82,976
edits
End-to-end principle: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
:—The ''Manhattan Mutual Life Company'' advertisement, Manhattan Kansas, 1946}} | :—The ''Manhattan Mutual Life Company'' advertisement, Manhattan Kansas, 1946}} | ||
A new tool is not an end-goal in itself but a means to improving an existing [[Systems theory|system]] to create a certain output. In figuring out how to improve that system bear in mind the stocks, flows and feedback loops already in that system: these are what you need to influence; your machine needs to influence them. So bear in mind: | A new tool is not an end-goal in itself but a means to improving an existing [[Systems theory|system]] to create a certain output. In figuring out how to improve that system bear in mind the stocks, flows and feedback loops already in that system: these are what you need to influence; your machine needs to influence them. So bear in mind: | ||
Systems develop for reasons that are beyond the control of the system owner: indeed, most ''systems are not owned''. Not all the reasons motivating the configuration of the system will be good ones from the perspective of an end user (in any [[Agency problem|agency]] scenario the hard to persuade an entrenched agent that she her role in the revised system should change — she has invested her capital in getting to where she is, and will not want to give up that capital, nor control over that position. If her role in the revised system will be deprecated — will change for the worse — it will be impossible to persuade her to adopt the new system. Why should she? | |||
But no participant in the system has a monopoly on it. If the system appears to necessitate such a behaviour change: to oblige someone to embark on a new journey that they don’t control, the better approach might be to leave that agent in situ, as it, but give other participants in the system an alternative route to achieving their goal. In the [[digital commons]] this is particularly easy to do. This way you have changed the dynamics of the ''remainder'' of the system in a way that obliges the agent in question to change her approach. | But no participant in the system has a monopoly on it. If the system appears to necessitate such a behaviour change: to oblige someone to embark on a new journey that they don’t control, the better approach might be to leave that agent in situ, as it, but give other participants in the system an alternative route to achieving their goal. In the [[digital commons]] this is particularly easy to do. This way you have changed the dynamics of the ''remainder'' of the system in a way that obliges the agent in question to change her approach. | ||