<html><head><meta name="color-scheme" content="light dark"></head><body><pre style="word-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;">\hypertarget{chat-of-the-17.-interdisciplinary-discussion}{%
\section*{Chat of the 17. Interdisciplinary
discussion}\label{chat-of-the-17.-interdisciplinary-discussion}}

With comments by Hans-Gert GrÃ¤be (HGG)

\hypertarget{presentation-of-nikolay-shpakovsky}{%
\subsection*{Presentation of Nikolay
Shpakovsky}\label{presentation-of-nikolay-shpakovsky}}

The notion of a system was introduced as modeling a problem (``mental
image'') of different complexity 
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item as assembled device
\item as tool processing an object (SAO model, funtional model)
\item as potentially workable system
\item as system for a certain goal
\item as product producing system
\item as harmful system of Lenyashin
\end{itemize}
{[}10:47{]} Kleemann : how can the approach of the x-factor grasp
notions of development of a system? (relates to slide 36)

HGG: The system has to be completed (law of completeness of the
components of a TS), so development is completion of an incomplete
system.

{[}10:49{]} Igor Zadesenets : The question is what is directly?

{[}10:50{]} Kirill Domkin : What is the difference between Engine and
Energy Source?

HGG: Energy source provides energy, engine transforms energy into useful
energy.

{[}10:52{]} Alexander Solodkin : let me ask verbally please. I have some
doubt about introducing the product term.

HGG: This remained unclear, but relates to my presentation. If the tool
(or component) is considered completely functional and (only) the object
carries state, then the ``product'' is the transformed object, i.e.~the
object now carrying a special state. The idea here is as in market
terminology -- the product is an object with special use value, we forget
about the production of the use value (the way of production is
abstracted in the exchange value, at least in an economic labour value
theory).

{[}11:00{]} Immanuel Thoke : @Kirill as I see it the Energy Source is
the Input for the Engine to produce the output as the input for the
transmission.

{[}11:18{]} Andrey Trostyanskiy : Can the harmful system make a useful
effect?

HGG: As far as I understand TRIZ has no notion of life cycle of a
technical system. This relates to the phase of maintenance and repair of
a technical system already in use, the task is to transform it from a
state with harm to a state without (that) harm.

{[}11:19{]} Immanuel Thoke : states define a property of a system
itself, whereas a product describes the outer view between given input
and specific output, of course this state is achieved due to a certain
input, but it doesn't describe how requirements have been matched by the
system.

{[}11:22{]} Stelian Brad : I would like to add something

HGG: Another question was about the IFR. Alexander explained that this
idea is similar to the idea of absolute truth and hence only useful in a
very special mental setting. In a theory of adaptive systems this makes
no sense. Stelian explained that this concept is also present in a
slightly different meaning as ``desirable state'' in the systems notion
of Russell Ackoff.

{[}11:25{]} Immanuel Thoke : shouldn't we distinguish between ideal and
realistic goals and absolute and relative goals?

{[}11:40{]} Immanuel Thoke : ok what Alexander Solodkin said is very
interesting. Yesterday I thought about following: Oneself cannot control
itself, but it can control itselfs in perspective of different
contradictory components with different ideal goals towards optimization
between the parametric contradictions.

{[}11:41{]} Igor Zadesenets : 
\begin{enumerate}[noitemsep]
\item Different IFR from different perspectives can be set.
\item IFR is only the tool for finding achievable results.
\end{enumerate}

\hypertarget{presentation-of-nadine-schumann}{%
\subsection*{Presentation of Nadine
Schumann}\label{presentation-of-nadine-schumann}}

The main point was a distinction between different notions of law: 
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item in the strict sense (pure causality as in Newton's mechanics)
\item scientific laws (statements based on repeated experiments or
  observations)
\item laws directly of incirectly based on empirical evidence
\end{itemize}

Laws of development are of the third kind, based on heuristical
principles as the foundation of interpretation.

This was related to Wundt's account on psychical causality.

Then the question of Trends of Development and Evolution of Technical
Systems was discussed. The notion of evolution has a restricted meaning
according to its historically biological origin and may be not
appropriate in the context of technical systems.

{[}12:17{]} Siegfried Weigert (ibw) : What is Law (In this context
here): An ``Item'' that ``always has been there'' like
mathematical/physical ``laws'' OR ``A set of rules that has been defined
by''lawyers"".

HGG: That's an interesting question not discussed by Nadine. As far as I
understood for her ``law'' has ``always been there'' but even ``been
there'' has a multitude of interpretations (the notion of law differs
even between mathematics and physics). The ``lawyers' laws'' as written
rules are only a specific form of processual institutionalisations, many
of the more genarl ones are informal but nevertheless binding, e.g.~the
``state of the art'', in the sense that no one expects that you do
\emph{not} follow these rules. If you do not follow the rules you have
at least inconvenience in cooperation and may be socially punished in
the worst case. This institutionalisation transforms practically proven
to proven practices that get social binding quality.

{[}12:22{]} Stelian Brad : I would like to have a comment

Stelian just drawed on that distinction. The notion of law applies to
two different settings: 
\begin{enumerate}[noitemsep]
\item describe how something evolves in an organic manner (descriptive)
\item laws as regulations to fight complexity (activity centered)
\end{enumerate}

{[}12:22{]} Kleemann : does that mean you have to start with a
``product'' and the circumstances?

{[}12:24{]} Alexander Solodkin : I'd like to comment as well :) After
Stelian :)

Alexander emphasises that for the notion of law predictability is
important and distinguishes laws from phantoms.

{[}12:28{]} graebe : Some more questions: @Nadine: What is a lifeline of
a system? @Stelian: What is a system that meets decisions?

HGG: Lifelines I found first in (Altschuller 1979) but for me it remains
mysterious until now what are the constitution principles that are used
to line up technical systems in such lines. (TESE 2018) draws on
``pragmatic S-curves'' and it seems obviuos for me that they are drawn
from commercial product catalogues, as explained in (GrÃ¤be 2020a).
Biological evolution is usually drwan in ``evolution trees'' and such a
concept is presented also in (Shpakovsky 2010) for ``technology
evolution''. But ``technology evolution'' and evolution of technical
systems seem to be quite different topics.

HGG: Stelian focused on the point that (management) systems are related
to people and decision meeting processes. This aspect is, in my opinion,
underestimated even in modern Business TRIZ concepts. In (GrÃ¤be 2020b) I
proposed to make a difference between systems for decision preparation
and systems for decision meeting. They have very different
characteristics as convergent an d divergent thinking (according to
Guildord) have.

{[}12:35{]} graebe : @Alexander: What is ``human''? The individual or
the mankind? Or something between (we call it cooperative action)?

{[}12:35{]} Immanuel Thoke : what is meant by ``exact''? What do
mathematicians mean if they say ``nearly ever''?

{[}12:39{]} graebe : @Nadine: So this notion of ``human'' is as by
Vernadsky -- Scientific thought as planetary phenomenon?

HGG: Nadine in her answer did not address the question about
``lifelines'' but the question ``what is human''.

{[}12:40{]} Kleemann : it seems to me, that the problem that Nadine
touched is the construction of dynamics and not of structures. Do you
mean that this view of development has to be revised?

{[}12:53{]} Ulrich Fritsche : = feature, property

{[}12:56{]} Kleemann : then the question arises: can you model a
pragmatic s-curve, which is non-linear. Is there more than one pragmatic
s-curve possible?

{[}12:57{]} graebe : I proposed a branching of the ``s-curve'' at its
phase 3 in (GrÃ¤be 2020a).

{[}12:59{]} Immanuel Thoke : a classic approach would be geometric or
physical linearization and representation of error rates in probabilites
of these uncertainties.

{[}13:01{]} Kleemann : @thoke: then you have the problem of linearity
again. Maybe other mathematical or logical approaches, as fuzzy logic or
patterns in chaotic processes.

{[}13:09{]} Immanuel Thoke : yeah triz approach is again separation in
time and space .. relying on quasi-stable phases where minor
instabilities can be controlled by a dominating protocol.

{[}13:10{]} Alexander Solodkin : may I add something?

Alexander emphasises that development is not so easy in a biased world
where you have to manage also dissent. He several times emphasises the
management concepts realised within
Toyota\footnote{\url{https://global.toyota/en/company/vision-and-philosophy/production-system/}} 
as a concept centered system of processes. Moreover he emphasises that
the managerial style strongly depends on the context, in particular is
different in stable and unstable times. For this point see also (Mann
2019).

{[}13:13{]} Immanuel Thoke : that refers to the term of exacteness and
scalability.

{[}13:14{]} graebe : There is a good rule in open source: Raw consensus
and running code.

{[}13:21{]} Immanuel Thoke : (polemic question) so we handle the black
spot i.e.~in realization of climate change not knowing how to fix the
system in time because it does not meet the actual requirements of the
states, companies and people and hoping for better technologies in
future that will fix this in time or rely on adaption of changing
environment?

HGG: As I understand it this is -- roughly -- the core of the program
developed in (Shchedrovitsky 1981).

Stelian: This is a difficult question since the particular circumstances
and decisions influence many other particular circumstances. This
requires to work and concentrate efforts on the non-technical
conceptional frontier to stabilise the macrosystem.

{[}13:28{]} Immanuel Thoke : yeah but we have also corona .. have you
also experienced the quick change between cold and warm phases?

{[}13:31{]} Immanuel Thoke : thanks for the vivid discussion so far

\hypertarget{presentation-by-hans-gert-gruxe4be}{%
\subsection*{Presentation by Hans-Gert
GrÃ¤be}\label{presentation-by-hans-gert-gruxe4be}}

The presentation focused on developments in the area of software
engineering that deeply changed during the last 15 years from a
``programming from the scratch'' to a component oriented production
style. If 15 years ago the knowledge of a programming language was
enough to produce valuable code nowadays additionally the knowledge of a
framework (consisting of both a ``glue code concept'' and a wealth of
available components) is required to be productive in coding. Within
that development also new professions came up -- the profession of a
software architect (engineering platforms), a component developer
(providing coding within a platform) and a component assembler
(assembling larger systems from components). Such ``larger systems''
accompany ``larger technical systems'', and both are unique specimen as
explained in (GrÃ¤be 2020a) and -- differently to components -- not
designed for direct reuse. Technological development thus moves from
direct reuse of components to higher forms of abstraction and modeling.
Such questions are not at all addressed in the traditional TRIZ theory
about laws of evolution of technical systems.

Stelian: Software systems are the highest complex systems and the most
invisible systems.

HGG: There are many concepts within software engineering to address this
complexity, e.g.~ITIL\footnote{\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITIL}} or
SAM\footnote{\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_alignment}}.

{[}14:14{]} Kleemann : can such a design be used for a non-linear
s-curve approach.

{[}14:22{]} Kleemann : structure to graph. interesting

{[}14:35{]} Nadine : TRIZ is open enough to model that. this is the big
advantage of the TRIZ method, or? it guarantees the flexibility of the
Supersystem.

{[}14:39{]} Igor Zadesenets : Question for Nikolay. What is the
fundamental difference between Engine, transmission and so on and
Control? May be they all are Control?

HGG: In my opinion this chain is an expression of the ``law of energy
conductivity through the system'', that can be rooted in the theory of
dissipative systems. This theory claims that energy throughput through a
system strongly relates to the structures within the system (as,
e.g.~for the BÃ©nard cell). Hence energy dissipation within a system is
required for both the supply of the required energy throughput for the
components and the energy required to regenerate the functional
structure of the system itself.

{[}14:41{]} Immanuel Thoke : so chaos also arises from not knowing at
which abstraction level causes a problem as an engineer with no
transparent insight and sufficient debugging infrastructure have to
deconstruct each level of abstraction to determine the error.

HGG: If you take the Theory of Dynamical Systems and the notion of
attactor as a generalisation of the notion of equilibrium, you have the
notion of ``deterministic chaos'', i.e.~attractors of systems described
by relatively simple deterministic equations that have themselves
complicated structure, even up to fractal buildings (strange
attractors). So this is not necessarily a problem of not enough insight.

{[}14:44{]} Igor Zadesenets : OK. And what is the fundamental difference
between process and component?

HGG: Whats about such an explanation? A component is a black box view on
a process.

{[}14:48{]} Immanuel Thoke : but it's hard to determine sideeffects in
python due to unstrict typing especially if you use libraries you do not
know.

{[}14:50{]} Kleemann : in this cocept means modelling not directly using
a model?

{[}14:53{]} Nadine : Thats the concept of pragmatic information, or? in
contrast to syntactic and semantic concepts of information.

\hypertarget{presentation-of-stelian-brad}{%
\subsection*{Presentation of Stelian
Brad}\label{presentation-of-stelian-brad}}

From the presentations:

Innovation is more than an invention, it is not only a technical
phenomenon but has to address the needs of a target group:

Innovation \ldots{} a nonlinear, multiple-looped and agile process
through which a novel idea is generated and then embedded into an
elaborated viable solution that addresses a need of a given target group
in a way that fits the group's culture; thus, being wanted, affordable,
valued-for-money and adopted.

Systems have to be maintained, this may be very challenging due to 
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item complexity -- the behavior at the layer between deterministic and chaos,
  with high nonlinearity, where small changes in the value of some parameters
  lead to radical unexpected evolutions.
\item complicatedness -- a system with intricately combined and involved parts
  such that it is very difficult to understand or analyze
\item dynamicity -- a state of being in perpetual change, which makes dataset
  difficult to keep accurate. 
\item abundance -- a state of oversufficient quantity, thanks to technology
  (e.g.~abundance in communications)
\end{itemize}

Three concepts are important to conceptualize maintenance: 
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item entropy â†’ a state of disorder, uncertainty, randomness in the system,
  the level of possible combinations of the parts in the system.
\item equipotentiality â†’ apparent capacity of any intact part of the system to
  carry out functions which are lost by the destructed parts.
\item equilibrium â†’ state of balance relative to the forces acting in the
  system.
\end{itemize}
These points were discussed on the current state of software development.

{[}15:10{]} graebe : In Rubin's work I have found the concept of system
capture several times. What role does this play in an environment with
many systems?

{[}15:14{]} graebe : Interactions (one-to-one) increase only
quadratically, exponentially increases the number of relations = subsets
of the set.

HGG: This relates to slide 4. Exponential growth is a pure theoretical
phenomenon, describing ``natural'' growth ($y'(t)=c\cdot y(t)$) without
limiting factor. Adding a limiting factor you get e.g.~a logistic curve.  For
growth of networks the phenomenon of scale free
networks\footnote{\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-free_network}} was
observed that develop not exponentially but following a power law.

{[}15:15{]} Immanuel Thoke : does complexity increases unboundedly if we
swap paradigms or does complexity patterns change?

{[}15:18{]} graebe : In the theory of Dynamical Systems there is a
notion of Steady state Equilibrium (that can move in space). How it
relates to the 3 e on the slide?

{[}15:23{]} graebe : Machine tool building vs.~industrial plant
engineering.

HGG: It is one of the main observations from a practical point of view:
the main task for recent software engineering is to organise digital
support for already existing business processes. Digitization requires
to ``make things explicit'' that existed so far in a less explicit form,
so the hardware and software modeling has to be accompanied by an
``orgware modeling'' (a concept introduced by K. Fuchs-Kittowski, see
(KFK 2020), in German). This has much to do with modeling and not so
much with innovation, but within modeling formerly unnoticed
contradictions (and unformalized implicit workarounds, the ``social
soft'') pop up. This is the today business of semantic modeling, data
analysts, business process modeling, organisational modeling, software
architects and component assembler.

As the design of large technical systems (plants) is unique since the
Production management systems differ significantly even within the same
company (we observed that for BMW), IT systems are unique specimen, too.
From such a point of view the challenges to software engineering look
quite different and it is just that view that is addressed in
Szyperski's book (see my presentation). May the ``software paradoxes''
(slide 7) result from such a difference in viewing the topic?

``See the growing popularity of Python or ROS (Robot Operating System)
-- huge libraries'' (slide 9) -- Python or ROS are very different things.
If you look at the .NET framework then ROS is similar to the CLR, the
``virtual machine'' supplied by the Common Language Runtime required to
integrate all components, written in different languages (e.g.~in
Python). But for different languages to work together the CLI (Common
Language Infrastructure) is required.

{[}15:31{]} Immanuel Thoke : in TRIZ there is a non-invasive alternative
to the invasive intonation of breakthrough but this might be subjective
as I see the examples -- turning something inside out in order to move to
abstraction level of the supersystem and integrate it in the system.

{[}15:33{]} graebe : What's about ``coopetition'' (in German
\emph{Kooperenz}\footnote{\url{https://www.freie-gesellschaft.de/wiki/Kooperenz}})?
This notion was coined in discussions already 15 years ago. ``Raw consensus
and running code'' is just about that.

HGG: In the discussion the notion of ``software ecosystem'' played a
significant role ``defined as a set of businesses functioning as a unit
and interacting with a shared market for software and services, together
with relationships among them. These relationships are frequently
underpinned by a common technological platform and operate through the
exchange of information, resources, and
artifacts.''\footnote{\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_ecosystem}} 

Such a ``technical platform'' is not a static thing but has to develop,
serve the needs of the users of the platform, and has to be operated. It
was just that topic explained in my presentation on the example of
CORBA. Open Source movement developed such a platform with git, github,
gitlab, CI (continuous integration), git development models etc.
\url{https://symbolicdata.github.io/Using.Git}

{[}15:37{]} graebe : But the Microsoft position depends on its internal
development from the ``Halloween Papers'' 1998 to Open Sourcing .NET and
the ``Dotnet Foundation''.

{[}15:46{]} Immanuel Thoke : supply chain management often relys on
coopetition -- cooperation on infrastructure, competition on market
prices

{[}15:48{]} Alexander Solodkin : may I comment?

HGG: Alexander emphasised that complexity requires cooperative actions
and mentioned the work of Rapoport -- I found (Rapoport 1977) -- on that
topic. Cooperative action played also an important role in our lecture
for the students during the semester, but we emphasised on the
importance of the interrelation of cooperative acton and common
conceptual world.

{[}15:57{]} Immanuel Thoke : referring back to climate change .. a
breakthrough would be to see the ecosystem as a inner property of
infrastructure of economic systems and marketing products not as a
companies property but as a product of ecological process this may
sounds trivial but household calculations works the other way around.

{[}15:58{]} Igor Zadesenets : May I comment?

HGG: Igor mentioned that we much deviated from the original topic and
asked what's about the TRIZ laws of development of technical systems
themselves. What is the state of art, what is their benefit etc. I
commented that in two small writings.

\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item \url{http://mint-leipzig.de/2021-02-05/Laws.pdf}
\item \url{http://mint-leipzig.de/2021-02-05/Laws-State.pdf}
\end{itemize}
\newpage
\hypertarget{references}{%
\subsection*{References}\label{references}}

\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item (Altschuller 1979) Genrich S. Altshuller. Creativity as an exact
  science.
\item (KFK 2020) Klaus Fuchs-Kittowski. Informationssystem-, Arbeits- und
  Organisationsgestaltung in Produktion und Verkehr -- das Orgware-Konzept,
  die Paradoxie der Sicherheit, des WÃ¤chters, der Beherrschung groÃŸer
  Datenmengen.\\
  \url{https://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/~graebe/Texte/Fuchs-20.pdf}
\item (GrÃ¤be 2020a) Hans-Gert GrÃ¤be. Human and their technical systems. In
  Proceedings of the TRIZ Future Conference 2020, p.~399-410.\\
  \url{https://hg-graebe.de/EigeneTexte/mts-20-en.pdf}
\item
  (GrÃ¤be 2020b) Hans-Gert GrÃ¤be. TRIZ and Systemic Transitions.
  Submitted to TRIZ Reviews.
  \url{https://hg-graebe.de/EigeneTexte/sys-20-en.pdf}
\item
  (TESE 2018) Alexander Lyubomirskiy, Simon Litvin et al.~Trends of
  Engineering System Evolution. ISBN 978-3-00-059846-3
\item
  (Mann 2019) Darrell Mann. Systematic innovation in complex
  environments. In: Online Proceedings of the TRIZ Summit 2019 Minsk.\\
  \url{https://triz-summit.ru/confer/tds-2019/articles/reports/}
\item
  (Rapoport 1977) A. Rapoport, O. Frenkel, J. Perner. Experiments with
  cooperative 2Ã—2 games. Theor Decis 8, 67--92.
  \url{https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133087}
\item
  (Shchedrovitsky 1981) Georgi P. Shchedrovitsky. Principles and General
  Scheme of the Methodological Organization of System-Structural
  Research and Development.\\
  \url{https://wumm-project.github.io/Texts/Principles-1981-en.pdf}
\item
  (Shpakovsky 2010) Nikolay Shpakovsky. Tree of Technology Evolution.
  Forum, Moscow.
\end{itemize}
</pre></body></html>