stack, using the XBRL technology stack, or some other technology stack.  There tends to be three primary problem solving system implementation approaches:

  • Semantic web stack
  • Graph database
  • Logic programming
This graphic shows the three approaches and makes an important point.  Providing a high-level logical model, such as the Standard Business Report Model (SBRM) or the Seattle Method is an approach to enabling the conversion between these three technical implementation approaches:

When you think about this, being able to convert bidirectionally from any one technical implementation approach to the other technical implementation approaches; while the technical format and other technical implementation details may be different, the LOGIC of the information conveyed by the system should not change at all.

Why is this important?  Multiple technology stacks is a fact of life.  Different enterprises will implement different technology stacks internally.  But in order to exchange information effectively, information from one technology stack needs to be converted to some neutral standard or into some other technology stack in order to exchange information effectively and not create an integration hairball.

To make something like "algorithmic regulation" work, either: (a) everyone needs to convert to exactly the same technology stack internally within their enterprise or, (b) reliable conversion between different technology stacks needs to be created.

Additional Information:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Relational Knowledge Graph System (RKGS)

Image
Relational Knowledge Graph System (RKGS) is an interesting idea that combines the relational paradigm and the knowledge graph paradigm.  This documentation, Why RKGS , explains the idea. This gets even more interesting with the notion of "relational AI".  RelationalAI is described as follows by the company of the same name, Relational.ai : “RelationalAI is a cloud-based relational knowledge graph management system, with state of the art probabilistic processing and declarative reasoning at scale to make developing Data Applications a superpower for your business.” This notion of knowledge graphs represented in relational databases fits into my belief that knowledge graphs have two aspects: the expression SYNTAX and the logic of what is expressed or SEMANTICS. While the LOGIC of a knowledge graph is always the same regardless of technical syntax used to express that logic; there are many, many different technical syntaxes that can be used to represent a knowledge graph. There
Read more

Graph Hairball

Image
Knowledge graph system logic, the "things" and "relations between things" that  graph theory calls "vertices" (a.k.a. nodes, points, entities, things) and "edges" (a.k.a.  links, lines, relations, associations), looks like a big graph hairball as some people call it an example of which you can see here: Why?  This common view of a graph is because there has to be some "general view" of the information provided by the graph.  This is just like a general view of the information within a relational database is a table ; a set of ROWS and COLUMNS for exactly one table at a time. So what is interesting is that with a graph database the default view is everything in the graph of knowledge.  Whereas the default view of everything in a relational database is one table at a time. Further, it does not really matter whether the information that populates your knowledge graph comes from, say, CSV files, Excel, JSON, XBRL, RDF, PROLOG or whateve
Read more

PLATINUM Business Use Cases, Test Cases, Conformance Suite

Image
A brick wall is made of exactly two things: bricks, mortar. But a brick wall created by a master craftsman, or mason, and a brick wall created by a “weekend warrior” with no knowledge of masonry will be very different. Master craftsmen are created and that process takes time and effort. This blog post is a first prototype that brings several things together into one useful resource for business professionals.  It pulls together the human readable information of the Showcase of Reports   and the machine readable information of the Conformance Suite of XBRL-based Financial Reports Prepared using the Seattle Method .  Then, I want to incorporate the information found in these PLATINUM XBRL-based Financial Report Examples . The three resources can be useful and used independently; but they are even more useful when used together.  Business professionals really could not care a less about the technical details of getting some result that they want.  But technical professionals need to under
Read more