Pattern Language 3.0

Recently, I'm thinking about the methodological evolution of pattern languages, which is a method to describe design knowledge in a certain domain from the viewpoint of problem finding and problem solving (Alexander, 1979). 


I call the emerging stage Pattern Language 3.0 (PL3.0), distinguishing from the previous stages, which we call here Pattern Language 1.0 (PL1.0) and Pattern Language 2.0 (PL2.0). In what follows, I will presents the evolution of pattern languages and clarifying the difference among these stages.

In what follows, I will explain the evolution of pattern languages from the following three viewpoints: the object of design which pattern languages help, why to make pattern languages, and how to make pattern languages. 

The first viewpoint is the object of design which pattern languages help. The object of design with the PL1.0 is physical form like architecture; the object of design with the PL2.0 is non-physical form such as software, interface, and organization; and the object of design with the PL3.0 is form of human action such as learning, collaboration, facilitation, and change agents. The PL3.0 is quite different from others, since the object of design is same to the subject of design only in the PL3.0; there is a self-referential circulation for designing, and accordingly the meta-cognition for designing becomes more important than before.

The second viewpoint is why to make pattern languages. In the PL1.0, a pattern language was used as media for bridging the gap between designers and users: in the case of Alexander’s case, architects and residents; He considered his pattern language helps residents to participate their community development. In the PL2.0, pattern languages were used as media for bridging the gap between expert and non-expert designers: in the case of software design, expert software engineers and non-expert software engineers; It has been common use of pattern languages for software development that non-expert engineers learn the knack of good practice by reading the book. In the PL3.0, a pattern language was used as a media for connecting people who have different experiences: in the case of the Learning Patterns, the workshop are held, where participants talk about their experiences in the light of patterns each other.

The third viewpoint is why to make pattern languages. In the PL1.0, mining and writing of design knowledge are done by expert designers; for example, Alexander made the pattern language in architecture with his fellow architects, and then published as a book. In the PL2.0, collaborative improvement of patterns is introduced: shepherding system and writer’s workshop; while the improvement process is opened, the process of mining and writing is still closed in the expert designers. In the PL3.0, pattern languages are made through collaborative mining, writing, and improvement; finally, all process is opened. Thus, the history of development process of patterns is the history of involving otherness.

A Brief Summary of the History of Systems Theory

In the current academic context, there are several theories under the name of "systems theory". In this post, I shall overview a history of the systems theory. We adopt, here, a categorization suggested by Hideo Kawamoto (1995), where the development of the systems theory is divided into three generation (See the Table below).

First generation is summarized as the theories for dynamic equilibrium systems, and their key concept is "homeostatis". They focused on the mechanism how a system maintains itself under the fluctuation from the environment. Leading scholars in this generation are Walter Bradford Cannon of "homeostasis" (Cannon 1932), Ludwig von Bertalanffy of "general systems theory" (Bertalanffy 1968), Norbert Wiener and W. Ross Ashby of "cybernetics" (Wiener 1948; Ashby 1956). The sociologist who applies this generation theory is Talcott Parsons as "social systems theory" (Parsons 1951).

Second generation is the theories for dynamic nonequilibrium systems, and their key concept is "self-organization". They focused on the mechanism how a structure of system is crystallized from disorders. Leading scholars in this generation are Ilya Prigogine of "dissipative structure" (Prigogine & Nicolis 1977), Manfred Eigen of "hypercycle" (Eigen & Schuster 1979), and Hermann Haken of "synergetics" (Haken 1977).

Third generation is the theories for self-production system, and their key concept is "autopoiesis". They focused on the mechanism how a system itself is realized over time. Autopoietic system means a unity whose organization is defined by a particular network of production processes of elements. Leading scholars in this generation are Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela of "autopoiesis" (Maturana & Varela 1972, 1980; Varela & Maturana, 1974). The sociologist who applies this generation theory is Niklas Luhmann as "social systems theory" (Luhmann 1984).

Note that there is a clear distinction between "self-organization" and "autopoiesis" after the revolution caused by third generation. In this context, self-organization is focused on structural formation, but autopoiesis is focused on system formation. Luhmann emphasizes this distinction as follows:

"Autopoietic systems, then, are not only self-organizing systems, they not only produce and eventually change their own structures; their self-reference applies to the production of other components as well. This is the decisive conceptual innovation. […] Thus, everything that is used as a unit by the system is produced as a unit by the system itself. This applies to elements, processes, boundaries, and other structures and, last but not least, to the unity of the system itself." (Luhmann 1990: p.3)

"In order to clarify how much this concept of basal self-reference differs from an earlier discussion of "self-organization", Maturana and Varela have proposed the designation `autopoiesis’ for it." (Luhmann 1984: p.34).

As just quoted, the difference between "self-organization" and "autopoiesis" is of decisive importance for understanding the conceptual innovation of the systems theory.

References

Ashby W. R. (1956). Introduction to Cybernetics, Methuen.

Bertalanffy, L. v. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, George Braziller

Cannon, W. B. (1932). The Wisdom of the Body, W. W. Norton.

Eigen M. & Schuster P.(1979) The Hypercycle: A principle of natural self-organization, Springer

Haken, H. (1977). Synagetics, An Introduction. Nonequilibrium Phase-Transitions and Self-Organization in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Springer.

Kawamoto, H. (1995) Autopoiesis: The Third Generation System (in Japanese), Seido-sha Publishers.

Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie, Suhrkamp. (English translation: Social Systems, John Bednarz Jr., Dirk Baecker (translator), Stanford University Press, 1995)

Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on Self-Reference, Columbia University Press.

Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1972). De Maquinas y Seres Vivos, Editorial Universitaria S.A.

Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The realization of The Living, D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System, Free Press.

Prigogine, I. & Nicolis, G. (1977). Self-Organization in Non-Equilibrium Systems, Wiley.

Varela, F.J., Maturana, H.R. & Uribe, R. (1974). "Autopoiesis: the organization of living systems, its characterization and a model", Biosystems, Vol.5, No.4, pp.187-196.

Wiener, N. (1948; 1965). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, 2nd edition, MIT Press.

Proposing the Creative Systems Diagram at COINs2010

Today, I gave a presentation about a new diagram for describing creative process at the Second International Conference on Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINs2010).

"Autopoietic Systems Diagram for Describing Creative Processes"
Takashi Iba, The 2nd International Conference on Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINs2010), Oct, 2010.

Presentation Slides (PDF)


How creative processes are possible? In order to answer the question, our previous study (Iba 2009) proposed a new theory for creativity based on the autopoietic systems theory (Maturana & Varela 1980; Luhmann 1984). In the theory, a creative process is defined as an autopoietic system whose elements are “discoveries.” In other words, creative process is a re-production network of discoveries. Each discovery is emerged only when a synthesis of the following three selection occurs: “idea,” “association,” and “finding”. While we cannot predict the direction of any creative processes due to the nature of contingency, we can retrodict the process with the terms of the theory. However, the way to comprehend the creative process remains unclear, since our previous study only suggested a framework. Here we propose a method to describe creative processes in a diagram, which we call “autopoietic systems diagram.” Furthermore, we also show some examples from our own experiences of creative processes. We anticipate that the proposed method and diagram will be useful toolkits like the ones of System Dynamics (Forrester, 1961; Sterman 2000) and Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland 1981; Wilson 1984).

Checkland, P.B. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons.
Forrester, J.W. (1961) Industrial Dynamics. Pegasus Communications.
Iba, T. (2009) “An Autopoietic Systems Theory for Creativity”, 1st Collaborative Innovation Network Conference.
Luhmann, N. (1984) Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie, Suhrkamp. (English translation: Social Systems, Stanford University Press, 1995)
Maturana, H.R. & Varela, F.J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The realization of The Living, Springer.
Sterman, J.D. (2000) Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. McGraw Hill.
Wilson, B. (1984) Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications, John Wiley & Sons.

The Syllabus for Creative Systems Lab (fall, 2010)

Here we show the information about our research themes and how to apply to Creative Systems Lab at SFC, Keio University, fall semester, 2010.

The syllabus for the seminar (Prof. T. Iba: Fall Semester, 2010)
"Creative Systems Lab: Pattern Languages, Dynamic Network Analysis, and Orality Learning"
(Type A: 5th period, on Tuesday & Thursday)

Important Dates
Orientation for applicants: 5th period in July 8, 2010 (at e12) & 5th period in July 13, 2010 (at k12).
Application Deadline: July 19 (Mon.), 2010
Interview: July 26 & 27, 2010

Mission
Our mission is to create new methods and tools for the future society, based on the latest systems theories and academic methodologies. Note that the systems theories are meant here to "complex systems" and "autopoiesis," and the methodologies are network analysis, pattern languages, and modeling simulations.

We are conducting three research projects in the fall semester as follows.

1. "Creative Media" Project
2. "Mapping the Dynamics" Project
3. "The Way of Generative Communication" Project

Applicants will participate in one of these projects, or launch their own project related to our research theme.

1. "Creative Media" Project
("Creation" * Pattern Languages -> Media Design)
This project explores new methods and tools for supporting "creation" with pattern languages.

2. "Mapping the Dynamics" Project
("Space-Time" * Network Analysis -> Visualization)
This project explores new methods and tools for understanding the dynamic changing systems with using network analysis.

3. "The Way of Generative Communication" Project
("Generation" * Pattern Analysis -> Orality)
This project explores new methods and tools for learning a foregin language in terms of "orality" rather than "literacy."

Schedule
Seminar meetings are held twice a week: Thuesday 5th period is for discussion on key references and Thursday 5th period is for project review.

Grading
Grading will be based on seminar participation, contribution to the project activity, and the research results.

Other information
1. Be with active and collaborative mind.
2. Enjoy reading, writing, talking in English.
3. Required to buy the key references, for reading them with marking.
4. Do not assign something doing just after the seminars. Sometimes the meeting takes many hours, and often we go out drinking together.
5. Take courses provided by the advisor, Prof. Iba, on the fall semester, 2010: "Pattern Languages" and "Complex Systems."
6. We sometimes invite you to our other academic research projects related to our seminar's theme.

Capacity
We will accept approximately 15 students.

Requirements for application
1. Enthusiasm for the research project.
2. Intelligence for thinking deeply on your own.
3. Basic literacy in English.

How to apply
Send the following information to the advisor, iba [atmark] sfc.keio.ac.jp (Prof. Takashi Iba), by e-mail, by July 19th, 2010. We accept the application written in either English or Japanese. Any participants, including auditors, need to register and require the permission of the advisor.

1. Name
2. E-mail address
3. Affiliation (faculty); year (1-year / 2-year / 3-year / 4-year / M1 / M2 ...)
4. Seminars in which you've participated so far and will participate on the fall semester, 2010
5. Taken Courses provided by the advisor, Prof. Takashi Iba.
6. Acquired Skills (language, programming, visual processing, and so on.)
7. Why you want to join in Iba Lab?
8. Which project do you want to participate? And why? (Otherwise, explain your own project.)
9. What will be your contribution to Iba Lab?
10. Self-introduction and appeal

Related Project
"Inter-reality" project, Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University
"Life Knowledge in Practice" project, Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University

Related Courses
30080: Social Systems Theory
14310: Complex Systems
12020: Pattern Languages
14160: Simulation Design

Home Page
http://ilab.sfc.keio.ac.jp/

Bio - Prof. Takashi Iba
http://web.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~iba/

Contact
iba [atmark] sfc.keio.ac.jp

References

- Key References

• Orality and Literacy (Walter J. Ong, Routledge, 1988) 
• The Nature of Order, Book 1: The Phenomenon of Life (C. Alexander, Center for Environmental Structure, 2001) 
• The Nature of Order, Book 2: The Process of Creating Life (C. Alexander, Center for Environmental Structure, 2003) 

- Related Books

• Social Systems (N. Luhmann, Stanford University Press, 1984) 
• The Timeless Way of Building (C. Alexander, Oxford University Press, 1979) 
• A Pattern Language: Town Building, Consruction (C. Alexander, et. al., Oxford University Press, 1977) 
• The Tacit Dimension (M. Polanyi, Reissue ed., University Of Chicago Press, 2009) 
• Maps of The Imagination: The Writer as Cartographer (P. Turchi, Trinity University Press) 
• Three Roads to Quantum Gravity (L. Smolin, Basic Books,2001) 
• Networks: An Introduction (M.E.J. Newman, Oxford University Press, 2010) 
• The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in The Struggle for Life (C. Darwin, The Modern Library, 2009) 
• The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals A Universe without Design (R. Dawkins, W.W.Norton & Company, 1987) 
• Reinventing The Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion (S. A. Kauffman,2008) 
• Ubiquity: Why Catastrophes Happen (Mark Buchanan, Three Rivers Press, 2001) 

- Articles and Books by Iba Lab.

• "An Autopoietic Systems Theory for Creativity" (Takashi Iba, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2010, pp.6610-6625, 2010) 
• "Analyzing the Creative Editing Behavior of Wikipedia Editors: Through Dynamic Social Network Analysis" (Takashi Iba, Keiichi Nemoto, Bernd Peters & Peter A. Gloor, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2, Issue 4, 2010, pp.6441-6456 , 2010) 
• "Learning Patterns: A Pattern Language for Active Learners" (Takashi Iba, et. al., 16th PLoP, 2009)
• "Learning Patterns: A Pattern Language for Creative Learners II" (Takashi Iba and Toko Miyake, 1st Asian PLoP, 2010)

Uncertainty and Media in Creative Systems

There are intrinsically uncertainties for realization of discovery. In other words, discoveries hardly come about due to the uncertainties. One of the uncertainties is an uncertainty of association of idea. Thinking newly means that there is no guarantee that the association of idea is possible to apply. Another uncertainty is related to far-reaching consequence of association of idea. It is quite difficult to get consequences by thinking about complicated logic. Although there are such uncertainties, some kind of evolutional achievements, called "media" in autopoietic systems theory, support for realization of discovery to overcome the uncertainties.

Against first type of uncertainty, that is uncertainty of association of idea, theories and rule of thumb work as media. Theories would reduce the complexity for selection of idea and association. They do not mean deterministic laws to strictly follow, rather spotlights to pay attention for selection. Typical theories in the discipline are sometimes helpful, and theories in other disciplines are also helpful to get idea or how to make association to it. Borrowing the words of Nobel-prized physicist Richard Feynman "mathematics is not just another language. Mathematics is a language plus reasoning; it is like a language plus logic. Mathematics is a tool for reasoning. It is in fact a big collection of the results of some person's careful thought and reasoning. By mathematics it is possible to connect one statement to another." (Feynman 1967; p.40)

Against second type of uncertainty, that is uncertainty of far-reaching consequence, several kind f tools work as media. For example, tools for computer simulation help to get consequence through complicated calculation. Likewise, tools for network analysis, text mining, and statistical analysis are helpful. Although obtaining far-reaching consequence does not necessarily require such tools, they contribute greatly to decrease the possibility to stop in midcourse by enhancing efficiency rather than human labor.

Element Constitution in Creative Systems

As I mentioned in the previous post, creative systems theory suggests that creative processes are "autopoietic systems" whose elements are discoveries emerged by a synthesis of three selections: idea, association, and consequence. Here, I shall explain the details about the element constitution, namely the definition of the term "discovery" in this context.

From the viewpoint of element constitution, discovery is emerged from the synthesis of three-part selection: selections of "idea", "association", and "consequence". It is required for the emergence of discovery that all of these selections are occurred.

What I should emphasize here is that idea exists only inside the system. It other words, idea is meaningful only for ongoing creation. Outside the creation, one can no longer call it "idea". In this sense, idea cannot exist "out there" alone. In the same way, association can exist meaningfully only inside the system. It is just association to ongoing creation. Consequence occurs only as the combination of idea and association, therefore it also can exist only inside the system.

Using words of the abstract framework of autopoieitc systems, idea is hetero-reference to the environment; association is self-reference to the system itself; and consequence is combination of the hetero-reference and the self-reference. Thus, creative systems are recursively-closed systems with respect to discoveries.

Note that, exactly speaking, the selection just means the reduction of complexity in contingent situation, therefore without the reference to social status or psychic status. On one hand, discovery does not imply the novelty in society. Each discovery is independent on the status of the society.

In this sense, even re-invention is considered as also creation in this theory. On the other hand, the feeling of surprising is not necessary to discovery, because it is not a problem in the creation, but a problem of the mind. In other word, the creation is creative even if the participants do not feel, so-called, "Eureka!".

What I just wrote is the detail description of creative processes as "autopoietic systems" whose elements are discoveries emerged by a synthesis of three selections: idea, association, and consequence.

References

Iba, T. (2009). "An Autopoietic Systems Theory for Creativity", This first conference on Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINs).

Iba, T. (2009). "Media Design for Spontaneous Order: For What and How Pattern Languages Support?" (in Japanese), 10+1 web site, INAX.

What are creative systems like?

In this blog, as I mentioned before, "Creative Systems Theory" is proposed in order to understand creative processes in a totally new way, focusing the process without the reference to psychic or social aspects. The theory suggests that creative processes are "autopoietic systems" whose elements are discoveries emerged by a synthesis of three selections: idea, association, and consequence. Before looking at the detail with terms of systems theory, I shall begin with explaining what are creative systems like?

Creative process consists of a sequence of discoveries, which include problem finding, problem solving, observation, hypothesis formation, method selection, practice, and interpretation. Creative process does not follow deterministic laws, but not also happened at random. Rather, it includes contingency. Creative process is, so to speak, autonomous and therefore historical. In order to formulate this kind of processes, I would like to apply autopoietic systems theory. Creative systems theory describes how creation is possible. This attempt is done without neither psychological reduction, like most of creative research, nor sociological reduction, like several studies of collaboration.

In order to describe the affair that creative process consists of a sequence of discoveries, I would like to suggest that creative system is an autopoietic system whose element is discovery. In the creative systems, discovery is produced by discovery based on on-going creation. The discovery is a momentary element that has no duration, so it must be reproduced constantly for realizing the creative system. Element, discovery, is an emergent unity constituted in the system, therefore system cannot received discoveries from its environment or output discoveries to its environment. In this sense, what kind of discoveries is constituted depends on the ongoing system. Thus creative system is operationally closed.

Note that discovery in this context does not imply that it is neither true nor useful. The problem here is only connectivity to further discoveries. As Sawyer pointed out about successful innovators, "They succeed by way of many small sparks, and by drawing on collaboration over time to build those sparks into something tremendous. Many of the idea turn out to be wildly off the mark, but it turns out many not-so-good ideas are needed on the way to that rare great idea."(Sawyer 2007; p.105) and indeed "Darwin's notebook show that he reached many dead ends and produced a lot of ideas that scientists now consider weird." (Sawyer 2007, p.106)

In addition, it does not matter where and how discoveries come from. It may be the result of deliberation, inspiration, or merely by accident. It may be obtained by somebody alone or collaboration by more than one person. Thus, in the viewpoint of creative systems theory, what is most important is the successive generation of discoveries, not where and how they came from. With such a standpoint, one can think the creative process itself and also the relationship of creative process to psychic or social process.

References

Iba, T. (2009). An Autopoietic Systems Theory for Creativity, This first conference on Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINs).

Sawyer, R.K. (2007). Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration, Basic Books.