1. THE WORK PROGRAM OF COMPLEXITY Electrical Engineering, Purdue, 1952.
John N. Warfield, Ph. D.
Electrical Engineering, Purdue, 1952. 1

2. THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED The Meaning of “Complexity”: Two Analogies
Two Domains for the World of Engineering
Scientific Legacies for the Domains: Calculus and Dynamics of Motion versus Logic & Behavior
The Work Program of Complexity: Processes and Infrastructure
Relevant Literature
Epilog (optional) Thought Leaders on Behavioral Pathologies 2

3. WATER OXYGEN HYDROGEN INCLUSION STRUCTURE #13

4. AIR OXYGEN NITROGEN INCLUSION STRUCTURE #24

5. DOMAIN OF ENGINEERING DOMAIN OF NORMALITY DOMAIN OF COMPLEXITY
INCLUSION STRUCTURE #3 5

6. MY PRIMARY ASSUMPTION
The world of engineering can be partitioned into two domains:
The Domain of Normality
The Domain of Complexity
Most engineering takes place in the Domain of Normality, but today’s systems engineering has moved into the Domain of Complexity. 6

7. THE DOMAIN OF NORMALITY BENEFITS FROM MANY OF ITS COMPONENTS:
4 Centuries of Science and Mathematics
2 to 3 Centuries of Engineering Experience
Great cooperation in engineering societies
Standards, Literature, Methodology
A globally-accepted language
Highly-developed algorithms and processes 7

8. THE DOMAIN OF NORMALITY CAN BE ENTERED FROM THE DOMAIN OF
COMPLEXITY, BUT NOT TOO SOON!!!
THE WORK PROGRAM OF COMPLEXITY LIGHTS THE WAY TO THE DOMAIN OF NORMALITY, BY STRUCTURING A PROBLEMATIC SITUATION SO THAT IT CAN BE DEALT WITH IN FAMILIAR WAYS. 8

9. THE DOMAIN OF COMPLEXITY CAN BENEFIT GREATLY FROM TWO LEGACIES:
2,300 years of the study of formal logic
One century of the study of human behavioral pathologies 9

10. BEFORE GENERAL SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS CAN BE WELL-USED, THEY MUST BE
PARTICULARIZED TO THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMATIC SITUATION THAT IS ENCOUNTERED. THIS IS TRUE BOTH IN THE DOMAIN OF NORMALITY AND THE DOMAIN OF COMPLEXITY. 10

11. THE FINDINGS FROM THE PHYSICAL
SCIENCES HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN ADAPTED TO PARTICULAR ENGINEERING SITUATIONS. BUT THE FINDINGS ABOUT FORMAL LOGIC AND HUMAN BEHAVIORAL PATHOLOGIES ARE SELDOM ADAPTED TO PROBLEMATIC SITUATIONS IN THE DOMAIN OF COMPLEXITY. IT IS MY LIFETIME GOAL TO CHANGE THAT. 11

12. IT CONSISTS OF JUST TWO MAIN PARTS:
THE PROGRAM FOR THAT CHANGE IS WHAT I CALL THE WORK PROGRAM OF COMPLEXITY (WPOC).
IT CONSISTS OF JUST TWO MAIN PARTS:
DISCOVERY (of the underlying logic)
RESOLUTION (of complexity) 12

13. DISCOVERY HAS TWO PARTS: DESCRIPTION DIAGNOSIS
In carrying out these two parts, formal logic and behavioral pathologies are taken into account in preparing for a system design. 13

14. DESCRIPTION IS DONE IN A GROUP PROCESS.
DIAGNOSIS IS DONE BY AN EXPERIENCED INDIVIDUAL PROFESSIONAL, WHO ITERATES WITH THE GROUP UNTIL THE DESCRIPTION IS FULLY UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED. 14

15. RESOLUTION (of complexity) INVOLVES TWO PARTS ALSO: DESIGN
IMPLEMENTATION (of the design) 15

16. DESIGN IS DONE IN A GROUP PROCESS.
IMPLEMENTATION IS CARRIED OUT BY WHATEVER MEANS THE DESIGN SPECIFIES. 16

17. THE DESIGN GROUP IS WELL-INFORMED BY THE PRODUCTS OF DISCOVERY, including the Diagnosis Report.17

18. IMPLEMENTATION MAY INVOLVE MANY
PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE DISCOVERY AND DESIGN ACTIVITIES.
INFRASTRUCTURE OF TWO TYPES IS NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE WPOC. ONE TYPE SUPPORTS THE GROUP WORK. THE OTHER SUPPORTS THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM NEEDED TO GET SUITABLE IMPLEMENTATION. 18

19. DESIGNS OF THE TWO TYPES OF INFRA-
STRUCTURE HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED AND TESTED.
THE FIRST TYPE IS CALLED A “SITUATION ROOM” DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO SUPPORT THE WPOC.
THE SECOND TYPE IS CALLED A “CORPORATE OBSERVATORIUM”. 19

20. THE SITUATION ROOM IS DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THE GROUP WORK.
THE CORPORATE OBSERVATORIUM IS DESIGNED TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF EDUCATION OF IMPLEMENTERS WHO WERE NOT PART OF THE GROUP WORK. IMPLEMENTERS MAY INCLUDE HIGHER-LEVEL MANAGERS AS WELL AS TECHNICIANS, FOR EXAMPLE. 20

21. ALL OF THE FOREGOING MATERIAL HAS
BEEN PUBLISHED IN SEVERAL BOOKS AND NUMEROUS TECHNICAL PAPERS.
THE WPOC HAS BEEN TESTED AROUND THE WORLD IN DIVERSE SITUATIONS.
THE PRIMARY ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS HAVE OCCURRED IN FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. 21

22. John N. Warfield, SOCIETAL SYSTEMS: PLANNING, POLICY, AND COMPLEXITY,
THE ALGORITHMS FOR STRUCTURING PROBLEMATIC SITUATIONS WERE PUBLISHED IN 1976 AS FOLLOWS:
John N. Warfield, SOCIETAL SYSTEMS: PLANNING, POLICY, AND COMPLEXITY,
Wiley Interscience (in the Harold Chestnut Systems Engineering Series). 22

23. THE SCIENCE OF GENERIC DESIGN (FOR
USE WITH SOCIOTECHNICAL SYSTEMS) WAS PUBLISHED IN 1990, WITH THE SECOND EDITION IN 1994 AS FOLLOWS:
John N. Warfield, A SCIENCE OF GENERIC DESIGN: MANAGING COMPLEXITY THROUGH SYSTEM DESIGN, Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press 23

24. THE PROCESS FOR CARRYING OUT THE WORK PROGRAM OF COMPLEXITY
WAS DESCRIBED IN 1994, AND MORE THAN A HUNDRED APPLICATIONS TABULATED IN
JOHN N. WARFIELD AND A. ROXANA CARDENAS, A HANDBOOK OF INTERACTIVE MANAGEMENT, AMES, IA: THE IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 24

25. THE OVERVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC
BASIS FOR ALL OF THIS WORK WAS PUBLISHED IN 2,002, INCLUDING DETAILS OF A VARIETY OF APPLICATIONS IN
John N. Warfield, UNDERSTANDING COMPLEXITY: THOUGHT & BEHAVIOR
Palm Harbor, FL: AJAR Publishing Co. 25

26. THE ESSENTIAL MATHEMATICS, FIRST
PUBLISHED IN 1976, HAVE BEEN OR SOON WILL BE REPUBLISHED IN 2003 in
John N. Warfield, THE MATHEMATICS OF STRUCTURE, Palm Harbor, FL: AJAR Publishing Company. 26

27. THE SOFTWARE PACKAGE THAT SUPPORTS
THIS WORK IS A 1997 WINDOWS VERSION, WHICH HAS A HIGH-QUALITY USER GUIDE WRITTEN BY PROFESSOR BEN BROOME OF THE HUGH DOWNS SCHOOLOF HUMAN COMMUNICATION AT THE ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, TEMPE.
THIS VERSION WAS PLACED IN SERVICE IN 1997 BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND BY THE DEFENSE SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT COLLEGE. 27

28. AN INTEGRATED PRESENTATION OF
THE FOREGOING IN TERMS OF THE SCIENCE BASE IS OFFERED IN THE PAPER PUBLISHED IN 2003 IN SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE (A Wiley Journal):
John N. Warfield, “A PROPOSAL FOR SYSTEMS SCIENCE”.
For a reprint, 28

29. THOUGHT LEADERS ON INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIORAL PATHOLOGIES
ROBERT F. BALES 1916-*****
KEN BOULDING
MICHEL FOUCAULT
GEORGE A. MILLER 1920-*****
HERBERT A. SIMON
SIR GEOFFREY VICKERS 29

30. GROUP BEHAVIORAL PATHOLOGIES IRVING JANIS *****-*****
THOUGHT LEADERS ON
GROUP BEHAVIORAL PATHOLOGIES
GRAHAM ALLISON 1940-****
ANDRE DELBECQ
1936-*****
MICHEL FOUCAULT
FRIEDRICH HAYEK
NO PHOTO AVAILABLE
IRVING JANIS *****-*****
HAROLD LASSWELL
IANNIS KAPELOUZOS
*****-*****
BRUCE TUCKMAN 1938-*****
A. H. VAN DE VEN
*****-***** 30

31. 31 THOUGHT LEADERS ON ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR PATHOLOGIES
NO PHOTO AVAILABLE
HAROLD LASSWELL
CHRIS ARGYRIS *****-*****
KEN BOULDING
ANTHONY DOWNS 1930-*****
KURT LEWIN
JAMES G. MARCH *****-*****
H. A. SIMON 31